No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Started Oct 10, 2011 | Discussions
Woland65 Regular Member • Posts: 438
No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Sitting here and wondering if I should upgrade my Nex 5 to a Nex 7 or an A65, and I am getting an urge to complain a bit.

I want the Nex 7, but the lack of lenses is a major pain. I really want image stabilization in all my lenses, so adapters is not an answer.

If Sony had put stabilization in the Nex body I could have just complemented with alpha lenses. Why did Sony not do this?? Making the body smaller is to me a very weird argument, since most people use a lense when shooting. Thus, it doesn't matter for size if the stabilization is in the body or in the lens. Sigh.

Stupid decision not to use IBIS in the Nex!

John Bean (UK) Forum Pro • Posts: 18,035
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Woland65 wrote:

Stupid decision not to use IBIS in the Nex!

So, by deduction video users are also "stupid" for wanting Sony (or Panasonic for that matter) to provide IS that works for video as well as stills.

Really, words like "stupid" are rarely useful in a reasoned discussion.

-- hide signature --

John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 John Bean (UK)'s gear list:John Bean (UK)'s gear list
Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
OP Woland65 Regular Member • Posts: 438
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Why doesn't IBIS work for video?

relate22 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,585
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

By the time they add everything people are complaining about you would end up with a DSLR, so what's the point.
--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
[b]My youtube channel====> [ b] http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
Flying highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRu3P15BaY
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

John Bean (UK) Forum Pro • Posts: 18,035
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Woland65 wrote:

Why doesn't IBIS work for video?

Perhaps I should have said "works equally well for video and stills".

IBIS is troublesome in video in large-sensor cameras, being both less effective and (most importantly) generates heat and eats batteries.

Sensor mass is crucial in IBIS systems that need to operate continuously, as with video.

-- hide signature --

John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 John Bean (UK)'s gear list:John Bean (UK)'s gear list
Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
Bebrox Contributing Member • Posts: 612
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Yes because all photographs taken before OIS and IBIS were invented are fuzzy aren't they?

I read a lot of comments where people seem to believe that stabilisation is touted as the 'be all and end all' in digital photgraphy. They bang on about 'legacy lenses' and how brilliant an IBIS equipped camera is. When you look at the mentioned 'legacy lens' you see apertures as wide as 1.2, with this wide aperture comes a fast shutter speed negating the requirement for Image Stabilisation.

I think some users are starting to wake up to the fact that IBIS/OIS can cause issues with the output in many circumstances.

What happened to using the correct aperture and shutter speed coupled with bracing the camera i.e. good technique? I am amazed that all of my film SLR cameras took great photos as all with out Image Stabilisation.

Explore the Hand Held Twilight mode in the NEX and discover what it can do in really lowlight, the results are amazing.

RobertSigmund
RobertSigmund Forum Pro • Posts: 10,750
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

The reason was size. In body I S needs space in the body, and they wanted the body to be as small as possible.

 RobertSigmund's gear list:RobertSigmund's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A77 +2 more
SteveGJ Senior Member • Posts: 1,422
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

I would agree that it was a mistake for Sony to omit IBIS from the NEX range. It's possible this was done to minimise the depth of the body and having the slimmest mirror-less systems camera was one of Sony's design and marketing objectives. (Although reducing heat dissipation may have played it's part). However, this comes at the expense of either adding complexity or cost to lenses by implementing OS or doing without.

However, perhaps not all is lost. I can't see any reason why a future NEX couldn't offer IBIS as it wouldn't effect the lens register as it's just the sensor mount that moves and that is behind the focal plane. Of course the body would have to be a couple of millimetres thicker to accept the mechanism, but that's hardly a fatal issue.

For those that cite video as an issue, I have two responses. Firstly, IBIS and lens-based OS are not mutually exclusive provided that there is an interlock which stops both being active at the same time. With a (relatively) new mount it ought to be possible to automate this handshake between lens and camera (Sigma produce OS lenses for A-Mount, albeit the switching of IS systems has to be manual). Secondly, with video it is possible to produce electronic stabilisation (as is done with the A77). This is not an acceptable system for still images, but with moving ones, it can be made to work as very slight blurring of individual frames is not generally a problem. It's also worth noting that Sony's current zoom NEX range isn't ideal for video anyway. Such lenses really require smooth power-zoom if that function is used during shooting. As such, it's very likely the needs of video-orientated and stills-orientated E-Mount lenses will be different.

So here's a plea Sony. Consider producing an NEX with IBIS. The technology can surely be adapted relatively easily, and it would mean smaller still image lenses could be produced.

OP Woland65 Regular Member • Posts: 438
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Of course you can take sharp pictures without IS, but I have rather shaky hands and IS is a great help. I think it probably is a worthwhile help for most people on all focal lengths.

SteveGJ Senior Member • Posts: 1,422
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Mechanical stabilisation is not the only in-body approach that can be taken for video. Electronic stabilisation works quite well, as minor individual frame blur is not the problem - it's the movement over much longer periods. Indeed that's the approach on the A77 - electronic stabilisation for video, mechanical for still.

Also, there's another point. What makes you think that IBIS is incompatible with OS? All that's required is firmware that stops both being turned on at the same time. Indeed Sigma sell OS lenses for the A-Mount, albeit requiring manual switching of stabilisation.

The requirements for video lenses are already somewhat different for still. Zoom lenses for the former really require smooth power-zoom and optical OS is, indeed, the better solution. Still cameras need neither - indeed it might be that compactness is preferred.

SteveGJ Senior Member • Posts: 1,422
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

I'm with you on this - for live performance photos (which I take a lot of) IS is a great help no matter how careful I am. I notice that when I've occidentally left SSS off. Stabilisation is also a requirement for video if you are to avoid jerky movements when hand-held (although there are limits to any lens or body-based system can achieve).

John Bean (UK) Forum Pro • Posts: 18,035
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

SteveGJ wrote:

What makes you think that IBIS is incompatible with OS?

I made no such suggestion, nor do I think it.

-- hide signature --

John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 John Bean (UK)'s gear list:John Bean (UK)'s gear list
Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
SteveGJ Senior Member • Posts: 1,422
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

The posting that a single IS should work for both video and still rather suggest that. I still think it's a design mistake omitting IBIS from the current NEX models. It would be one thing of a lot of value to me.

John Bean (UK) Forum Pro • Posts: 18,035
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

SteveGJ wrote:

The posting that a single IS should work for both video and still rather suggest that.

Only to those who draw illogical inferences from what was written.

In any case at no point did I say that "a single IS should work for both video and still" although I did say that IBIS does not work well for video. Not at all the same thing.

I do wish people would read the actual words written.

PS: I would appreciate IBIS on the NEX too, but that's not to say that its omission is in any way "stupid" as stated by the OP and what this thread is all about.

-- hide signature --

John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 John Bean (UK)'s gear list:John Bean (UK)'s gear list
Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
rishi o' Senior Member • Posts: 1,462
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)
  • Inbody IS is not friendly for video mode. Heat generation. Crops the video horizontally (a77 has a crop video versus nex 7)

  • adds moving part to the body

  • increases size of body

Woland65 wrote:

Sitting here and wondering if I should upgrade my Nex 5 to a Nex 7 or an A65, and I am getting an urge to complain a bit.

I want the Nex 7, but the lack of lenses is a major pain. I really want image stabilization in all my lenses, so adapters is not an answer.

If Sony had put stabilization in the Nex body I could have just complemented with alpha lenses. Why did Sony not do this?? Making the body smaller is to me a very weird argument, since most people use a lense when shooting. Thus, it doesn't matter for size if the stabilization is in the body or in the lens. Sigh.

Stupid decision not to use IBIS in the Nex!

-- hide signature --
aman74 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,002
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

Bebrox wrote:

Yes because all photographs taken before OIS and IBIS were invented are fuzzy aren't they?

There's some truth to your general point here. Especially when someone is comparing a system with IBIS, such as a m43 body, a P&S, a slower lens, etc.., with a camera that has much better high ISO abilities, but no IBIS. In such cases, the gap would be quite narrow and not worth worrying about. However, those cases are less common and not applicable when talking about most current APS-C systems.

I do agree about people acting like the sky is falling and you can't do anything without some form of IS. I also don't think the feature should be a deal breaker for almost everyone. The exception would be if almost all of your work needs this kind of help or you are physically unable to keep steady and can't make use of some form of support.

As often is the case around here, your valid point is undermined by taking it too far the other way, as seen below.

I read a lot of comments where people seem to believe that stabilisation is touted as the 'be all and end all' in digital photgraphy. They bang on about 'legacy lenses' and how brilliant an IBIS equipped camera is. When you look at the mentioned 'legacy lens' you see apertures as wide as 1.2, with this wide aperture comes a fast shutter speed negating the requirement for Image Stabilisation.

It still helps when in low light to have as much leeway as possibly to keep your ISO down, shutter speed and quality up. Furthermore, you don't always want to shoot at a large aperture for DOF reasons. There is nothing wrong with wanting the most you can get out of modern technology.

I think some users are starting to wake up to the fact that IBIS/OIS can cause issues with the output in many circumstances.

Like what???

The only thing I know of is when you're on a tripod and at that point it's not needed anyhow. Please site sources when making such claims that go against the grain of what's largely accepted as a very effective system.

What happened to using the correct aperture and shutter speed coupled with bracing the camera i.e. good technique? I am amazed that all of my film SLR cameras took great photos as all with out Image Stabilisation.

Nothing happened to it. You should still be doing that and then getting even more abilities with stabilization. Again, you position is undermined by implying that just because someone likes a certain feature their technique is lacking.

Explore the Hand Held Twilight mode in the NEX and discover what it can do in really lowlight, the results are amazing.

Handy feature, but only in jpeg and better can be done in post. Again, it would still benefit even further with stabilization.

aman74 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,002
Is this the real reason for no IBIS??? source...

From wikipedia:

"In-body image stabilization requires the lens to have a larger output image circle because the sensor is moved during exposure and thus uses a larger part of the image. Compared to lens movements in optical image stabilisation systems the sensor movements are quite large, so the effectiveness is limited by the maximum range of sensor movement, where a typical modern optically stabilised lens has greater freedom."

I wonder if because of the Nex is short registration distance that this is why it couldn't be implemented well enough???

I haven't seen this reason mentioned, but thought it may be a factor.

Certainly much more of a factor than size. Pentax DSLR's (known for small size) and also Oly m43, some of which are very tiny, both have IBIS. Not to mention all the compacts and none of these are any larger and many are smaller than their counterparts without IBIS.

I really don't see why people keep bringing size up and think it holds any water.

ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 7,597
Why no in-body SSS?

RobertSigmund wrote:

The reason was size. In body I S needs space in the body, and they wanted the body to be as small as possible.

Actually, they have a somewhat similar mechanism in there just for dust removal, so I don't think it is primarily about space.... There are several reasons I see:

1. Sony has invested a lot in doing multi-image alignment and processing in the camera, and they have implemented multi-shot stabilization that works with any lens without having to know its focal length (which is the real reason you need chipped adapters for body SSS A-mount cameras).

2. Judging by my A55, sensor-shift SSS is responsible for sensor heating that shortens maximum video length by something like 40%.

3. Sony is making new lenses for E-mount anyway, and most review sites seem to feel lens stabilization works a little better than sensor shift -- so why fight with reviewers?

That said, I do agree that lack of sensor-shift SSS is a fairly serious mistake given the (unexpectedly?) significant market for NEX as the universal acceptor of 135-format lenses.

Combining multi-shot and sensor-shift in the A55 works wonders. As I've said before, sensor-shift works better to compensate camera movement, while the multi-shot processing can actually reduce blurring due to subject movement. Of course, Sony still needs to fix the user interface so lens focal length (and perhaps other EXIF info) can be specified for unchipped lenses....

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
idlecynic New Member • Posts: 11
Stupid? No. Worse.....

There's no sugar-coating it, Sony's non-inclusion of SSS/IBIS in NEX is an indisputable fail from a stills shooter's point of view... It's been one of Alpha System's strongest selling points and to have it omitted is a real head-scratcher.

True, some technical issue might have prevented it ... none of us is an expert on IBIS to be able to say for sure. I still remember massive servings of crow being delivered when Sony included SSS in the full-frame a900 after 'expert' after 'expert' had proven beyond any doubt that it was absolutely impossible

Yes, Sony has started delivering some OIS-equipped E-mount lenses but it would have been nice to have stabilization for all lenses. Owners of Alpha-mount glass, in particular, would have appreciated it tremendously...

SQLGuy
SQLGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 10,374
Re: No in-body stabilization in Nex. Stupid!(?)

I will quote myself as saying so. I had a lot of night shots ruined by leaving IS enabled on my Canon G9 when on a tripod. The IS seems to freak out on longer exposures and the result looks not much different from a long exposure hand-held shot. If the only point of turning it off on a tripod was that it was not needed anyhow, then it wouldn't cause problems (except maybe overheating or shortening battery life) to leave it on.

In a less objective vein, I think it's likely there's a good reason why Zeiss doesn't want IS in the lenses that have their name on them.

I think you'll find that there is still, at the least, a sharpness penalty being paid for allowing things in the light path to move easily rather than being solidly fixed in place.

aman74 wrote:

Bebrox wrote:

I think some users are starting to wake up to the fact that IBIS/OIS can cause issues with the output in many circumstances.

Like what???

The only thing I know of is when you're on a tripod and at that point it's not needed anyhow. Please site sources when making such claims that go against the grain of what's largely accepted as a very effective system.

-- hide signature --

Nex-5 with kit lenses, Contax G 35, and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +24 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads