# Why I don't think we'll ever see IBIS



## TWX (Feb 7, 2020)

Christopher Frost's latest Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 lens review just appeared today, and while watching it, a comment of his struck me, in that Canon has apparently stated that their RF-mount lenses will come with new/better/extra features to distinguish them from their older EF-mount lenses.  He proceeds to discuss the image stabilization that the RF lens has, compared to the predecessor EF Mk.II that doesn't have IS.

This got me thinking, Canon is certainly in the business of selling cameras, but Canon is also in the business of selling _lenses_.  I've purchased a total of four Canon cameras if I include the Rebel EOS film camera I bought for its lens, and I have a total of nine Canon lenses, two of which were bought brand new, plus three third-party lenses, in a pair of Tamrons and a Tokina.

Take one of the Tamrons, the 70-300mm A005 SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD.  It's basically got all of Tamron's bells and whistles in it and essentially was created to compete directly against Canon's offerings, and as such its new retail price is $449, only $50 less than Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM at $499.  Among the features both lenses have is some form of image stabilization, and I have a suspicion that this feature is a major part of the price, explaining why the Tamron costs almost as much as the Canon.

So basically if Canon were to implement in-body image stabilization, suddenly they would first, be competing with third-party lens manufacturers producing optically nice but unstabilized lenses with potentially much lower MSRPs than genuine Canon lenses would have, and second, their newer RF and EFM lenses would continue to compete with their older EF and EFS lenses lacking image stabilization or would otherwise not compel existing customers to upgrade to the new lens with more features.

As long as Canon continues to create new or revised lenses for RF and EFM that have more features to them than the EF and EFS lenses they share focal lengths and aperture sizes with, they'll have a chance of selling more of those lenses than if they basically improved their existing lenses by way of improving how the camera can stabilize them.

IBIS for Canon might help a lot of us out with existing lenses, but remember, they want us to buy more products, and while they're maintaining protocol interoperability it's not in their interests to give us any "free" features that remove incentive to us to buy more of their products.  They don't appear to be taking active steps to stop me from using my existing lenses, but they're not going to make those lenses work any better than they did as-new either.


----------



## weepete (Feb 7, 2020)

Any lens stabilisation is, IMO, a nice to have rather than an essential. For me anyway it's probably one of my least used features, because either I care enough about the image I'm using a tripod with mirror lockup and remote release or there's a moving subject in the shot that only in a few very spesific circumstances IS will help.

Maybe if Canon had kept the mounting system like Nikon has I'd have a different view on it. But with high ISO images getting so clean nowadays and other ways to more relyably get shots I really fell that it's more of a bonus.

Or put it this way, how much of a premium would you be willing to pay for a Canon body with IBIS over one without?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)

In-body image stabilization cuts down on the ultimate long-term reliability of the body , perhaps not by much, but it's a small factor.

My experience is that Vibration Reduction or Canon Image Stabilization Is extremely valuable when doing slow speed handheld panning , and when shooting from a moving platform such as a sport fishing boat , or when shooting in the Wind. these three situations are ones in which a tripod does nothing, or Works less-than-ideally. There are of course other situations in which stabilization makes things much easier. Stabilisation has made it possible to offer relatively slow maximum aperture zoom lenses. Which are quite useful for travel and landscape photography without needing a tripod. In some areas tripods are strictly prohibited, and the stabilization is quite useful. Stabilization offers you a much wider shooting window/envelope.

It has been shown that stabilization dedicated to a specific lens outperforms in -body systems, but it is nice to have any lens stabilized when it is used on a body with IBIS.

Stabilization is a lot like autofocus was 30 years ago: There were a lot of people who saw no advantage to autofocus. I would venture to say that stabilization has made it possible for the existence of 200 to 500 mm and 150 to 600 mm lenses.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 7, 2020)

I believe you will see IBIS in DSLR's, some brands have it in their FX mirrorless bodies already(Nikon Z series for example). There also may be advantages to IBIS over lens IS(VR) since at certain speeds and at certain f-stops, lens IS(VR) can actually cause slight jittery bokeh.

With communication between cameras to a specific lens, I'm not sure IBIS is any worse than IS(VR) with the latest models, at least I haven't read anything contradicting that point.

I think for most people who are brand agnostic, they do recognize that some brands produce a specific look and colour that can not be duplicated with third party glass. Whether a camera has IBIS or lenses have IS(VR), there are other factors in making lens choices since the use of any stabilization tech is only a small portion of the shooting most people do.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)

Putting IBIS in means doing away with a two- tier lens strategy...if stabilization is in all bodies, that does away with the option to produce a more- costly stabilized lens and a less-costly non-stabilized model.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 7, 2020)

Precisely what you see Nikon doing with the Z Series.


----------



## TWX (Feb 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Stabilization is a lot like autofocus was 30 years ago: There were a lot of people who saw no advantage to autofocus. I would venture to say that stabilization has made it possible for the existence of 200 to 500 mm and 150 to 600 mm lenses.



I can see that.  When I took those Kenko 1.4x teleconverter shots I was at 420mm handheld and I had decent enough results as to run up against the teleconverter's limitations, undoubtedly due to the IS/VC in the lens, despite Kenko's suggestion to turn the feature off.

I like IS but I like aperture more given my particular indoor use.  IS does nothing for me with a fast-moving kiddo indoors.  It's great outside though when there's enough sunlight that I don't have to fight against darkness.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)

I have found VR/IS quite useful over the past 18 years...in a lot of situations, first with the Nikon 80-400 VR, then in a 70-200/2.8 VR, then the 200mm f/2 AF-S G VR, then the 24-105 f 4 L IS and the Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 IS, and most recently for about the past 8 years in the Nikon 70-300mm AFS G.


----------



## weepete (Feb 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> In-body image stabilization cuts down on the ultimate long-term reliability of the body , perhaps not by much, but it's a small factor.
> 
> My experience is that Vibration Reduction or Canon Image Stabilization Is extremely valuable when doing slow speed handheld panning , and when shooting from a moving platform such as a sport fishing boat , or when shooting in the Wind. these three situations are ones in which a tripod does nothing, or Works less-than-ideally. There are of course other situations in which stabilization makes things much easier. Stabilisation has made it possible to offer relatively slow maximum aperture zoom lenses. Which are quite useful for travel and landscape photography without needing a tripod. In some areas tripods are strictly prohibited, and the stabilization is quite useful. Stabilization offers you a much wider shooting window/envelope.
> 
> ...



Very interesting Derrel, it's great to find out how and what features other people find useful. It opens up a different way of shooting. I know for myself it offer little to no advantage but I'm a landscape and wildlife guy and I do have a 150-600, largely I turn IS off and just increase shutter speed as I do try to get a lot of BIF shots, admitedly when perched the OS switch is useful, not only to trade for a lower ISO but to make it easier to get an AF point on a small target.

Genuine question though,   would you trade a faster aperture for IS?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)

I had the 200mm f2 and it had VR...it was an amazing imager. The 80 -400  was f/4 at 80 but only f /5.6 at 400mm...VR /IS offers incredible shooting opportunity for slow speed panning and for shooting in the wind and for shooting aboard boats. It's not really a matter of aperture, but having a lens that allows you to stabilize it in ways which are basically impossible with a tripod... The ability to hand hold a long telephoto lens like a 400 mm. At 1/6 of a second would mean that we would need that 400 to be an / 1.4. Or or f 1, or f/0.95.

When ocean salmon fishing a stabilized Lens is the correct tool. The same goes for when you are shooting from another moving platform, like a ferry boat or a helicopter or a tour bus... Image stabilization is not the equivalent of aperture, but Is more about widening the shooting envelope.


----------



## weepete (Feb 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> I had the 200mm f2 and it had VR...it was an amazing imager. The 80 -400  was f/4 at 80 but only f /5.6 at 400mm...VR /IS offers incredible shooting opportunity for slow speed panning and for shooting in the wind and for shooting aboard boats. It's not really a matter of aperture, but having a lens that allows you to stabilize it in ways which are basically impossible with a tripod... The ability to hand hold a long telephoto lens like a 400 mm. At 1/6 of a second would mean that we would need that 400 to be an / 1.4. Or or f 1, or f/0.95.
> 
> When ocean salmon fishing a stabilized Lens is the correct tool. The same goes for when you are shooting from another moving platform, like a ferry boat or a helicopter or a tour bus... Image stabilization is not the equivalent of aperture, but Is more about widening the shooting envelope.



Yeah, I'd totaly see how an IS lens could be useful on a boat. Admitedly most times I'm on a boat I'm more focused on fishing than photos. That's a whole other story though.

It's really good to hear your practical applications of VR (aka IS, OS for those that don't know). Very interesting to me as I'm doing the photo's for our fishing club!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)

On the way to the fishing grounds 0'Dark Thirty, 1/5 second, ISO 1600, 24-105 L IS USM, at 24mm, Canon 5D, boat running about 20 knots.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)




----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2020)

Same trip , the night before, 105mm setting, 24-105 L IS USM, f/9, 1 second exposure. Hand-held with Canon 5D.


----------



## kalgra (Feb 8, 2020)

According to Canon Rumors IBIS is already confirmed in the upcoming R5 and R6 bodies. However I would be surprised to ever see IBIS in any of their DSLRs.

In addition I think IBIS can only help sway people on the fence  toward their most premium RF lenses like the 50 1.2/ 85 1.2 / 28-70 f2 and rumored 135 1.4 which are already huge and crazy expensive yet have no stabilization.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 8, 2020)

Under the arm of Lady Liberty


----------



## Derrel (Feb 8, 2020)

Braineack said:


> Under the arm of Lady Liberty



A fantastic fireworks photo. Was it made with a stabilized lens?


----------



## TWX (Feb 8, 2020)

kalgra said:


> According to Canon Rumors IBIS is already confirmed in the upcoming R5 and R6 bodies. However I would be surprised to ever see IBIS in any of their DSLRs.



I won't completely ignore rumors but I take them with a healthy grain of salt.  Even if the engineers develop the technology and that development work is the source of the rumors, that doesn't mean that management will necessarily include it if they feel the stronger business case is to leave it out.

What wouldn't surprise me is if they held any such developments in-reserve, launching the feature as a mid-life improvement once they felt their existing sales were basically sated.  EOS/EF was around ~30 years before RF, halfway through we saw digital and lens-based IS along with APS-C/EFS.  If RF-mount sells well it might be another decade before Canon feels they need to pump more life into it with a major technical improvement like IBIS.  If it doesn't sell well then that might argue the case to introduce it sooner.

Should they ever bring IBIS, another concern might be limiting the feature to Canon-official RF lenses.  That also might be good reason for them to wait, such that more photographers aren't really using EF lenses much and have a selection of RF, lest they infuriate owners.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 8, 2020)

Derrel said:


> In-body image stabilization cuts down on the ultimate long-term reliability of the body , perhaps not by much, but it's a small factor.


It may be a factor but it's not caused issues in any of my stabilized bodies - the oldest of which was made in 2009.

Would it not equally be the case that lens based stabilization would play a part in the reliability of lenses? Given lenses typically have a useful life well beyond camera bodies this is probably a more significant factor.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 8, 2020)

Agreed...a system based around objects Jiggling around at 500 Hertz is less reliable than a system in which objects are fixed in place.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 8, 2020)

TWX said:


> Should they ever bring IBIS, another concern might be limiting the feature to Canon-official RF lenses.  That also might be good reason for them to wait, such that more photographers aren't really using EF lenses much and have a selection of RF, lest they infuriate owners.


There's no technical reason to limit IBIS to RF lenses. 
If they did that, it would be very spiteful & I suspect it would cause many EF shooters to  switch to the Nikon Z.


----------



## TWX (Feb 8, 2020)

petrochemist said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > In-body image stabilization cuts down on the ultimate long-term reliability of the body , perhaps not by much, but it's a small factor.
> ...



I expect it comes down to two things, first being which type of electromechanical IS is more demanding, as if it may be less hard on the mechanism for it to be in-lens versus in-camera depending on how much physical movement is required in each point, and the second being how much usage a lens sees in its lifetime compared to the body.  Obviously someone that uses only one lens and uses that lens across many cameras will use that lens-based IS system more than they would have used IBIS in any given camera body, but someone that uses multiple lenses through the years across multiple cameras might not have any given lens might not rack-up the kind of usage of the feature per-lens that a camera body might see if all lenses have to use IBIS.

I tend to cycle through my lenses, but I'm also at a point where as an amateur/hobbyist I'm starting to see the implications of what a given lens can do for me, and starting to realize the nature of the gaps in my own knowledge, so I'm in the habit of trying-out my various lenses to see what kind of performance I can get versus just chasing things like narrow depth of field.  I may use my 17-55mm f/2.8 quite a bit but I'm playing with my 18-135mm when I don't need or don't want to go as wide as f/2.8, and I might even dig out the kit lens if I want to lighten the package as much as possible.  But then again, I acknowledge that the RF-mount isn't really targeted toward me, it's targeted more towards highly experienced amateurs or professionals that should know what they're doing.  Whether such users change lenses a lot or not undoubtedly is based on what they like to take pictures of, and how diverse they like to go with their efforts.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 8, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Under the arm of Lady Liberty
> ...


Yes, the Tamron 24-70 shot at 1/50sec from a boat using VC


----------



## Derrel (Feb 8, 2020)

There you go! Stabilized lens from a boat!


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 8, 2020)

petrochemist said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> > Should they ever bring IBIS, another concern might be limiting the feature to Canon-official RF lenses.  That also might be good reason for them to wait, such that more photographers aren't really using EF lenses much and have a selection of RF, lest they infuriate owners.
> ...



I think it has more to do with the developments in IBIS technology. Since 5 stops are now possible in camera(Z7) and many lens designs just don't have the optical formula or internal real-esate, I think you will see a shift from IS(VR or OS) to IBIS across many brands. The benefit of IBIS is any lens now has a stabilized platform including adapted lenses.


----------



## Original katomi (Feb 9, 2020)

Question. What will happen if you use an IS lens with a IBIS body, will one react with the other


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 9, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> Question. What will happen if you use an IS lens with a IBIS body, will one react with the other



Apparently so, the VR and IBIS work in conjunction with each other. I have no personal experience with this but owners of the Nikon Z series with the FTZ lens adapter say VR lenses still operate in VR. I am not sure if that gains them more stability or one axis of the VR lens is cancelling out the same axis of the IBIS.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 9, 2020)

I'm sure the body wouldn't activate the lens stabilization...


----------



## photoflyer (Feb 9, 2020)

To stay competitive Canon will have develope IBIS and the rumors suggest they have.  I will be interested to see if first generation IBIS is better than early generation lens IS.  I have a 300 mm f4 L prime that is old enough to have first-generation image stabilization.   Perhaps turning IS off on this lens and turning IBIS on in the camera will actually provide better stabilization.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 9, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> I think it has more to do with the developments in IBIS technology. Since 5 stops are now possible in camera(Z7) and many lens designs just don't have the optical formula or internal real-esate, I think you will see a shift from IS(VR or OS) to IBIS across many brands. The benefit of IBIS is any lens now has a stabilized platform including adapted lenses.


IBIS has always worked with any lens - I used it with M42 & T2 mount lenses ten years ago, and I think also with a 1930s kodak astigmat.
Generally It has worked about as well as lens based stabilization of a similar generation, until we get to long telephotos and unlike lens only IS it can deal with rotation around the lens axis.

Modern systems that can use both are the ultimate where the lens is compatible otherwise the two both compensate for all the movement & effectively give the same shake as no stabilization. This is what I got when putting my Bigmos on my Pentax unless I turned stabilization off on one of them.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 9, 2020)

I’m not sure if you misunderstood my previous thread. I never said IBIS didn’t work with non-VR lenses in fact I said the opposite; that’s the advantage of it with legacy glass and adapted lenses and the major benefit of IBIS over purely lens VR.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 9, 2020)

Olympus and Panasonic have Dual/Sync IS where the IS in the lens (OIS) and camera (IBIS) work together to provide greater IS than either OIS or IBIS itself.

BUT, the system has to be designed to work together.  The OIS and IBIS have to communicate and function as a single system.
At present, the m4/3 standard does not included dual IS.  So Dual IS ONLY works for the SAME brand camera+lens; Panasonic+Panasonic, or Olympus+Olympus, NOT a cross brand mix. 
If you put a Panasonic lens on an Olympus camera, you will NOT have dual/sync IS.  It is an either/or situation, OIS or IBIS, not both.

Olympus has a menu option that will allow the camera to use OIS if the lens has it, and if not fall back to IBIS.
Panasonic does not have a similar option.  But then there are only TWO Olympus lenses with OIS, as of now, so there is little loss.

As for Canon.
Look at Panasonic.  Their m4/3 system uses OIS (just like Canon R), recently they have put IBIS in some of their cameras.  And with Dual IS function in firmware, those cameras can use both OIS and IBIS together.  Canon could do the same in the future, and make a camera with IBIS.
BTW, this is the same for the Nikon Z50, which does not have IBIS.

Likewise Nikon.
Olympus uses IBIS, like the Nikon Z6 and Z7.  Recent Olympus lenses have added OIS, and with Sync IS added to the camera firmware, they have Dual IS.
Nikon could do the same.  Future Z lenses could have VR.  And with a firmware update that will utilize both, they can have Dual IS.

But the "secret sauce" is in the IS communication between the camera and lens, and Canon and Nikon are not likely to make that public.  So just like now, Sigma and Tamron have to reverse engineer the IS communication, to have their lenses function in dual IS mode.  But only after dual IS has be put into the camera's firmware.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Feb 13, 2020)

Canon EOS R5 leaked: 45MP, IBIS, 8K30, 20fps e-shutter, February reveal | Digital Camera World
I don't know what Canon is gonna do but it seems pretty reliably that a lot of people do.
If you have not yet seen this or the many articles all saying the same thing.
THAT the Canon R5 as it will be called INDEED has IBIS to the tune of 5 stops. 
When combined with an IS lens it will yield a total of EIGHT STOPS of stabilization along with a few other firsts. 
Sony's domination will probably come to a screeching halt!!! I'm sure Sony will continue to be a leader but where their road didn't even have a speed bump a year ago, suddenly tanks traps are appearing and it's starting to point uphill!
I read about 2 or 3 years ago in Peta Pixel that once Canon got serious about the ML market it wouldn't take very long for it to start to dominate the ML market just as it did the DSLR marked.
SS


----------



## kalgra (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> Canon EOS R5 leaked: 45MP, IBIS, 8K30, 20fps e-shutter, February reveal | Digital Camera World
> I don't know what Canon is gonna do but it seems pretty reliably that a lot of people do.
> If you have not yet seen this or the many articles all saying the same thing.
> THAT the Canon R5 as it will be called INDEED has IBIS to the tune of 5 stops.
> ...




B&H is now reporting the same in the link below and has the R5 listed as “coming soon” soooo it seems that at least most of this is true at the very least it will have IBIS. Most things I have seen have not confirmed 45MP so we’ll have to wait and see I guess but seems very possible. This camera is gonna pricey no matter what is has or doesn’t have.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Feb 13, 2020)

kalgra said:


> Sharpshooterr said:
> 
> 
> > Canon EOS R5 leaked: 45MP, IBIS, 8K30, 20fps e-shutter, February reveal | Digital Camera World
> ...



i don’t think it’ll be that much. It is a 5D level camera. ML tend to be cheaper than dslr so I’m gonna say around $2500 but it could be $3K!!!
SS


----------



## kalgra (Feb 13, 2020)

I’m gonna throw my bet in at $3500-3900 at launch.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Feb 13, 2020)

kalgra said:


> I’m gonna throw my bet in at $3500-3900 at launch.



You might well be right but what would justify those numbers?
I think it’s more in line with the 5Dmk4. 
At $3900 it’s $500 more than the Sony a7lV and more than the Canon 5Dsr but with a lot less mp than both of those. 
It’s very strong on video but that’s just the normal video progression. 
I guess we’ll both know soon enough!!!
SS


----------



## TWX (Feb 13, 2020)

I'm going to guess $2999, possibly less if Canon's goal is to try to motivate full-frame DSLR customers to consider mirrorless.  That slots it in between the 5D-IV and the 5DS/5DSR, resolution closer to but not quite as high as the 5DS/5DSR, but around 15MP higher than the 5D-IV, assuming it's 45MP.  I do not expect it to be more expensive than the 5DS/5DSR unless they're awfully proud of the video capabilities and intend to push that feature hard.


----------



## kalgra (Feb 13, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> kalgra said:
> 
> 
> > I’m gonna throw my bet in at $3500-3900 at launch.
> ...



Nothing would justify those numbers the same way $3000 is not justified for the RF 85 1.2 DS or any of the prices canon has put on their RF L glass but Canon always seems pretty proud of the stuff they put out as indicated by their ridiculous prices. If the R5 is everything it’s been rumored to be I don’t t think it will be any different.

don’t get me wrong I’d love to see it released at a much lower price but I’m preparing my self for the worst.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2020)

It looks like IBIS will be here soon in Canon full-frame mirrorless!


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Feb 14, 2020)

Derrel said:


> It looks like IBIS will be here soon in Canon full-frame mirrorless!



Yes it will!
Canon say the IBIS of the R5 plus the IS in the lens will give a total of 8 stops!
SS


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2020)

Eight stops! Wow, that would be very useful in some situations.


----------



## dsingley (Feb 14, 2020)

Most of the Pentax DSLRs IBIS. With a built in GPS (e.g., K -1) or the GPS  accessory (e.g., K-70) allows for astrophotography w/o having to invest in an equatorial Mount or exposure limitation based on focal length. 3 min exposure 30mm FF equivalent. K-70.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Feb 14, 2020)

dsingley said:


> Most of the Pentax DSLRs IBIS. With a built in GPS (e.g., K -1) or the GPS  accessory (e.g., K-70) allows for astrophotography w/o having to invest in an equatorial Mount or exposure limitation based on focal length. 3 min exposure 30mm FF equivalent. K-70.
> 
> View attachment 186909



Hmmmm, whats interesting here is that the moving part is still but the still portion, the ground, has blur?!?! SS


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 15, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> dsingley said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the Pentax DSLRs IBIS. With a built in GPS (e.g., K -1) or the GPS  accessory (e.g., K-70) allows for astrophotography w/o having to invest in an equatorial Mount or exposure limitation based on focal length. 3 min exposure 30mm FF equivalent. K-70.
> ...


Well if the sensor is tracking the stars you wouldn't expect the foreground to look sharp! I suspect the normal approach is to combine the stars with a separate foreground shot as it's the first example I can remember that shows the effect.


----------



## dsingley (Feb 15, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> dsingley said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the Pentax DSLRs IBIS. With a built in GPS (e.g., K -1) or the GPS  accessory (e.g., K-70) allows for astrophotography w/o having to invest in an equatorial Mount or exposure limitation based on focal length. 3 min exposure 30mm FF equivalent. K-70.
> ...




In defense of the image, this was only the third time or so that I had tried this, so my technique was probably not the greatest. I was more interested in capturing the Milky Way than the unremarkable beach in the foreground. Also, there was a fair amount of wind - enough to make me think that my tripod might not be up to the task. Used ISO 800. In my experience with the K-70, ISO 800 does not generate much, if any, noise. Probably could have gone to 1600 without much noise penalty - rookie mistake.  Interesting foot note, I  made a field expedient center weight for the tripod from a plastic grocery bag (stuck in my jacket pocket against the potential need for a center weight) and sand from the beach on which I was standing.


----------



## TWX (Feb 15, 2020)

dsingley said:


> Sharpshooterr said:
> 
> 
> > dsingley said:
> ...



Better than I'd have gotten on my first goaround.  I'd probably be dragging my laptop out with me to review what I'd gotten in the truck between numerous shots, probably taking quite a bit of time to get the settings right, if not outright shooting tethered.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 15, 2020)

dsingley said:


> Most of the Pentax DSLRs IBIS. With a built in GPS (e.g., K -1) or the GPS accessory (e.g., K-70) allows for astrophotography w/o having to invest in an equatorial Mount or exposure limitation based on focal length. 3 min exposure 30mm FF equivalent. K-70.



Umm me thinks you are mistaken about the "w/o having to invest in an equatorial Mount". Built in GPS is only for geotagging the photos so you can use that data to see where you took the photo when you upload them to either Google Maps, Google Earth or any other map software that accepts geotags. Most DSLR's will accept a Bluetooth dongle which can communicate to a GPS data logger to achieve this function however, many cameras are now being offered with built in GPS for this purpose. I'm not sure how a focal length can limit exposure, most cameras have a 'Bulb' setting which allows you to keep the shutter open as long as you want. Focal length is not one of the exposure parameters in which to achieve correct exposure, ISO, shutter speed and F-stop are.

Your photo clearly shows camera shake from an unstable platform, likely your deduction of the wind and a less than stable tripod. There are methods to mitigate this you may want to explore.

In fact here is the geotag info from your star photo:


----------



## dsingley (Feb 15, 2020)

The Pentax IBIS allows for longer exposures w/o star trails. The system, as I understand it, uses either the built in GPS, or the attachable GPS (which is what I had on my K-70), to figure out, with the focal length of the lens attached, how long the shutter can be open before the trails start to form and then, using a cable release, will open the shutter for that length of time - no 30 sec. limit. I agree, the focal length is not relevant to the exposure, just how long the shutter can stay open w/o forming a star trail (and, of course composition). Some might say that all I did was pay the price of the GPS accessory to math (i.e., divide 500 by the FF equivalent of my len’s focal length),  something I could likely have done in my head - to a reasonable degree of precision, or used the calculator function on my smart phone to do to a greater degree of precision.  I would not suggest that the IBIS/GPS combo is a full substitute for an equatorial Mount because there is a limit to the sensor’s ability to move, thus there is an upper limit on exposure length - before trails start to form. Also, I don’t know if one can stack (other than in post processing) using the Pentax GPS/IBIS system to gather the light necessary to capture more distant or small objects. For those of us on a budget, though, it is helpful for  some night sky photography.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 15, 2020)

@JBPhotog you need to have another look at the image. The stars do NOT show movement, the blur you can see is from foreground lights which are not moving across the sky with the stars. A motorized equatorial mount would show just the same effect.
Pentax's Astrotracker doesn't use the 500 rule, it works out precisely how to move the sensor based on location & direction faced to correct for the earth rotation. It doesn't allow as long an exposure as a dedicated tracker, but IIRC does give an order of magnitude to the exposure before star movement is apparent. I don't think any other IBIS system offers this function. GPS location alone is pretty much meaningless for this, the Pentax O-GPS needs more precise details gathered via a calibration procedure (involving rotating the camera through each plane in turn) before the Astrotracker option can run. The first O-GPS module I got refused to do the calibration & it's compass never functioned even moderately well (moss on the side of trees was more accurate!). Fortunately I was able to find someone wanting GPS without the compass/astrotracker & the guy I brought the O-GPS from refunded the difference in price. Perhaps one day I'll have another go...


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 15, 2020)

petrochemist said:


> @JBPhotog you need to have another look at the image. The stars do NOT show movement, the blur you can see is from foreground lights which are not moving across the sky with the stars. A motorized equatorial mount would show just the same effect.
> Pentax's Astrotracker doesn't use the 500 rule, it works out precisely how to move the sensor based on location & direction faced to correct for the earth rotation. It doesn't allow as long an exposure as a dedicated tracker, but IIRC does give an order of magnitude to the exposure before star movement is apparent. I don't think any other IBIS system offers this function. GPS location alone is pretty much meaningless for this, the Pentax O-GPS needs more precise details gathered via a calibration procedure (involving rotating the camera through each plane in turn) before the Astrotracker option can run. The first O-GPS module I got refused to do the calibration & it's compass never functioned even moderately well (moss on the side of trees was more accurate!). Fortunately I was able to find someone wanting GPS without the compass/astrotracker & the guy I brought the O-GPS from refunded the difference in price. Perhaps one day I'll have another go...



Huh? BTW, I did have a look at the image and I see star trails, I suggest you may want to check the corners since this area of the lens will show the greatest movement.



 

You will also see blur or ghosting next to the star trail which could also be due to the wind factor.


----------



## fotografdenunta (Feb 26, 2020)

Ibis will certainly appear in the next canon r5. They announced it so... fingers crossed!


----------

