A plea to Fuji ...

[WaveDancer]

Fujifilm stated that X-mount is not built for ibis, the diameter is to small for moving the chip around, the corners will go black.

And ois can be built in the lenses instead and optimised for every different lens.

Primes with ois will be softer so thats the explanation that you aint get it.

IBIS in X-mount is never ever gonna happend.

Sorry on phone so cant link it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 mobile

 

 

IBIS would be much more efficient! But may be it is true there could be technical limitations. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by WaveDancer

[Rkphoto]

If I can't use a high shutter speed I use a tripod or a flash. It has worked for me for over 30 years.

[Jeffpoker]

I find IBIS to be useful for snapshooting, not for photography. When I make a photograph, I use a tripod.

There are a few lenses that are stabilized and do the work. For snapshooting, the 18-55 gets the job done.

[milandro]

Fuji doesn’t have and apparently will never have IBIS ( In Body Image Stabilization) few lenses have OIS ( Optical Image Stabilization)

[c0ldc0ne]

If I can't use a high shutter speed I use a tripod or a flash. It has worked for me for over 30 years.

 

 

There are plenty of situations where using either or both of those options are prohibited, impractical and/or impossible.

[milandro]

life is tough

[c0ldc0ne]

life is tough

 

 

Thank you for sharing that inspiring pearl of wisdom.

[milandro]

You’e most certainly welcome.

 

OIS and IBIS are recent inventions for people like me who started over 40 years ago.

 

True, digital photography is way more sensitive to motion blur that analog photography was, but I entirely agree with Rkphoto, we’ve managed to shoot pictures way before any of these systems showed up  (and even before it was feasible to shoot at very 3200 ISO without having grain as big as 000 shotgun pellets ), and I have news, despite life being tough, we did it all the same, that means we found a way to do it or around it.

 

So, yes, we dealt with it, back then, albeit within the limitations that our technology offered us and so, I think, we can still do today. 

 

Fuji told us they won’t produce IBIS and only few lenses will ever be equipped with OIS.

 

Tough luck!

[bdbender4]

I understand this plea, but as a hobbyist I personally I look at Fuji as a system that is terrific with lenses (I have a bunch of primes) but so-so with bodies. They have real problems with buggy firmware, which get passed off as "kaizen love" upgrades when obvious capabilities should have been included in the first place.  Then the upgrades have issues, too.  I have been tempted by the X-Pro2 and the X-T2 but I think they are overpriced and too large.  The X-T2 with the gotta-have-it grip is IMHO pretty much the same size as an APS SLR.  For me the point of mirrorless is relatively small and light.  

 

I am still using my X-T10 and X-E2, and waiting for new bodies in that size and weight range.  I have also been waiting for an update to the X100T so it works the same as the T10 and E2, and meanwhile it sits un-used. 

 

Actually I am not waiting, I have pre-ordered the Canon M5, since I also have a Canon 6D system with L lenses. But it wasn't the M5's IBIS that helped me make that choice, since it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but the X-T10 size and smart touchscreen and new 18-150 consumer zoom for every day casual use and EF adapter for the larger Canon lenses.

[canonball]

Chris just grap a monopod ? job sorted, we have survived up till now without image stabilisation, use you skills as a photographer, or buy a fuji 50-140 with stabilisation.

I shot a two gigs recently in very dark conditions and i got the shots that i needed no problem and that was with the xpro 2 and i often use the xpro 1 at gigs and use manual focus and peak focusing and again getting the shots , we surely don't want the camera to do everything and lose its soul like the DSLRs and the awfully ugly Sony cameras do we?

Just a thought, i couldn't care less about IS and it may even put me off as taking pics is an enjoyable  challenge instead off sitting behind a do it all tool we get to think our way through a shoot and get better pics from it in my opinion.

Cheers.

[Woodworth]

Chris just grap a monopod ? job sorted, we have survived up till now without image stabilisation, use you skills as a photographer, or buy a fuji 50-140 with stabilisation.

I shot a two gigs recently in very dark conditions and i got the shots that i needed no problem and that was with the xpro 2 and i often use the xpro 1 at gigs and use manual focus and peak focusing and again getting the shots , we surely don't want the camera to do everything and lose its soul like the DSLRs and the awfully ugly Sony cameras do we?

Just a thought, i couldn't care less about IS and it may even put me off as taking pics is an enjoyable  challenge instead off sitting behind a do it all tool we get to think our way through a shoot and get better pics from it in my opinion.

Cheers.

 

I don't think you quite understand. For the kind of work I do I need to move quickly and be as inconspicuous as possible to get the pictures. Monopods get in the way and attract attention. I do use the 50-140 because of it's stabilisation but would like to be able to use my 90mm with more confidence. I have noticed that my success rate has improved with the X-T2 for some reason, but it's not as reliable as the Olympus Pen F and 75/1.8 combo. I don't want to use the Olympus professionally, as it's not as good as the Fuji but  sometimes needs must... this is why I'm trying to get Fuji to introduce an IBIS camera.

[RogerB]

I would certainly support IBIS. I like using the primes and I also have the 18-55mm "kit" lens. The OIS is very effective. I especially like the IS for fast changing situations. It's nice to be able to turn it off if you don't need it.

 

I use my cameras a great deal in travel. There are often situations where you can't control much of anything. To presuppose that a lens is designed for only certain lighting conditions, venues or that a particular angle of acceptance limits is application just isn't reasonable. I'm certain that I can find a counter use scenarion - one that I've personally encountered - for any of the arguments for why IBIS is not needed; even Fuji's edge-definition sharpness argument.  If IBIS would assist the photographer in any situation then IMO it's certainly reasonable to request it.

 

Roger

[milandro]

Well, Fuji have told us that they won’t do it, so, unless they come up with “ System Y” or System Z”, System X won’t have any ISIS.

 

But no doubt, some would go for other systems and some, more old fashioned like me, won’t bother.

 

I just had a look between some of the most iconic ( quite literally so) images of the 19th and 20th century, many  undoubtedly affected by motion blur and many other “ defects”, yet, despite blur ( and some not all that well focused too) they are and remain forever immortal pictures all the same.

 

Methinks...It’s not the box, it is the one whom holds the box.

 

But I suppose that that is an old fashioned view, as I indeed am.

[c0ldc0ne]

we’ve managed to shoot pictures way before any of these systems showed up  (and even before it was feasible to shoot at very 3200 ISO without having grain as big as 000 shotgun pellets ), and I have news, despite life being tough, we did it all the same, that means we found a way to do it or around it.

 

I just had a look between some of the most iconic ( quite literally so) images of the 19th and 20th century, many  undoubtedly affected by motion blur and many other “ defects”, yet, despite blur ( and some not all that well focused too) they are and remain forever immortal pictures all the same.

 

Methinks...It’s not the box, it is the one whom holds the box.

 

 

Ah, the tried and trusted "we didn't need it 300 years ago, so why would anyone need it now" platitude.

 

I imagine you're that guy who keeps remembering everyone at birthday parties how in the olden days, children used to walk to school in winter, for 50 miles in both directions. Waist deep in snow. Carrying a 20 pound satchel. Barefoot. On glass shards.

 

And I can only assume that you (would) have met the introduction of zoom lenses, autofocus and digital cameras with equal disdain. Humbug! The photography gods of yesteryear created masterpieces without them new-fangled automated contraptions. Hail the pinhole camera!

 

The fact that some of the non-luddites among us embrace and appreciate the advantages that new technology can bring, does not negate the fact that we can still be competent and accomplished craftsmen and/or artists without it.

 

I honestly can't fathom why some people feel compelled to polarize these discussions into oblivion and project their own requirements and those of antiquity onto the entire global photographic community.

[cosinaphile]

i too would love ibis in the fuji bodies .... its true one cant have everything , i dont miss touchscreens , but fast primes like the 56 1.2 etc could benefit with some ois love  if fuji persists in no ibis

 

i love fuji too but often fuji stays home and the pen f comes out to play with a nikkor w 50 1.4 or a 105 2.5 and a speedbooster xl that adds 1 1\3 stops of light and bokeh action.... with the excellent ibis of the pen   the fuji cant touch it for available light work  in darkened conditions 

Edited November 14, 2016 by cosinaphile

[milandro]

The fact of the matter is that Fuji has chosen a path that is not compatible with Internal Stabilization and that also optical stabilization is offered ( most probably to limit the size of the lenses) only to some lenses and not others.

 

I understand that this has to do with fundamental choices made when the system was created. Since they are not going to re-project the bayonet we are not going to get internal stabilization. Also they won’t re create all the lenses which came without Optical stabilization.

 

This being the situation, we will have to deal with it.

 

The way we will deal with it is, the way I see it, going on a path which understands and uses limitations in a positive way. 

 

Like in many martial arts, instead of fighting your way through a more powerful opponent, you use his force against it. 

 

It is not the box, but the holder of the box. Old boxe’s holders, even without any stabilization, took pictures in low light. Some were less than perfect. Life is tough.

[johant]

I never understand this discussion really ... if you need IBIS, Fujifilm probably isn't the brand for you.

 

I'd also like BMW to come out with a R800GS with shaft drive ... despite me being more than happy to live with the disadvantages, they're never going to make it.

[copy paper]

I think your plea is too late. My understanding is that it is impossible to add IBIS. Fuji made compromises to make the body and lenses the size they are, and this is one of them. This, combined with corner sharpness concerns, has led to a choice that may or may not get you where you want to go. If it helps any, I know IBIS becomes less effective the longer the lens.

 

I totally understand preferring Fuji over Sony. I personally loathe the UI/UX of Sony cameras. It's like shooting photos using a Playstation. That said, if I was shooting professionally and I had to have a long fast prime with OIS, I would go with a company that gave me that option. When it's paying the bills, sometimes you've gotta make hard decisions about what camera can really do the job. I sort of doubt anyone will criticize you!

 

My guess is that long term, Fuji will unveil a prime in this focal length / f stop with OIS, which would be just as good. Until then, You might be on the wrong system... Sorry friend!

[erwiurewurwehu]

I think your plea is too late. My understanding is that it is impossible to add IBIS. Fuji made compromises to make the body and lenses the size they are, and this is one of them. This, combined with corner sharpness concerns, has led to a choice that may or may not get you where you want to go. If it helps any, I know IBIS becomes less effective the longer the lens.

 

I totally understand preferring Fuji over Sony. I personally loathe the UI/UX of Sony cameras. It's like shooting photos using a Playstation. That said, if I was shooting professionally and I had to have a long fast prime with OIS, I would go with a company that gave me that option. When it's paying the bills, sometimes you've gotta make hard decisions about what camera can really do the job. I sort of doubt anyone will criticize you!

 

My guess is that long term, Fuji will unveil a prime in this focal length / f stop with OIS, which would be just as good. Until then, You might be on the wrong system... Sorry friend!

 

I bet in 2 or 3 years they will have IBIS. There is (almost) always a way to implement something if you really want and I think there will be more and more market pressure. Or they will add OIS to most lenses. Not sure what the cost in weight and money is to add OIS though.

[Tom H.]

Would it be nice to have? For some people, sure.

 

Will it come anytime soon? Most likely not.

 

Fuji is not Sony, they have to play the long game with development spread over much longer lifespans than the average Sony product.

 

The A7 II was released just 2 years ago, and before that only the Olympus was great and it was their proprietary technology. There are plenty or rumours abound about how Sony got the technology that quickly after their deal with Olympus, even though they both said there was no such deal.

 

It can probably be done, but most likely the sensor technology is not around yet to compensate for light loss in the corners and other side effects. Remember that Fuji has to work with the sensor technology already on the market.

 

As for OIS in the lenses, I do think they should have added it to the 16-55. And perhaps the 90mm. I don't miss it at all on the 56mm though or my other primes.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Tom H.

[Puma Cat]

Fuji is not going to implement IBIS any more than Canon or Nikon are. All companies are of the view that OIS is more effective, but it that it is not required on all lenses. It *does* have an impact on image quality, so where image quality is the no. 1 requirement, it will not be implemented if it also makes the lens too large or too heavy. For example, a Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS series 1 is notably larger and heavier than the Canon 70-200/2.8L *non-IS*. The non-IS was also sharper than the Series 1 IS version; I know 'cause I shot with both for years, and bought the non-IS version. Less elements, less flare, increased sharpness. 

 

My guess is Sony got access to the IBIS tech from Olympus when they acquired a large share of Olympus equity when Olympus was faltering due to it's corruption scandal. 

 

My advice? Use a tripod. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Puma Cat

[c0ldc0ne]

All companies are of the view that OIS is more effective, but it that it is not required on all lenses.

 

Not all companies obviously.

 

It *does* have an impact on image quality,

 

I hear that all the time. But having worked with both IBIS and OIS based systems, I never noticed any adverse impact whatsoever. What is the basis for your claim?

 

it will not be implemented if it also makes the lens too large or too heavy.

 

Another argument in favor of IBIS.

 

My advice? Use a tripod.

 

Not always an option for a variety of reasons.

[johant]

 

 

I bet in 2 or 3 years they will have IBIS.

I bet they will not.

[erwiurewurwehu]

I bet they will not.

What do you want to bet :-) ?

[johant]

What do you want to bet :-) ?

Since we don't live close enough, I am afraid it's going to be for the honour :-)