80mm macro and ibis

Thinking of what body to pair with the 80mm macro. Am I correct in thinking that pairing that lens with a body with ibis will have little advantage in term of stabilisation? I’m thinking of getting an x-t3.

I've not tried a comparison but my understanding is you do gain as IBIS and lens IS work synergistically.

Andrewcn said:

Thinking of what body to pair with the 80mm macro. Am I correct in thinking that pairing that lens with a body with ibis will have little advantage in term of stabilisation? I’m thinking of getting an x-t3.

Click to expand...

Maybe

From Fujifilm :

"Where OIS works in two axes only, IBIS works in five and compensates for vertical and horizontal movement – the same as OIS – plus roll, pitch, and yaw. With this system, up to more than five stops of compensation is possible and it works irrespective of the lens in use. This is because, rather than an element in the lens being used to compensate movement, the camera’s sensor is moved instead."

Pal2tech address this topic here related to vdieo shooting:

He compares the X-T3 and X-T4(IBIS) and concludes you get improved "noticiable" stabilization with the combo.



--
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." - Diane Arbus

It depends on your use case. On a cloudy day which can be great for flowers, one might be stopping down for depth of field and stabilization will allow you to use a lower ISO. That's one of a huge number of use cases and remember that a macro lens might be used for portraits indoors. Take advantage of the newer features if you can afford a body with them.

Morris

Andrewcn said:

Thinking of what body to pair with the 80mm macro. Am I correct in thinking that pairing that lens with a body with ibis will have little advantage in term of stabilisation? I’m thinking of getting an x-t3.

Click to expand...

To me this greatly depends on whether or not you'll use AF or MF, more than whether the OIS will be sufficient or the IBIS will give you extra benefits.

The IBIS in the camera body does enhance the total stabilisation achieved, as others have noted.

But for me I experience a big improvement in AF with specifically this lens when I go from my X-T3 to the X-H2s. So if you want to use AF, better to go for one of the newer bodies with improved AF, not the X-T3.

If you use MF, then you can take perfectly good shots with this lens on older bodies like the X-T3 or X-H1 but the X-T3 would be my preference because it can zoom in to 100% on the EVF or LCD and has better focus-peaking, and a better EVF.

However even when using MF I prefer the X-H2s for macro shooting nowadays as the manual focusing works even better on the latest bodies than on the X-T3, thanks to more capable processing and an even better EVF.

Please not that I have not used the X-T4 so I don't know how much better it is than the X-T3 for these uses but since it's the same generation of sensor and processor as the X-T3, I don't expect a lot of serious improvements except that it has IBIS.

It's up to you of course how much money you want to and are able to spend on it!

As mentioned, IBIS offers more ability to correct for camera shake than OIS. IOS cannot compensate for the tendency to roll the camera when the shutter button is depressed for example.

So one would automatically think IBIS is the superior system, and in many ways it is. At one time it was thought that OIS was more effective with long lenses. I'm not sure if that is still the case, but image stabilization as a general rule loses effectiveness as focal lengths increase. If you have particularly steady hands it might not be a big deal, but don't be perturbed if the vaunted 5 stops of SR translates to only a couple of stops for you.

I know that since I bought my K1 8 years ago the shake reduction is less effective now than it was when I was 58. What's changed is me.

One thing I have noted with any image stabilization is that it gets less effective as pixel density increases.

The IBIS on my X-T5 is not as effective as the IBIS on my Pentax K1. Some of this will be due to the extra mass of the camera, but some of it relates to pixel density.

Image stabilization is reactive, not proactive. For it to work it needs to detect movement. When it detects movement it attempts to keep the sensor from moving in relation to the image by moving it opposite to camera movement.

What this means in real life is that by the time the image stabilization is doing anything there has already been detectable movement and this will show up much quicker in a 40mp APS-C sensor than it will in a 24mp APS-C sensor.

--
Bill.
Proud user of Pentax and Fuji camera gear.

As far as I know, physically, IBIS is less useful in macro as compared to normal use cases. It is worse the greater the magnification.

Hard to find evidence.

I once played a bit with my Laowa 65/2.8 on my X-T4, IBIS on and off. But I did not do it well and scientifically enough to make a bold statement here.

It is known that some users enter a larger than actual fl when using IBIS in macro. I've also tried this but also not well enough.

My experiments came because I was a little disappointed from IBIS effect with my Laowa.

So, I believe you are right but I have no evidence to offer.

Cheers,

Martin

--
SmugMug - https://martinlang.smugmug.com
500px - https://500px.com/martinlangphotography
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/martin.lang.photography
Co-author on https://frickelfarm.de/

Rightsaidfred said:

As far as I know, physically, IBIS is less useful in macro as compared to normal use cases. It is worse the greater the magnification.

Hard to find evidence.

I once played a bit with my Laowa 65/2.8 on my X-T4, IBIS on and off. But I did not do it well and scientifically enough to make a bold statement here.

It is known that some users enter a larger than actual fl when using IBIS in macro. I've also tried this but also not well enough.

My experiments came because I was a little disappointed from IBIS effect with my Laowa.

So, I believe you are right but I have no evidence to offer.

Cheers,

Martin

Click to expand...

Depending on the degree of magnification, any image stabilization is going to be rendered ineffective pretty quickly, but really, there isn't much to say between the two methods until focal lengths stretch out.

The big advantage OIS had over IBIS was that with an SLR you could see the image stabilization happening since it was happening before the image hit the viewfinder while with IBIS you didn't.

The downside of OIS in an SLR was that you didn't know how close to the limit of the mechanism you were. With IBIS the tendency was to keep the camera still since otherwise the viewfinder was jumping around.

With mirrorless cameras that advantage has been nullified. It doesn't matter if an EVF camera has OIS or IBIS, either way we are seeing it work in milliseconds less than real time.

You need to know your lens before entering a random number into the focal length box. A lot of macro lenses shorten their focal lengths (focus breathing) as they get closer to the subject. Generally speaking, if the front of the lens extends as the focus ring is turned, the lens is focus breathing.

The Pentax A100/2.8 macro is a fine example of this. At infinity it is a 100mm lens, at 1:1 its about a 62mm lens. I expect the Fuji 60 macro would show similar behavior.

I don't think the 80/2.8 macro focus breaths, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, if the entered focal length doesn't match the actual, then IS won't be as effective as it could be.

I've learned over the years to treat image stabilization, no matter how it is done, as more of a crutch than a tool. It's not a replacement for holding the camera steady.

For macro work a tripod is a better friend than image stabilization.

--
Bill.
Proud user of Pentax and Fuji camera gear.

[...]

William the X-T5 guy said:

I don't think the 80/2.8 macro focus breaths, but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

This lens does exhibit focus breathing when focusing near. Not as much as the Laowa 65mm though.

William the X-T5 guy said:

Anyway, if the entered focal length doesn't match the actual, then IS won't be as effective as it could be.

I've learned over the years to treat image stabilization, no matter how it is done, as more of a crutch than a tool. It's not a replacement for holding the camera steady.

For macro work a tripod is a better friend than image stabilization.

Click to expand...

A tripod makes you less flexible though when out in the field walking and trying to line up for multiple subjects, or moving subjects like insects.

It can help, but also be a hindrance.

However, if your subject moves so much that it is not practical to use a tripod, then image stabilisation (either in lens or in body) is also not going to help you getting the shot!

Andrewcn said:

Thinking of what body to pair with the 80mm macro. Am I correct in thinking that pairing that lens with a body with ibis will have little advantage in term of stabilisation? I’m thinking of getting an x-t3.

Click to expand...

new gen cameras have a great advantage with MF focus peaking. The XT4 switches off the focus highlights as you start to press the shutter button. Very irritating



The XH2 and XH2S focus highlights do not go away which helps a lot to ensure you remain focused where you are planning to.

Rightsaidfred said:

As far as I know, physically, IBIS is less useful in macro as compared to normal use cases. It is worse the greater the magnification.

Hard to find evidence.

I once played a bit with my Laowa 65/2.8 on my X-T4, IBIS on and off. But I did not do it well and scientifically enough to make a bold statement here.

It is known that some users enter a larger than actual fl when using IBIS in macro. I've also tried this but also not well enough.

My experiments came because I was a little disappointed from IBIS effect with my Laowa.

So, I believe you are right but I have no evidence to offer.

Cheers,

Martin

Click to expand...

One pretty obvious aspect IMO, in contrast to normal use cases where small movements of the camera in the z axis do not matter, it is physically nearly impossible to correct for moving the camera back and forth through image stabilization when it comes to macro where DoF can be razor blade thin.

Martin

I second this.

i have been using it with XT3 for years, now woth the XH2 bodies I have and my observation is sthat stabilization is even better (say 5 stops vs 3 stops)

Anyway the combo with XT3 will be perfect in terms of OIS. XH2 bodies bring the cherry on the cake ...

baobob said:

I second this.

i have been using it with XT3 for years, now woth the XH2 bodies I have and my observation is sthat stabilization is even better (say 5 stops vs 3 stops)

Anyway the combo with XT3 will be perfect in terms of OIS. XH2 bodies bring the cherry on the cake ...

Click to expand...

I concur. Had the same experience. Never really had an issue using it with theX-T3, but the X-H2 makes it better. Plus the large grip on the H2 adds to handheld macro in a positive way.

I found a video by a person named Micael Widell.

Micael tested various combinations and settings, video and stills.

His conclusion is, in my words

1. Any kind of stabilization does simply not help for macro stills
2. Stabilization can help in macro composing because the viewfinder image does not shake that much
3. A flash is a really good option for macro stills because exposure time is super short
4. Stabilization helps with macro video. With manual lenses, where one does have the chance to enter the fl manually, it is good to enter the double or triple fl

Cheers,

Martin

--
SmugMug - https://martinlang.smugmug.com
500px - https://500px.com/martinlangphotography
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/martin.lang.photography
Co-author on https://frickelfarm.de/

Indeed the grip is really to be considered for macro, the 80mm being quite heavy and bulky.

The Banks said:

new gen cameras have a great advantage with MF focus peaking. The XT4 switches off the focus highlights as you start to press the shutter button. Very irritating

The XH2 and XH2S focus highlights do not go away which helps a lot to ensure you remain focused where you are planning to.

Click to expand...

My X-H2 with latest FW does not behave that way - focus highlights do extinguish with half press of the shutter. For me I prefer it that way.

Just tested that again at longer focal length & have noticed that some part of those highlights do remain but are somehow reduced in intensity. Hmmm.

And now going back to a wider angle I see that remains - again reduced and nearly un-noticeable.

That works ok for me the way they mostly drop out - even at night it appears to drop out completely, but the closer examination that I've done today in daylight indoors - a bit dark - reveals a more subtle highlighting with the half shutter press.

Sorry for this stream of experience while I examined this critically for the first time.

Live & Squirm

Lance St. Paul said:

The Banks said:

new gen cameras have a great advantage with MF focus peaking. The XT4 switches off the focus highlights as you start to press the shutter button. Very irritating

The XH2 and XH2S focus highlights do not go away which helps a lot to ensure you remain focused where you are planning to.

Click to expand...

My X-H2 with latest FW does not behave that way - focus highlights do extinguish with half press of the shutter. For me I prefer it that way.

Just tested that again at longer focal length & have noticed that some part of those highlights do remain but are somehow reduced in intensity. Hmmm.

And now going back to a wider angle I see that remains - again reduced and nearly un-noticeable.

That works ok for me the way they mostly drop out - even at night it appears to drop out completely, but the closer examination that I've done today in daylight indoors - a bit dark - reveals a more subtle highlighting with the half shutter press.

Sorry for this stream of experience while I examined this critically for the first time.

Live & Squirm

Click to expand...

I adapted to the highlights going away with the XT4 but must say i get much more keepers with small jumping spiders if i monitor that the focus remain on the eyes while i press the shutter button.

Then again i had OVF when shooting macro with dslr and still got nice shots. Technology is great but there are many other ways to get the shot.

For landscapes i dont mind highlights going away once i confirmed focus and its on a static tripod. But on 1:1 and greater macro i need to ensure i dont move past the eyes or pull back too much.

My primary use case is street photography - there's some jumping around, but much larger specimens and I don't have the lens anywhere near that close to them.

And there certainly isn't time to peruse the viewfinder in great detail.

I do have the 80mm macro but that is primarily dedicated to digitizing my work that was done on film in the pre-digital era. (Mostly on Fuji Film.)

Lance St. Paul said:

My primary use case is street photography - there's some jumping around, but much larger specimens and I don't have the lens anywhere near that close to them.

And there certainly isn't time to peruse the viewfinder in great detail.

I do have the 80mm macro but that is primarily dedicated to digitizing my work that was done on film in the pre-digital era. (Mostly on Fuji Film.)

Click to expand...

Macro lens will be perfect for that.. dont want to derail the OP thread but im interested on your lighting setup when taking photos of photos.

I'm still working that out, but a light panel will likely fill the bill.

Using a heavy duty copy stand - sort of a reversed enlarger. Will try out the X-H2 in its super rez mode.