IBIS VS NON IBIS

[Marco Cinnirella]

Can't say. It certainly happened with my Pentax. Enough to make me give up on the entire system.

I know there were complaints from Oly users in the early days, and there were people mentioning issues in the Sony forum too when it was first announced.

Could just be teething problems with early units, but how are we supposed to know whether it's reliable or not until a camera has been around for a while?

I have a few OIS lenses, but they can cause similar issues. I tend to use primes if I plan to make larger prints.

Right now, the Fuji implementation seems to be in need of refinement. Long-term reliability remains to be seen.

Hard to disagree with that. Desiring predictability in a camera's performance makes total sense. Unfortunately, for the time being, if/until this issue is root caused and corrected, it might make sense to at least do some chimping when shooting in environments where IBIS clearly is active. In my case, given the issue I ran into last Summer with this, I'll probably do that for the time being (when practical) with handheld shots that I know are utilizing IBIS for stabilization and where a tripod is not an alternative. Not an optimal solution, but better than coming home with irreplaceable shots that are unsharp.

Chimping doesn't help much. The magnification isn't enough to see the lack of sharpness, which can be slight, and is usually worse off centre.

If you shoot with wide apertures, you are unlikely to notice the blur at the edge of the frame, but I was using it more often to stabilise high DOF images where I wanted good edge sharpness, and that was where I noticed a lot of blur issues. Sometimes, the same occurred with IBIS turned off.

In other words, it worked great when I was shooting at 1/5s at F2.8 in a dark interior, but had real issues when I was trying to shoot at 1/60 at F8 in moderately good light with a 75mm lens. I was gaining 'acceptable' sharpness in some situations, but losing critical sharpness in others.

Of course, only one person's experience, but over 2 different cameras and 3 years. I also accept the possibility that some systems work better than others, but where is the reliable data about this? I think you can understand why I am not willing to go down that path again without a lot of convincing.

 

[57even]

Some X-H1 owners, including myself, have occasionally noticed a few inexplicably soft/blurred shots - perhaps around 1-5 % from a shoot, and we suspect this may have resulted from some weird IBIS glitch on our X-H1s (look for threads on this), but it is hard to find definitive proof and rule out individual faulty units as opposed to a general consequence of IBIS. In my own case I have used IBIS equipped cameras from Olympus and Sony for many years and never really had issues with IBIS unless doing high speed panning, for which in general IBIS is better switched off, but with my X-H1 I suspect the IBIS may occasionally glitch out even with landscapes and cityscapes, which is something I have not seen before with my other IBIS equipped cameras. I can not rule out that I have a faulty unit, but if 95% of shots are fine, as is the case for me, it seems unlikely. Anyway, this should not put anyone off trying an H1 as it is an excellent camera and I think a majority of owners don't seem to notice any shots potentially lost due to IBIS glitches. We just don't yet know whether a few of us have faulty units or instead, we are just unlucky or are noticing the soft shots more than other users, who may be putting it down to something else, whereas we are fairly certain it is IBIS induced. A typical example from my shooting experience would be a cityscape shot at, say, 1/200 and f8 on the 16-55 f2.8 set to 16mm - very occasionally NOTHING will be sharp, despite it not being windy, careful hand-holding technique, and the camera giving the green AF confirm and AF confirm beep. Make of it what you will.

Now some would say "what are you doing shooting with IBIS on at 1/200 ?!". Well my response would be - yes IBIS is not needed then, but on every other IBIS equipped camera I shoot with (and I still shoot with am EM5 and an a99ii) I do not need to disable IBIS and keep turning on, off, on, off depending on the situation - I only disable it if on a tripod or if shooting fast action at consistently very high shutter speeds). If we really have to keep turning IBIS on/off continually with the H1 then that is a requirement I have not seen on any other IBIS equipped camera and it is not mentioned in the Fuji manual whatsoever.

I still enjoy using my H1, I just find myself chimping after shots more than I would always like to, just to make sure I actually got the shot.

I have stabilised binoculars, and it's easy to see the issue. Every few seconds they make a small 'correction' and the image jumps slightly. If that coincides with the moment you press the shutter, then you get a blurred image.

I find that lack of predictability annoying.

Surely, the IBIS would know when the shutter release is pressed and avoid such corrections during that time.

In which case, you would get a blurred image because the correction was not made, wouldn't you? It all depends what is happening while the shutter is open. The system can only correct for so much movement without a reset, but it is only a dumb feedback loop based on accelerometers, mass produced by the million using off-the shelf components.

And with a sensor it is trying to move quite a large mass with a lot of inertia.

I would be really surprised if such a trivial issue had been overlooked by the camera integrators.

Why? They sold inaccurate AF systems for decades, and most people swore their cameras were perfect. They just thought it was 'normal' until people had PCs and 36MP digital images and started noticing that it wasn't normal at all.

No automated technology is perfect 100% of the time, and there is always sample variation. The question is how much risk you are prepared to take when you buy it.

 

[57even]

Can't say. It certainly happened with my Pentax. Enough to make me give up on the entire system.

I know there were complaints from Oly users in the early days, and there were people mentioning issues in the Sony forum too when it was first announced.

Could just be teething problems with early units, but how are we supposed to know whether it's reliable or not until a camera has been around for a while?

I have a few OIS lenses, but they can cause similar issues. I tend to use primes if I plan to make larger prints.

Right now, the Fuji implementation seems to be in need of refinement. Long-term reliability remains to be seen.

Hard to disagree with that. Desiring predictability in a camera's performance makes total sense. Unfortunately, for the time being, if/until this issue is root caused and corrected, it might make sense to at least do some chimping when shooting in environments where IBIS clearly is active. In my case, given the issue I ran into last Summer with this, I'll probably do that for the time being (when practical) with handheld shots that I know are utilizing IBIS for stabilization and where a tripod is not an alternative. Not an optimal solution, but better than coming home with irreplaceable shots that are unsharp.

Chimping doesn't help much. The magnification isn't enough to see the lack of sharpness, which can be slight, and is usually worse off centre.

If you shoot with wide apertures, you are unlikely to notice the blur at the edge of the frame, but I was using it more often to stabilise high DOF images where I wanted good edge sharpness, and that was where I noticed a lot of blur issues. Sometimes, the same occurred with IBIS turned off.

In other words, it worked great when I was shooting at 1/5s at F2.8 in a dark interior, but had real issues when I was trying to shoot at 1/60 at F8 in moderately good light with a 75mm lens. I was gaining 'acceptable' sharpness in some situations, but losing critical sharpness in others.

Of course, only one person's experience, but over 2 different cameras and 3 years. I also accept the possibility that some systems work better than others, but where is the reliable data about this? I think you can understand why I am not willing to go down that path again without a lot of convincing.

This mirrors my experience with my H1 - IBIS is great for slow shutter speed handheld shots but if I leave it on for a landscape shot at f8 and 1/200 where I want edge to edge sharpness then I sometimes get a blurred frame - ONLY on my H1 - not on my IBIS equipped Sony a99 or a99ii

Then Fuji need to talk to their supplier... ;-)

One question though, 1/200 is quite a common area for shutter shock. Did you have EFS enabled? Shutter shock affects all IBIS systems, which is why EFS was implemented on Oly and Sony after a while.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

Can't say. It certainly happened with my Pentax. Enough to make me give up on the entire system.

I know there were complaints from Oly users in the early days, and there were people mentioning issues in the Sony forum too when it was first announced.

Could just be teething problems with early units, but how are we supposed to know whether it's reliable or not until a camera has been around for a while?

I have a few OIS lenses, but they can cause similar issues. I tend to use primes if I plan to make larger prints.

Right now, the Fuji implementation seems to be in need of refinement. Long-term reliability remains to be seen.

Hard to disagree with that. Desiring predictability in a camera's performance makes total sense. Unfortunately, for the time being, if/until this issue is root caused and corrected, it might make sense to at least do some chimping when shooting in environments where IBIS clearly is active. In my case, given the issue I ran into last Summer with this, I'll probably do that for the time being (when practical) with handheld shots that I know are utilizing IBIS for stabilization and where a tripod is not an alternative. Not an optimal solution, but better than coming home with irreplaceable shots that are unsharp.

Chimping doesn't help much. The magnification isn't enough to see the lack of sharpness, which can be slight, and is usually worse off centre.

If you shoot with wide apertures, you are unlikely to notice the blur at the edge of the frame, but I was using it more often to stabilise high DOF images where I wanted good edge sharpness, and that was where I noticed a lot of blur issues. Sometimes, the same occurred with IBIS turned off.

In other words, it worked great when I was shooting at 1/5s at F2.8 in a dark interior, but had real issues when I was trying to shoot at 1/60 at F8 in moderately good light with a 75mm lens. I was gaining 'acceptable' sharpness in some situations, but losing critical sharpness in others.

Of course, only one person's experience, but over 2 different cameras and 3 years. I also accept the possibility that some systems work better than others, but where is the reliable data about this? I think you can understand why I am not willing to go down that path again without a lot of convincing.

This mirrors my experience with my H1 - IBIS is great for slow shutter speed handheld shots but if I leave it on for a landscape shot at f8 and 1/200 where I want edge to edge sharpness then I sometimes get a blurred frame - ONLY on my H1 - not on my IBIS equipped Sony a99 or a99ii

Then Fuji need to talk to their supplier... ;-)

One question though, 1/200 is quite a common area for shutter shock. Did you have EFS enabled? Shutter shock affects all IBIS systems, which is why EFS was implemented on Oly and Sony after a while.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Surely, the IBIS would know when the shutter release is pressed and avoid such corrections during that time.

In which case, you would get a blurred image because the correction was not made, wouldn't you? It all depends what is happening while the shutter is open. The system can only correct for so much movement without a reset, but it is only a dumb feedback loop based on accelerometers, mass produced by the million using off-the shelf components.

And with a sensor it is trying to move quite a large mass with a lot of inertia.

IBIS is designed to keep the sensor inertial when the camera is not. In reality IBIS is an an inertial navigation system for the sensor. However, it requires that the sensor does not move as the camera might. So you want the sensor moving. Using IBIS above maybe 1/1000 or 1/2000 is probably not a good idea.

I would be really surprised if such a trivial issue had been overlooked by the camera integrators.

Why? They sold inaccurate AF systems for decades, and most people swore their cameras were perfect. They just thought it was 'normal' until people had PCs and 36MP digital images and started noticing that it wasn't normal at all.

No automated technology is perfect 100% of the time, and there is always sample variation. The question is how much risk you are prepared to take when you buy it.

Autopilots in airplanes have crashed planes. A self driving car killed a pedestrian in AZ recently. Self driving cars have crashed into other cars, etc. Automation is not perfect. Even if every electronic component is perfectly calibrated (fat chance), all automatic systems are based on sensor measurements and interpretation of those measurements to optimize a statistics (phase offset in PDAF) and contrast in (CDAF), eliminate all acting forces in IBIS, etc. Just as one will never eliminate electronic noise in sensor data - one will never eliminate noise in any electronic system that operates above absolute zero and its a bit cold at absolute zero to be out taking images.

 

[57even]

Surely, the IBIS would know when the shutter release is pressed and avoid such corrections during that time.

In which case, you would get a blurred image because the correction was not made, wouldn't you? It all depends what is happening while the shutter is open. The system can only correct for so much movement without a reset, but it is only a dumb feedback loop based on accelerometers, mass produced by the million using off-the shelf components.

And with a sensor it is trying to move quite a large mass with a lot of inertia.

IBIS is designed to keep the sensor inertial when the camera is not. In reality IBIS is an an inertial navigation system for the sensor. However, it requires that the sensor does not move as the camera might. So you want the sensor moving. Using IBIS above maybe 1/1000 or 1/2000 is probably not a good idea.

I would be really surprised if such a trivial issue had been overlooked by the camera integrators.

Why? They sold inaccurate AF systems for decades, and most people swore their cameras were perfect. They just thought it was 'normal' until people had PCs and 36MP digital images and started noticing that it wasn't normal at all.

No automated technology is perfect 100% of the time, and there is always sample variation. The question is how much risk you are prepared to take when you buy it.

Autopilots in airplanes have crashed planes. A self driving car killed a pedestrian in AZ recently. Self driving cars have crashed into other cars, etc. Automation is not perfect.

And both of those systems had a lot more rigorous testing.

Even if every electronic component is perfectly calibrated (fat chance), all automatic systems are based on sensor measurements and interpretation of those measurements to optimize a statistics (phase offset in PDAF) and contrast in (CDAF), eliminate all acting forces in IBIS, etc. Just as one will never eliminate electronic noise in sensor data - one will never eliminate noise in any electronic system that operates above absolute zero and its a bit cold at absolute zero to be out taking images.

If you buy 4 components off the shelf, they will be made to a certain tolerance. The cheaper the components, the lower the tolerance. All these systems (IBIS, VR, AF) are all approximations that assume a certain margin of error and a certain failure rate.

I don't trust camera makers to implement IBIS any better than any other camera function, which does not bode well.

 

[rwbaron]

So can a non Ibis camera produce a sharper image?

Fujifilm were against ibis in their cameras until recently, weren't they?

Public demand maybe nesitated the need for the X-H1, but Fujifilm appeared to be against IBIS as it would 'degrade iq' etc. So what gives?

I feel that IBIS would work better with lenses that have their aberrations corrected optically than with the so called "software" lenses. I would think it is difficult to get accuracy if the lens was not optically corrected for distortions and lateral color aberrations and field curvature.

That's an interesting point.

There's so much going on now with digital capture and nothing is "free".

Bob

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Surely, the IBIS would know when the shutter release is pressed and avoid such corrections during that time.

In which case, you would get a blurred image because the correction was not made, wouldn't you? It all depends what is happening while the shutter is open. The system can only correct for so much movement without a reset, but it is only a dumb feedback loop based on accelerometers, mass produced by the million using off-the shelf components.

And with a sensor it is trying to move quite a large mass with a lot of inertia.

IBIS is designed to keep the sensor inertial when the camera is not. In reality IBIS is an an inertial navigation system for the sensor. However, it requires that the sensor does not move as the camera might. So you want the sensor moving. Using IBIS above maybe 1/1000 or 1/2000 is probably not a good idea.

I would be really surprised if such a trivial issue had been overlooked by the camera integrators.

Why? They sold inaccurate AF systems for decades, and most people swore their cameras were perfect. They just thought it was 'normal' until people had PCs and 36MP digital images and started noticing that it wasn't normal at all.

No automated technology is perfect 100% of the time, and there is always sample variation. The question is how much risk you are prepared to take when you buy it.

Autopilots in airplanes have crashed planes. A self driving car killed a pedestrian in AZ recently. Self driving cars have crashed into other cars, etc. Automation is not perfect.

And both of those systems had a lot more rigorous testing.

Even if every electronic component is perfectly calibrated (fat chance), all automatic systems are based on sensor measurements and interpretation of those measurements to optimize a statistics (phase offset in PDAF) and contrast in (CDAF), eliminate all acting forces in IBIS, etc. Just as one will never eliminate electronic noise in sensor data - one will never eliminate noise in any electronic system that operates above absolute zero and its a bit cold at absolute zero to be out taking images.

If you buy 4 components off the shelf, they will be made to a certain tolerance. The cheaper the components, the lower the tolerance. All these systems (IBIS, VR, AF) are all approximations that assume a certain margin of error and a certain failure rate.

I don't trust camera makers to implement IBIS any better than any other camera function, which does not bode well.

No it doesn't bode well. Camera companies - except maybe for Sigma which is privately owned - are publicly owned companies who's only fiduciary responsibility is to turn a profit for their stock holders. Sony tired to be more but a stock owner revolt forced a reorganization where Sony is no more than a holding company today so they can shed quickly poor performing product lines. Mangers get paid on meeting revenue and profit goals - not on AF performance. You cut cost, you raise profits.

BTW Fujifilms is part of a holding company, Fujifilms Holding Corp. Part of that is what we think of as Fujifilms. However, Fujifilms is a fairly diversified operation with more business products than consumer products.

Fujifilms cameras need to make a profit or else, first people will get fired and next if that fails, product lines will be sold off or cancelled. If every body and their dog is chirping for IBIS - they most likely Fuji will give them IBIS problems and all.

Don't get me wrong I have an H1 and IBIS is useful in a narrow range of conditions which I find myself in often. But there are down sides and even if IBIS is turned off - it is never really off since the sensor is never physical locked down to the frame. That's the reason I don't want to see IBIS in a select set of Fuji cameras, such as the Pro series. If Fuji decides they can sell more cameras by including IBIS in all - that's their choice. If I sell all my Fuji stuff - of course that is my choice.

 

[omichael]

So can a non Ibis camera produce a sharper image?

Fujifilm were against ibis in their cameras until recently, weren't they?

Public demand maybe nesitated the need for the X-H1, but Fujifilm appeared to be against IBIS as it would 'degrade iq' etc. So what gives?

Hmm, it gives

- people who think IBIS is a must have

- people who think IBIS is nice to have

- people who think they do not need IBIS

- cameras that have IBIS

- cameras that do not have IBIS

and with all these different opinions and possibilities the most likely outcome from such a question is another “philosophical” war about such a technical feature. Mankind is quite an interesting species...!

Herbert

So what is wrong with making some cameras with it, and some without, so that everyone is happy?

Because there's no reason to NOT have IBIS these days. Unless it's an extreme cost cutting thing, but on a premium camera like the X-T line, it's a must have.

Is anyone here really thinking "oh man, I just wish this photo was bit blurrier", or "man, my viewfinder is too steady, I wish it would bounce all over the place"?

Well, in that case, turn IBIS off.

So you are saying I can't have what I want?

Right. If Fuji’s net sales are better with the feature than without, then the option for those who don’t want it is to simply turn it off. Every camera has some features that you don’t want or need. Most, if not all of these can usually be disabled or simply remain unused. It’s a business decision that Fuji makes to optimize their sales and market segment share. IMHO, there’s a perfectly good reason for Fuji to include it if it ends up increasing their sales, even if some people opt to not use it and end up disabling the feature.

There will likely remain camera models/lines which don’t contain that feature, and if the fact that it’s even present is a big deal to someone, then there is the option to buy one of those models instead. Like any other manufacturer, Fuji has to design their gear to maximize demand and profitability, even at the expense of including features in certain models that not everyone finds all that attractive.

Well, for the X line, Fuji’s sales are obviously better without IBIS. It can be argued that there are other reasons for this, but XT sales have done quite well without IBIS. Where are the clamoring hordes?

 

[Jerry-astro]

Well, for the X line, Fuji’s sales are obviously better without IBIS. It can be argued that there are other reasons for this, but XT sales have done quite well without IBIS. Where are the clamoring hordes?

LOL. At the present, Fuji has only a single camera model with IBIS and the remainder of their product line which doesn't. That's because it's been relatively recently introduced as a feature and a technology into their product line -- starting with a high end model, which is often the case for select features like this. So, with that information, please explain how your comment is in any way credible. If Fuji even planned to proliferate the technology more broadly across their line, that would take some time as something included in various new models when introduced.

So, given all that, it makes no sense, necessarily, for the feature to be proliferated across the line unless they can financially justify the increased costs, possible impact on camera size, etc. or if they can reduce the cost to the point where it's feasible to more broadly include it (a strategy which not everyone here would agree with regardless).

All that doesn't make the feature any sort of a failure. It simply means that, at least for now, it's being positioned more as a higher end feature. Over time, particularly if the costs can be brought down, I can absolutely see it proliferating across a larger number of models, as I believe it has in Olympus' line.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 

[Truman Prevatt]

So can a non Ibis camera produce a sharper image?

Fujifilm were against ibis in their cameras until recently, weren't they?

Public demand maybe nesitated the need for the X-H1, but Fujifilm appeared to be against IBIS as it would 'degrade iq' etc. So what gives?

I feel that IBIS would work better with lenses that have their aberrations corrected optically than with the so called "software" lenses. I would think it is difficult to get accuracy if the lens was not optically corrected for distortions and lateral color aberrations and field curvature.

Don't know if I agree or disagree but it something to consider. Case in point I am very disappointed with my 50 on the H1. My 50-140 at 50 is much better than my 50. My 50 is better on my Pro2 than on the H1 - the only difference is IBIS. My 56 is specular on the H1. So you might be onto something here. The 50 is a "software lens."

I think spherical aberrations would be a big issue and potentially cause a coupling between IBIS and AF which would be determinate. Find curvature could also be an issue and cause coupling issues.

Truman

 

[georgehudetz]

Don't get me wrong I have an H1 and IBIS is useful in a narrow range of conditions which I find myself in often. But there are down sides and even if IBIS is turned off - it is never really off since the sensor is never physical locked down to the frame.

How certain are you of that? It seems to me they could design a set of positive stops in the frame - that are outside the normal range of motion - which could be engaged when IBIS is "off." So, a constant current would be sent to a subset of the actuators which would then push the sensor up against these positive stops, thereby ensuring a properly aligned and static sensor for normal operating conditions. Sure, a high-g impact or rapid motion could overcome the actuators and cause the sensor to move, but that seems unlikely to be caused by normal photography.

 

[57even]

Well, for the X line, Fuji’s sales are obviously better without IBIS. It can be argued that there are other reasons for this, but XT sales have done quite well without IBIS. Where are the clamoring hordes?

LOL. At the present, Fuji has only a single camera model with IBIS and the remainder of their product line which doesn't. That's because it's been relatively recently introduced as a feature and a technology into their product line -- starting with a high end model, which is often the case for select features like this. So, with that information, please explain how your comment is in any way credible. If Fuji even planned to proliferate the technology more broadly across their line, that would take some time as something included in various new models when introduced.

So, given all that, it makes no sense, necessarily, for the feature to be proliferated across the line unless they can financially justify the increased costs, possible impact on camera size, etc. or if they can reduce the cost to the point where it's feasible to more broadly include it (a strategy which not everyone here would agree with regardless).

All that doesn't make the feature any sort of a failure. It simply means that, at least for now, it's being positioned more as a higher end feature. Over time, particularly if the costs can be brought down, I can absolutely see it proliferating across a larger number of models, as I believe it has in Olympus' line.

Not to be too much of a pedant in this case, but the biggest selling mirrorless cameras are the Canon M series, with no IBIS. Oly and Panasonic are not selling all that well, least of all Panasonic, and they are no smaller than most APSC Fuji models. Nor did Sony see fit to put IBIS in their new A6400.

If we go back a little way, Sony had IBIS in most of their SLR cameras, and Pentax have had it in most of their DSLR models. Neither made even the slightest dent in Canon or Nikon DSLR sales.

There is no clear evidence either way, but it doesn't seem to be a killer feature. I guess Canon and Nikon will duke it out and we can see which of their mirrorless FF options wins out.

The biggest sales draws are

1. Brand

2. Price

Everything else is just forum fantasies and gear lust.

--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"

 

[57even]

So can a non Ibis camera produce a sharper image?

Fujifilm were against ibis in their cameras until recently, weren't they?

Public demand maybe nesitated the need for the X-H1, but Fujifilm appeared to be against IBIS as it would 'degrade iq' etc. So what gives?

I feel that IBIS would work better with lenses that have their aberrations corrected optically than with the so called "software" lenses. I would think it is difficult to get accuracy if the lens was not optically corrected for distortions and lateral color aberrations and field curvature.

Interesting point. I returned a lot of lenses because of decentering, but IBIS kind of decenters every lens. Just like OIS.

 

[notchy]

"Because there's no reason to NOT have IBIS these days. "

Perhaps not technically, but Fuji might be refusing to meet the extortionate demands of IP lawyers waving fistfuls of IBIS-related patents. Even if they paid up for the X-H1 (I don't know whether or not they were obliged to), they might be attempting to design their way around the patent thicket in order to avoid having to pay others for every future camera they sell until the relevant patents expire.

I wondered this when people were asking why Fujifilm didn't use the same swivelling rear screen design that some other manufacturers use. They may have just rejected it on technical grounds of course, but regardless, you can bet your boots that there's at least one patent covering display panels on swivelling hinges, and whoever holds that patent ain't in the business of charity.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Not to be too much of a pedant in this case, but the biggest selling mirrorless cameras are the Canon M series, with no IBIS. Oly and Panasonic are not selling all that well, least of all Panasonic, and they are no smaller than most APSC Fuji models. Nor did Sony see fit to put IBIS in their new A6400.

If we go back a little way, Sony had IBIS in most of their SLR cameras, and Pentax have had it in most of their DSLR models. Neither made even the slightest dent in Canon or Nikon DSLR sales.

There is no clear evidence either way, but it doesn't seem to be a killer feature. I guess Canon and Nikon will duke it out and we can see which of their mirrorless FF options wins out.

The biggest sales draws are

1. Brand

2. Price

Everything else is just forum fantasies and gear lust.

Fair enough. OIS is also not universally loved and embraced by all photographers, likely for many of the same reasons. I would agree that IBIS is but one feature, so using market share penetration as a measure of success of that technology might be a bit of a stretch. Those of us who do embrace OIS likely do see it as an advantage, and in my case, having it in-camera is a real draw. It was one of (possibly THE) key attraction of the X-H1, since I rely heavily on OIS in low light environments, and being able to employ the technology with ANY lens was pretty compelling to me.

But, yes, bottom line, it's hard to disagree with your last comment. Any technology like this will be further down the list in terms of influencing sales.

 

[rwbaron]

Well, for the X line, Fuji’s sales are obviously better without IBIS. It can be argued that there are other reasons for this, but XT sales have done quite well without IBIS. Where are the clamoring hordes?

LOL. At the present, Fuji has only a single camera model with IBIS and the remainder of their product line which doesn't. That's because it's been relatively recently introduced as a feature and a technology into their product line -- starting with a high end model, which is often the case for select features like this. So, with that information, please explain how your comment is in any way credible. If Fuji even planned to proliferate the technology more broadly across their line, that would take some time as something included in various new models when introduced.

So, given all that, it makes no sense, necessarily, for the feature to be proliferated across the line unless they can financially justify the increased costs, possible impact on camera size, etc. or if they can reduce the cost to the point where it's feasible to more broadly include it (a strategy which not everyone here would agree with regardless).

All that doesn't make the feature any sort of a failure. It simply means that, at least for now, it's being positioned more as a higher end feature. Over time, particularly if the costs can be brought down, I can absolutely see it proliferating across a larger number of models, as I believe it has in Olympus' line.

Not to be too much of a pedant in this case, but the biggest selling mirrorless cameras are the Canon M series, with no IBIS. Oly and Panasonic are not selling all that well, least of all Panasonic, and they are no smaller than most APSC Fuji models. Nor did Sony see fit to put IBIS in their new A6400.

If we go back a little way, Sony had IBIS in most of their SLR cameras, and Pentax have had it in most of their DSLR models. Neither made even the slightest dent in Canon or Nikon DSLR sales.

There is no clear evidence either way, but it doesn't seem to be a killer feature. I guess Canon and Nikon will duke it out and we can see which of their mirrorless FF options wins out.

The biggest sales draws are

1. Brand

2. Price

Everything else is just forum fantasies and gear lust.

IMHO people are drawn to Fuji for the following but not in any order;

Ergonomics

Lenses

User interface

"Fuji color"

Lenses (oh, I already listed that)

Commitment to APS C

Customer oriented philosophy

The rest is just fluff.

As for OIS and IBIS, for years Canon and Nikon have left IS off their highest end fast primes with the obvious exception of telephotos. I've read several times in engineer/executive interviews where it's still considered a compromise to ultimate IQ and my guess is IBIS fits into the same category. I do applaud Nikon though on their IBIS with a mechanical sensor lock when disabled as that would go a long way toward getting me into a comfort zone with the technology.

I keep meaning to call Fuji's tech support and ask the question of (hopefully a senior tech) which is does the X-H1 have a locking mechanism that mechanically holds the sensor in a fixed position when disabled? I've never found an answer to this so far and I'd be curious to know if just for the purpose of sensor cleaning.

Bob

 

[rwbaron]

Don't get me wrong I have an H1 and IBIS is useful in a narrow range of conditions which I find myself in often. But there are down sides and even if IBIS is turned off - it is never really off since the sensor is never physical locked down to the frame.

How certain are you of that? It seems to me they could design a set of positive stops in the frame - that are outside the normal range of motion - which could be engaged when IBIS is "off." So, a constant current would be sent to a subset of the actuators which would then push the sensor up against these positive stops, thereby ensuring a properly aligned and static sensor for normal operating conditions. Sure, a high-g impact or rapid motion could overcome the actuators and cause the sensor to move, but that seems unlikely to be caused by normal photography.

Not sure how they do it but the new Nikon Z series cameras have a mechanical lock for the sensors when IBIS is disabled. Thom Hogan mentioned this on his blog.

Bob

 

[georgehudetz]

Don't get me wrong I have an H1 and IBIS is useful in a narrow range of conditions which I find myself in often. But there are down sides and even if IBIS is turned off - it is never really off since the sensor is never physical locked down to the frame.

How certain are you of that? It seems to me they could design a set of positive stops in the frame - that are outside the normal range of motion - which could be engaged when IBIS is "off." So, a constant current would be sent to a subset of the actuators which would then push the sensor up against these positive stops, thereby ensuring a properly aligned and static sensor for normal operating conditions. Sure, a high-g impact or rapid motion could overcome the actuators and cause the sensor to move, but that seems unlikely to be caused by normal photography.

Not sure how they do it but the new Nikon Z series cameras have a mechanical lock for the sensors when IBIS is disabled. Thom Hogan mentioned this on his blog.

Bob

Seems doable one way or another.

While I think my post earlier in this thread was overlooked, I will say again - I've compared 60 second exposures between the X-H1 & X-T2 and can't see a difference. So it would seem Fuji has some kind of locking mechanism. Or perhaps an exceptional control system.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

 

[georgehudetz]

Well, for the X line, Fuji’s sales are obviously better without IBIS. It can be argued that there are other reasons for this, but XT sales have done quite well without IBIS. Where are the clamoring hordes?

LOL. At the present, Fuji has only a single camera model with IBIS and the remainder of their product line which doesn't. That's because it's been relatively recently introduced as a feature and a technology into their product line -- starting with a high end model, which is often the case for select features like this. So, with that information, please explain how your comment is in any way credible. If Fuji even planned to proliferate the technology more broadly across their line, that would take some time as something included in various new models when introduced.

So, given all that, it makes no sense, necessarily, for the feature to be proliferated across the line unless they can financially justify the increased costs, possible impact on camera size, etc. or if they can reduce the cost to the point where it's feasible to more broadly include it (a strategy which not everyone here would agree with regardless).

All that doesn't make the feature any sort of a failure. It simply means that, at least for now, it's being positioned more as a higher end feature. Over time, particularly if the costs can be brought down, I can absolutely see it proliferating across a larger number of models, as I believe it has in Olympus' line.

Not to be too much of a pedant in this case, but the biggest selling mirrorless cameras are the Canon M series, with no IBIS. Oly and Panasonic are not selling all that well, least of all Panasonic, and they are no smaller than most APSC Fuji models. Nor did Sony see fit to put IBIS in their new A6400.

If we go back a little way, Sony had IBIS in most of their SLR cameras, and Pentax have had it in most of their DSLR models. Neither made even the slightest dent in Canon or Nikon DSLR sales.

There is no clear evidence either way, but it doesn't seem to be a killer feature. I guess Canon and Nikon will duke it out and we can see which of their mirrorless FF options wins out.

The biggest sales draws are

1. Brand

2. Price

Everything else is just forum fantasies and gear lust.

IMHO people are drawn to Fuji for the following but not in any order;

Ergonomics

Lenses

User interface

"Fuji color"

Lenses (oh, I already listed that)

Commitment to APS C

Customer oriented philosophy

That certainly was/is my list - with the exception of color, since I shoot raw.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka