Why no image stabilizer in X systems

Started Sep 8, 2013 | Discussions
abortabort
Contributing MemberPosts: 995Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to Rupek, Sep 9, 2013

On the nex side only the 24 1.8, the sigmas and zeiss touits don't have stabilisation that I can't think of.

Even the new zeiss zoom has stabilisation.

Ah no. Only 2 primes have IS 35 & 50. The 16, 20, 24 and 30 don't have IS. The 3 Touits don't have IS. The 3 Sigmas don't have IS. None of the Sony lenses are f1.4 nor are any third party lenses. Their zooms do, but so do Fuji's.

 abortabort's gear list:abortabort's gear list
Ricoh GR Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Canon EOS 6D Sony Alpha 7 +32 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
abortabort
Contributing MemberPosts: 995Gear list
Like?
Re: Image stabilization is a crutch to the uninitiated
In reply to ryan2007, Sep 9, 2013

ioshadha wrote:

Hi,

I'm looking to buy my next camera and have narrowed my search to either Fujifilm X series or Sony NEX.

To my surprise neither cameras do not have inbuilt image stabilization and Fujifilm does not have any available lenses that have stabilizer built in. At least Sony have 1 or 2 lenses from memory.

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras? two, why haven't at least one lens is released with image stabilization?

Thanks in advance.

-- hide signature --

Olympus XZ-1 and working my way up!

The zooms lenses have them and it is nice. You do not need image stabilization in a prime lens especially wider angle lenses.

Even if you do not use a tripod or monopod you can stabilization the shot if you know how to hold the camera and lens, you use two hands. If you have ever shot film none of the lenses had image stabilization and people were able to get results.

Fuji X is not like any camera systems I have seen in the digital world including DSLR's. Fuji is not really a starter type of camera system which is good.

If not having image stabilization is a deal breaker the photographer is really not that good of a photographer. Holding the camera is as much photography 101 as is choosing ISO for the right type of subject matter.

If you are going to shoot Soccer vs a Landscape shot right away I know what I need from lens (s) to filters. Instead of a lot of film flipping a switch does that etc. Some things from the way you shot film has not changed.

IS lenses work on film and were available in the film days.

People like having AF too but that hasn't always been around, nor has automatic metering.

These are nice to have even if you don't always need them.

 abortabort's gear list:abortabort's gear list
Ricoh GR Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Canon EOS 6D Sony Alpha 7 +32 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
George Paulides
Contributing MemberPosts: 924
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to ioshadha, Sep 9, 2013

ioshadha wrote:

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras? two, why haven't at least one lens is released with image stabilization?

Thanks in advance.

-- hide signature --

Olympus XZ-1 and working my way up!

It was not so long ago that no cameras or lens had image stabilisation. In the film days people would still take great images without it. Why the hang up about it?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jcharding
Senior MemberPosts: 2,031Gear list
Like?
Completely disagree
In reply to ryan2007, Sep 9, 2013

Stabilization is just a tool, just like many other things.  In many instances, that tool can be tremendously useful - particularly when a tripod is unavailable or when you need a lower ISO.  I have also found that for me, stabilization is vastly more useful on wide angles then long lenses (where I am usually using a fast shutter speed anyway).

There are lots of tools that weren't around when I used film cameras - that doesn't mean that stabilization, focus peaking, framing via LCD, cards that take 1,000 shots rather than film that can just take 36 exposures, etc... aren't useful things to have now.

-- hide signature --
 jcharding's gear list:jcharding's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
allineedislight
Regular MemberPosts: 110Gear list
Like?
because high-iso is so good!
In reply to ioshadha, Sep 9, 2013
I'm looking to buy my next camera and have narrowed my search to either Fujifilm X series or Sony NEX.

..

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras?

because both Fuji and Sony have sensors that are very very good in high ISO, so instead of using image stabilization you can simply increase ISO.

 allineedislight's gear list:allineedislight's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Krich13
Regular MemberPosts: 438
Like?
Re: because high-iso is so good!
In reply to allineedislight, Sep 9, 2013

allineedislight wrote:

I'm looking to buy my next camera and have narrowed my search to either Fujifilm X series or Sony NEX.

..

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras?

because both Fuji and Sony have sensors that are very very good in high ISO, so instead of using image stabilization you can simply increase ISO.

Why use one instead of the other rather than both of them together? Or having a choice which one to use?

I have both Fuji X-E1 and Olympus OM-D... For very low light static (or nearly static) scenarios (like my sleeping kids in a dark room) Fuji is useless without a tripod. Olympus OM-D (though inferior to Fuji at high ISO) wins hands down with its stabilization and fast (yes, normal and wide too) primes. I have sharp images taken at f/1.4 ISO 1600 at 1/6 an 1/4 of a second. Try this with Fuji...

OK, give Fiji 2-stop advantage, that wound be ISO 3200 (one stop ISO 3200 vs 1600,m one stop for lying about its inflated ISO ratings) -- at 1/8 to 1/12 second you won't get anything comparable to Oly pictures. I feel it very stupid that I need to reach for a camera with a smaller sensor in very low-light conditions. BTW, shutter shock is much worse with Fuji too. If nothing else, in-body stabilization could (at least partially) compensate for that.

Bottom line, Fuji doesn't have IBIS just because they can't make it (either unable to develop or unable to bypass other companies IP, or unwilling to pay licensing fees), not because it is useless with any kind of lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Red5TX
Senior MemberPosts: 1,586
Like?
Re: because high-iso is so good!
In reply to Krich13, Sep 9, 2013

Krich13 wrote:

Bottom line, Fuji doesn't have IBIS just because they can't make it (either unable to develop or unable to bypass other companies IP, or unwilling to pay licensing fees)

...which also explains why Nikon, Canon, and Sony don't have IBIS.  Lack of R&D, lack of $$, etc.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivar Dahl Larsen
Regular MemberPosts: 373Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to ioshadha, Sep 9, 2013

Do we see a socalled troll here? I would assume under normal circumstances that anyone looking to buy the cameras in question, would know a little more about photography and the basics as well as how the two cameras operate. It,s so easy to do research these days.And besides, only the makers can answer for why they preferred to make them the way they did.

-- hide signature --

idl

 Ivar Dahl Larsen's gear list:Ivar Dahl Larsen's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ryan2007
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,905Gear list
Like?
Re: Image stabilization is a crutch to the uninitiated
In reply to abortabort, Sep 9, 2013

abortabort wrote:

ioshadha wrote:

Hi,

I'm looking to buy my next camera and have narrowed my search to either Fujifilm X series or Sony NEX.

To my surprise neither cameras do not have inbuilt image stabilization and Fujifilm does not have any available lenses that have stabilizer built in. At least Sony have 1 or 2 lenses from memory.

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras? two, why haven't at least one lens is released with image stabilization?

Thanks in advance.

-- hide signature --

Olympus XZ-1 and working my way up!

The zooms lenses have them and it is nice. You do not need image stabilization in a prime lens especially wider angle lenses.

Even if you do not use a tripod or monopod you can stabilization the shot if you know how to hold the camera and lens, you use two hands. If you have ever shot film none of the lenses had image stabilization and people were able to get results.

Fuji X is not like any camera systems I have seen in the digital world including DSLR's. Fuji is not really a starter type of camera system which is good.

If not having image stabilization is a deal breaker the photographer is really not that good of a photographer. Holding the camera is as much photography 101 as is choosing ISO for the right type of subject matter.

If you are going to shoot Soccer vs a Landscape shot right away I know what I need from lens (s) to filters. Instead of a lot of film flipping a switch does that etc. Some things from the way you shot film has not changed.

IS lenses work on film and were available in the film days.

Not until the mid to late 1990's and they were on telephoto lens that cost lots of money.

People like having AF too but that hasn't always been around, nor has automatic metering.

Image stabilization and AF or built in metering are all different concepts

These are nice to have even if you don't always need them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,555
Like?
Re: because high-iso is so good!
In reply to Krich13, Sep 9, 2013

Krich13 wrote:

allineedislight wrote:

I'm looking to buy my next camera and have narrowed my search to either Fujifilm X series or Sony NEX.

..

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras?

because both Fuji and Sony have sensors that are very very good in high ISO, so instead of using image stabilization you can simply increase ISO.

Why use one instead of the other rather than both of them together? Or having a choice which one to use?

I have both Fuji X-E1 and Olympus OM-D... For very low light static (or nearly static) scenarios (like my sleeping kids in a dark room) Fuji is useless without a tripod. Olympus OM-D (though inferior to Fuji at high ISO) wins hands down with its stabilization and fast (yes, normal and wide too) primes. I have sharp images taken at f/1.4 ISO 1600 at 1/6 an 1/4 of a second. Try this with Fuji...

OK, give Fiji 2-stop advantage, that wound be ISO 3200 (one stop ISO 3200 vs 1600,m one stop for lying about its inflated ISO ratings) -- at 1/8 to 1/12 second you won't get anything comparable to Oly pictures. I feel it very stupid that I need to reach for a camera with a smaller sensor in very low-light conditions. BTW, shutter shock is much worse with Fuji too. If nothing else, in-body stabilization could (at least partially) compensate for that.

Bottom line, Fuji doesn't have IBIS just because they can't make it (either unable to develop or unable to bypass other companies IP, or unwilling to pay licensing fees), not because it is useless with any kind of lens.

Everything is a compromise. Fuji can obviously put IS in all their lenses, but they didn't. Can they implement IBIS? Maybe, maybe not, but if Fuji found IS to be that important, they would have at least implemented it on all their lenses. The bottom line is that we don't have a clue why Fuji didn't put IBIS in their X-Cameras. It could be that it drove up costs, degraded IQ, caused too much heat buildup, added weight, increased body size... just as much as it could be licensing fees or any other reason we can concoct. When it comes down to it, IS in fast wide primes isn't so common for a lot of manufacturers because the feature is not that high on most consumer's lists.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DAndison
Regular MemberPosts: 273Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to abortabort, Sep 9, 2013

abortabort wrote:

On the nex side only the 24 1.8, the sigmas and zeiss touits don't have stabilisation that I can't think of.

Even the new zeiss zoom has stabilisation.

Ah no. Only 2 primes have IS 35 & 50. The 16, 20, 24 and 30 don't have IS. The 3 Touits don't have IS. The 3 Sigmas don't have IS. None of the Sony lenses are f1.4 nor are any third party lenses. Their zooms do, but so do Fuji's.

1+ And as others have said, I really don't see the need for IS in the primes. Maybe the 60 in low light but I've not experienced any issues with the 14 or 35mm. A bit of ingenuity when bracing for a shot or holding the camera can make the world of difference.

 DAndison's gear list:DAndison's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Morris
Contributing MemberPosts: 719Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to ioshadha, Sep 9, 2013

Because IBIS is only adequate with short lenses not the longer tele-zoom where you really need it. Everyone else has pointed you to the lenses that Fuji makes with it built in.

-- hide signature --

RM

 Robert Morris's gear list:Robert Morris's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Sony RX100 II Nikon D90 Nikon D700 +33 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Evidon
Contributing MemberPosts: 521Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to ioshadha, Sep 10, 2013

Zoom lenses generally go to the longer focal length where IOS is a great assist. But with Fuji's prime lenses, where the maximum apertures are 1.8 or larger, you have the choice of using a faster shutter speed to negate camera shake. As a long time amateur photographer who grew up before OIS shooting images without worrying about a little camera shake, I learned that you set your shutter speed to at least twice the focal length, such as 50mm lens @ 1/100 sec. You hold the camera with both hands, bracing your arms or elbows against your body. You frame, exhale and then shoot. That will work with any reasonable focal length. For more than 100mm lenses, the old fashioned way was to use a tripod. Now with OIS, that is no longer necessary. That is why most manufacturers that use in lens OIS, it is not included in wide angle lenses, even some wide angle zoom lenses, but almost all of them include OIS for zooms that exceed 50mm for APSC and smaller formats. However, even some lens makers will add OIS to even wide lenses as a sales gimmick for those who must have the latest technology and don't mind paying the extra cash for this feature that may not even be necessary. I'm sure that if Fuji ever makes an X system prime lens 100mm or more, it will have OIS.

So steady up and enjoy your Fuji prime lenses without OIS.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 Jim Evidon's gear list:Jim Evidon's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Leica M9 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ioshadha
Regular MemberPosts: 176Gear list
Like?
Re: because high-iso is so good!
In reply to Krich13, Sep 15, 2013

Krich13 wrote:

allineedislight wrote:

I'm looking to buy my next camera and have narrowed my search to either Fujifilm X series or Sony NEX.

..

My first question have in mind is, why don't they incorporate any sensor image stabilization into these cameras?

because both Fuji and Sony have sensors that are very very good in high ISO, so instead of using image stabilization you can simply increase ISO.

Why use one instead of the other rather than both of them together? Or having a choice which one to use?

I have both Fuji X-E1 and Olympus OM-D... For very low light static (or nearly static) scenarios (like my sleeping kids in a dark room) Fuji is useless without a tripod. Olympus OM-D (though inferior to Fuji at high ISO) wins hands down with its stabilization and fast (yes, normal and wide too) primes. I have sharp images taken at f/1.4 ISO 1600 at 1/6 an 1/4 of a second. Try this with Fuji...

OK, give Fiji 2-stop advantage, that wound be ISO 3200 (one stop ISO 3200 vs 1600,m one stop for lying about its inflated ISO ratings) -- at 1/8 to 1/12 second you won't get anything comparable to Oly pictures. I feel it very stupid that I need to reach for a camera with a smaller sensor in very low-light conditions. BTW, shutter shock is much worse with Fuji too. If nothing else, in-body stabilization could (at least partially) compensate for that.

Bottom line, Fuji doesn't have IBIS just because they can't make it (either unable to develop or unable to bypass other companies IP, or unwilling to pay licensing fees), not because it is useless with any kind of lens.

I'll back you up with what you say any day... people who talk big about not needing IS have no thought put in to how handy it is as a tool when you are shooting in low light specially trying to capture those precious moments of your baby/kids etc,.

who needs "anything" in a camera when you are taking photos in a bright daylight? a modern day compact camera would take good photos in good lighting conditions. I would rather go with a decent compact camera in hands outdoor photography than carrying DSLR any day. The challenge is when shooting photos in low light - that's where you need all the tools you need and I reckon stabilizer can make all the difference.

-- hide signature --

Olympus XZ-1 and working my way up!

 ioshadha's gear list:ioshadha's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gesture
Senior MemberPosts: 2,402Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no image stabilizer in X systems
In reply to Jim Evidon, Sep 15, 2013

Yes.  Millions, billions of exceptional photographs have been taken without OIS.  Panasonic seems to have one of the best ones Mega OIS, as implemented in what were then very affordable point and shoots.  I almost came to the conclusion that OIS was introduced into such cameras to counteract the "bad habits" of modern point and shoot photography. Arms waving about. I even think a lot of "lack of sharpness" is attributable to not "holding the exposure" as it is taken.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads