How important is having an IBIS camera if you use already use IS lenses?

[Derrel]

Real photographers shoot on glass plates coated with emulsion they have mixed themselves.

"If it ain't wet plate, you're a lazy pretender."

 

[photoflyer]

The neat thing about what @Derrel said, is with IBIS, you can stabilize OLD lenses.

This is what I have been thinking. All of my lenses except the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 have IS. The 300 F 4 L has early generation IS and the new Tamron super zoom 18-400 has IS but it is not very good. I will hold off a while before getting a new body but when I do I will get one with IBIS. Perhaps this will get a little more performance out of these lenses.

Having said that, were I making a buying decision today and all my lenses already had IS I would purchase a body without IBIS unless the added cost was inconsequential.

 

[ac12]

The neat thing about what @Derrel said, is with IBIS, you can stabilize OLD lenses.

This is what I have been thinking. All of my lenses except the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 have IS. The 300 F 4 L has early generation IS and the new Tamron super zoom 18-400 has IS but it is not very good. I will hold off a while before getting a new body but when I do I will get one with IBIS. Perhaps this will get a little more performance out of these lenses.

Having said that, were I making a buying decision today and all my lenses already had IS I would purchase a body without IBIS unless the added cost was inconsequential.

Depending on the system, you do not have a choice. You are stuck with whatever the manufacturer has decided upon.

• If Canon dSLR, they do not have IBIS.
• If Canon mirrorless, the APS-C M50 and FF R do not have IBIS.
  • Future generation may have IBIS.

• If Nikon dSLR, they do not have IBIS.
  
• If Nikon mirrorless FX, the Z6 and Z7 both have IBIS.
• If Nikon mirroless DX, the Z50 does not have IBIS.
  • Future generation my have IBIS.

• Olympus m4/3, all cameras have IBIS.
  • At present, only TWO lenses have OIS.

• Panasonic m4/3, some cameras have IBIS and some do not.
  • So Panasonic is the only manufacturer, that I know of, where you have the choice of IBIS or no IBIS in the camera.

I have no knowledge of Sony or Fuji gear.

You mention a 300/4 L, so I presume you have Canon gear. If so, at the present, none of the Canon dSLR or mirrorless cameras, that I know of, have IBIS. So you have to wait to see if Canon puts IBIS in a future generation of cameras.

Note, some legacy dSLR lenses can be used on other manufacturer's mirrorless cameras.
However, it is not as universal as some say it is. Example:

I think Canon EF lenses will autofocus on an Olympus camera.
But a Nikon lens will NOT communicate with an Olympus camera.

So, No autofocus, No aperture control from the camera, No IS/VR, No auto open aperture.
It is auto-NOTHING, full manual. You effectively have a 1950s era manual lens.​

So cross-manufacturer compatibility is on a brand by brand basis, for each brand combination.

 

[Solarflare]

Real photographers shoot on glass plates coated with emulsion they have mixed themselves.

"If it ain't wet plate, you're a lazy pretender."

I've already mentioned a huge heap of reasons why IBIS is a bad idea.

Your response is a joke that ignores all my arguments.

You might be a real photographer you talk about there - but you're clearly piss poor when it comes to discussing things.

 

[petrochemist]

I am newer to digital photography, so I would appreciate your patience with me and my questions. My hands shake a little bit when holding objects. I am wondering if, considering my situation, I should rule out the x-T30, even if I use it with Fuji Lenses with Image Stabilization built into them. Is that enough for me or do you feel I really must have a camera with it also built into the camera itself? For me and my slight shake, is in in-camera image stabilization, nice to have or a must have? I can currently afford the X-T30 and would like to get it, but if you advise me that, because of my minor shaking, I really should wait until I can afford the likes of the X-T4, that would be good to know. Thank you, in advance for sharing your time and expertise.

If all your lenses have IS then IBIS doesn't have a huge benefit. If the camera can combine both systems IBIS might give you 1 or 2 stops more stabilization, on those lenses its supported by. If only a fraction of your lenses are stabilized, and the system can't use the two together you need to turn one of the stabilization systems off when shooting. Something I've occasionally forgotten with my Bigmos on my Pentax DSLRs (or I've forgotten to turn it back on). This is the only stabilized lens I have for my DSLRs, I've not come across the same issue on my mirrorless cameras.

If you only shoot in bright light or can arrange something like a tripod again the usefulness of stabilisation is minimised. However many venues don't allow tripods/monopods or additional lighting, and quite a few of those are also rather gloomy - in such circumstances stabilisation is a godsend.

 

[petrochemist]

I dont have IBIS in my camera.

I dont have OIS in my lenses.

I still can photograph just fine. Some people act as if you cannot actually photograph without IBIS, and I'm making fun of those.

Good pictures are made in good light. Either you do them during the day, or you bring a flash (which often is useful during the day, too), or you bring a tripod (which again doesnt hurt during the day or while using flash).

Good light does NOT equal bright light. It's usually actually found more in the 'golden hour' as brightness drops off.
Adding flash to these scenes or a pub/music gig would kill the atmosphere. tripods are generally not permitted in the latter two situations & would often get kicked/knocked if you did use one. Then there are sporting events requiring long lens & fast reactions in relatively low light situations.

There are many situations where stabilization is a big bonus. I've never read any comments from people who consider IS in any form essential but think those who 'make fun' of it are sadly lacking in imagination & shoot a rather restricted range of shots.

 

[TWX]

I've already mentioned a huge heap of reasons why IBIS is a bad idea.

IBIS, meanwhile:
- can actually cost you IQ (so can OIS), if used inproperly
- will make your camera more expensive and bigger
- will be another thing that can break in your camera and will make it more complex and less reliable
- cannot actually be switched off (if its set to "off", it just holds the sensor actively in place, but its still active and wastes current)

Obviously I'm not Derrel, but some of the points you mentioned, I disagree with.

- can actually cost you IQ (so can OIS), if used inproperly - So can choosing the wrong shutter speed, choosing the wrong ISO, choosing the wrong aperture, choosing the wrong white balance, choosing the wrong focus point. Any tool can be used wrong, look at all those people that use the side of an adjustable wrench as a hammer (and I don't mean the kind where manufacturers gave up and integrated a hammerhead!) and get lousy results.

- will make your camera more expensive and bigger - Don't the fairly tiny Pansonic Micro 4/3 cameras have IBIS? Fujifilm has one for under $1000, and Sony's A6500 is both small and relatively inexpensive too.

- will be another thing that can break in your camera and will make it more complex and less reliable - Perhaps, but when I search the Internet for people commenting that their IBIS broke, it doesn't look like it's a particularly widespread phenomenon. As for complexity in general, having just examined my old EOS Rebel K2 film camera yesterday, I'm not sure that a lack of complexity is really a good thing.

- cannot actually be switched off (if its set to "off", it just holds the sensor actively in place, but its still active and wastes current) - My assumption is that depending on the power options one chooses, already a requirement for mirrorless cameras anyway, IBIS will shut off and let the sensor go limp or to its parking position when the camera isn't otherwise ready to take pictures. After all, camera manufacturers are already painfully aware that their mirrorless cameras have much shorter battery lives, they have every incentive to attempt to curtail that. On top of that, all these lovely people that review cameras are happy to publish all the runtime performance information they collect, you can find out about how long the camera will go on a given charge of the battery and decide before you buy it if that's right for you.

 

[BrentC]

Real photographers shoot on glass plates coated with emulsion they have mixed themselves.

"If it ain't wet plate, you're a lazy pretender."

I've already mentioned a huge heap of reasons why IBIS is a bad idea.

Your response is a joke that ignores all my arguments.

You might be a real photographer you talk about there - but you're clearly piss poor when it comes to discussing things.

For my wildlife shooting IBIS is fantastic and not sure I could live without it anymore. To be able to stabilize an effective 1200mm lens is awesome. Also I have done handheld long exposures 1-5min long without the need of a tripod, which is great because I hate lugging one around on my hikes.
IBIS has never ever affected IQ.
And IBIS is so good right now in the Olympus cameras we can do Hi-res shots handheld without the need of a tripod.

 

[dunfly]

Real photographers shoot on glass plates coated with emulsion they have mixed themselves.

"If it ain't wet plate, you're a lazy pretender."

I've already mentioned a huge heap of reasons why IBIS is a bad idea.

Your response is a joke that ignores all my arguments.

You might be a real photographer you talk about there - but you're clearly piss poor when it comes to discussing things.

I have no problem with your opinion of whether IBIS is good or bad. You can shoot with any camera you feel like. What I have a problem with is your condescending attitude toward anyone who dares to disagree with you. This, by definition, is a troll. I need IS due to my hand tremors. Are you making fun of me and calling me unbelievably lazy?

 

[Derrel]

Solar: you categorizing people who use stabilization as being incredibly lazy is what I would call piss-poor in discussing things. In this thread, I have even provided three photos, which were all made with a stabilized lens: from a boat in two cases and from Shore with a handheld one second exposure at night.

My joke was making fun of your inability to see beyond your own narrow and limited view of this issue. I have been using a stabilized lens for roughly eighteen years now, and have given you examples of three situations in which stabilization is better than any tripod or other support system , and yet you continue in your condescending arrogance.

I know how to discuss. Yet it seems that you are the one who, to use your own expression, is " piss-poor at discussing things". Why don't you directly address the three situations, which I have pointed out , in which stabilization is better than a traditional tripod? You apparently have not paid much attention over the past two decades as this argument about stabilization has been carried on all over the internet.

Once again, I will say it plainly: a stabilized platform is much better than any other system yet devised when shooting from a moving platform ,be that platform a helicopter,a boat ,a tour bus,a car,or a motorcycle or a bicycle. I would love to see you and your work ethic, as you attempt to set up a tripod in a cramped sport fishing boat while salmon fishing on the open ocean. Apparently you also do not understand what it means to have a camera that can be stabilized against the buffeting effects of wind. Perhaps, you have never shot long telephoto photos in a truly windy area such as the wind surfing areas at Hood River along the Columbia Gorge,where gusts of up to 45 mile per hour wind create some of the best windsurfing in the world. Perhaps you have no idea what it is like to shoot slow speed 1/2 second to 1/6 second panning shots.

Again, let me state unequivocally: image stabilization is better than a tripod in the above three situations 1) moving platform ,2)wind and 3) slow speed panning. We could add 4) people who have hand tremor.And yet you cling to your imagined superiority by using a tripod. Hubris is so unattractive in a real discussion, and so is the use of phrases like piss-poor and I would suggest that a giant mirror be held in front of your face before you utter that phrase again and direct it at me.

We are now twenty years into the 21st century. I am glad that you are proud of yourself. You seem to me to be on the backside of technology. You can cling to your tripod all you want. I am sure it will serve you well. Others of us have stepped beyond our foundations in photography and have branched out ,and have embraced a new technology. Just as we did with things like electronic flash with high-speed synchronization, automatic ISO setting, and autofocus. Image stabilization is perhaps,in my opinion,the single greatest advancement in photography in the past 30 years. If you Solarflare are of a different opinion, then that is your right.

 

[Derrel]

A huge heap of reasons IBIS is a bad idea... That reminds me of all the anti-autofocus arguments from the early 1990's. And all the arguments against automatic ISO setting, by people who do not understand fully and from their own actual experience what these two technologies can offer.

 

[Derrel]

If in body image stabilisation (IBIS) is such a bad idea,why have several manufacturers decided to include it as a feature on their cameras?

 

[ac12]

I have no problem with your opinion of whether IBIS is good or bad. You can shoot with any camera you feel like. What I have a problem with is your condescending attitude toward anyone who dares to disagree with you. This, by definition, is a troll. I need IS due to my hand tremors. Are you making fun of me and calling me unbelievably lazy?

Easy fix, I just added "Solarflare" to my ignore list.

 

[Derrel]

OP, To answer your question quite simply: If you have an image stabilized lens, you do not need a body which has IBIS. One form of stabilization is quite sufficient.

 

[ac12]

A huge heap of reasons IBIS is a bad idea... That reminds me of all the anti-autofocus arguments from the early 1990's. And all the arguments against automatic ISO setting, by people who do not understand fully and from their own actual experience what these two technologies can offer.

+1

I grew up with MANUAL focus, and now having used AUTO focus, I will not willingly go back to manual focus.
Shooting sports is soooooo much easier with AF.
And as my eyes get older, AF becomes even more valuable.

Being an old foggie, and being overwhelmed by all the stuff that modern cameras can do, I had not used auto-ISO on my dSLR until quite recently. But dang, that is neat stuff It is now a tool in my tool box.
I think one of you guys opened my eyes to it.