Best upgrade for photographing paintings in museums?

If you can, rent a camera with IBIS, set your lens at f/2.8 or f/4, and see what sort of shutter speed you end up with. What settings are you using now? IBIS will definitely improve things.

Normally, macro lenses are better corrected optically, the 30 macro f/2.8 should perform well at f/2.8. Can you get away with that lens and forget IBIS? Can you rent the lens and try it too?

Thanks for your reply.

biza43 said:

If you can, rent a camera with IBIS, set your lens at f/2.8 or f/4, and see what sort of shutter speed you end up with. What settings are you using now? IBIS will definitely improve things.

Click to expand...

I usually shoot at f/1.4 for 1/160s with auto-ISO 200–3200 (with average light metering, usually getting shots between 500 and 1600). But I often drop down to 1/100s or 1/80s and switch to burst mode for 5-10 images, then I'll choose the sharpest shot to keep (usually at least 2-3 will have clear motion blur handshake, and 2-3 will be subtly sharper than the others). [ Edit: if anyone reads this and thinks I could do better with different settings please tell me ].

biza43 said:

Normally, macro lenses are better corrected optically, the 30 macro f/2.8 should perform well at f/2.8. Can you get away with that lens and forget IBIS? Can you rent the lens and try it too?

Click to expand...

Interesting idea, that lens also appeals for focal length and shorter focus distance. But I think I generally need f/1.4 and only sometimes use f/2, so f/2.8 might only be possible with going to 6400 ISO and increasing exposure during editing. Based on my understanding, I should always prefer to let as much light in as I can before increasing ISO (I may well be wrong but I think that if it's under-exposed then the camera can't capture detail as well in the first place?), so I'm not sure if f/2.8 would work? Maybe if it's so significantly sharper still then more noise is acceptable.

I think rental might be possible if there's really no clear answer... I can ask a local shop if they have this lens for rent when I next have time. Renting both the lens and an IBIS body would be over $100 for 1 day though which makes me hesitate..

If you’re trying an alternative lens: per the MTF charts, the XF 33mm f1.4 R WR should beat least as sharp as the XF 30mm macro. I haven’t done a side by side comparison, but in my experience the 33mm is very good wide open, and I think better than the 35mm you have at f1.4 for this use case.

It does seem like your use case would be improved with a body with IBIS.

You could also try some techniques or make some small additions to improve stability when the photo is taken, like: the Your Body Image Stabilization technique with a camera strap to your belt, add some mass to your camera body to increase its inertia, and/or add a grip or handle that allows holding the camera such that hand shake is reduced by the lever arm of the grip.

If flash is allowed, that's the best upgrade when used with a diffuser. Other options will be tricky. A fast lens and a monopod if allowed is the way to go. The OM-1 with it's steady shot for long exposures would be the best handheld option. No other camera comes close.

Morris

I'd start by trying a higher ISO and some very good noise reduction software. DXO Photolab doesn't support your camera/lens combination. If you've not tried it already.

The 35/1.4 isn't that good a lens putside the centre.

--
Andrew Skinner

Define "critically sharp"...?

I mean, these are paintings you are trying to capture, and while I have not seen every painting in the world, not many of the ones I have seen are "sharp", let alone "critically".

If you think you need f/1.4, then you need f/1.4 and no one is going to talk you out of that. So, what you will then want or need is the focal length to get the whole painting, and a frame I'd assume, in the field of view. Then you probably need IS or IBIS, just to help steady everything.

But I don't think you need critically sharp, unless there is a other reason to take critically sharp images of paintings in a museum other than viewing...

RWN Photo said:

But I don't think you need critically sharp, unless there is a other reason to take critically sharp images of paintings in a museum other than viewing...

Click to expand...

Thank you for questioning my assumptions. It's possible I'm in part not looking for greater sharpness but rather a good level of detail, ideally with a decent and consistent sharpness.

For enjoyment, I don't particularly like it when the centre of the image is notably sharper than the outer parts. I would prefer greater consistency which seems to happen at smaller apertures on the lens I have.

For study, I often wish I had a picture with greater sharpness and/or detail for in-depth study of attribution. In books I would like to follow descriptions like "the white [of the eye] is very prominent, especially toward the outer corner, the iris dark and shown as nearly a complete circle. Each eye has a tiny highlight, almost a pinpoint. The upper lid is always carefully drawn and usually touched with light".

RWN Photo said:

If you think you need f/1.4, then you need f/1.4 and no one is going to talk you out of that. So, what you will then want or need is the focal length to get the whole painting, and a frame I'd assume, in the field of view. Then you probably need IS or IBIS, just to help steady everything.

Click to expand...

I feel like I would be happy to be talked out of it..

shifty_user said:

Hi, I'm using an older X-M1 (gen1 sensor) and the 35mm f1.4. I enjoy taking pictures of paintings (handheld in low-light museums mostly) and then studying them at 100%. With the 35mm the corners and sometimes the centre of the photos are not as sharp as I think they could be. I'm wondering if I can go to the 'next level' by upgrading something.

What would produce the most notable improvement - a body or a lens upgrade or would both be equally dramatic? (I'm just an amateur, a tripod is not an option). For a lens upgrade, sharpness (including at corners) at wide-open apertures and realistic colour reproduction seem most important. Also pincushion/barrel distortion sounds bad if observable. The exact focal length to choose doesn't seem critical, generally speaking. I thought of these options:

Option 1) Buy body with IBIS and keep using 35mm but at a smaller (and sharper) aperture. Is the IBIS good enough to get "critically" sharp shots at f2.8 or (ideally) f4 where before I'd have to use f1.4? Would that be better than a sharper lens at 1.4 on the older body?

Click to expand...

The 35 f/1.4 is a nice lens for lots of things, but isn't sharp across the frame at wide apertures (at all), so I'd definitely think about replacing that before the camera.

shifty_user said:

Option 2) Buy a better lens and keep using older body. I've looked at the newer Fujfilm lenses plus the Viltrox 27mmF1.2 but get confused. The Viltrox is appealing for sharpness and low-light but I'm worried that:

- A) it will be absurdly large and heavy on the smaller body - is it a bad idea to even consider this lens on a small and old body? Will the camera body be fast enough to even drive the auto-focus for example?

Click to expand...

Not gonna lie, it's not a petite lens, but mine basically lives on my little X-T20 (with a handgrip) and I find the combo especially satisfying to shoot with. Personally, I like a lens you can hold on to, particularly with a small body camera. YMMV.


The Viltrox 27 on my little X-T20 ...works great for me.

shifty_user said:

- B) some reviews say the corner sharpness at larger apertures are not as good as some Fujifilm options (but don't specify any further) - does anyone know if this is true and if so which Fujifilm lenses between 23-56mm would be sharper?,

Click to expand...

I've shot with most of the Fujifilm lenses and none surpass the optical quality of the Viltrox 27, IMO. I really don't recommend shooting wide open with any very fast lenses at very close range unless you absolutely have to, but the Viltrox 27 is one of the very few lenses that is actually sharp across the frame at extreme apertures and, most importantly, has a very flat plane of focus at close range and no significant CA/fringing issues to worry about.


The Viltrox 27 f/1,2 wide open at f/1.2 - there's just not much to fault here, this lens is sharper across a flat plane at f/1.2 than many good primes at f/5.6. I haven't had the 27 in a museum yet, so this will have to suffice as painting stand-in.

shifty_user said:

- C) some reviews say you still have to "pay a premium" for a Fujifilm lenses for "better" colour rendering (or they say the Viltrox is "warmer" in colours). Are these comments saying that Fujifilm lenses have more realistic colour accuracy or are they referring to the "feel"/style/film simulations? Accurate/trustworthy colour reproduction is important to me.

Click to expand...

No, the Viltrox color rendering is as good as any Fuji glass

shifty_user said:

Option 3) Upgrade both. I'm reluctant unless there's some other option that's cheaper than the above ideas that I'm not realising.

Click to expand...

IBIS would be very nice to have, especially for static paintings and slower apertures but most paintings in museums are going to be lit well enough for hand holding at f/2.8 or so at reasonable ISOs.

shifty_user said:

Does anyone have any advice? Getting a new lens is most appealing because it would be the cheapest option. Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

Not cheap new, but the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 would is my usual go-to for a single lens museum option - mainly because of focal length versatility and great performance across the frame wide open, but the Viltrox 13 and 27 are definitely better optically.


Not a painting, but this is the 16-55 in a very low light museum wide open at f/2.8.

The 27 will be much better for single paintings, but I love my Viltrox 13 for general purpose museum shooting - I would bring both on two bodies if you want to do both (or the aforementioned 16-55 zoom).


Typical dark museum shot with the 13mm


Another one

I wouldn't worry too much about getting a super fast lens, the working depth of field at close range is so minuscule with wide apertures that you will have to be exceptionally careful to be absolutely square to your subject and be deadly accurate with the focusing for good results. The main features you want are flat plane of focus at relatively close range (minimal field curvature), and sharp/CA free corners - I would suggest shooting around f/2.8 in most situations unless the light is crazy bad and/or you want the DOF isolation. I also highly recommend always positioning the AF where you want the focus point to be (centered is, of course, fine for a painting) and, using AF-S/single point mode, press the shutter button all the way down with one smooth squeeze (no pause at a half-press), this will guarantee that the exposure will happen at the moment of focus acquisition, not a split second later where you can easily move enough to miss focus significantly.


This is the Viltrox 27 at close range. Even stopped down to f/4 you can see how shallow the DOF can be - the PCB is sharp, but some of the wires and taller components are quite out of focus.

Though the Viltrox 27 should be fine, but if you're really aiming to capture the paintings as accurately as possible without perspective distortion, You might consider a longer focal length/greater distant shooting distance for the best reproduction...


This painting was shot with the old Fuji 56mm (in daylight). Printed on canvas, this image looks crazy similar to the original side by side.

Some other lenses to consider would be the Fuji 30mm macro, the 50mm f/2, or the new (and crazy cheap) Viltrox 56 f/1.7, but the Viltrox 27 and 13 would be a super choice for a great museum prime combo (IMO).

Thanks for all your thoughts. I think I need to try taking more shots at f2 or f2.8 but higher ISO and see how I find them.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

- B) some reviews say the corner sharpness at larger apertures are not as good as some Fujifilm options (but don't specify any further) - does anyone know if this is true and if so which Fujifilm lenses between 23-56mm would be sharper?,

Click to expand...

I've shot with most of the Fujifilm lenses and none surpass the optical quality of the Viltrox 27, IMO. I really don't recommend shooting wide open with any very fast lenses at very close range unless you absolutely have to, but the Viltrox 27 is one of the very few lenses that is actually sharp across the frame at extreme apertures and, most importantly, has a very flat plane of focus at close range and no significant CA/fringing issues to worry about.

[...]

I wouldn't worry too much about getting a super fast lens, the working depth of field at close range is so minuscule with wide apertures that you will have to be exceptionally careful to be absolutely square to your subject and be deadly accurate with the focusing for good results. The main features you want are flat plane of focus at relatively close range (minimal field curvature), and sharp/CA free corners - I would suggest shooting around f/2.8 in most situations unless the light is crazy bad and/or you want the DOF isolation.

Click to expand...

Would you consider roughly 1 metre distance as "very close range"?

The Viltrox sounds really appealing in everything but the size. It's really hard for me to judge without trying if I'll find the size/weight acceptable. And it doesn't look like Fujifilm make a grip for the model I have, and it sounds like the x-m1 will be far too small for that lens without one..

So I'm trying to find some other lens that might reach a similar standard. Do you know if the 23mmF1.4 (or F2 for that matter) have a flat plane of focus at close range? I understand there are trade-offs with some natural perspective distortion but if I can hold the lens reasonably straight-on I thought that FL could be worth considering too, especially as I read the f1.4 is particularly sharp and can focus at short distances while being notably smaller than the Viltrox at similar FL.

Erik Baumgartner said:

I also highly recommend always positioning the AF where you want the focus point to be (centered is, of course, fine for a painting) and, using AF-S/single point mode, press the shutter button all the way down with one smooth squeeze (no pause at a half-press), this will guarantee that the exposure will happen at the moment of focus acquisition, not a split second later where you can easily move enough to miss focus significantly.

Click to expand...

I may have experienced this in some images that are particularly soft with some purple/red blur, thanks for the tip.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Though the Viltrox 27 should be fine, but if you're really aiming to capture the paintings as accurately as possible without perspective distortion, You might consider a longer focal length/greater distant shooting distance for the best reproduction...

Some other lenses to consider would be the Fuji 30mm macro, the 50mm f/2, or the new (and crazy cheap) Viltrox 56 f/1.7, but the Viltrox 27 and 13 would be a super choice for a great museum prime combo (IMO).

Click to expand...

I once used a 50mm (75mm equiv) in the past in a museum and found that I could often not move as far back as I needed to capture the full painting at once (though nice for details and it's details I like, so maybe I should consider this, thanks!).

The 30mm macro now seems more appealing too but I need to see if I can get away with only f/2.8.

Another poster mentioned the 33mm would be sharper than the 30mm macro (and larger aperture of course). Would you still prefer the macro for reasons of a flatter focal plane?

shifty_user said:

Thanks for all your thoughts. I think I need to try taking more shots at f2 or f2.8 but higher ISO and see how I find them.

Click to expand...

You should see significantly sharper detail across the frame stopped down a bit (like f/2.8 or so). F/1.4 is great for creative subject isolation, but isn’t always the best option in low light, especially with the 35 f/1.4. I’d much have much sharper detail and a little extra noise at higher ISOs at f/2.8 than poor detail that requires more sharpening (which accentuates noise) at f/1.4

shifty_user said:

shifty_user said:

shifty_user said:

- B) some reviews say the corner sharpness at larger apertures are not as good as some Fujifilm options (but don't specify any further) - does anyone know if this is true and if so which Fujifilm lenses between 23-56mm would be sharper?,

Click to expand...

I've shot with most of the Fujifilm lenses and none surpass the optical quality of the Viltrox 27, IMO. I really don't recommend shooting wide open with any very fast lenses at very close range unless you absolutely have to, but the Viltrox 27 is one of the very few lenses that is actually sharp across the frame at extreme apertures and, most importantly, has a very flat plane of focus at close range and no significant CA/fringing issues to worry about.

[...]

I wouldn't worry too much about getting a super fast lens, the working depth of field at close range is so minuscule with wide apertures that you will have to be exceptionally careful to be absolutely square to your subject and be deadly accurate with the focusing for good results. The main features you want are flat plane of focus at relatively close range (minimal field curvature), and sharp/CA free corners - I would suggest shooting around f/2.8 in most situations unless the light is crazy bad and/or you want the DOF isolation.

Click to expand...

Would you consider roughly 1 metre distance as "very close range"?

Click to expand...

Depends on the focal length, but generally, yes, I would consider that close range. You have a lot less DOF to work with at 1 meter than you do at 4.

shifty_user said:

The Viltrox sounds really appealing in everything but the size. It's really hard for me to judge without trying if I'll find the size/weight acceptable. And it doesn't look like Fujifilm make a grip for the model I have, and it sounds like the x-m1 will be far too small for that lens without one..

Click to expand...

That's entirely up to you, I have no issues with big 16-55 or 50-140 on my X-T20. but that's me. If image quality is of primary importance, you might have to make some handling compromises.

shifty_user said:

So I'm trying to find some other lens that might reach a similar standard. Do you know if the 23mmF1.4 (or F2 for that matter) have a flat plane of focus at close range?

Click to expand...

The 23 f/2 is well known for it's poor performance at close range at wide apertures, and the old 23 f/1.4 is just way too inconsistent for me to recommend that lens for any purpose (poor quality control/wildly varying sample variation). The 35 f/2 is a nice lens but requires a whole lot of electronic correction which limits the image quality in the corners somewhat. The new 23 f/1.4 WR is excellent, but pricey. Same goes for the 33 f/1.4 WR. The new Sigma 23 f/1.4 is supposed to be quite excellent too (no first hand experience with that one), and cheaper than the Fujis.

shifty_user said:

I understand there are trade-offs with some natural perspective distortion but if I can hold the lens reasonably straight-on I thought that FL could be worth considering too, especially as I read the f1.4 is particularly sharp and can focus at short distances while being notably smaller than the Viltrox at similar FL.

Click to expand...

Like I said, the old 23 f/1.4 is problematic, great ones exist, but aren't the norm. I gave up after 3 crap copies in a row.

The problem with a wider than optimal focal length is that it forces a closer shooting distance which will greatly distort the geometry of 3D subjects, not such an issue with 2D paintings, but a wider lens at close range will likely be much harder to position "just so" where all four corners are perfectly square and in-focus at wide apertures, not to mention that greater electronic correction is often required with wider angle lenses (especially cheaper/smaller ones) which can degrade corner sharpness noticeably and produce noisier corners too if there is a lot of light falloff being corrected at high ISOs. That all said, a quality 23mm lens isn't really too wide would probably get the job done for decently sized 2D subjects, but I don’t think I’d go wider than that.

shifty_user said:

shifty_user said:

I also highly recommend always positioning the AF where you want the focus point to be (centered is, of course, fine for a painting) and, using AF-S/single point mode, press the shutter button all the way down with one smooth squeeze (no pause at a half-press), this will guarantee that the exposure will happen at the moment of focus acquisition, not a split second later where you can easily move enough to miss focus significantly.

Click to expand...

I may have experienced this in some images that are particularly soft with some purple/red blur, thanks for the tip.

Click to expand...

Sounds like CA (chromatic aberration) which is, unfortunately, a defining feature of the old 35 f/1.4 at wide apertures. If I was shooting paintings with my 35 f/1.4, I'd be at f/2.8 or narrower (which would probably work just fine and won’t cost you anything). The AF method described above is absolutely the best way to guarantee optimal focus with the older cameras. If your focus isn’t perfect, your images are going to look soft at this range with wide apertures, that’s for sure.

shifty_user said:

shifty_user said:

Though the Viltrox 27 should be fine, but if you're really aiming to capture the paintings as accurately as possible without perspective distortion, You might consider a longer focal length/greater distant shooting distance for the best reproduction...

Some other lenses to consider would be the Fuji 30mm macro, the 50mm f/2, or the new (and crazy cheap) Viltrox 56 f/1.7, but the Viltrox 27 and 13 would be a super choice for a great museum prime combo (IMO).

Click to expand...

I once used a 50mm (75mm equiv) in the past in a museum and found that I could often not move as far back as I needed to capture the full painting at once (though nice for details and it's details I like, so maybe I should consider this, thanks!).

Click to expand...

If you don't have the room to back up, a longer lens just isn't going to work (and why a mid range zoom can be especially handy). 27mm really is a versatile "do it all" focal length, and handles both 23 and 33/35mm duties quite nicely, IMO.

shifty_user said:

The 30mm macro now seems more appealing too but I need to see if I can get away with only f/2.8.

Click to expand...

IMO, f/2.8 is plenty fast enough, even with the older sensor (IMO), but what matters is whether an f/2.8 lens performs well at its widest aperture across the frame and whether the plane of focus is relatively flat at close range. This narrows the choices significantly, especially at a low price point. Also, I'm not sure about the X-M1, but some of those older bodies really pile on the NR at higher ISOs which can obscure detail significantly with SOOC jpegs, You'll want to experiment with that. RAW files should do fine.

shifty_user said:

Another poster mentioned the 33mm would be sharper than the 30mm macro (and larger aperture of course). Would you still prefer the macro for reasons of a flatter focal plane?

Click to expand...

No, from what I've seen, the 33 is the better lens unless you have to focus ridiculously close (you don't), and is almost certainly better at f/2.8 than the 30 macro - bigger, heavier, pricier though.

I have the 33mm f/1.4, which is better corrected relative to the older 35mm f/1.4. Could be a good option, as others have said, say around f/2. That will keep you below ISO 1600.

New 23mm f1.4 R LM WR and IBIS and you will be pin sharp

Yes, ibis is going to be the upgrade that will be the best for your needs, no doubt. How could it not be… paintings don’t move and it’ll get you multiple stops more to work with. I can’t imagine suggesting otherwise.

--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0

IMO :

1/-Buy or rent a Fuji body with IBIS 5 stops

2/- If possible according to the kind of light try to use e shutter

3/- About lens : IMO a good choice could be XF 23mm f 2 or the 35mm f 2 and try to shoot at f 5.6 if light is ok F 5.6 is often the sweet point of many lenses.

Avoid WA or UWA lenses, zooms

Do not use a filter, unless a polarizing filter iis needed due to bright reflections of glass or paintings

Hope this helps

Bob

John Gellings said:

Yes, ibis is going to be the upgrade that will be the best for your needs, no doubt. How could it not be… paintings don’t move and it’ll get you multiple stops more to work with. I can’t imagine suggesting otherwise.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. IBIS makes a lot of sense on paper but I've found it difficult to sort through conflicting information on how effective it is.

For example with my 35mm lens I've found I can usually be safe from hand-shake at 1/160s, although 1/250s would be even safer (as I mentioned earlier I can usually get good shots at 1/80s or 1/100s if I switch to burst mode). Below 1/160s I find it's common to have photos that are softer (I presume due to hand-shake).

Do you have an idea what the equivalent range of shutter speeds a Fujifilm IBIS body would be? I realise they're different, but an X-S20 say which is supposedly allows 7-stops slower shutter speed. I've read that you need to halve that "at least", so say it's 3-stops. If true I could take a photo at 1/20s and have it be equivalent in sharpness to 1/160s. To be honest I struggle to believe this is true, that's why I'd love to hear other people's thoughts/experiences.

(I'm aware renting/buying and trying myself is the way to get the best answer but that costs money so I may as well ask about other people's experiences, thanks!)

shifty_user said:

John Gellings said:

Yes, ibis is going to be the upgrade that will be the best for your needs, no doubt. How could it not be… paintings don’t move and it’ll get you multiple stops more to work with. I can’t imagine suggesting otherwise.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. IBIS makes a lot of sense on paper but I've found it difficult to sort through conflicting information on how effective it is.

Click to expand...

It is very effective.

shifty_user said:

For example with my 35mm lens I've found I can usually be safe from hand-shake at 1/160s, although 1/250s would be even safer (as I mentioned earlier I can usually get good shots at 1/80s or 1/100s if I switch to burst mode). Below 1/160s I find it's common to have photos that are softer (I presume due to hand-shake).

Click to expand...

Right without ibis right?

shifty_user said:

Do you have an idea what the equivalent range of shutter speeds a Fujifilm IBIS body would be?

Click to expand...

I used the oldest Fuji xh1 down to 1/4s routinely and I have shaky hands. Newer models should be better.

shifty_user said:

I realise they're different, but an X-S20 say which is supposedly allows 7-stops slower shutter speed. I've read that you need to halve that "at least", so say it's 3-stops.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it’ll depend on your lens. The wider the lens, the easier it is to handhold.

shifty_user said:

If true I could take a photo at 1/20s and have it be equivalent in sharpness to 1/160s. To be honest I struggle to believe this is true, that's why I'd love to hear other people's thoughts/experiences.

Click to expand...

Why do you struggle to believe this when this is exactly what ibis is for?

shifty_user said:

(I'm aware renting/buying and trying myself is the way to get the best answer but that costs money so I may as well ask about other people's experiences, thanks!)

Click to expand...

1/20th of a second will be no problem I can assure you.

--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0

Ibis works well. You'll get several stops improvement in camera shake. I'm not sure about the 5 stops often claimed.

a_c_skinner said:

Ibis works well. You'll get several stops improvement in camera shake. I'm not sure about the 5 stops often claimed.

Click to expand...

3-4 easily though.

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

For example with my 35mm lens I've found I can usually be safe from hand-shake at 1/160s, although 1/250s would be even safer (as I mentioned earlier I can usually get good shots at 1/80s or 1/100s if I switch to burst mode). Below 1/160s I find it's common to have photos that are softer (I presume due to hand-shake).

Click to expand...

Right without ibis right?

Click to expand...

Yes.

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

Do you have an idea what the equivalent range of shutter speeds a Fujifilm IBIS body would be?

Click to expand...

I used the oldest Fuji xh1 down to 1/4s routinely and I have shaky hands. Newer models should be better.

Click to expand...

That sounds great, but can I ask at what focal length?

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

I realise they're different, but an X-S20 say which is supposedly allows 7-stops slower shutter speed. I've read that you need to halve that "at least", so say it's 3-stops.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it’ll depend on your lens. The wider the lens, the easier it is to handhold.

John Gellings said:

If true I could take a photo at 1/20s and have it be equivalent in sharpness to 1/160s. To be honest I struggle to believe this is true, that's why I'd love to hear other people's thoughts/experiences.

Click to expand...

Why do you struggle to believe this when this is exactly what ibis is for?

Click to expand...

* Generally, conflicting information about how effective it is, and the fact that one's default position apparently has to be to not trust manufacturer claims (e.g. "CIPA-rated to 7 stops") at least for hand-held at normal-ish focal lengths like 35mm.

* A youtube reviewer that seems trustworthy enough says (here) that when using an X-H1 (IBIS rated at 5-stops) he "can't get anywhere close" to shooting at 1/8s with a 56mm (harder than a wider angle, harder than 35mm, I know), which is the 5-stops starting from 1/250s. He also then says "I've been able to get about 1/25s and still get sharp images" which is very exciting but: 1) he says "about" and hesitates quite a bit while saying this so it's not totally clear 1/25s is a claim he's really trying to stand behind (e.g. maybe 1/50s is needed for consistency without needing to use burst mode?) . But the next stop up is 1/50s which is not a huge benefit from the burst-mode 1/80s shots I already can take (with hassle of burst-mode); and 2) in a comment to that video he says "when on a tripod, I noticed a lot of softness when I forgot to turn it [IBIS] off a couple of times" -- correct me if I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like he's saying that you may need to accept a certain softening of images when using IBIS, which I really don't want!

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

(I'm aware renting/buying and trying myself is the way to get the best answer but that costs money so I may as well ask about other people's experiences, thanks!)

Click to expand...

1/20th of a second will be no problem I can assure you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, very nice to hear. If I could use 1/20s and get "critical sharpness" and without needing to switch to burst mode that would indeed be a huge improvement in letting me use a smaller aperture. (It would let me go from f/1.4 to f/2.8 in situations where normally I'd think I'd need f/1.4 though others here have suggested I could already use f/2.8 in which case I could reach f/5.6)