Why I don't want IBIS

tesilab · Oct 29, 2013

rishi o' said:
You've made good points. I like your taste as well But I also prefer the lenses to not have stabilization if it increases lens size and reduces quality. That's why i'm happy the zeiss primes don't have it.

What I want is a Full frame mirrorless no bigger than the A7r. Adding size to the body for something I would rarely use is a big negative to me. I understand you can turn off IBIS, but if you could technically add IBIS to such a small mount with such a big sensor, I'm pretty sure it would add significant size/weight. That's a huge negative for me. Huge. Making it DSLR sized would just take away it's advantage and I'd guess that being the reason Sony chose not to implement it. Kudos to them for not listening to people asking for IBIS without realizing the trade offs. My opinion is that they made the right decision.

(All the references I'm making to IBIS here assume the Oly-style 5 Axis system, which many of us believe/hope will make an appearance in Sony cameras at some point)

My guess is that Sony may not have been ready from either a legal or a manufacturing standpoint to implement 5 Axis IBIS, that I hope will one day appear in their cameras.

Of course it will require some space, but I expect there to be even more of an issue of implementing it as effectively with a fullframe sensor as has been done with an MFT sensor. More mass to move at high speed. More power required to move it. Come to think of it, I take back what I just said about space. I wonder if shielding sensitive electronics from the magnetic fields isn't a major issue.

captura · Oct 29, 2013

IBIS has been miniaturized.

captura · Oct 29, 2013

New APS-C and future FF bodies from Sony should be getting the downsized IBIS from Olympus. No legal problem...they have a trading arrangement.

OSS equipped e-lenses look like a thing of the past. The new ones, if they come, will be smaller. About time. ZEISS primes already have no OSS.

Other than that, there has been far too much emphasis on IBIS. In 90% of cases it is preferable not to employ it, and leave it turned off in the Menu.

tesilab said:
rishi o' said:

You've made good points. I like your taste as well But I also prefer the lenses to not have stabilization if it increases lens size and reduces quality. That's why i'm happy the zeiss primes don't have it.

What I want is a Full frame mirrorless no bigger than the A7r. Adding size to the body for something I would rarely use is a big negative to me. I understand you can turn off IBIS, but if you could technically add IBIS to such a small mount with such a big sensor, I'm pretty sure it would add significant size/weight. That's a huge negative for me. Huge. Making it DSLR sized would just take away it's advantage and I'd guess that being the reason Sony chose not to implement it. Kudos to them for not listening to people asking for IBIS without realizing the trade offs. My opinion is that they made the right decision.

Click to expand...

(All the references I'm making to IBIS here assume the Oly-style 5 Axis system, which many of us believe/hope will make an appearance in Sony cameras at some point)

My guess is that Sony may not have been ready from either a legal or a manufacturing standpoint to implement 5 Axis IBIS, that I hope will one day appear in their cameras.

Of course it will require some space, but I expect there to be even more of an issue of implementing it as effectively with a fullframe sensor as has been done with an MFT sensor. More mass to move at high speed. More power required to move it. Come to think of it, I take back what I just said about space. I wonder if shielding sensitive electronics from the magnetic fields isn't a major issue.

Chez Wimpy · Oct 29, 2013

Paul712 said:
For those who are arguing that IBIS is better than OIS, perhaps should convince Nikon and Canon as their professional and semi-proffessionas cameras still do not have IBIS?

Both of which do a wonderful job ignoring rotation around the lens axis. :-|

A cursory glance at recent Canon lens releases with the MSRP contrasted against their non-IS predecessors should be enough for any astute market observer to draw their own conclusions. Canikon had no choice in the film era, but have stuck to the most profitable approach here in the digital.

Midwest · Oct 29, 2013

Paul712 said:
For those who are arguing that IBIS is better than OIS, perhaps should convince Nikon and Canon as their professional and semi-proffessionas cameras still do not have IBIS.

IBIS does not make sense on a DSLR because it fails to stabilize:

1. the image that the photographer sees in the viewfinder

2. the part of image that the autofocus has to try and lock onto

3. the part of the image that the metering system is trying to read.

IBIS is fine - at least not silly - on EVF cameras and mirrorless because everything 'goes through' the sensor. (Not that optical isn't every bit as good or better.) But IBIS is a p*** poor choice for a DSLR. All the lenses I want stabilized for my DSLR have IS and it didn't cost a fortune nor weigh a ton.

IBIS - fine for mirrorless, misguided for a DSLR.

Midwest · Oct 29, 2013

tesilab said:
And as far as IBIS is concerned. It is far far better for that stuff to be in a camera, which in any case gets replaced every few years rather than in a lens, which one could conceivable use for a very, very long time if it was purely opto-mechanical. So put the IBIS in my camera please.

IBIS makes sense only for an EVF / mirrorless camera. Optical makes hugely more sense for a DSLr and that is why Nikon and Canon use optical - not to make more money on lenses, but because optical is the only system that really makes sense on a DSLr. It stabilzes the viewfinder and what the sensors (AF and metering) have to work with, making their job easier, and easier to get right, i.e things like tracking.

Well, that's what Thom Hogan told me, and it makes sense. IBIS probably makes very good sense on a Sony NEX.

silentstorm · Oct 29, 2013

That's the point. With IBIS integrated inside the body, the camera need not be big. Look at how small the Sony R1 is, before that, there were so many whiners & naysayers, blowing their horns saying that FF camera MUST BE BIG!!!

Why do you want to shoot a group photo with ISO 1600 at speed 1/80 in a restaurant, when you can do it with ISO 200 at 1/30? With lower ISO, image quality is better.

Your pointers are just so moot. You mean lens stabilisers don't suck more battery life? No button to fiddle when you want to turn off the IS on the lens? Moving parts are less complicated in the lens??

Lenses with IS are heavier & bigger. So where is the advantage? You carry more lenses than bodies when go shooting, is that a plus with your style of photography? Certainly not mine.

I do respect your preference for non-IBIS but personally, the reasons behind this old school of thoughts is simply too weak in this case.

rishi o' said:
- It will make the camera bigger

- It will cut battery life further

- It might compromise video quality due to heat

- it's a complicated moving part

- I mostly take photos of people and I need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion. IBIS won't help me with photography. (I do professional photography with the nex 7 and you can see some of my work here www.rishio.com )

- I do long exposure nature shots and use a pocket tripod or tripod to take those shots because the exposure needs to be at least 15+ seconds, often with an ND filter to get the effect I want. IBIS won't help me in those

- Full frame goes to high enough ISO to cover low light such that it's not a worth while trade off for me to have extra size/weight/complexity in the camera that includes IBIS

- I use monopods, sliders and other tools for professional video because I need to pan left/right/up/down and slide all the time. Just holding the camera in the air and getting a straight video shot isn't that interesting and negates the need for IBIS in video mode. I do professional video using the nex 7 and you can see my work here (http://www.rishio.com/shorts.html )

- Turning on and off IBIS is just another setting i'll have to keep fiddling with. There are already enough controls to work with.

That said, the one place where IBIS would be useful for me is if I want to walk with the camera or handhold for occasional steady video shots. Those cases are minimal cons outweigh the pros for including IBIS. For those arguing that IBIS is better than OIS, I don't really purchase OIS lenses and I'm thankful that the zeiss primes don't have them. They compromise image quality and add weight and complexity to the lens.

That's just my take. I'm sure lots of people have valid uses for IBIS, but I'm glad it's not included in the A7R which I'm so excited to get early next year!

--

Rishio
http://www.rishio.com

jpr2 · Oct 29, 2013

also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

jpr2

Keit ll · Oct 30, 2013

jpr2 said:
also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

I think the opposite , stabilised views in VF give a false impression of camera shake & lead to complacency. If an IBIS equipped camera looks reasonably steady then when the IBIS function comes into operation it will be steady.

Handheld macros cam suffer from shake but the main problem , particularly at large apertures , is back & forth body sway which shifts focus , often as the shutter is released , that is why most serious macro shooters use a tripod.

jpr2 · Oct 30, 2013

Keit ll said:
jpr2 said:

also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

Click to expand...

I think the opposite , stabilised views in VF give a false impression of camera shake & lead to complacency. If an IBIS equipped camera looks reasonably steady then when the IBIS function comes into operation it will be steady.

good point, I should have expressed myself more clear previously:

stabilized VFs are very, very beneficial for focusing while hand-held - and... only for that, but I always use a high enough SS to preclude possibility of camera-shake blur; IBIS can't help you any to stabilize VF (and of course it doesn't steady moving targets either, but this is common to IS/OSS/SSS, etc.);

Keit ll said:
Handheld macros cam suffer from shake but the main problem , particularly at large apertures , is back & forth body sway which shifts focus , often as the shutter is released , that is why most serious macro shooters use a tripod.

actually swaying back & forth is a favorite and the best method to most surely secure one's critical focus in macro shooting of anything that moves - if only even so slightly ;
tripod is a fine solution in theory, but in practice there are many situations in macro shooting, like e.g. pursuing scuffling critters along their random paths, that tripods not only do not help, but actually bring harm and jeopardize success rates - usually to nil ; so yes, use tripods by all means when your target is stationary and the shooter has all the time at their disposal, but rather not otherwise ,

jpr2

silentstorm · Oct 30, 2013

Here's the thing. Looking at Panny GX7 & Oly PL5, & then the Sony RX1, why is there a need to be big?

I ask the same of you, where is the proof that IBIS must be big?

Also considering the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F2.8 IS, Nikon 105mm F2.8 macro vs 105mm F2.8 VR, it is evident enough to say that the lenses with stabiliser must be bigger & heavier.

jpr2 said:
also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

silentstorm · Oct 30, 2013

Why restrict ourselves with yesterday technology & claim that this or that is not possible? Imagine if everyone has a mindset like OP, then we will still be using vacuum tubes & there will be no computers & tablets & definitely no digital camera.

Let's take a sip of tea & fantasize for a short while.

What if Sony has a new way to stabilse a sensor using some kind of fluid suspension? Its slim & small profile, serve as a coolant to the sensor as well, so you can take those astro 8hrs long exposure shots w/o overheating the sensor.

That's not all, since the sensor housing is floating on the fluid all the time, then there's no need to turn off IS at all when mounted on a tripod, it doesn't try to self adjust. Newton's law come into play

when a body is at rest, it tends to stay at rest. When there is shake, the fluid can auto adjust, within limits of cos'

Cool eh?

Arcturu · Oct 30, 2013

Keit ll said:
I think the opposite , stabilised views in VF give a false impression of camera shake & lead to complacency. If an IBIS equipped camera looks reasonably steady then when the IBIS function comes into operation it will be steady.

Agreed. Since you can still see motion in the VF with IBIS, you can continue to practice your "human IS" by holding camera as still as possible. Also, IBIS cameras have a little graphic display which one can use to monitor the magnitude of shake before shooting.

jpr2 · Oct 30, 2013

silentstorm said:
Here's the thing. Looking at Panny GX7 & Oly PL5, & then the Sony RX1, why is there a need to be big?

I ask the same of you, where is the proof that IBIS must be big?

Also considering the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F2.8 IS, Nikon 105mm F2.8 macro vs 105mm F2.8 VR, it is evident enough to say that the lenses with stabiliser must be bigger & heavier.

...is worth every single penny IMO, not only the 100L has fourth generation HIS (hybrid IS), and as I said it is of tremendous help to eliminate tremors in VF while focusing esp. at 1:1 true macros, but... on top of it is able to sense being in macro situation and then it switches itself, when coupled with so-enabled cameras, to double the probing AF rate in AI-servo continuous mode - a huge help in conjunction with the forth-and-back swaying method to acquire a critically sharp focus. I'd buy it again and again, should it ever breaks (fingers crossed),

silentstorm said:
jpr2 said:

also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

Click to expand...

jpr2

silentstorm · Oct 30, 2013

jpr2 said:
silentstorm said:

Here's the thing. Looking at Panny GX7 & Oly PL5, & then the Sony RX1, why is there a need to be big?

I ask the same of you, where is the proof that IBIS must be big?

Also considering the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F2.8 IS, Nikon 105mm F2.8 macro vs 105mm F2.8 VR, it is evident enough to say that the lenses with stabiliser must be bigger & heavier.

Click to expand...

...is worth every single penny IMO, not only the 100L has fourth generation HIS (hybrid IS), and as I said it is of tremendous help to eliminate tremors in VF while focusing esp. at 1:1 true macros, but... on top of it is able to sense being in macro situation and then it switches itself, when coupled with so-enabled cameras, to double the probing AF rate in AI-servo continuous mode - a huge help in conjunction with the forth-and-back swaying method to acquire a critically sharp focus. I'd buy it again and again, should it ever breaks (fingers crossed),

Well jpr2, appreciate you sharing your experience using the 100L (I have the non L but not getting the L due to size & weight factors) But the topic here is about IBIS needs to be big.

I don't see why it must be. Says who? Look at the RX1 & then extrapolate it with IS, it'll be no bigger than the current A7.

When I look back few yrs ago, Oly had E500 DSLR (no IBIS) --> PEN 1 (IBIS) --> PL5, it is very clear that Sony can integrate the IS inside the A7 w/o compromising on the size. They chose not to simply becos' its a strategy to segment A mount & E mount cameras.

I'm sitting between the fence here, A or E. A7 currently lacks good lenses with IS. Use A mount lenses on it, then no IS. Use A mount cameras, there's no size weight advantage. Quite a bummer for me. I really like the A mount Zeiss 24-70 F2.8, but the new FE Zeiss F4 zoom is native with OSS. You get what I'm driving at?

jpr2 said:
jpr2 said:

jpr2 said:

also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

tex · Oct 30, 2013

I'll slit my wrists because the A7/7r don't have IBIS. Then I'll be dead and you will be happier.

