Jump to content

Image Stabilization


tedorland

Recommended Posts

Does it bother anyone besides me that so many Fuji lenses lack OIS, and that NONE of the Fuji X-bodies have in-camera stabilization? For those of us who hand-hold the camera in dimly lit situations, three or four additionally usable shutter speeds would make a big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from Sony NEX I did regret that I would be giving up the lens based IS on the 35 and 50mm Sony lenses. But it wasn't a big enough issue to put me off buying into the Fuji system. Realistically you should be able to use reasonably slow shutter speeds already with the smaller primes already so the advantage with IS on these kinds of lenses is there but it's less significant than with bigger/longer lenses. The only place where I would really miss it would be the 16-55 which I don't and probably won't own. I had previously moved from sensor based IS (with a Sony DSLR) to lens based and while senor based might be nice to have, again, it's not a deal breaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with olli, the only lens so far which suffers from the lack of OIS is the 16-55mm, IMHO. On my 18-55 it's pratically always on

and saved me some good shot in interior or when, after a long walk in the woods, your hands aren't as steady as you would like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the x-trans sensor and the sharpness of the Fuji x-lenses do trump the lack of image stabilization. Still, it puts a damper on my interest in Fuji's prime lenses, none of which have OIS. (Macro photography in the field, for instance, can become hopelssly clumsy if a tripod needs to be introduced into the equation; ditto candid photography indoors or at twilight.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm resigned (for now) to the X-T1 body's not having sensor-based IS — the benefits of the system outweigh that for me, though it certainly is a nice-to-have-it-if-you-can-get-it design.

 

It's clear enough that enabling IS when the camera is mounted on a tripod is not a good idea...that's been discussed for years and seems to be the general consensus. What I'm not clear about is whether — as some people claim — IS can produce image degradation when you're hand-holding the camera. Surely that won't be true across-the-board. But if it's true in some situations — then which ones?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Macro photography in the field, for instance, can become hopelssly clumsy if a tripod needs to be introduced into the equation

Macro would have not been on the top of my list, but I guess I can see this if you are not overly concerned about focus point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how much I really want stabilization.

 

I mean, I want it, it makes a bunch of things a lot easier, but it's also something else to go wrong. IBIS in particular is very new, and complicated, it's hard to say how long that sort of thing will last.

For that matter everything other than full manual lenses is guaranteed to die eventually, I've read articles about how NASA is having a hard time finding places to manufacture circuit boards that will last more than a few decades since the new "eco friendly" tin solder being used grows spikes and over time will short circuit (basically any electronic device made today is likely to self destruct after enough time).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read articles about how NASA is having a hard time finding places to manufacture circuit boards that will last more than a few decades since the new "eco friendly" tin solder being used grows spikes and over time will short circuit (basically any electronic device made today is likely to self destruct after enough time).

 

I've already read of this problem in aerospace electronics and also studied something about it since it is a (big) part of my studies. I agree that it could represent an

issue (between the other hundreds) over the life span of an optics, but something that people must understand is that nothing of the electronics designed for commercial

use is mean to last more than 10/15 years, you can have durability or performance, but not both. In fact NASA and other space companies use for their purposes chips that

are 10/20 years old in the ideas and structure, but which are more reliable than today's technology

 

That said it can last (many) more, or (many) less than that. As you said, if you want something that will last for decades the only

choise is to go full manual, without electronic components at all, but would not be guaranteed even in this case.

 

I think that, in the absence of an overt history of short life span of the IBIS, we cannot base our choise on a thing like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm out doing on the street journalism and frequently at night. The fast primes on my X-T1 give clean clear shots in poor light.

 

Sure I wouldn't mind having in camera OIS, but it does not seem like a pressing need to me. The limitation I most bump against is AF speed in low light. 

 

At night, if the subject is moving, I'll take the fast prime over OIS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already read of this problem in aerospace electronics and also studied something about it since it is a (big) part of my studies. I agree that it could represent an

issue (between the other hundreds) over the life span of an optics, but something that people must understand is that nothing of the electronics designed for commercial

use is mean to last more than 10/15 years, you can have durability or performance, but not both. In fact NASA and other space companies use for their purposes chips that

are 10/20 years old in the ideas and structure, but which are more reliable than today's technology

 

That said it can last (many) more, or (many) less than that. As you said, if you want something that will last for decades the only

choise is to go full manual, without electronic components at all, but would not be guaranteed even in this case.

 

I think that, in the absence of an overt history of short life span of the IBIS, we cannot base our choise on a thing like that.

 

That's it! I'm keeping all my old lenses! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

People asking for Fuji to include IBIS is possibly the most aggravating and downright stupid notion. They put their IS on lenses, they're not going to also put IS in a body. It's not going to happen, not unless they scrap all of their OIS lenses—of which some are yet to even see the light of day—and replace them with non-IS versions so IS can be moved into the bodies. That also then makes the bodies cost more and dictates a drop in lens price, when bodies are not profitable anyway and lenses are where Fuji, and every shop, makes their money.

You might as well be asking them to remove the shutter from the bodies and start putting leaf shutters in every lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People asking for Fuji to include IBIS is possibly the most aggravating and downright stupid notion. They put their IS on lenses, they're not going to also put IS in a body. It's not going to happen, not unless they scrap all of their OIS lenses—of which some are yet to even see the light of day—and replace them with non-IS versions so IS can be moved into the bodies. That also then makes the bodies cost more and dictates a drop in lens price, when bodies are not profitable anyway and lenses are where Fuji, and every shop, makes their money.

 

You might as well be asking them to remove the shutter from the bodies and start putting leaf shutters in every lens.

 

I don't think that's a sensible comparison, and potentially useful ideas merit better than facile dismissals. And one man's "aggravating" often turns out to be another man's "hmm -- interesting." Digital cameras are engineering marvels produced not by people who think this is stupid -- we shouldn't bother trying it but by people who think intriguing idea -- how can we do it? Fuji strikes me as a prime example of a company with that can-do mindset, and both they and their customers are reaping the benefits.
 
It hardly takes a massive leap of imagination to think there could be a design permitting both kinds of stabilization, with the ability to automatically disable in-body stabilization when the OIS of a lens is switched on. Or switch OIS off and use the sensor-based stabilization if you prefer. Or use only in-body stabilization all the time. Or use neither.
 
The fact that there's no camera doing such a thing now doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future. People have often used "but then the camera companies would be cutting into their own markets for stabilized lenses!" as an argument against in-body stabilization. I think that also represents a failure of imagination. Better way of looking at it: Design a best-of-both-worlds system. Given choices, people will make good use of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't, though. You're living in a magical make-believe land where people buy everything and use every feature, or buy everything and don't use features but don't mind paying for them anyway. That's not how people shop in the real world. If they have a body with IS built-in, why would they pay double for a lens to have IS, too? And if IS is dropped from a lens, hell breaks loose. You're suggesting they reduce the value of their most profitable products in order to increase the value of their least profitable products and restrict their options further down the road. You are suggesting Fuji undermines their own business and throws money away, and pisses off every shop owner in the process.

Yes, in faerie world, every piece of equipment has its own optimised IS and you could choose which form you want to use, or even combine them somehow. In a wonderland where businesses don't need to make money, that is the feature set we get. Also a 8mm-300mm f/1.2 Macro tilt-shift lens exists, a 5TB 1gb/sec SD card with dual folder writing is on the horizon and every camera has solar power backup. That's not the world we actually live in, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never owned image stabilize stuff - neither a lens nor a cam. body. This said i don't miss it.

However, if i wanted to have IS once, i'd prefer a sensor based IS.

IS on the lens makes it bulkier and may decrease its optical performance. IS in body would allow me to use the function with legacy glass too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The I don't like the idea and nobody will ever use it | given choices people won't use them | I'd never use it so who cares | so it's a stupid idea mindset has never been a sufficient reason to dismiss an idea out of hand. I've seen that attitude so many times over the years in the software industry. It wasn't persuasive the first time I heard it, and it isn't persuasive now. But it's remarkable, how well nay-sayers can read the minds of millions of complete strangers. : )

 

Auto-focus? Look how lousy it is. Don't bother developing it further [that was the "professional" attitude when auto-focus first appeared; I remember, because I was there to see it]. On-line retailing? Stupid idea. Nobody will shop that way. Put a little car on Mars? Ridiculous. It'll never work. Electric car? Stupid idea. Nobody'd buy that. More than 640K memory? Absurd. Nobody'll ever need more than that. Only in a faerie world. LOL.

 

The good news is that people with their eyes on the prize don't think that way. Now w.r.t. stabilization, whether a "dual" design would be economically feasible or worth the time to design is obviously a whole different matter. I can't know the minds of millions of strangers, either, but I'll bet that given such options, people would use them — even in a non-faerie world. : )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony uses body IS combined and lens IS, so this is neither new or "impossible", it's already happening. Fuji doesn't, as X-Trans doesn't allow sensor shift that would enable ultra high-res multishot capability (like Olympus MFT). Body IS can cover an additional axis, so that's a bonus over lens IS, and it could also help users with adapted lenses who tend to buy the X-Pro2. So body IS is on my list of long-term suggestions, but I don't expect to see it in the near future. However, I'd hope to see it in a medium format system (which would lmost certainly use Bayer) to enable sensor shift for product and landscape photographers. Maybe also to serve as a regular IS. I think that's a neat challenge, so why not think about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be worthwile for medium format, assuming it was supported by an appropriate line-up of lenses and accessories. Even if you have a medium format on a tripod, the focal length and pixel pitch is great enough that you can get camera shake from the slightest tremor, be it a slight breeze or simply walking too close to the tripod while the shutter goes off. A 40-80mp sensor with a 105-250mm lens, often shooting below 1/80th to get enough light in from continuous lights, is a magnet for shake even on a clamped tripod. I would have killed to have had some form of IS on my old large format.
Canon recently put in a patent for a tilt-shift lens with IS, so that may well be a direction they're heading in, and if they do and it proves successful, I wouldn't be surprised if every other company with a stake in the high-MP game goes for something similar. A higher-mp, medium format Fuji would be a pretty perfect candidate for sensor IS, especially given the weight and cost of medium format lenses with IS.
 

Now, for the sake of space, let us enjoy tiny font.

The I don't like the idea and nobody will ever use it | given choices people won't use them | I'd never use it so who cares | so it's a stupid idea mindset

... is not at all what I said.

I'll break this down for you in two simple bullet points:
- IBIS does not increase the sales in bodies enough to offset the atrociously low profit margins of camera bodies.
- As Canon and Nikon—and so far, Fuji—have proven, making IS exclusive to specific lenses does shift additional lenses, where profit margins are already higher, and increases those margins further. Sony, on the other hand, has not actually managed to make any more money from having IS in both units; the cost of doing so hasn't been made up by their sales yet, so they're still in the red on it. (Sony are also in the red because of a helluva lot of other things about their cameras and general business practices, but that's another story for perhaps another forum.)

I already said that yes, if we lived in a perfect fanasty land, we'd have IS in both and that I would love it. I have not said "I don't like the idea" or any variation thereof. If that is what you're getting from this, that is a failing of your own reading comprehension. What I have said is the factual truth: putting IS in both body and lens has not been proven to be at all successful by the market and when you've already begun your product line putting IS in one, it is not financially viable to experiment with putting it in the other as well.

I speak a lot with editors at photography magazines, various manufacturers' PR and enough store managers to be aware of what actually works on the marketplace and what does not. Not what works if-a-company-gambles-its-budget-on-unproven-equipment-and-hopes-the-market-takes, or what works out in a mythical faerie tale land of hopes and dreams where IS is included on everything at no extra cost and every consumer on the planet immediately buys ten of everything. The insight I have, the conversations I have, the reports I see, are about what is actually selling in the actual world and what is actually viable. Key word: viable. Not 'possible' or 'impossible'. Not 'new' or 'old'. Viable. Actually worth companies' time.

 

See also: 4k video; extended battery life; EVF in DSLR; larger and higher-resolution rear screens; headphone jacks. All things which would not be bad to have on any camera system and which, you would think, many people would be willing to pay more for. But not enough people do. The actual sales numbers don't jump enough to offset the R&D and manufacturing costs. You can put as many fancy features on a body as you like, you're still only making roughly a 12% profit each sale while even the most basic kit lens is returning over a third of its value.

 

Yes, Fuji physically could put IS in a body. It would be helpful, as an end user. It would be a financial loss, too. You're not going to see it on any body which uses the current lens line-up and form factor. A new medium format body with a new len selection? Quite possible. There, it makes total sense. On a Pro2 or T2 or whatever? Categorically not going to happen. No company* throws money away like that.

*Other than Sony**.
**Before anybody says I have some sort of anti-Sony bias, I do actually really like Sony, and a couple of my closest, longest friends work for Sony. I just find their business practices absolutely hilarious and it's fun to rag on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just Sony. Panasonic has already done this with the GX7. Panasonic OIS lenses can also be used on Olympus IBIS bodies (though I understand that some Panasonic lenses automatically disengage the OIS when mounted on an Olympus body so don't offer a choice).

 

That said, Panasonic hasn't repeated this approach with any subsequent camera. It will be interesting to see what they do when/if they produce a follow up to that model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony uses body IS combined and lens IS, so this is neither new or "impossible", it's already happening. Fuji doesn't, as X-Trans doesn't allow sensor shift that would enable ultra high-res multishot capability (like Olympus MFT). Body IS can cover an additional axis, so that's a bonus over lens IS, and it could also help users with adapted lenses who tend to buy the X-Pro2. So body IS is on my list of long-term suggestions, but I don't expect to see it in the near future. However, I'd hope to see it in a medium format system (which would lmost certainly use Bayer) to enable sensor shift for product and landscape photographers. Maybe also to serve as a regular IS. I think that's a neat challenge, so why not think about it?

 

Interesting. I haven't followed news of Sony's hardware and didn't realize both systems are available. So it has been done...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it has been done. The issue is that sensor shift (multishot) isn't available with X-Trans, so a major benefit of body IS isn't applicable to current X-series cameras, even if they had it. However, multishot is a common feature in medium format cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is possible. Owners of Olympus cameras with in-body stabilisation have been known to occasionally use Panasonic lenses with built-in stabilisation for quite some time. One can also use stabilised lenses on a Pentax DSLR with IBIS.

 

But as it is now, Fuji doesn’t have a sensor-shift based image stabiliser. Olympus, Sony (originally Minolta), and Pentax are years ahead in this game. Fuji would have to catch up, navigate the quagmire of existing patents or pay the licensing fees (if licensing is even an option). Successfully competing against Olympus’ excellent 5-axis IBIS would be no mean feat. Personally I would prefer sensor-shift to lens-shift, but I am not at all convinced that Fuji will make the switch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In body stabilization is not needed. If it really was that needed, then why haven't Canon or Nikon included it? And it's not like it's new tech anymore. I have shaky hands and not having I.S. is not bothering me at all. I only shoot primes and my kit zoom is collecting dust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In body stabilization is not needed. If it really was that needed, then why haven't Canon or Nikon included it?

Because it was invented elsewhere (by Minolta; the first camera using sensor-based stabilisation was the DiMAGE A2 introduced in 2004), at a time when both Canon and Nikon had already developed and perfectioned their lens-shift systems and implemented those in lots of lenses.

 

For many years lens-based stabilisers were widely believed to be superior. Now sensor-based stabilisers not only did catch up; some have even added a third stabilised axis, namely the optical axis, which is impossible to replicate with lens-based stabilisers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...