Image Stabilization

[Vladimir]

Has anyone tried to use stabilizers (Nebula 4000/Beholder/Big balance like) for stills?

 

From time to time I shoot indoors (museums, exhibitions...) with my 10-24 f4 OS and getting descent results (not all the time) hand-held up to 1/4" at ISO1600-6400 (which are the same opening raw-files). Planning to get new 16mm f1.4 to get more light in but will lose ability to decrease shutter speed more than 1/30" - 1/15". Have ordered already a Rollei MOGOPOD 1 but thinking if I could go even lighter (read more compact here) with gyroscope stabilizer if could get anything descent may be up to 1 sec exposure hand-held.

 

Anyone got any experience with them? or any thoughts are welcome

 

Thank you

[earthquake]

I have a lot of experience with IBIS. For years I shot Sony Alpha DSLRs (which all have IBIS), then a few years ago I switched to M43rds, initially with the EM5. Now I have an EM1 and EM5II, both of which offer superb IBIS (better than any IBIS or even IOS I've used before).

 

A couple years back I picked up an XE1 to try the Fuji system out. I really like the ergonomics of the camera, and some of the lenses (like the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2) are very appealing to me. I wasn't happy with XE1 at the time, mostly due to poor EVF, AF and general system responsiveness/performance, and lack of IBIS. It seems like Fuji has improved most of the areas that were weak with the XT1 and various firmware upgrades, however, lack of IBIS is still a deal breaker for me.

 

If Fuji release a XT2 with IBIS I would probably buy it, and would seriously consider swapping my M43rds system for the Fuji system.

 

Now, IBIS doesn't work miracles, but it is very, very handy for low light when you have a static or slow moving subject, or when you don't care about subject movement (say you purposely want to blur a crowd of people on a busy street, its difficult to do this without either IS or a tripod). A lot of work I do is my Panasonic 7-14mm, and I can get the shutter speed down to a full second while still getting sharp images, and thus keeping ISO very low, which in large part offsets the smaller sensor size of my M43rds cameras. I know Fuji has a 10-24mm lens with IS, but I'm not sure how effective the IS is, and that is only one lens. The other two lenses I use most frequently in low light are my 25/1.4 (which I can shoot at 1/2 with IBIS) and 42.5/1.2. Neither the 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 Fuji have IS, so I would have to generally use a higher ISO than I would with M43rds (unless I'm shooting fast moving subjects and need to bump ISO to prevent blur from movement, then IS doesn't help).

 

IBIS in video is also a huge help. I'm not a professional videographer, so when I shoot video its a quick clip and I don't have a steadycam rig with me. The IBIS in video mode on the EM1 and EM5II especially is astounding, you have to try it to really understand. No more nauseating shaky-cam video.

 

The only time I cary a tripod is when I'm shooting 360 degree HDR panoramas. Lugging a tripod around goes completely against my reasons for switching from DSLRs to mirrorless, to significantly reduce the size/weight of the kit and make it more fun to shoot. IBIS on my Olympus cameras makes a tripod redundant for all but extreme work, like exposures slower than 1 second or HDR bracketing.

[tedorland]

Yes, using a monopod or an external gyroscope (?!), or raising the ISO, does offer greater latitude for hand-holding your camera in dim light. Then again, aren't those approaches just slightly kludgy work-arounds to having Image Stabilization already available in the first place?

 

Consider that from time to time we all confront lighting situations that require ALL the tools in our technical toolbox to resolve. So if you begin with Image Stabilization already built in to your camera’s body or lens, you still have the option to raise the ISO and thereby gain ANOTHER two-to-four shutter speeds. That seems helpful to me.

[Trenton Talbot]

For my particular style of twilight shooting, a rear curtain sync makes much more sense than any IS system. Unfortunately, Fuji don't have a rear sync.

[chiaroscuro2013]

If I'd wanted those toys or needed them I'd have bought a toy camera. 

Seriously though, I simply could NOT care less if IS is on-board the camera. Even less do I want my optics attached to servo motor dither control algorithms or other software based ¨correction-enhancement¨ gimmicks.

Simply allow me to capture what I see, none more, nothing less. 

 But then again I'm an old Aerial Mapping photog. with great dislike for excess tinker toy stuff anyway. ;-)

[earthquake]

I think It's a misnomer to say IS gets in the way of letting you capture what you see. It's another tool in the toolbox, and allows you to capture what you see under more situations. You can always turn it off if you don't like it, but you can't turn it on when it's not there.

[chiaroscuro2013]

I think It's a misnomer to say IS gets in the way of letting you capture what you see. It's another tool in the toolbox, and allows you to capture what you see under more situations. You can always turn it off if you don't like it, but you can't turn it on when it's not there.

Okay, point truly taken.  However I certainly would not pay anything to have it.  

[citral]

It's irrelevant, ibis doesn't magically yield good pictures.

[iyayy]

hi,

sharing my opinion on OS and IBIS.

i would prefer not to have it.

from my observation on images thus far, it seems that images from primes that is shot properly from non IS gears have more pop and 3d feel to it, more so if the lens construction are simpler.

 

while i do not deny that it helps to handheld at low shutter speed, the value is only for that particular low shutter or shaky hands moments. When i want razor sharp images, the IS would introduce some micro vibrations (IS typically works by vibrating to compensate movements) and these micro vibrations would affect the micro details and micro contrast from images, not to mention OS adds another stabilization lens, and IBIS requires the sensor to be mounted on moving axis instead of fixed place. 

i think manufacturer also realize the limitation of OS/IBIS, and includes the option to turn it off, and encourages user to turn off IS when mounting on tripod.

other factors included would be mirror shake, shutter shake, pixel density, etc.. previous gen cameras have low pixel density, so the IS can get away with those.. but higher density pixel would show the limits. This can be seen from Olympus watercolor effect, and there was also some issue of A7II images sometimes appear soft despite being in focus, which i assume is caused by shutter speed that conflicts with IBIS.

of course, i can say that im pixel peeping, but reason why i pixel peep, is because there are a lot of time that i have to crop images, simply because i cant reach that far from my shooting position. sometimes is because i dont have time to wait, getting those valuable moments captured in wrong framing is better than not getting any moment in a correct framing.. i can always crop from wrong frame.

 

i also have personal experience using canon 6d and 100mm macro, and 100mm macro L, and most of the time, on razor sharpness 100 non L wins, i cant seem to get that razor sharpness from the L lens. i do prefer the L because it has more bokeh gradient and easier to use, but i would want to start with a sharp images in the first place.

 

if im not looking at details i'd better off with a compact or an iphone6. it gets the job done, it's not like OS/IBIS really helps in low light when things are moving.. and people always moves..

[umad?]

So body IS is on my list of long-term suggestions, but I don't expect to see it in the near future.

 

Hasn't Fuji already used a combination of optical and in body stabilization (2+3 axis) in it's compact/bridge cameras like the S1 (S9900W etc)?

 

Combining the benefits of OIS (long and specialized lenses, like the 50-140, the upcoming 100-400 or the 120mm macro) and IBIS (and even if they "only" achieve 2-3 stops with 3 axis only) would be pretty awesome! 

[citral]

That's my experience with the 18-55 iyayy, stabilised but "soft" or sometimes downright blurry pictures with ois on, not always but way too often. It works quite good for still stuff and being right slow, bit not in a hurry, typically with moving stuff.

 

The 16-55 a debacle? What?

[CRAusmus]

I don't get the whole 16-55 debacle either.  And when you compare it to the 24-70?  The 24-70 isn't stabilized either so I don't get comparison.

 

Fuji handles high ISO very well, so I don't understand the need for all this OIS and IBIS.  How did you guys ever handle a film camera?

 

I think the 50-140 has been estimated at 5 stops?  The 55-200 at 4?  I think that's what I've heard anyway...

[Izel_Photography]

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.

 

No not really. I manage to get by perfectly well, even when using the 16-55 f/2.8. The only time I want IS is for long lenses like the 50-140.

 

The likes of the 10-24, I just switch it off.

 

I'd much rather see improved high ISO handling than see IBIS which adds weight, reduces battery life and introduces potential for technical problems, i.e. more moving parts to go wrong. I know you can switch it off but that won't reduce the weight or bulk added by IBIS.

 

Look at the Sony A7r (450g) and the A7r mkii (650g) 44% weight increase applied all the time wether you need it or not. The A7r mkii is only 120g lighter than a Canon 6d FF DSLR. Mirrorless will end up just as heavy as a DSLR at this rate, sort of defeats the point!

[jorjitop]

As someone that loves to take pictures of towns at night, inside poorly lit cathedrals, and of events in darkly lit rooms, I have never missed IS.  And I usually do it with relatively slow zooms.  I agree with "deva", above, that if the effort and money has to be spent somewhere, it should go towards faster AF.  If money and effort are no object, then IS would be nice to have, particularly if it could be built into the body.  This would enable all lenses to be a little lighter.

[Trenton Talbot]

It's useless for those that wanted it specifically for weddings which is a huge source of income for many shooters.

 

You should fire your therapist. 

[CRAusmus]

Fuji does have a flash.  Just not TTL.  Which they are working on.  If you weren't happy with the current line up, I'm curious as to why you own any Fujis at all.

 

There are a lot of wedding photographers that use the 24-70 and don't use flash.  A lens that isn't stabilized by the way.

[Izel_Photography]

Do you folks even read what you write before you hit submit? Defeats the point? As if the 50-140 doesn't defeat the point when attached to any Fuji body? If you're only here because of size...then let me direct you to M4/3. I'm here because Fuji has great IQ.

 

Yes I can read, write and think logically, maybe you should try, it feels good!

 

Did you ever stop to think that I may use the 16-55 & 50-140 when weight is not an issue? And, that when it is I pop on a 14mm f/2.8, 23 f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4? You see, that's called flexibility unlike IBIS which has to stay on 100% of the time.

 

I use Fuji for the day job because it's flexible, slap on the vertical grip + 50-140 or 56mm and take studio portraits. Take the grip off and pop on the 16-55 and head out into the mountains in crap weather looking for dramatic light. Use the T1 with a 10-24 or the 23mm prime to capture climbing action shots high up.  If I need to take shots in low light, the 23 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 or the 56 f/1.2 comes out to play. It's ALL about IQ & FLEXIBILITY.

 

I've never once found myself feeling that I couldn't get that shot but I could if only I had IBIS. There seems to be a lot of irrational belief that this is the B all and end all in features. Especially when in a lot of cases the problems can be solved by picking up the right lens for the job, setting it correctly and using good technique.

 

"You should drop the ad hominem attacks."

That's rich coming from you, just look at the way you start your replies to people. You can't be surprised the way people respond back! 

[Izel_Photography]

How did we handle a film camera? Easy. With a FLASH ATTACHED!!!! Something Fuji still doesn't have! HA!

 

I use a couple of X-T1's in studio with several strobes and up to 6 groups of flashes. All manual and controlled from the top of the camera. Personally, especially for studio work, I wouldn't use TTL, I want to manually balance the light from each source. 

 

Fuji do need to get their act together and come up with better flashes but that doesn't mean there isn't a solution at the moment. They also need to sort out video. For personal use I couldn't care less about video but, clients do want it and with high internet speeds and low cost storage, it's becoming more and more popular. There's a whole host of things that I would want Fuji to spend time on before IBIS.

[Izel_Photography]

You can fluff up your reply with whatever you want but the simple fact remains, for wedding receptions in poor light, the Fuji solution is to use a prime with a low fstop in conjunction with high ISO. Why on earth would I ever use the 16-55 in that situation which is the majority situation for most wedding photographers? The 16-55 was marketed as such. Blog after blog talked up this lens before its release as the PERFECT compliment to the 50-140 which would create the ideal wedding kit.

 

Your day job is a completely different situation. Wedding receptions are MOVING people in dim light. You are posing people in a static setup where you control every aspect of the lighting. For your purposes the 16-55 should work great. But don't be so narrow minded that just because it works for you it should work for everyone. It doesn't. And the segment that it doesn't work for is a HUGE segment.

 

Wedding photography is indeed a large business, but compared to Commercial Photography i.e. advertising, editorial, Landscape, food & product etc, it really isn't that huge. The professional photography industry is made up of many segments and many get by perfectly without IS never mind IBIS.

 

I don't think Canon have had many issues finding people to buy the EF-24-70 f/2.8 II USM. For good reason, in most cases in Commercial Photography, it's not needed.  

 

In reality, Low light photography is actually a niche requirement, a specialist area. Later on Fuji will no doubt flesh out their range but they will cater for the biggest groups first, whether it includes us or not.

 

Besides, take a look around (not just selectively looking for people who want IS in the 16-55) and you will see many examples & reviews of people using this lens in wedding photography and are perfectly happy with it. This guy managed ok. Some rather nice low light shots amongst them.

 

And to quote another

 

"One thing that might cause someone to pause, is that this lens does not have image stabilization. Unless you’re shooting a lot of video, in which case you probably don’t own the X-T1 anyway, the lack of image stabilization is practically a non issue." - from Here

 

And this was from the top of the 1st page searching "fuji 16-55 f/2.8 for wedding photography". The reviews go and one and I did not find any that had a problem. But then again, I didn't search for the problem cases which of course are way out numbered by people who are happy with it.

 

I have no doubt IBIS will arrive at some point. I just hope it doesn't detract to much for the many so a few can use non IS lenses. And third party lens use is a small segment of the overall market.

[Trenton Talbot]

You should drop the ad hominem attacks. If you have something to say about the content of any posts that have been made, then get on with it and make your point.

 

My point is that your attempt to come around as The One And Only Pro Wedding Photographer Surrounded By Idiots fails miserably.

Instead you project an image of a massive jerk, hence the ad hominem.

[CRAusmus]

And if you read exactly what was posted, the majority of those folks that utilize the 24-70 (actual) (not equivalent on a crop body) are using them on full frame which have much better light collection abilities at lower ISO which results in better IQ. They can also be pushed to higher ISOs without a severe hit to IQ. And when the lighting situation is really bad, you can use flash. OIS is measured in stops of light. OIS allows us to shoot at SLOWER shutter speeds without blurry images. Again, the problem with the 16-55 is that there is only one method to compensate for loss of light, it's not OIS, and it's not with flash, it's high ISO which when pushed even on a Fuji, degrades IQ. Couple these facts with the fact that this lens was requested by the wedding photographer community which works regularly in poorly lit situations and you wind up with with what I feel is a bit of a disingenuous release. I can easily live without OIS although it's nice to have so long as I have another method to capture great images in poorly lit venues....which is to have a flash system worthy of the Fuji name. High ISO just doesn't cut it in every situation.

 

As for why I came to Fuji, I guess this is the loyalty litmus test, I came to Fuji because I loved the IQ and manual controls as well as being able to adapt legacy glass in an aesthetic that fits. I feel that in the right light...Fuji has no equal. But that's just my opinion. Fuji IQ fits my vision. But I will say this, imho, being a fanboy has its responsibilities. The highest responsibility is to be honest in identifying and voicing the shortcomings of our chosen system. I am the consumer as are you. If we just blindly accept the status quo, there will be no progress. And at this time I think Fuji needs to address some of these shortcomings with absolute clarity and focus.

 

You're missing my whole point.  Fuji made the 16-55 to fill the missing gap of the 24-70 (which isn't stabilized).  So why would they stabilize it?  Not to mention it's what 800 bucks less than the 24-70?  Oh and I know a lot of photographers who shoot it on a crop without flash.  Not to mention most photographers I know are using primes during the reception.  Once the dance floor is full they switch to a wider prime.

 

If you read what "that guy" actually wrote in regards to the 16-55 you'll clearly see that he's using flash hence why he said it was still a balanced rig with his flash trigger installed. All those shots are staged shots and flash has been used.

But wait...I thought there was no flash solution with Fuji? I'm totally confused now. How can he use flash without TTL?  Point is, there are solutions if needed, but in most cases, they aren't needed at all.  Even though the X-T1 is a crop sensor, everyone I've ever heard talk about high ISO is very surprised by it's performance at high ISO.  Have you pushed it?  How far have you pushed it?  I'm wondering if this is coming from speculation, or experience...

 

Are you a wedding photographer?

 

Most wedding photographers that I know only use the 24-70 when they are getting started, pretty soon they switch to primes, and use the 70-200 during ceremony.

[tedorland]

In the opening Post of this discussion I posed a simple question about whether anyone else shared my interest in (or desire for) Image Stabilization. I appreciate the responses -- especially the early ones -- and have a much better understanding now of the strengths & limitations of IS.

 

After fifty-odd posts, however, the Forum dialog seems to have devolved into personal attacks & sarcasm, or migrated into tangential issues (e.g. wedding photography) that deserve their own topic heading. That's fine -- consider it the Tao of Forums -- but clearly we've reached a point of diminishing returns on the initial question. 

 

So, I propose placing a cap on this Topic, declaring it Done, and opening a new Topic to explore some fresh technitory incognita.

[CRAusmus]

Yes. I shoot weddings and have experience. I only use primes like the 35mm as well as the 50-140. The 24-70 on a 2nd body gives one great versatility.

 

As for the flash...like I've said multiple times, there is no Fuji branded TTL flash worth using. "That guy" used manual flash. I'm fine with manual flash because that's what I have to use, not because I want to use it in that situation. Coming from Canon, it's been a bit disruptive. But knowing that Fuji reads this site and forums...the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

As for high ISO, yes, I have pushed it and the results make my clients happy but I'm not. I'm primarily a children's sports shooter with an emphasis on kids with disabilities. For sports and action, I LOVE my Fuji. It's so perfect for what I love. But in poorly lit situations, not a huge fan. But I manage.

Thank you for the honest and straight forward response.  I'm glad that you have found a work around to meet your needs until Fuji has it's fully developed flash system implemented.  You've found a way to make what you use work for you and that is what photographers all over the world do every day.

 

I just tend to disagree that the 16-55 was a debacle because it doesn't offer OIS.  I still shoot a lot of film and don't use my OIS a lot in my Fuji system as it is.  In some cases it cause more problems then it solves.  Perhaps for someone who knows how to use it effectively it can be a god send.

 

Lets try and steer this conversation a different way...

So perhaps we could look at situations where OIS is most effective, and I don't mean "slow shutter speed" "high ISO" situations.  I mean situations where OIS can truly help the photographer make better, sharper pictures.  One situation I could possibly think is Panning.  Say high speed car racing. Could OIS be effective in this situation?

[citral]

Obviously ois helps a lot on long focales, because every little hand movement is magnified x time and when x becomes really big you're in trouble without a tripod.

 

That's why it makes sense to have it on a 50-140 but you can do without on a 16-55.

 

Better leave it to a per-lens basis imo, while people who understand only technical x vs y charts want ibis (OMG y has ibis and I have x, my life sucks) people who understand photography can do fine without it.

 

You can make a perfectly fine picture of something at 1/30 or as low as half a second (lean to something, rest your elbows, etc) with a 35mm, so if you're at 1.4 and ISO 1600 that's almost complete darkness you're trying to shoot.

 

Get a flash, a tripod, or just don't insist on something that won't really be of any interest since a beautiful picture is usually made of beautiful light.

[earthquake]

So many people here who have never actually used a good IBIS system are completely convinced that it wouldn't be beneficial. I'm sure there were a lot of people who were perfectly happy with their horse and buggy and didn't see the need for this new fangled Model-T thing until they actually drove one.

 

It's true that IBIS is not magical, it won't freeze motion at 1/10th a second so you can't use it to shoot sports, but other than that, it allows you to take more (or better) photos in more situations. You can leave the tripod at home unless you're doing very long exposures (over 1 second), you can forgo flash with slow moving/static subjects. You don't need to hope, pray and lean on something to get a usable shot at a slow shutter speed, you just bring the camera to your eye and take the photo. Additionally, there are many situations where use of a tripod or flash is simply impossible or impractical. Churches, theaters, restaurants, pretty much any crowded pedestrian area, etc.

 

The only negatives to IBIS seem to be rooted in straight up paranoia, "it's going to make the camera fall apart!" "it's going to make my images blurry!" "it's going to kill battery life!", none of these are real concerns with a well implemented IBIS system, look no further than the current generation Olympus IBIS, which is extremely reliable (at least as reliable if not more so than any OIS I've ever used), even works when you mount it on a tripod w/o turning it off, and is featured in cameras that have comparable battery life to others w/o IBIS in the same class, while OIS drains battery life as well.

 

Amusingly, the same concerns were raised by Sony NEX users, until they had cameras with IBIS, now IBIS is very much a desirable feature in the Sony camp. 

 

Even if you don't want IBIS and would turn it off, having IBIS would be good for Fuji users as a whole. Fuji could sell more cameras and lenses to more people, which would make them a more stable company, which in turn makes it more likely that they will continue to offer products that you love. As it is currently, there are people like me who are very seriously interested in the Fuji system, but won't switch until they offer IBIS.