Jump to content
dnaeye

Fuji X-T3 lack of IBIS - big deal?

Recommended Posts

I'm looking to buy the X-T3, but every review and comparison with other cameras like the Sony A7III mention how their having IBIS is a critical advantage over the X-T3's lack of IBIS. Is the lack of IBIS such a big deal in either photos or videos? Can OIS in lenses like the kit 18-55 2.4-4 compensate for that? And is the A7III's IBIS that good? Is it better than OIS in Fuji lenses? Keep in mind that I do not want to spend a lot of money on a gimbal and just want to keep my photography simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm purely a stills guy, so nothing I say applies to video.

I used to be a real cheerleader for IBIS. These days I really don't pay much attention to its presence. I shoot a lot of low-light stuff, but since I'm often shooting non-static subjects (people or vehicles), IBIS adds nothing for me. I moved from an A7II to an X-T1 and have yet to notice the lack of IBIS.

I can count on one hand the number of shots I have got because of IBIS. A couple really good ones, but it's very rare that I look at a missed shot with my Fuji's (or the Nikon's I've been shooting for most of the last 3-4 years) and thought 'I could have got that with IBIS'. 

And yes, OIS is equally effective on the lenses that have it.

Don't get me wrong, if you shoot a lot of low-light static subjects IBIS is invaluable. The video guys love it because it makes their manual lenses a lot better for video. For long-lens work IBIS and OIS are practically a requirement to avoid silly shutter speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OIS is generally only really needed in longer lenses, allowing you to handhold them and still get decent pictures without incredibly short shutter speeds. Most of the longer Fuji lenses requiring that have their own OIS built in, and in-lens OIS can be optimized for the specific requirements of that lens, and that is said to be better.

All that being said, OIS has its limits anyway. It isn’t magic. In my experience it will help you get an acceptably sharp shot when you have no other options, but it is still not a substitute for a fast shutter speed if you want really sharp images. My policy is to use the shutter speeds I would choose if OIS wasn’t there unless I have no other options, even if it means bumping up the ISO a little. A genuinely sharp image with higher ISO will almost always look better than an only acceptably sharp image with lower ISO. 

The only exception to all this for me so far has been the 16-55 2.8 lens. Since I use it mostly for reportage and often in very low light situations, I desperately miss the OIS on that lens and would instantly buy a version with OIS, even if it weighed 150g more. I still use it over the optically excellent 18-55 kit lens in those situations because of its better ability to separate the background, but the lack of OIS makes its lead over the kit lens much smaller for low light work. I’m actually considering getting an X-H1 body just to use with that lens, particularly since it has now gone down in price so much. 

Edited by Khoji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To arrive at my personal opinion about stabilization, I did a series of test shots.

I have two lenses with OIS, the 18-55mm and 10-24mm in Fujifilm. I also have the Sony 10-18mm with OSS stabilization.

Start with 1/60th, 1/30th, 1/15th, 1/8th, 1/4th, 1/2, 1 sec.

All the time, take shots with and without OIS/OSS.

Zoom in to see the micro sharpness. I find I can get sharp shots often around 1/8th, even 1/4 and 1/2.

If the loss of micro-sharpness does not bother you, then, for you, OIS/IBIS is not important.

For photographers like myself, with static subject matter, the stabilization is important because it allows me to use minimum ISO with minimum grain. It is good for landscapes and static shots. For instance, if I am hand-holding a landscape shot (where I don't have a tripod), the OIS lets me shoot down to 1/8th with confidence, even just before sundown.

It can also be good with portraits where the person is very still, like a static shot.

It is not good for action shots.

Share this post


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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...