Bill Pierce
Well-known
Image stabilization, either in a camera body or a lens, is a relatively recent addition to the picture taking toolbox and, for many, including me, a bit of a mystery.
Obviously, in camera stabilization sounds great. With it you can use any lens handheld at a slow shutter speed. There’s just one catch. It doesn’t work as well with long lenses as stabilization built into those lenses. If you are a sports shooter, it doesn’t make any difference because you’ll be using a high shutter speed. If you are shooting theatre under conventional stage lighting, you will need stabilization. If you are shooting wild life, sometimes you will need it and sometimes you won’t. But, with long lenses the best stabilization is the one built into the lens.
Where in body stabilization pays off is with shorter lenses, but there are still questions. The old rule of thumb for handholding was shoot at a shutter speed of 1 over the full frame focal length. Shoot a 28mm lens hand held at 1/30 and you should be safe, a 50mm at 1/60, e.t.c.. It would seem lower speeds would benefit from in camera image stabilization. But the high megapixel sensors of 40 to 60 megapixels in a full frame sensor are capable of capturing more fine detail than most similar sized film stocks. Does this mean images would show an improvement in sharpness when image stabilization was used even at higher shutter speeds? Or does the sensor movement in the stabilization process reduce the off center sharpness? My own experience in simply looking at comparison shots is that there are so many other variables when I am shooting conventional pictures that it’s hard to say whether image stabilization improves the image with hand held shots made at higher shutter speeds than those that follow the old rule of 1 over the focal length. That’s right. The all knowing moderator hasn’t got the slightest idea. He is embarrassingly ignorant. Anybody out there know or even have an informed opinion about the shutter speeds that benefit from in camera stabilization?
Obviously, in camera stabilization sounds great. With it you can use any lens handheld at a slow shutter speed. There’s just one catch. It doesn’t work as well with long lenses as stabilization built into those lenses. If you are a sports shooter, it doesn’t make any difference because you’ll be using a high shutter speed. If you are shooting theatre under conventional stage lighting, you will need stabilization. If you are shooting wild life, sometimes you will need it and sometimes you won’t. But, with long lenses the best stabilization is the one built into the lens.
Where in body stabilization pays off is with shorter lenses, but there are still questions. The old rule of thumb for handholding was shoot at a shutter speed of 1 over the full frame focal length. Shoot a 28mm lens hand held at 1/30 and you should be safe, a 50mm at 1/60, e.t.c.. It would seem lower speeds would benefit from in camera image stabilization. But the high megapixel sensors of 40 to 60 megapixels in a full frame sensor are capable of capturing more fine detail than most similar sized film stocks. Does this mean images would show an improvement in sharpness when image stabilization was used even at higher shutter speeds? Or does the sensor movement in the stabilization process reduce the off center sharpness? My own experience in simply looking at comparison shots is that there are so many other variables when I am shooting conventional pictures that it’s hard to say whether image stabilization improves the image with hand held shots made at higher shutter speeds than those that follow the old rule of 1 over the focal length. That’s right. The all knowing moderator hasn’t got the slightest idea. He is embarrassingly ignorant. Anybody out there know or even have an informed opinion about the shutter speeds that benefit from in camera stabilization?
It’s a matter of incremental improvements.
The number of sharp photos using stabilization will approach 100% as shutter speeds increase, and approach 0% as speeds decrease.
The shooter is another variable that will change this curve; the more stable shooters moving the % of keepers to lower shutter speeds.
The number of sharp photos using stabilization will approach 100% as shutter speeds increase, and approach 0% as speeds decrease.
The shooter is another variable that will change this curve; the more stable shooters moving the % of keepers to lower shutter speeds.
Steve_Pfost
Established
I think the real need for in-body stabilization, and the reason for its creation is for the video component of these new cameras. At work these days just about every assignment requires a video component alongside stills. The cameras with the in-body stabilization helps tremendously for not only those b-roll shots but for quick interviews when a tripod just doesn't fit into the mix.
Generally speaking, I see no real benefit for it when it comes to shooting stills.
Generally speaking, I see no real benefit for it when it comes to shooting stills.
pluton
Well-known
'1 over the focal length' barely works in ideal conditions, assuming low resolution, like 35mm film or maybe 6 megapixels.
If shooting handheld and expecting to seriously exploit the resolution provided by 36/40/50 megapixels, one should expect disappointment most of the time.
There are too many variables in handheld shooting to generalize that VR, IS, or In-Camera Stabilization will necessarily solve a shake problem.
A few times, I used Nikon VR while standing on solid ground, handheld with a 70-200 tele lens, the weird floating image in the finder started to make me feel as if I had motion sickness.
The VR did make shooting from a fast moving car possible, where conventional handheld w/o VR would have given very poor results.
If shooting handheld and expecting to seriously exploit the resolution provided by 36/40/50 megapixels, one should expect disappointment most of the time.
There are too many variables in handheld shooting to generalize that VR, IS, or In-Camera Stabilization will necessarily solve a shake problem.
A few times, I used Nikon VR while standing on solid ground, handheld with a 70-200 tele lens, the weird floating image in the finder started to make me feel as if I had motion sickness.
The VR did make shooting from a fast moving car possible, where conventional handheld w/o VR would have given very poor results.
Dogman
Mentor
The finer points of image stabilization escapes me. I only know it works. But I don't really find it necessary most of the time.
I've owned several Olympus micro 4/3 and original 4/3 DSLR E-series bodies that had IBIS. The IS worked quite well, even with long lenses. I've also used Canon and Nikon gear with IS/VR in the lenses and it also worked well, with long and short lenses. I've never noticed the image "floating" in the viewfinder with any of them although I can hear the stabilizing motor whirring in some lenses and it's a little distracting at times.
One of the things I've wondered is if the VR has any negative effect on images when it's used but not needed. I'm lazy so I just leave the VR turned on in all lenses that have it and don't think about it again.
I've owned several Olympus micro 4/3 and original 4/3 DSLR E-series bodies that had IBIS. The IS worked quite well, even with long lenses. I've also used Canon and Nikon gear with IS/VR in the lenses and it also worked well, with long and short lenses. I've never noticed the image "floating" in the viewfinder with any of them although I can hear the stabilizing motor whirring in some lenses and it's a little distracting at times.
One of the things I've wondered is if the VR has any negative effect on images when it's used but not needed. I'm lazy so I just leave the VR turned on in all lenses that have it and don't think about it again.
I hadn't thought about it for really high shutter speeds. I typically use it for things that don't move (unless you like to use motion blur) in a range between 1/30th to 1/4 second (Fujifilm X-H1). That's what I've found works for me and where I can rely on it.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Handheld Fuji X-H1 with IBIS on - XF 2.8/16-55 @ 50mm. Works for me. Cheers, OtL
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm always happy to provide some education. 
IS been around for sometime. For example, Canon came with 24-105 F4 IS L in 2005, two years later they made Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for digital Rebel.
Canon Rebel DSLR line was updated very recently with newer model. It might sounds bad on gearheads forums, but in real life those cameras are great and not overpriced choice for those who wants better than mobile phone picture quality and zoom.
Where I'm it is still more people with DSLRs than with any other dedicated cameras.
For indoors typical "sit still" portraits IS helps a lot. Wide or Tele end doesn't matter.
IS is great for macro. You can't take decent picture of live object with camera on the tripod. Bugs can't hear "sit still". IS allows hand held macro with small apertures and not too noisy ISO.
IS helps with panning. Cameras and even lenses have only horizontal IS. And even only vertical. Which might help for pictures from long bridges, which are moving vertically.
Some experienced portrait photographers prefers very slow shutter speed for still portraits. 24-105 F4 IS L on film EOS is great kit for it.
IS been around for sometime. For example, Canon came with 24-105 F4 IS L in 2005, two years later they made Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for digital Rebel.
Canon Rebel DSLR line was updated very recently with newer model. It might sounds bad on gearheads forums, but in real life those cameras are great and not overpriced choice for those who wants better than mobile phone picture quality and zoom.
Where I'm it is still more people with DSLRs than with any other dedicated cameras.
For indoors typical "sit still" portraits IS helps a lot. Wide or Tele end doesn't matter.
IS is great for macro. You can't take decent picture of live object with camera on the tripod. Bugs can't hear "sit still". IS allows hand held macro with small apertures and not too noisy ISO.
IS helps with panning. Cameras and even lenses have only horizontal IS. And even only vertical. Which might help for pictures from long bridges, which are moving vertically.
Some experienced portrait photographers prefers very slow shutter speed for still portraits. 24-105 F4 IS L on film EOS is great kit for it.
zuiko85
Mentor
My friends whisper that I’m not stable...probably not talking about photography.
My mirrorless has that feature in body, sometimes I use it. With standard or wide angle in good light I leave it turned off. Otherwise the camera is making these odd buzzing fluttering noises when I half press the shutter release, even when the correct focal length is dialed in.
The sound bugs me....
My mirrorless has that feature in body, sometimes I use it. With standard or wide angle in good light I leave it turned off. Otherwise the camera is making these odd buzzing fluttering noises when I half press the shutter release, even when the correct focal length is dialed in.
The sound bugs me....
Pentax has been a leader in IBIS tech, now along with others providing stability correction movements in 5 axes. The camera detects the lens mounted and adjusts the stability operation accordingly. Instructions say to turn it off when using a firm camera support like a tripod.
Ronald M
Mentor
Depends on camera. Pentaxes for 1965 required a tripod even for 1/1000 sec by my experience when I bought them new.
Leica M was was wonderful. One time I did 1/2 sec leaning against a railing at a museum. Did not expect much, but it was perfect when I developed the film.
Leica R3 was ok, R4 went back to Leica repair as it always shook and they said it didn’t, R 6 & 7 ,LeicaFlex and SL were fine.
My Nikon F2`s are ok. Nikon D200,700, D3, D750, 800 are fine.
Leica Digital m`s all seem fine.
These are all cameras I owned.
Tripods are perfection for less than 1/125.
My Nikon digitals have stabilizer built into zoom lens and I use it. None of the prime G have it and I never had an issue!
Please do not ask me to explain. Maybe they know why primes are not so equipped.
Leica M was was wonderful. One time I did 1/2 sec leaning against a railing at a museum. Did not expect much, but it was perfect when I developed the film.
Leica R3 was ok, R4 went back to Leica repair as it always shook and they said it didn’t, R 6 & 7 ,LeicaFlex and SL were fine.
My Nikon F2`s are ok. Nikon D200,700, D3, D750, 800 are fine.
Leica Digital m`s all seem fine.
These are all cameras I owned.
Tripods are perfection for less than 1/125.
My Nikon digitals have stabilizer built into zoom lens and I use it. None of the prime G have it and I never had an issue!
Please do not ask me to explain. Maybe they know why primes are not so equipped.
agentlossing
Well-known
I like IBIS. Okay, I love IBIS. In-lens stabilization is more effective on long lenses, but stats-wise at least, in-body sensor based stabilization is effective to more stops more often on wider lenses than in-lens. That's just a subjective determination I've made, without doing research, based on what I've seen (so it may be BS).
I have had quite a few sensor-stabilized cameras, in the micro four thirds realm and now my Pentax DSLR, and Ricoh GR III. In fact, IBIS has an advantage outside of stabilization for Pentax, as it allows some of the lenses to be cheaper. My newest lens is a Sigma 17-50 2.8, which they make in numerous mounts, and while most have in-lens stabilization, that's omitted on the Pentax version as they've put stabilization in the bodies for so long now. And, the lens is cheaper than the stabilized versions, at least on the used market (haven't compared the MSRP).
5-axis IBIS is the best, as it corrects for the greatest amount of camera movement. But some cameras I have had with only 3-axis, such as the Olympus EM10 and my current Ricoh GR III, still correct very well for approximately 4 stops, when you've got good handholding technique. The GR is a surprisingly good camera for stabilization, because the combination of wide angle lens and IBIS means you can photograph in really low light, with a slow shutter, and get very high quality results. That camera has excellent high-ISO capabilities, but I think it's still a generally true rule that lower ISO will get you more vibrant color and crisper detail.
I have had quite a few sensor-stabilized cameras, in the micro four thirds realm and now my Pentax DSLR, and Ricoh GR III. In fact, IBIS has an advantage outside of stabilization for Pentax, as it allows some of the lenses to be cheaper. My newest lens is a Sigma 17-50 2.8, which they make in numerous mounts, and while most have in-lens stabilization, that's omitted on the Pentax version as they've put stabilization in the bodies for so long now. And, the lens is cheaper than the stabilized versions, at least on the used market (haven't compared the MSRP).
5-axis IBIS is the best, as it corrects for the greatest amount of camera movement. But some cameras I have had with only 3-axis, such as the Olympus EM10 and my current Ricoh GR III, still correct very well for approximately 4 stops, when you've got good handholding technique. The GR is a surprisingly good camera for stabilization, because the combination of wide angle lens and IBIS means you can photograph in really low light, with a slow shutter, and get very high quality results. That camera has excellent high-ISO capabilities, but I think it's still a generally true rule that lower ISO will get you more vibrant color and crisper detail.
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
At my age I enhance my in-body-stabilization by not overindulging in alcoholic beverages and by routine moderate upper body exercise. It’s a lot easier to hold a camera steady when your hands aren't shaking and your arms aren't quivering under the load of a camera. I also found that using a backpack instead of a shoulder bag for my camera gear helps my balance when I’m out shooting pictures.
In-camera and lens stabilization is great too!
All the best,
Mike
In-camera and lens stabilization is great too!
All the best,
Mike
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
At a young age I learned to have a steady balance with my legs apart, one in front of the other, arms tucked in, support the lens with the left hand and hold the camera against my face. If there’s time, I always release the shutter in the moments after exhaling - just like getting tight groups for rifle practice.
Some of my sharpest handheld photos - shots of the city and distant buildings - were handheld with my Pentax SP500 at 1/125 and my 55mm Super Takumar at f/5.6
The only stabilized lens I have is a Canon EF 35/2. I used it one cold, dark, foggy morning where, after an hour my hands were so cold I could barely feel the camera or the release - but that lens let me get some amazing shots at slow speeds which would otherwise have been blurred.
Some of my sharpest handheld photos - shots of the city and distant buildings - were handheld with my Pentax SP500 at 1/125 and my 55mm Super Takumar at f/5.6
The only stabilized lens I have is a Canon EF 35/2. I used it one cold, dark, foggy morning where, after an hour my hands were so cold I could barely feel the camera or the release - but that lens let me get some amazing shots at slow speeds which would otherwise have been blurred.
Mike, I saw you lurking over there in the Whisky thread!
Actually, even absent any booze, my hands aren't quite as steady as they used to be, and I welcome Image Stabilization wholeheartedly, so far limited to my Pentax dSLRs. That feature will be a factor in future shopping!
Edit: Oh, and I guess my Leica Q has IS too... nice little camera.
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
Mike, I saw you lurking over there in the Whisky thread!
It's true, I do enjoy indulging in a nice sip of whisky now and then
All the best,
Mike
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
Hi Pál_K!
That's great for landscape and such but for street photography the subject would be long gone buy the time you got to the exhaling part.
All the best,
Mike
CMur12
Well-known
I have a tremor in my hands that I didn't have when I was younger, so I have used a tripod more and more in recent years. Image stabilization looks pretty promising to me as a way to hopefully handhold a camera more of the time.
- Murray
- Murray
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
...
That's great for landscape and such but for street photography the subject would be long gone buy the time you got to the exhaling part.
...
Definitely. If I were given a job of doing street shooting today, my choice would be a Fuji X100V set to a high ISO and fast shutter speed - that might help me more than in-body stabilization - I don’t really know. It wouldn’t be surprising if Fuji were to add IBIS in the next iteration.
olakiril
Well-known
IBIS can be extremely helpful with landscape/architecture photography. I no longer have to carry a tripod with me.
But even in street photography it can be used creatively, if you want slow shutter speeds to allow for subject motion blur.
But even in street photography it can be used creatively, if you want slow shutter speeds to allow for subject motion blur.