My, you are the zealot. I think I said right up front that I'd rather have it, or did you miss that part? I just said it wasn't a deal breaker for me. So, YMMV, buddy! Sheesh.

tjuster1 · Oct 30, 2013

tex said:
I'll slit my wrists because the A7/7r don't have IBIS. Then I'll be dead and you will be happier.

My, you are the zealot. I think I said right up front that I'd rather have it, or did you miss that part? I just said it wasn't a deal breaker for me. So, YMMV, buddy! Sheesh.

jpr2 · Oct 30, 2013

silentstorm said:
When I look back few yrs ago, Oly had E500 DSLR (no IBIS) --> PEN 1 (IBIS) --> PL5, it is very clear that Sony can integrate the IS inside the A7 w/o compromising on the size. They chose not to simply becos' its a strategy to segment A mount & E mount cameras.

as usual the proof will in the pudding - no one will know for sure until S. introduces such a camera wit IBIS, so the relevance of e.g. RX-1 (which doesn't have an IBIS) over A7/7 (which also do not have an IBIS) eludes me completely

I'm sitting between the fence here said:
silentstorm said:

silentstorm said:

jpr2, post: 52428752, member: 245549"]
also, while IS/OSS/SSS do offer stabilized image in VF, the IBIS doesn't - a huge point in favor of IS, esp. if one shoots longer FLs (and this is where IS really shines hand-held) or, say, in MACRO (again hand-held),

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
I've put forward the 100L IS as one of not too many excellent implementations of IS where:

[A] I need not to worry that IS will actually spoil IQ of my shots (many other IS equipped gear does that = entirely counter productive; e.g. with the EF 300/4L IS more often then not I switch off IS when shooting the lens on EF bodies, but... paradoxically the same lens on Nex-7 is a dream of a long stabilized FL tele finally materialized, and with IS too);
the stabilized VF offers many more benefits than just lowering one's shutter speed,

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

SirSeth · Oct 30, 2013

rishi o' said:
- It will make the camera bigger

- It will cut battery life further

- It might compromise video quality due to heat

- it's a complicated moving part

Hey! It's been for ever. Didn't you shoot with Olympus cameras way back. Anyhow, as soon as I saw your name I remembered your great photography and that I am a fan of your work.

I would have contention over some of your musings about IS though. Are you sure you are not just minimizing this becuase you really want the A7r?

Have you heard of video quality problems or breaking due to moving parts? I would be surprised if this is so. As for battery life and size, don't all mirrorless cameras suck batteries because of the small space for little batteries and EVF?

My opinion is that IS is not at the top of my priority list, but I'm not complaining about having it or wishing it away. The Olympus 5-axis really does wonders... especially in video. It's like a steady cam. aI read the forums a lot and have never heard about failed units. That said, for your work, you'll do well with or without IS. If you had it, you would make the best of it and without, you'll continue to produce great work. I think Sony is making a statement about size with the A7/r, they will add it in later imo and the camera won't be much better and I don't think it will have the negatives you fear it will. The high ISO and malleability of the RAW files should make up for lack of stabilization to a large extent. And for me, with my eye on the E-M1, I think the 5-axis IS will make up for lack of these things to some extent.

Anyhow, exciting things coming down the road to photoville. These Alphas will be really nice for wedding and portrait photographers on the go. Very portable.

Best,

Seth

silentstorm · Oct 30, 2013

jpr2 said:
silentstorm said:

When I look back few yrs ago, Oly had E500 DSLR (no IBIS) --> PEN 1 (IBIS) --> PL5, it is very clear that Sony can integrate the IS inside the A7 w/o compromising on the size. They chose not to simply becos' its a strategy to segment A mount & E mount cameras.

Click to expand...

as usual the proof will in the pudding - no one will know for sure until S. introduces such a camera wit IBIS, so the relevance of e.g. RX-1 (which doesn't have an IBIS) over A7/7 (which also do not have an IBIS) eludes me completely

And where's the proof in the pudding that IS has to be big in the camera?

It is evident enough for me to see from DSLR size w/o IS, to the Pen Lite size with IS, that having IBIS need not be big. People who wants to believe it has to be big are just very fixated in their thoughts & ways.

jpr2 said:
I've put forward the 100L IS as one of not too many excellent implementations of IS where:

[A] I need not to worry that IS will actually spoil IQ of my shots (many other IS equipped gear does that = entirely counter productive; e.g. with the EF 300/4L IS more often then not I switch off IS when shooting the lens on EF bodies, but... paradoxically the same lens on Nex-7 is a dream of a long stabilized FL tele finally materialized, and with IS too);

the stabilized VF offers many more benefits than just lowering one's shutter speed,

jpr2

If you can turn off lens IS, you can turn off body IS. What's the diff? If you find that IS will spoil the shot, then turn it off like how you would on a lens. I don't see any issue here

Why I don't want IBIS

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts