# 5 axis IBIS coming to next Canon EOS R series camera [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 10, 2018)

> One of the biggest features missing from the first Canon EOS R for a lot of people is in-body image stabilization. Canon has always been a company that has said in-lens stabilization is their preferred way of doing things, as they have made claims that it’s better than sensor based stabilization.
> We’ve seen enough comparisons over the years that show sensor-based systems work as well as lens-based systems in most scenarios.  There still seems to be a bit of debate when it comes to stabilizing super telephoto lenses.
> We’re being told by a pretty good source that Canon will introduce 5 axis IBIS (in-body image stabilization) in the next EOS R series camera. We’re not sure how this is going to work with in-lens stabilization, but if Canon could figure out a way to make the systems work together to improve performance, that would be a big step forward.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 10, 2018)

What many have said they are waiting for. Once here, i’m Sure there will be one more must have feature to tout as to why Cannon is *******.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 10, 2018)

Why would there be any doubt that Canon could get IBIS and lens IS to work together? They do this already (albeit in a more primitive way) for IS on video with the EOS M50.


----------



## padam (Dec 10, 2018)

I think it will be in the next generation ones, not the next model (which is going to be the more basic 26.2 MP one anyway, maybe the Pro ones can get it for well over 4000$).


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 10, 2018)

In lens IS works best on long lenses, IBIS works best on short lenses, and the two of them together is better than either. And yes, this has been done before by the competition.....


----------



## VORON (Dec 10, 2018)

But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 10, 2018)

I've said it before on here:

The R series was rushed out the door. Canon puts together good products, so overall the R is a good camera. The control ring is brilliant, the feel of the camera is good, the lenses aside from the kit lens are spectacular (not that the kit lens is bad, it's just not as improved as you'd think it would be). 

But the hardware driving everything is anemic, leading to video without chips fast enough to encode newer formats on the fly (leading to very watered down video), severely restrained autofocus modes when you want to take multiple shots fast, and lack of other features becoming standard in it's competition's price range like IBIS. (This feature requires processing to know how to adjust itself, and the chipset driving everything can't hump data fast enough).

I remember the rumors floating around on several sites that Canon was looking at using sony sensors in some new products. I'm actually wondering if they are considering using sony ARM chips that are used in multiple camera processing systems. These are built on smaller die technology and have faster throughput and processing. However it's just a programmable chip, which means it could still have Canon software running on them still. Both the chips canon uses now and the chips Sony makes for it's own (and other) cameras have the same reference ARM design at it's root. Sony's is just updated and on a smaller die process, which makes it faster.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 10, 2018)

A good addition.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 10, 2018)

Just one more reason to drool over the rf 50mm f/1.2L USM and look forward to a fully featured pro RF body. 

Yowza!


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 10, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> I've said it before on here:
> 
> The R series was rushed out the door. Canon puts together good products, so overall the R is a good camera. The control ring is brilliant, the feel of the camera is good, the lenses aside from the kit lens are spectacular (not that the kit lens is bad, it's just not as improved as you'd think it would be).
> 
> ...



It's not the Arm core in an Arm chip that does the heavy lifting for camera things, that's usually done by the ISP, DSP, GPU or a combibation thereof. Don't underestimate how much work it is to make all your 'camera' software work on a completely different architected while keeping the CPU portion the same.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 10, 2018)

Hallelujah! 

OK, though really—the latest in-lens IS has been rated to 5-stops. How many stops do we consumers suspect are possible with IBIS and ILIS combined?


----------



## csibra (Dec 10, 2018)

The biggest missing feature is a new BSI or stacked sensor.


----------



## RGF (Dec 10, 2018)

wonder how Nikon combines lens and body stabilization?


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 10, 2018)

As long as it's easy to disable, I'm fine with this development.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Dec 10, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Hallelujah!
> 
> OK, though really—the latest in-lens IS has been rated to 5-stops. How many stops do we consumers suspect are possible with IBIS and ILIS combined?


That's easy... Panasonic and Olympus both rate their respective dual IS/sync IS systems at 6.5 stops. Olympus body expected in Jan. 2019 is rumored at 7.5 stops. Beyond that Olympus has (jokingly) implied that rotation of the earth must be taken into consideration. Still doesn't correct subject blur though.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 10, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> That's easy... Panasonic and Olympus both rate their respective dual IS/sync IS systems at 6.5 stops. Olympus body expected in Jan. 2019 is rumored at 7.5 stops. Beyond that Olympus has (jokingly) implied that rotation of the earth must be taken into consideration. Still doesn't correct subject blur though.


Based on my experience, and a rudimentary understanding of what reduces and increases blur, subject blur can be reduced with lens IS in certain common scenarios. Here's one: If you are camera shaking to the left for a moment, while the subject is turning his/her face slightly to the right at the same moment, the combined movements take a faster shutter-speed to overcome blur. So if my lens is "held" steady by IS, it reduces the speed of combined motions in opposite direction.

Bottom line, for portraits and events, IS works wonders. It isn't just for still lifes.

And then there's panning mode IS which can help reduce blur at angles to the direction of subjects in motion.


----------



## JonSnow (Dec 10, 2018)

csibra said:


> The biggest missing feature is a new BSI or stacked sensor.



and enough processing power to make use of it.....


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 10, 2018)

csibra said:


> The biggest missing feature is a new BSI or stacked sensor.


BSI and stacked sensor... and curved. 
And one with good-quality on-chip ADC architecture for cleaner images. 
I'll wait for that one.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 10, 2018)

I like the way Canon seems to go. Of course the sensors leave most to be wished for to me who shoots stills; but IBIS helps a ton for high-quality lenses that do not have lens IS (like Zeiss or Canon's 24-70).

I just hope it will be a solid design that's not prone to breaking if you happen to bang the camera mildly... (which just happens sometimes).


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 10, 2018)

VORON said:


> But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?



Indeed "We don't do IBIS because in-lens IS is far superior" said the company while launching two high-end lenses without IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2018)

VORON said:


> But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?


It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.

Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 10, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Just one more reason to drool over the rf 50mm f/1.2L USM and look forward to a fully featured pro RF body.
> 
> Yowza!


Not just 50mm but also that 28-70mm lens or for anyone who has a good selection of old MF glass.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 10, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.
> 
> Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.



I can’t imagine they would always have it running; that would be a major power drain. Like IS, I suspect it will be engaged at the same time as the AF system is, or by the shutter release mechanism.


----------



## bitm2007 (Dec 10, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> I like the way Canon seems to go. Of course the sensors leave most to be wished for to me who shoots stills; but IBIS helps a ton for high-quality lenses that do not have lens IS (like Zeiss or Canon's 24-70).



True but a lighter (or maybe faster) RF version of the Canon's 24-70 f2.8 with IS will probably be around by the time a IBIS EOS R is released, leaving those with non IS Canon 24-70's still lagging behind on the image stabilisation front.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.
> 
> Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.



I agree - not necessary for the vast majority (just my guess) of photographers. Most (like me) will have or will buy new lenses with IS. But for low light shooters with older lenses it will be a plus.

I do have to wonder, however, how much benefit FF IBIS will be. A number of Sony users have commented how poor it is with video - and it seems unlikely that it will be as effective as it is on M4/3rds cameras such as Olympus, as that format has a much smaller sensor. Also wonder how good it will be in the long run. Won't all that movement increase the likelihood that the sensor will get out of alignment after a number of years? For those who buy a new camera every two years, it may not be something that is thought about, but for those of us who will buy the R and keep it for 6-8 years (or more) I have to wonder....


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 10, 2018)

Nice to have but not necessary. I rather have better eyeAF and BSI sensor.

Is this for the supposed 26 mpx camera coming early 2019?


----------



## Talys (Dec 10, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It isn't really necessary, but if it sells cameras, it will be offered. My issue with IS is that I have to half press the shutter and wait for IS to stabilize the first image. Subsequent images are fine since its already running. I wonder if IBIS has a similar 1-2 second delay.
> 
> Canon said that they had too many issues with IBIS to put it in the EOS R, but that it was being considered for a subsequent release. Teardowns of the R revealed that there is a space in the design of the for a IBIS sensor, so it is obviously in the future plans.


I also dont like fighting IS. One reason I'm a big fan of Mode 3!


----------



## Talys (Dec 10, 2018)

VORON said:


> But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?


It certainly wouldn't be a primary reason for me to pick one body over another, because I still want in lens IS on all the lenses I want IS in. On the other hand, as I have said before, if there aren't any downsides, why not -- and this is just another step towards a maturing market where all products are same-y for features and where usability, non top-line specs, pricing and marketing ultimately wins out. Available first and third party lenses is pretty important in that formula, I think.

Incidentally, one of the criticisms I have of the Sony system is that there are not very many great _cheap_ lenses. One of the best things about the Canon system is the availability of very good lenses that aren't top-tier, ultra-professional quality, but way better than I need for my purposes at a price that I'm ok with. I am not cheap when it comes to lenses, but neither do I want to spend $1500+ on lenses I don't use frequently.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Dec 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> It certainly wouldn't be a primary reason for me to pick one body over another, because I still want in lens IS on all the lenses I want IS in. On the other hand, as I have said before, if there aren't any downsides, why not -- and this is just another step towards a maturing market where all products are same-y for features and where usability, non top-line specs, pricing and marketing ultimately wins out. Available first and third party lenses is pretty important in that formula, I think.
> 
> Incidentally, one of the criticisms I have of the Sony system is that there are not very many great _cheap_ lenses. One of the best things about the Canon system is the availability of very good lenses that aren't top-tier, ultra-professional quality, but way better than I need for my purposes at a price that I'm ok with. I am not cheap when it comes to lenses, but neither do I want to spend $1500+ on lenses I don't use frequently.



I feel the same way. I have a lot nice glass (albeit not professional-level) for the EF mount that I would love to adapt to an RF body and get the benefit of image stabilization. Non-OIS lenses like the 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and even my old 200mm f/2.8L lens are all good optical performers and didn't cost a fortune. I don't doubt for a second I'll be able to get better results out of those if I can trade a couple stops of shutter speed for ISO with the benefit of IBIS.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> Incidentally, one of the criticisms I have of the Sony system is that there are not very many great _cheap_ lenses. One of the best things about the Canon system is the availability of very good lenses that aren't top-tier, ultra-professional quality, but way better than I need for my purposes at a price that I'm ok with. I am not cheap when it comes to lenses, but neither do I want to spend $1500+ on lenses I don't use frequently.


It's not really surprising considering the EF system has been around forever. There are a bunch of old Canon lenses that Canon has already recouped the R&D costs on, and they have undergone a ton of price reductions as a result. The E mount system hasn't had that time for lenses to get cheaper over the years. Not to mention, they've been furiously trying to catch up with Canon's best lenses to tempt people to change to Sony as opposed to gradually releasing lenses at all price points over many years.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 10, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Not just 50mm but also that 28-70mm lens or for anyone who has a good selection of old MF glass.


Even my 24-70mm f/2.8!!!

BUT, let us just HOPE that Canon doesn't do something infuriating, such as only enabling IBIS when an RF lens is attached. Not likely, but, a truly effective IBIS would breathe new life into so many old EF lenses that sales and marketing might have hissy fits.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Indeed "We don't do IBIS because in-lens IS is far superior" said the company while launching two high-end lenses without IS.



In_ actuality_, Canon has gone on record in the post-launch interviews that they consider each system to have their advantages, and that the lack of IBIS in the R has more to do with engineering/price point constraints _with regard to that particular body _(yes, say the C word, I double dare you) than any fundamental philosophical objection to sensor-based stabilization.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 10, 2018)

I wonder if in-body stabilization is coming to the M family as well...I have resisted purchasing the EF-M 32mm f1.4 because it does not have IS--I have come to depend on IS for low-light images, especially for vacation photos.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Dec 10, 2018)

One step closer but irrelevant if pricing of the EOS R stays the same. Based on the specs the EOS R is more of a $1600 camera.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 10, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> One step closer but irrelevant if pricing of the EOS R stays the same. Based on the specs the EOS R is more of a $1600 camera.


I think half the criticism out there would be gone if this camera body came in a 100 to 200 less than the A7III, even if the kit lens still costs the same as it does currently. I think most people would be fine with it as an upgraded RF mount 6dMkII with some cool new features. One of the most legit criticism about the system is that the camera itself is overpriced for what it is. If it didn't have the features the competition had, but was slightly cheaper, I suspect it would be selling many more right now.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 10, 2018)

VORON said:


> But... We were told numerous times after EOS R announcement that IBIS is not necessary?



From what vat of logic should we conclude something is needed just because its included or not? My truck and van's doors can auto-lock, but it's not needed, just included. For my needs, I care little at all about IBIS. But I'm okay with Canon adding the feature as long as it does not compromise other features I use and want. If it does not advance heat, wear or extra power drain complications, I will buy it, assuming the feature does not add excruciating price increase.



The Fat Fish said:


> One step closer but irrelevant if pricing of the EOS R stays the same. Based on the specs the EOS R is more of a $1600 camera.



The EOS R is far closer to the 5D mk iv than a 6D, and even includes a couple features every Sony body lacks. By a more comprehensive comparison, the EOS R fits a $2300 camera. Compared to the 5DS I bought new, I even consider $2400 a reasonable value for the EOS R


----------



## BillB (Dec 10, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> That's easy... Panasonic and Olympus both rate their respective dual IS/sync IS systems at 6.5 stops. Olympus body expected in Jan. 2019 is rumored at 7.5 stops. Beyond that Olympus has (jokingly) implied that rotation of the earth must be taken into consideration. Still doesn't correct subject blur though.


And it doesn't mean much with a fast shutter or a tripod either. So how many photographs of immobile objects are your going to take without using a tripod and using a slow shutter and a lens that doesn't have IS?


----------



## BillB (Dec 10, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> I think half the criticism out there would be gone if this camera body came in a 100 to 200 less than the A7III, even if the kit lens still costs the same as it does currently. I think most people would be fine with it as an upgraded RF mount 6dMkII with some cool new features. One of the most legit criticism about the system is that the camera itself is overpriced for what it is. If it didn't have the features the competition had, but was slightly cheaper, I suspect it would be selling many more right now.



Some people are whining and some people are buying. Life goes on.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 10, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> In_ actuality_, Canon has gone on record in the post-launch interviews that they consider each system to have their advantages, and that the lack of IBIS in the R has more to do with engineering/price point constraints _with regard to that particular body _(yes, say the C word, I double dare you) than any fundamental philosophical objection to sensor-based stabilization.




That sounds like spin. The camera certainly has hardware requirements. If IBIS were a requirement, and this body is a contraindication to it (is that the c word?), the body would have been designed differently. I don’t believe IBIS was a requirement, for whatever reason.


----------



## melgross (Dec 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> That sounds like spin. The camera certainly has hardware requirements. If IBIS were a requirement, and this body is a contraindication to it (is that the c word?), the body would have been designed differently. I don’t believe IBIS was a requirement, for whatever reason.


No, he’s right. That’s pretty much what I’ve read in interviews with Canon executives. This sensor, is not ready for it, and they didn’t think it would work as well as it should.

I’ve found, over the years, that in lens IS better than in camera. For whatever reason, the i ,lens stabilization seems smoother. The in camera seems more jittery. Hard to explain, but you can see the difference in big enlargements, or on a good monitor.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> One step closer but irrelevant if pricing of the EOS R stays the same. Based on the specs the EOS R is more of a $1600 camera.



All depends on what you consider important. Had a chance to pick up and look through the EVF on the Nikon Z6 and Sony a7III. Neither one comes close to the EVF on the Canon R. (The Nikon EVF was especially dull and dark). I consider the sensor protective curtain to be an important addition to the R that the others don't have. The fully articulating screen even more so. The R has the best ergonomics as well and, yes, the best touch screen functionality, too. I would definitely consider all of these things, along with the usual top of the class Canon color, to easily be worth an extra $200-400.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 10, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’ve found, over the years, that in lens IS better than in camera. For whatever reason, the i ,lens stabilization seems smoother. The in camera seems more jittery. Hard to explain, but you can see the difference in big enlargements, or on a good monitor.



Curious ... do you know if IBIS can be enabled and disabled in a camera body? I don't own an IBIS body, but was wondering if it's an always-on feature.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 10, 2018)

melgross said:


> No, he’s right. That’s pretty much what I’ve read in interviews with Canon executives. This sensor, is not ready for it, and they didn’t think it would work as well as it should.


I believe you and Sharlin that they made such statements. I don’t believe the statements, if the implication is that they tried but were unable due to the body design. That isn’t how system engineering works.

Had they started with a baseline body I would buy it, but this is a new body, designed to current hardware requirements. If anything, IBIS (for better or for worse) was an afterthought.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2018)

melgross said:


> No, he’s right. That’s pretty much what I’ve read in interviews with Canon executives. This sensor, is not ready for it, and they didn’t think it would work as well as it should.
> 
> I’ve found, over the years, that in lens IS better than in camera. For whatever reason, the i ,lens stabilization seems smoother. The in camera seems more jittery. Hard to explain, but you can see the difference in big enlargements, or on a good monitor.



The "jittery" quality is exactly what others have found in the Sony FF IBIS.

And, yes, the Canon execs said that they did not (as yet) consider IBIS to be usable due to heat issues. But, as we have seen before, whether IBIS is a good idea or not, Canon will have to add it because of the loud and persistant critics and internet reviewers. Unfortunately, for those looking for dependability and quality, camera companies will have to follow Sony's lead and produce cameras with lots of specs - regardless of how well they work or if they are actually ready for production. Sony has demonstrated again and again, that specs are the thing - not whether the specs actually work well.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> That sounds like spin. The camera certainly has hardware requirements. If IBIS were a requirement, and this body is a contraindication to it (is that the c word?), the body would have been designed differently. I don’t believe IBIS was a requirement, for whatever reason.



No. It just means that a) their IBIS tech wasn't mature enough when the decision to include/exclude had to be made (engineering constraint); or b) their IBIS wasn't feasible at the price point established for the R (engineering/business constraint); or c) IBIS was feasible but they wanted to cripple (the C word) the camera to protect an upcoming pro body (business constraint); or d) IBIS was feasible but they wanted higher profit margins at the expense of bad press (business constraint); or e) any combination of the above. None of these excludes the possibility of putting IBIS in a future body.


----------



## Marximusprime (Dec 10, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Nice to have but not necessary. I rather have better eyeAF and BSI sensor.
> 
> Is this for the supposed 26 mpx camera coming early 2019?



Give me better eye AF, IBIS, and a faster frame rate and I'm sold.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 10, 2018)

Be a nice addition to that high MP 5DSR replacement that's been rumored. A sensor with pixels that small will be highly sensitive to camera shake. FujiFilm has announced their intention to add IBIS to next year's GFX 100s MF camera for the same reason. 75MP's in full frame sensor would be that much more of a challenge for hand holding sharp images. Sounds like a move in the right direction.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Dec 10, 2018)

RGF said:


> wonder how Nikon combines lens and body stabilization?


Sony does it too. So I am guessing it is possible ;-)


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 10, 2018)

BillB said:


> And it doesn't mean much with a fast shutter or a tripod either. So how many photographs of immobile objects are your going to take without using a tripod and using a slow shutter and a lens that doesn't have IS?



Well, I take lots of photos of immobile models at slow shutter speeds, in low light, with lenses that do not have IS. Everybody has their use case. We shouldn't assume that because we ourselves do or don't do something that others do or don't. A tripod or mono-pod isn't always practical.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 10, 2018)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Curious ... do you know if IBIS can be enabled and disabled in a camera body? I don't own an IBIS body, but was wondering if it's an always-on feature.


It can be disabled on my Olympus.


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 10, 2018)

I'm all for it. I find the arguments against it amusing as always.

Do we need it? no.. does it it bring value, yes!

You could say similar things about autofocus, tracking, dynamic range, live view, digital zoom in live view, tilty screens, high mega pixel etc etc.. people were able to take pics before all of these... so not needed. Do they help, heck yes. Especially those of us that like taking pics of objects in low light (wildlife, kids, bands etc)

I can tell you from a looong history with digital cameras (yes used ones with floppies in them) that each improvement does bring value and had its neighsayers. Many of those same people are converts now.. don't like the features? great, there is a pretty extensive used camera market you can get older cameras without those features for cheap!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Why would there be any doubt that Canon could get IBIS and lens IS to work together? They do this already (albeit in a more primitive way) for IS on video with the EOS M50.



I don't doubt Canon will figure it out, but there *IS* a very big difference between those types of stabilization integrations. 

A)
In your M50 example, the digital stabilization is taking data from the sensor that is already stabilized through the lens and merely applying stabilization algorithms that are independent of the camera's movement. As opposed to...

B)
In an in-camera and in-body stabilization combination, the lens first stabilizes by employing corrections to its perceived movement in space. That light then reaches the camera system, which is referencing its perception of *its* movement in space. The problem is, the body doesn't know how much of the movement it perceives has or hasn't been corrected - and how - by the lens. Without communication between the systems, the body really can't be useful for stabilization when the lens is shifting things around too. This requires the lens to tell the body what it's doing with very high frequency. 

That might have something to do with RF's extra pins, by the way. It's also why I don't expect older lenses with IS to be as useful with an IBIS integration.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 10, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I'm all for it. I find the arguments against it amusing as always.
> 
> Do we need it? no.. does it it bring value, yes!
> 
> ...


I think the arguments against IBIS or lens IS amount to: I don't need it and resent paying for it. That's fine--Canon has many options. And value of IS goes up with age!
As for Eye AF tracking, that's one I don't see much need for personally, at least not in portrait work. If the subject's eye is moving, my camera moves too so that the framing remains consistent. Action photography? I'm lucky to stay focused on a head when somebody is skateboarding or running, much less an eye. 

Is Eye AF very helpful for video? Of course if Canon offers the feature, it should be top notch--and available in Servo AF!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 10, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> No. It just means that a) their IBIS tech wasn't mature enough when the decision to include/exclude had to be made (engineering constraint); or b) their IBIS wasn't feasible at the price point established for the R (engineering/business constraint); or c) IBIS was feasible but they wanted to cripple (the C word) the camera to protect an upcoming pro body (business constraint); or d) IBIS was feasible but they wanted higher profit margins at the expense of bad press (business constraint); or e) any combination of the above. None of these excludes the possibility of putting IBIS in a future body.



Ah, perhaps that is the proper interpretation. “This body” from a timeline perspective, not this body from a technical perspective.


----------



## rjbray01 (Dec 10, 2018)

BillB said:


> And it doesn't mean much with a fast shutter or a tripod either. So how many photographs of immobile objects are your going to take without using a tripod and using a slow shutter and a lens that doesn't have IS?



Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm just an enthusiast, and most of my photos are of my family, and at a guess, about half are indoors in all sorts of locations.

There is *no way* they are going wait for me to set up and then pose in front of a tripod, but if I whip out a camera then they are normally good for a picture or two. 

I've got a number of Sigma Art prime lenses which have fantastic resolution but no IS. 

So, for me at least, this should DRAMATICALLY improve the quality of about 50% of all my pictures by way of serious noise reduction.

Its enough to convince me to buy the camera ...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 10, 2018)

IBIS would be nice. Great, even.
But I'd like to see a bit more megapixels and DR on par with D850. 
Or else I switch to S...


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 10, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> No. It just means that a) their IBIS tech wasn't mature enough when the decision to include/exclude had to be made (engineering constraint); or b) their IBIS wasn't feasible at the price point established for the R (engineering/business constraint); or c) IBIS was feasible but they wanted to cripple (the C word) the camera to protect an upcoming pro body (business constraint); or d) IBIS was feasible but they wanted higher profit margins at the expense of bad press (business constraint); or e) any combination of the above. None of these excludes the possibility of putting IBIS in a future body.



I agree. I think historically Canon will put technology in a body only when it meets their expectations of what they think the customers want to see. Sony seems to take Microsoft's position of 'customer as beta-tester'. Will Canon change their approach now under market pressures?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 10, 2018)

With recent news of Canon's partnering with GoPro, is this a tacit admission they cannot get IBIS working as hoped and will go for a souped-up stabilisation as in their video cameras (tracking the moving frame around the sensor)?


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The "jittery" quality is exactly what others have found in the Sony FF IBIS.
> 
> And, yes, the Canon execs said that they did not (as yet) consider IBIS to be usable due to heat issues. But, as we have seen before, whether IBIS is a good idea or not, Canon will have to add it because of the loud and persistant critics and internet reviewers. Unfortunately, for those looking for dependability and quality, camera companies will have to follow Sony's lead and produce cameras with lots of specs - regardless of how well they work or if they are actually ready for production. Sony has demonstrated again and again, that specs are the thing - not whether the specs actually work well.


You are, very unfortunately, absolutely right!


----------



## 4fun (Dec 10, 2018)

my expectations are:
* IBIS will not be in next up "entry level R"

* it will be in both pro level R bodies ... hi-rez model ("5D V")and hi-speed body ("1DX-III")

* IS plus IBIS will only work in parallel with RF (IS) lenses - due to high speed data comm requirements

* with adapted EF (IS) lenses only 1 system will be active at any time. maybe user-selectable which one.

makes sense commercially and technically.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Dec 10, 2018)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Curious ... do you know if IBIS can be enabled and disabled in a camera body? I don't own an IBIS body, but was wondering if it's an always-on feature.


For certain both Olympus and Panasonic have multiple IBIS modes including OFF. In m43 world Olympus is considered the leader in IBIS with Panasonic not far behind and potentially benefitting from their 'partnership.' IBIS is critical for Vloggers - current generation effectively eliminates need for tripod or gimble. Sony invested in Olympus several years back supposedly in part to get access to Olympus IBIS technology, although implementing it with larger sensor is more challenging. Earlier IBIS iterations could, in rare conditions, drift to one side until the sensor was against the stops. It would then 'jump' back to center and restart stabilizing. This resulted in some noticing 'jitter' with IBIS. Current generations have corrected that and are remarkably stable. Users report success at 5 - 10 sec. hand held shots at moderate focal lengths.

Having the ability for precise positional control of the sensor can then lead to other features like Pentax's astrotracking or the high resolution modes on Panasonic and Olympus.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 10, 2018)

If I understand IS correctly, current in-lens IS is for pan and tilt (angular movement, equivalent to yaw and pitch) only. 5 axis IBIS also includes roll (rotation), X and Y. Simplest implementation is to add roll/X/Y to already stabilised lens and turn on 5 axis for non-IS lens. Best of both worlds!

As newer in-lens IS is ~4 stops, it is hard to imagine IBIS pitch/yaw to be better when combined unless there is some seriously clever electro-mechanical work done although Panasonic (Dual IS) and Olympus (Sync IS) claim to have done it (and Sony is "Jittery"?)

Would it be 4 axis stabilised if panning mode is used?


----------



## syder (Dec 11, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I'm all for it. I find the arguments against it amusing as always.
> 
> Do we need it? no.. does it it bring value, yes!
> 
> ...



I'm not sure i'd call kids or bands slow moving. Wildlife might be sleeping i guess... 

IBIS is theoretically most useful for handheld video. But Sony's implementation isnt very good. The question is whether its a FF issue or a Sony issue. Panasonic's m4/3 version works well, but they chose not to include it in the GH5s because it increases noise and is of little use to professionals who'll be using a tripod or gimbal 95% of the time.


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 11, 2018)

syder said:


> I'm not sure i'd call kids or bands slow moving. Wildlife might be sleeping i guess...
> 
> IBIS is theoretically most useful for handheld video. But Sony's implementation isnt very good. The question is whether its a FF issue or a Sony issue. Panasonic's m4/3 version works well, but they chose not to include it in the GH5s because it increases noise and is of little use to professionals who'll be using a tripod or gimbal 95% of the time.



The subject moving is part of the equation.. I also tend to move to track and then suddenly stop to take the picture, even a small increase in stability is useful. Yes Gimballs would be more useful, but they're bulky,large and heavy for SLRs. Something small and discreet is more useful for the locations I tend to use in.


----------



## vjlex (Dec 11, 2018)

After having a chance to play with the MASSIVE RF28-70 yesterday, it became even more abundantly clear why the omission of IBIS is bizarre. Trying to hold that gigantic glass and metal, newborn child in your hands for more than a few minutes made it tricky to get a completely steady shot. It makes zero sense to me to offer that lens without IS (especially at that price point) if there is no IBIS body in the works. I'm happy to hear this rumor and hope it becomes a reality sooner rather than later.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 11, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> With recent news of Canon's partnering with GoPro, is this a tacit admission they cannot get IBIS working as hoped and will go for a souped-up stabilisation as in their video cameras (tracking the moving frame around the sensor)?


No.


----------



## Talys (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> my expectations are:
> * IBIS will not be in next up "entry level R"
> 
> * it will be in both pro level R bodies ... hi-rez model ("5D V")and hi-speed body ("1DX-III")
> ...


With respect to IBIS with EF and communications data, I don't think so, simply because adapted EF lenses work with IBIS on Sony bodies with and without ILIS.

Not that it is anything spectacular, at least for stills, but it is does work.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 11, 2018)

Marximusprime said:


> Give me better eye AF, IBIS, and a faster frame rate and I'm sold.



I think that's plausible. They may not have the best eyeAF, IBIS, but at least give us usable feature parity.

I hope they don't wait too long to give us the basic and trickle feed us over a couple different camera generation

I think Panasonic and Sony will give those features as the minimum along some extra features - 16 bit sensor, 5.6 million dot EVF, animal eyeAF, 4K 60P, etc.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 11, 2018)

They need curved sensors for 4K video that you will watch on your curved screen TV.


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2018)

Makes me jump with joy. Cant help but comment the funny comments people used to make that this is not necessary as lens has it. They were denying Sony's lead in this.


----------



## Bentley Boy (Dec 11, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I'm all for it. I find the arguments against it amusing as always.
> 
> Do we need it? no.. does it it bring value, yes!
> 
> ...





rjbray01 said:


> Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm just an enthusiast, and most of my photos are of my family, and at a guess, about half are indoors in all sorts of locations.
> 
> There is *no way* they are going wait for me to set up and then pose in front of a tripod, but if I whip out a camera then they are normally good for a picture or two.
> 
> ...



Here’s the thing: you’ll have less noise, but the slower shutter speed will add blur unless your subjects, your family, stay completely still. I know mine doesn’t, so shutter speed trumps IBIS. Although I won’t argue against adding it, as long as there’s no downside.


----------



## Bentley Boy (Dec 11, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> IBIS would be nice. Great, even.
> But I'd like to see a bit more megapixels and DR on par with D850.
> Or else I switch to S...



I always wonder why people feel the need to threaten switching brands like anyone cares. And why would you move to “S” while noting the 850? Why not switch to “N”? Either way, enjoy whichever letter you choose. I’ll tell “C” you left.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 11, 2018)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Curious ... do you know if IBIS can be enabled and disabled in a camera body? I don't own an IBIS body, but was wondering if it's an always-on feature.


In Fuji XH1 it is always engaged and cannot be switched off. 
in Panasonic GH5 it is controlled by the IS switch on the lens and you don't know whether the lens IS or IBIS or both are engaged and there is no way to select either or both. Only if the lens is not stabilized, there is an extra option in the "video" menu to turn stabilization on/off. It also has an IS lock option for video only when you hold the camera steady (i.e. no panning or moving, but effective for handheld steady video work). 
Both GH5 and XH1 cameras with IBIS on, have problem distinguishing camera shake from panning as camera tries to hold to the image it sees and then decides not to, so it jumps. Therefore, you see some annoying jumping effect. Furthermore, for effective use of IBIS in both cameras you need to set the focal length manually for each lens you use, therefore eliminates effective use of zoom lenses.
Both GH5 and XH1 cameras with IBIS on, are fine in ordinary light condition for up to about 1/20 sec shutter speed with non-stabilized lenses. But both cameras have problem in low light. Shots that could be otherwise taken in low light without IBIS appear to be quite blurry with IBIS on.
I sold GH5 and exchanged XH1 for XT2 (only to have effective silent shutter mode) and never missed either cameras. Of course technology gets better and better over time, but it is not the golden super effective tech to drool.


----------



## dtgphoto (Dec 11, 2018)

Would just be another thing for me to remember to switch off.

Can they just do a super beefed up stills version without these expensive additions and video that I never use.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

dtgphoto said:


> Can they just do a super beefed up stills version without these expensive additions and video that I never use.




that's exactly the market demand all brands are either overlooking or consciously ignoring: "pure stills, no video recording".

that said, i do want IBIS in Canon EOS R, especially when Canon launches RF lenses without IS and some decent, existing EF lenses without IS are adaptable.

Of course any IS system (in-lens and in-camera) has to be user-switchable on/off at any time, as desired. Not difficult to implement. Canon IS lenses (EF and RF) all have a hardware IS mode switch (including OFF) and IBIS just takes 1 ON/OFF menu entry in firmware. no big deal, really.

$/€ 2300 price point for current nerfed EOS R body ("mirrorfree 6D III") looks more ludicrous by the day. get ready for major "cash-back" activity come January. Early "full price adopters" excluded of course.


----------



## gzroxas (Dec 11, 2018)

dtgphoto said:


> Would just be another thing for me to remember to switch off.
> 
> Can they just do a super beefed up stills version without these expensive additions and video that I never use.


IBIS can be useful for stills and it’s probably not gonna hurt you if you leave it on. But your choice, I know in some occasions it doesn’t work as good as it should but since Canon’s low light is very bad compared to competitors, at least I can use IBIS to compensate


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 11, 2018)

Bentley Boy said:


> I always wonder why people feel the need to threaten switching brands like anyone cares. And why would you move to “S” while noting the 850? Why not switch to “N”? Either way, enjoy whichever letter you choose. I’ll tell “C” you left.



Well I was trolling a little bit. Of course I realise nobody cares if I switch to Sony or not. In fact right now there's no point in switching for me. Only when I feel I need to upgrade and Canon fails to deliver a good replacement for my 5DIV for landscapes, I'll be thinking of switching.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Dec 11, 2018)

David - Sydney said:


> If I understand IS correctly, current in-lens IS is for pan and tilt (angular movement, equivalent to yaw and pitch) only. 5 axis IBIS also includes roll (rotation), X and Y.



Canon's Hybrid IS also includes X and Y, but this is only significant at close focusing distances which is why it has so far only been included in the 100L Macro, 24-70/4L IS (0.7x macro capability) and now the RF 35/1.8 IS Macro.

That just leaves roll, which can't be corrected optically, but I think it's fair to say this is the least important axis of all.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 11, 2018)

I'm waiting for 6-axis IBIS.


----------



## VOTOXY (Dec 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Just one more reason to drool over the rf 50mm f/1.2L USM and look forward to a fully featured pro RF body.
> 
> Yowza!


Can't wait for the "fully featured pro RF Body"


----------



## degos (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> my expectations are:
> * IBIS will not be in next up "entry level R"
> 
> * it will be in both pro level R bodies ... hi-rez model ("5D V")and hi-speed body ("1DX-III")



I disagree. Canon traditionally introduces new technology in the mid-tier mass-market models to debug it before putting it into the prosumer / pro models. That makes sense since they're not only testing on a much wide installation base but also those mid-tier users are going to be less demanding on the technology and also will probably benefit most, since they'll not have as much support equipment ( tripods, gimbals etc ).

For example in terms of stabilization the first Canon IS lens was the 70-300 f/4-5.6, not an L.

I therefore expect to see IBIS in the forthcoming sub-R model but probably not in the pro tier until after 2020.

I think the 70MP monster will be technically conservative, other than that, to attract studio / landscape users who will use it as their main camera for a decade.

The FF 1D-type will have to be out in mid / late-2019 to debug it for the 2020 Olympics so again might skip some more 'exotic' technology and focus on one aspect, pure FPS & AF for sports


----------



## photonius (Dec 11, 2018)

Probably has been said before:
IBIS makes much more sense for RF:
- IS in lenses stabilises the image in the viewfinder. That argument falls away with mirrorless, no more viewfinder image to stabilise.
- The RF mount is made so as to allow fast lenses, like the new 50mm f1.2. But this has no IS. Quite likely it's not that easy to pack a good working
IS into such a lens: the glass diameter is big and heavy. And unlike the big white Tele lenses, the lens elements are packed more tightly. So, getting
a lens group that can move fast enough for efficient IS in a tight space, and also to cover a larger image circle with good IQ to the edge is putting
heavy demands onto the lens and lens design. By comparison, shifting the sensor instead suddenly starts to look more attractive, and only
needs to be done once.
So, with the RF mount, Pros and Cons of IBIS versus lens-IS has shifted, now it's more favourable for IBIS. 
For EOS-M it is probably of lesser concern. No fast lenses for EOS-M, and bodies are supposed to be small, so no extra space for IBIS allotted.


----------



## sdz (Dec 11, 2018)

This is a feature I welcome. I have a few fast primes that lack IS. This feature, hopefully, will compensate for this lack.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> that's exactly the market demand all brands are either overlooking or consciously ignoring: "pure stills, no video recording".


Because making a camera that only takes stills when there's nothing hardware related that needs to be added to allow it to take video is absurd. IBIS helps with both video and stills, so it's useful to have it there even in this hypothetical stills only camera.

If you don't take video, don't put the camera in video mode. It's not hard. Every digital camera I've owned has taken video. I just don't put the camera in that mode. I don't get why this is so hard for people. Having the video option there doesn't even complicate the controls that much. If the recording button bothers you that much, I'm pretty sure the EOS R lets you remap it to some other function. So hey, you even get a free button out of the deal.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 11, 2018)

sanj said:


> Makes me jump with joy. Cant help but comment the funny comments people used to make that this is not necessary as lens has it. They were denying Sony's lead in this.



If your lenses have IS, then it is not necessary. Not sure what is funny about it or what is so hard to understand. So for some people - quite possibly the majority of people - it is not necessary as their lenses have IS. Not everyone has non-IS lenses.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Because making a camera that only takes stills when there's nothing hardware related that needs to be added to allow it to take video is absurd



there is lots added to 1. hardware and 2. firmware and 3. costs to add video recording.

Anything from different sensor design to (larger) heatsinks and bodies, additional control points (eg an utterly senseless mono-functional marked-in-red "record video button") to audio stuff like amps, stereo speakers, plus all sorts of connectors (+ cost to weather-seal them all), all the way to codecs/firmware stuff (does NOT come free of charge!), sucking up battery and CPU cycles ... for something the majority of stills camera buyers never use or need. Plus a lot of clutter in menus. 
Thanks, but no thanks. Just make some pure stills cameras and see how well they'll sell and how few hybrid cameras will be bought, once dual use will cost some extra money rather than being demanded as free lunch by a few free-riders.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> there is lots added to 1. hardware and 2. firmware and 3. costs to add video recording.
> 
> Anything from different sensor design to (larger) heatsinks and bodies, additional control points (eg an utterly senseless mono-functional marked-in-red "record video button") to audio stuff like amps, stereo speakers, plus all sorts of connectors (+ cost to weather-seal them all), all the way to codecs/firmware stuff (does not come NOT free of charge!), sucking up battery and CPU cycles ... for something the majority of stills camera buyers never use or need. Plus a lot of clutter i menus. Thanks, but no thanks. Just make some pure stills cameras and see how well they'll sell and how few hybrid cameras will be bought, once dual use will cost some extra money rather than being demanded as free lunch by a few free-riders.


If we're talking mirrorless, which honestly is where everything is going, the sensor is continually reading what is coming through the lens at all times whether you're doing videos or stills. So, I don't think your idea that a camera that does video needs a bigger heatsink holds much water. All mirrorless cameras are essentially doing video all the time, whether you're actually recording it, or just doing stills shooting.

Again, I don't have my camera with me to confirm, but I think the video record button on the EOS R can be mapped to a variety of stills functions. So I guess just put some black tape over it and pretend it's a custom button if having a red button originally intended for video recording bugs you that much?

The idea that just having video functions in a camera is somehow sucking up processing power or battery life even when you aren't actually in video mode sounds like some serious tinfoil hat stuff to me. I'm not a software developer, but I would think that the code within a camera would be horribly inefficient if a mode you weren't even using were using battery power or processing power at all times. If this is actually somehow the case, I think the amount of battery or processing video functionality uses in stills mode is infinitesimally small.

If the menus bother you that much, set up your own custom menu... All the stills functions you could possibly want, no video stuff. Problem solved. Besides, don't the menus change depending on if you're in video or stills mode? I thought some of the video options disappear when you're not in video mode.

I will admit that you could get rid of a few connections and the microphone on a stills only camera. But you still need a speaker for focus confirmation beep.

But, the development costs to make a completely separate body that just deletes connections and the microphone, as well as unique firmware without video functions, would result in this mythical "stills only" camera costing just as much as the video camera. A microphone and some connectors are not adding that much to the cost of a camera. And if you factor in the smaller volume that such a camera would sell, it's unlikely that they would be able to sell a stills only camera any cheaper than one with video. That's the whole point of making one camera that can be used for both, you're able to sell it more cheaply because you will sell a greater volume since people who want to do stills and video will both buy the same camera.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2018)

dak723 said:


> If your lenses have IS, then it is not necessary. Not sure what is funny about it or what is so hard to understand. So for some people - quite possibly the majority of people - it is not necessary as their lenses have IS. Not everyone has non-IS lenses.


"Necessary" isn't the right word - only a few things are "necessary". It's whether IBIS is useful or advantageous to you. Combining IBIS with IS by Olympus or Panasonic gives an extra stop or so above the IS, which is useful to some, especially telephoto shooters.


----------



## David Hull (Dec 11, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I agree - not necessary for the vast majority (just my guess) of photographers. Most (like me) will have or will buy new lenses with IS. But for low light shooters with older lenses it will be a plus.
> 
> I do have to wonder, however, how much benefit FF IBIS will be. A number of Sony users have commented how poor it is with video - and it seems unlikely that it will be as effective as it is on M4/3rds cameras such as Olympus, as that format has a much smaller sensor. Also wonder how good it will be in the long run. Won't all that movement increase the likelihood that the sensor will get out of alignment after a number of years? For those who buy a new camera every two years, it may not be something that is thought about, but for those of us who will buy the R and keep it for 6-8 years (or more) I have to wonder....



Yes there will now be a bunch of more mechanical junk in the optical path that that will wear with time and possibly fail. I don't think a lot of people think about the reliability issues. Also, there is noise when that thing operates (I don't mean audible noise I mean positioning noise due to the servos). This is the reason you turn the machinery off to take a tripod shot. That noise is always there even when hand holding so there is always going to be some smear. One nice thing with Canon is that you can assemble a system with none of that stuff in play if you want. Once they put that thing in there that option is gone. Here is an interesting commentary on the whole IS issue that is worth a look:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/08/19/stabilisation-is-good-but-only-up-to-a-point/

The real question of IBIS (or any implementation) is does it bring more benefit than it takes away.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 11, 2018)

While not really relying on IS too much except with my 70-200 f/4.0 I will embrace IBIS because I have a lot of unstabilised lenses like old 2.8 24, 2.0 100, 2.8 100 macro, 5.6 400 and I hope there will be a APS-C IBIS system to help the EF-M 1.4 32 in these very dark situations where AF works well but ISO is to high or exposure time to high ... no miracles expected but a reliable 3 stop advantage would be very satisfying for me!


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> there is lots added to 1. hardware and 2. firmware and 3. costs to add video recording.
> 
> Anything from different sensor design to (larger) heatsinks and bodies, additional control points (eg an utterly senseless mono-functional marked-in-red "record video button") to audio stuff like amps, stereo speakers, plus all sorts of connectors (+ cost to weather-seal them all), all the way to codecs/firmware stuff (does not come NOT free of charge!), sucking up battery and CPU cycles ... for something the majority of stills camera buyers never use or need. Plus a lot of clutter i menus. Thanks, but no thanks. Just make some pure stills cameras and see how well they'll sell and how few hybrid cameras will be bought, once dual use will cost some extra money rather than being demanded as free lunch by a few free-riders.



You have three options; a camera that only shoots RAW, a film camera, or an old camera. You can try paying a premium for Lecia's black and white camera, but even that still shoots videos. You can buy an old 50D, but even that has been proven to create some of the most gorgeous 1080(slight upscale) footage that rivals modern 4K cameras. Oddly enough, a RAW only video camera is closer to what you want than a hybrid camera with a codec built in.

At the end of the day, you will not get the stills only product you want because capitalism and technology evolution is not your friend. All major camera manufactures have discovered that it's significantly cheaper to consolidate a product and have a slightly higher cost than the significant cost that comes from designing two products. Just the tooling alone is outrageous.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 11, 2018)

No matter what advantages IBIS could bring, I tend to prefer a rigidly mounted sensor over a vibrating something, which could (will) eventually run out of adjustment. I still cannot imagine a body fitted with IBIS to be as reliable as - say - the EOS 5 D3 in the long run. It certainly doesn't make sense to keep listening to internet whining in order to define the specs of coming cameras. If Sony did, they certainly would have a better wheather-sealing and an acceptable color rendition, not to mention the ergonomics.


----------



## melgross (Dec 11, 2018)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Curious ... do you know if IBIS can be enabled and disabled in a camera body? I don't own an IBIS body, but was wondering if it's an always-on feature.


I don’t follow all the details of what all of these companies are doing. Every couple of years, they change the feature set. I’m sure others here know more.


----------



## melgross (Dec 11, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I believe you and Sharlin that they made such statements. I don’t believe the statements, if the implication is that they tried but were unable due to the body design. That isn’t how system engineering works.
> 
> Had they started with a baseline body I would buy it, but this is a new body, designed to current hardware requirements. If anything, IBIS (for better or for worse) was an afterthought.


They probably know more about their sensor designs than you do. Likely it’s true about the body designs as well. I see no reason why they would lie about it.


----------



## melgross (Dec 11, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The "jittery" quality is exactly what others have found in the Sony FF IBIS.
> 
> And, yes, the Canon execs said that they did not (as yet) consider IBIS to be usable due to heat issues. But, as we have seen before, whether IBIS is a good idea or not, Canon will have to add it because of the loud and persistant critics and internet reviewers. Unfortunately, for those looking for dependability and quality, camera companies will have to follow Sony's lead and produce cameras with lots of specs - regardless of how well they work or if they are actually ready for production. Sony has demonstrated again and again, that specs are the thing - not whether the specs actually work well.


They didn’t say they wouldn’t. In fact, they said they didn’t here because of those engineering reasons. Canon has extensive chip producing R&D and manufacturing. They produce many varied sensors. I believe that they’ve been working on it. It just takes time. Likely it wasn’t ready yet. But they had to have a system out now, so they didn’t include it.


----------



## melgross (Dec 11, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> Sony does it too. So I am guessing it is possible ;-)


Even Apple does it in their iPhones.


----------



## melgross (Dec 11, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> For certain both Olympus and Panasonic have multiple IBIS modes including OFF. In m43 world Olympus is considered the leader in IBIS with Panasonic not far behind and potentially benefitting from their 'partnership.' IBIS is critical for Vloggers - current generation effectively eliminates need for tripod or gimble. Sony invested in Olympus several years back supposedly in part to get access to Olympus IBIS technology, although implementing it with larger sensor is more challenging. Earlier IBIS iterations could, in rare conditions, drift to one side until the sensor was against the stops. It would then 'jump' back to center and restart stabilizing. This resulted in some noticing 'jitter' with IBIS. Current generations have corrected that and are remarkably stable. Users report success at 5 - 10 sec. hand held shots at moderate focal lengths.
> 
> Having the ability for precise positional control of the sensor can then lead to other features like Pentax's astrotracking or the high resolution modes on Panasonic and Olympus.


Remarkably stable, but still have jitter. The problem is also that these motions aren’t controlled in as smooth a fashion as optical. There’s some herky jerkiness in the corrections.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 11, 2018)

For everyone harping on about rigidly mounted sensors... Canon's sensors have shaken themselves around for ages to clean themselves off. In a very quiet setting, you can even hear the sensor self cleaning on the EOS R. So, I dunno, I think pining away for a "rigidly mounted sensor" is kind of a misnomer. Canon's sensors have not exactly been that rigidly mounted for a long time. I mean, are we really going to get into a discussion about how little tiny movements for self cleaning are ok, but big movements for IBIS are not?  I think we're heading down a deep rabbit hole here fretting about sensor misalignment due to IBIS.


----------



## digitalride (Dec 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If you are camera shaking to the left for a moment, while the subject is turning his/her face slightly to the right at the same moment, the combined movements take a faster shutter-speed to overcome blur.



They should make a camera with a little motor that shakes the camera in different directions sequentially and vary the intensity while firing off shots rapidly - then automatically only keep the least blurry ones  Hold on while I go file a patent for "AI Subject Panning" ...

Actually you don't even need a "spray and pray" approach - instead of using image stabilization to effectively hold the camera still, reprogram the image stabilization adjustment to try to hold the subject still in the viewfinder for a moment- if it is moving to the right momentarily move things right to match it.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 11, 2018)

sanj said:


> Makes me jump with joy. Cant help but comment the funny comments people used to make that this is not necessary as lens has it. They were denying Sony's lead in this.


What is funny with arguments against usability and effectiveness of IBIS? Would you care to share your counter arguments?
FYI Sony is a leader in introducing some features like eye-focus, but definitely not a leader in IBIS technology.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> All major camera manufactures have discovered that it's significantly cheaper to consolidate a product and have a slightly higher cost than the significant cost that comes from designing two products. Just the tooling alone is outrageous.



IF Canon can profitably make, distribute and sell something like 10 different models of Rebel mirrorslappers ... in about 50 different SKUs ... 
THEN having 3 or 4 "pure stills" cameras is no argument. It will not matter. At all.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 11, 2018)

VOTOXY said:


> Can't wait for the "fully featured pro RF Body"


Yes, officer, you caught me running a grammerly red light.  
Meantime, I'm passing on the marginally featured EOS R, thank you.
I'm sure when the IBIS model comes out, the remaining trustworthy review sites (both of them!) will let us know whether IBIS delivers.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 11, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> For everyone harping on about rigidly mounted sensors... Canon's sensors have shaken themselves around for ages to clean themselves off. In a very quiet setting, you can even hear the sensor self cleaning on the EOS R. So, I dunno, I think pining away for a "rigidly mounted sensor" is kind of a misnomer. Canon's sensors have not exactly been that rigidly mounted for a long time. I mean, are we really going to get into a discussion about how little tiny movements for self cleaning are ok, but big movements for IBIS are not?  I think we're heading down a deep rabbit hole here fretting about sensor misalignment due to IBIS.



I think there is a huge difference attaching an ultrasonic motor to vibrate the sensor, versus, building a 5-axis controlled sensor mount. The former can very robustly and very simply attached to a vibrating plate, the latter requires quite a lot of moving parts. Throw in the fact the size of the stabilization mechanism and I think there is going to be a lot of trade off versus robustness.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 11, 2018)

nchoh said:


> I think there is a huge difference attaching an ultrasonic motor to vibrate the sensor, versus, building a 5-axis controlled sensor mount.


Is there though? I mean, in either case, you have to have a way to ensure that where ever the sensor rests after it's done moving, it's in the proper position. I'm really not going to presume one way or another. I don't engineer cameras. But, I trust the people that do. If they say they can successfully put IBIS in a camera, make it work, and not throw the sensor out of alignment, then I trust that they could do that. I think it's a little obsessive to get all frantic over some kind of theoretical failure mode where the IBIS fails or breaks and leaves your sensor hopelessly out of alignment. I mean, does this actually happen with any of the cameras that already have it, or is this just panicking for the sake of panicking?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 11, 2018)

nchoh said:


> I think there is a huge difference attaching an ultrasonic motor to vibrate the sensor, versus, building a 5-axis controlled sensor mount. The former can very robustly and very simply attached to a vibrating plate, the latter requires quite a lot of moving parts. Throw in the fact the size of the stabilization mechanism and I think there is going to be a lot of trade off versus robustness.


I do hear you. Right now I'm looking at buying a Honda CR-V, which offers a choice in engines--either the tried and true 2.4L VTEC, one of the most reliable ever built, or a new 1.5L turbo that already has reports of problems with gasoline seeping into the engine oil. And no official fix has been announced. I'm glad I didn't buy when the turbo was introduced
in 2017! I'm going with the 2.4L for sure. But this is not as easy a choice as you might think, because the 2.4L is available only in the lowest trim level, meaning I have to give up quite a few features my wife was expecting! But saving the money and having peace of mind, in this case, is worthwhile.

Are you very worried that the IBIS camera will not last as long as current dSLR's? Would 3-5 years of heavy use be reasonable before paying for a repair? Five to seven years? Just wondering what your threshold might be.

If concerned, perhaps waiting a year to jump in would be enough time to see if a new FF with IBIS is failing at a higher rate than current dSLR's.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I do hear you. Right now I'm looking at buying a Honda CR-V, which offers a choice in engines--either the tried and true 2.4L VTEC, one of the most reliable ever built, or a new 1.5L turbo that already has reports of problems with gasoline seeping into the engine oil. And no official fix has been announced. I'm glad I didn't buy when the turbo was introduced
> in 2017! I'm going with the 2.4L for sure. But this is not as easy a choice as you might think, because the 2.4L is available only in the lowest trim level, meaning I have to give up quite a few features my wife was expecting! But saving the money and having peace of mind, in this case, is worthwhile.
> 
> Are you very worried that the IBIS camera will not last as long as current dSLR's? Would 3-5 years of heavy use be reasonable before paying for a repair? Five to seven years? Just wondering what your threshold might be.
> ...



I don't think anyone is VERY worried (or panicking, as another member has phrased it). Nor has anyone thought that the failure would occur within one year, so waiting a year is not probably going to give you any data. It was just a question that seems quite reasonable - you are adding more moving parts controlling the sensor - so the possibility of sensor alignment failure will be greater over the long run. Is it likely? Probably not, but only time will tell.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 11, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I don't think anyone is VERY worried (or panicking, as another member has phrased it). Nor has anyone thought that the failure would occur within one year, so waiting a year is not probably going to give you any data. It was just a question that seems quite reasonable - you are adding more moving parts controlling the sensor - so the possibility of sensor alignment failure will be greater over the long run. Is it likely? Probably not, but only time will tell.


A year could give significant data, depending on how many bodies are being used and how often they are being used. The oil problems with the new Honda turbo that I mentioned showed up within six months. (But it took longer for Honda to accept responsibility.)

I'm not predicting problems, merely responding to a post where concerns were raised. Many people wait for new technology to be used for a year or so before buying in. That's prudence, not panic. Personally, if the body has the features I want (including IBIS), and performance is reviewed well, I'd go for it within six months or so. I like firmware to get sorted out. Not sure about being an early adopter for Canon's first FF mirrorless with IBIS. As eager as I am to get one--and the new 50mm 1.2L--the likely price of over $3000 USD would motivate me to be a little prudent.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

relax guys. It is not like "innovative Canon" is about to launch the first ever camera with in-body stabilizer. It was invented 15 effing years ago. By more innovative companies. Tested and time-tried. It works. Reliably. 



> *Anti-Shake* (AS) - Minolta and Konica Minolta (Minolta introduced the first sensor-based 2-axis image stabilizer with the DiMAGE A1 in *2003*)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization



> Announced in March 2007 to succeed the E-500, it represents the first use of the new Panasonic MOS sensors instead of the Kodak CCD sensors that Olympus had used previously. It also is the first Olympus DSLR to include in-body image stabilization;


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_E-510

Lol. "innovative Canon". Damn laggards.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 11, 2018)

There is one more use for IBIS than stabilization for that traditional purposes we used lens IS for.
Namely, IBIS can help the camera do *continuous exposure bursts* (immediately after one another, so that it is hardly noticeable), which can be used for *stacking images* even if handheld. Why that? For instance for *HDR*, *pixel shift*, improving *image tonality*, etc.
Personally, I'd really appreciate that in the upcoming high MP EOS R-like camera, and I care about these things way more than the difference in image stabilization it can make compared to lens IS.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> relax guys. It is not like "innovative Canon" is about to launch the first ever camera with in-body stabilizer. It was invented 15 effing years ago. By more innovative companies. Tested and time-tried. It works. Reliably.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
> ...




And this is the crux of it.... it is old technology (I have an E-510) but for Canon it is new technology. It remains to be seen how well the Canon implementation performs


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> And this is the crux of it.... it is old technology (I have an E-510) but for Canon it is new technology. It remains to be seen how well the Canon implementation performs



in innovative Canon we trust. lol


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> relax guys. It is not like "innovative Canon" is about to launch the first ever camera with in-body stabilizer. It was invented 15 effing years ago. By more innovative companies. Tested and time-tried. It works. Reliably.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
> ...



To be fair: Just because Canon decided to go with in lens IS doesn't mean Canon is less innovative than those who decided to go with sensor IS. The arguement can be turned around either way. Canon just chose a different route that still works better, by the way, at longer focal lengths. There are trade-offs either way. One is not the end all to be all. Stating facts one way or the other is one thing, being constantly obnoxious about things is quite another.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

Canon chose a route that works for big white teles. They were not innovative enough to even think about anything else. that's all. 

From a customer perspective, it would be best to have as much functionality in camera body and as little as possible duplicated in each lens. Most of us have 1 (or max. 2) cameras but multiple lenses.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 11, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Is there though? I mean, in either case, you have to have a way to ensure that where ever the sensor rests after it's done moving, it's in the proper position. I'm really not going to presume one way or another. I don't engineer cameras. But, I trust the people that do. If they say they can successfully put IBIS in a camera, make it work, and not throw the sensor out of alignment, then I trust that they could do that. I think it's a little obsessive to get all frantic over some kind of theoretical failure mode where the IBIS fails or breaks and leaves your sensor hopelessly out of alignment. I mean, does this actually happen with any of the cameras that already have it, or is this just panicking for the sake of panicking?



There was a recent rumor that showed the IBIS mechanism. Even though it was drawn in schematics, the IBIS mechanism showed quite a few moving parts. 

Contributors are not saying that the engineers are going to mess it up, rather, they pointed out that reliability is an issue that Canon takes seriously and that Canon would delay release until a reliable mechanism is developed,... versus some of the competition who would just deliver less robust systems.

Professionals expect Canon cameras to take a significant beating. Professionals don't expect Sony Cameras to take a beating. That's the difference.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 11, 2018)

4fun said:


> Canon chose a route that works for big white teles. They were not innovative enough to even think about anything else. that's all.



From a design perspective, IL stabilization is better than IB stabilization;
The camera is most stable at the 3 points of contact; left hand, right hand and face. The camera has the most shake out further away from the face. This is exacerbated when the longer the lens becomes. Furthermore, stabilizing tilt and panning in the body means that the sensors to detect the movement need to be orders of magnitude greater than if you were detecting those movements at the lens. 

From the above, it makes a whole lot of sense why Canon chose the ILIS rather than IBIS.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 11, 2018)

nchoh said:


> From a design perspective, IL stabilization is better than IB stabilization;



only for tele lenses on mirrorslappers to get a stabilized viewfinder image. On mirrorfree IBIS works just as well (in principle, not necessarily every real life implementation). In 2018 lens IS is just a duplication of a costly element in each lens, that could be put into 1 camera body and work for all lenses. 

Ah yes, a few cheap, tiny acceleration sensors [from any smartphone] could still be placed near front end of lens. But not the moving around of glass elements. But ... innovative Canon.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> only for tele lenses on mirrorslappers to get a stabilized viewfinder image. On mirrorfree IBIS works just as well (in principle, not necessarily every real life implementation). In 2018 lens IS is just a duplication of a costly element in each lens, that could be put into 1 camera body and work for all lenses.
> 
> Ah yes, a few cheap, tiny acceleration sensors [from any smartphone] could still be placed near front end of lens. But not the moving around of glass elements. But ... innovative Canon.



*sigh* IBIS does not work as well as IS on tele lenses. It just doesn't, especially on FF. So like I said, each system has its trade-offs. Honestly, I had much rather have to deal with no IS on a short lens than IBIS on a 400mm. Please.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 12, 2018)

FWIW, IS uses gyroscopes, not accelerometers; they have to sense rotation.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> Ah yes, a few cheap, tiny acceleration sensors [from any smartphone] could still be placed near front end of lens. But not the moving around of glass elements. But ... innovative Canon.



Firstly, IS is currently implemented using direct feedback. That way the lens handles the vibration reductions itself and That is why it works smoothly. Your suggestion means that each lens must communicate back to the camera to tell it to compensate for the movement.

Several problems. Each lens sensor needs to be properly calibrated. The camera needs to have a feedback profile - when lens moves x sensor must move y... So for 5 axes the profile would be huge. Also if there is problem with IS, where would the fault lie? Camera or lens.

Perhaps that is why nobody has. Implemented your innovative idea?


----------



## Talys (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> only for tele lenses on mirrorslappers to get a stabilized viewfinder image. On mirrorfree IBIS works just as well (in principle, not necessarily every real life implementation). In 2018 lens IS is just a duplication of a costly element in each lens, that could be put into 1 camera body and work for all lenses.



There's just so much in that paragraph that is untrue 

Take a Sony A7R3 and Sony GMaster 24-105/4, 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 all with OSS.

Take a whole bunch of real-life, hand-held photos with the IS switch "On" and "Off", while leaving IBIS on. Now try it with some adapted EF lenses that have In-lens stabilization. You will most certainly notice that IBIS does not work as well as ILIS, even at portraiture focal lengths.

Let me put it another way. If Sony IBIS worked as well as ILIS, Sony would stop putting image stabilization into their non telephoto lenses. Perhaps there is a way to achieve 4 stops of stabilization in-camera, but it doesn't exist today, and not because camera vendors are trying to squeeze us.

The whole telephoto thing... well, anyways, please just try to shoot some stuff handheld with a telephoto lens with and without in-lens IS and with and without IBIS. Since small movements will take the whole subject out of the image, just imagine trying to compensate for shake. IBIS vs. In-lens for telephoto lenses really has nothing to do with whether or not the camera has a mirror; just IBIS by itself really doesn't do a whole lot at telephoto focal lengths.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> l
> Take a whole bunch of real-life, hand-held photos with the IS switch "On" and "Off", while leaving IBIS on.



I used a gen 2 A7 for a couple of years, and I wasn’t ever clear on whether there is independent control of the IS systems. 

This posts suggests you can’t pick and choose, but maybe it’s lens and body combo dependent.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392917/0&year=2015#13247862


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 12, 2018)

melgross said:


> They probably know more about their sensor designs than you do. Likely it’s true about the body designs as well. I see no reason why they would lie about it.


Of course those statements are true.

I interpreted the canon statement as meaning the body they designed couldn’t support IBIS despite efforts. That would be a failure of system engineering. Perhaps the better interpretation is that they weren’t ready at the point in time that the body was released. I hope the second interpretation is correct.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> only for tele lenses on mirrorslappers to get a stabilized viewfinder image. On mirrorfree IBIS works just as well (in principle, not necessarily every real life implementation). In 2018 lens IS is just a duplication of a costly element in each lens, that could be put into 1 camera body and work for all lenses.
> 
> Ah yes, a few cheap, tiny acceleration sensors [from any smartphone] could still be placed near front end of lens. But not the moving around of glass elements. But ... innovative Canon.


Whenever someone uses “mirrorslapper” it’s a good sign that they will substitute abuse and ignorance for logic and knowledge. Olympus and Panasonic had to introduce IS into their newer telephotos to get good image stabilzation as their IBIS is inadequate for longer focal lengths.


----------



## Talys (Dec 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I used a gen 2 A7 for a couple of years, and I wasn’t ever clear on whether there is independent control of the IS systems.
> 
> This posts suggests you can’t pick and choose, but maybe it’s lens and body combo dependent.
> 
> https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392917/0&year=2015#13247862


To be fair, when I was using the A7R3, most of the time I wasn't using the menu setting to enable/disable IS (or whatever Sony calls it). Mostly, I would compare, for example, Canon's 85/1.4IS with Sony's 85/1.8with no IS.

I did, however turn IBIS on/off on the 85/1.4 (the lens doesn't have built-in IS). It visibly reduces a jitter, as in what you see through the viewfinder, but it does not make enough of a difference, at least for me, to adjust the kind of shutter speeds that I would use to take a shot-- as opposed to the adapted 85L1.4IS, where ILIS definitely made a difference in terms of what I could get away with.

Now that you mention it, I do recall that on some lenses, the in-camera IS settings were disabled.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

i prefer a 50/1.4 IS lens on a mirrorfree FF camera with IBIS over an RF 50/1.2 without IS on an EOS R without IBIS.  

having both - IS and IBIS - and those 2 systems working together smoothly for combined maximum effect is best. having no stabilization at all is worst. 

so, as long as Canon sells even brand new lenses without IS they better see to it that there is at least tstabilization in the camera ... which works with any lens, even when IBIS benefits are less than in-lens systems. 

i therefore welcome laggard Canon finally putting IS into (some of?) their future cameras. it really was about time.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 12, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Whenever someone uses “mirrorslapper” it’s a good sign that they will substitute abuse and ignorance for logic and knowledge.



That's partly because 90% of the people using it here are sockpuppet accounts for the same person, i.e. AvTvM who seems to have originated it (as a term of derision at least).


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

Looking at the big picture for a moment, I have to scratch my head. Is it only on Canon Rumors that a feature already on other FF mirrorless cameras, desired by a significant number of photographers, is some kind of existential controversy?


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Looking at the big picture for a moment, I have to scratch my head. Is it only on Canon Rumors that a feature already on other FF mirrorless cameras, desired by a significant number of photographers, is some kind of existential controversy?



yes. It is a small number of "very conservative" and vocal Canon [mirrorslapper] users. Somehow they seem over-represented here.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. It is a small number of "very conservative" and vocal Canon [mirrorslapper] users. Somehow they seem over-represented here.


I don't know if you were the one who coined the term "mirrorslapper," but it is descriptive. I'm not sure how it came to be taken as insulting or derogatory, except in context. On its own, the term does describe what is becoming an archaic, RELATIVELY noisy technology. 

Still, the kind of gleeful needling, the taunting, and otherwise irritating tone that some use (including myself from time to time, depending on the weather, mood of my spouse, number of drinks I've had, noise level of the toddlers, and pigheadedness of other posters) can be annoying and tiresome.

Who isn't tiresome from time to time? Only those who are tiresome ALL of the time.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 12, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Looking at the big picture for a moment, I have to scratch my head. Is it only on Canon Rumors that a feature already on other FF mirrorless cameras, desired by a significant number of photographers, is some kind of existential controversy?


Yes!

Once upon a time, long long ago, Canon decided to go with lens IS. Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much. It was a good decision and all was well. 

Time passes.....

IBIS comes into use by Olympus and Panasonic, but those do not really count because they are "toy" cameras (not FF)….
Sony starts making cameras that use IBIS, and then a FF camera with IBIS, throwing the "toy camera" defense out the window....

We have the controversy, IS in the lens, or IBIS? Which is better? Once again, we go back to Canon's original decision, "Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much", so Canon stays the course....

Then Olympus and Panasonic start with lens IS AND IBIS, and the combination outperforms both....

Then Canon announces that an upcoming camera will include IBIS and the forum goes wackety wackety! Many are left scratching their heads and looking quizzical... perplexed.... confused.....


----------



## melgross (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> Canon chose a route that works for big white teles. They were not innovative enough to even think about anything else. that's all.
> 
> From a customer perspective, it would be best to have as much functionality in camera body and as little as possible duplicated in each lens. Most of us have 1 (or max. 2) cameras but multiple lenses.


Canon didn’t just “choose”. They basically invented the technology. This was way before digital came out. Sony has licensed Canon’s IS optical technical technology for decades. I don’t know if Nikon has too.

Some of you guys are trying to make this seem so simple. It’s not.


----------



## melgross (Dec 12, 2018)

nchoh said:


> There was a recent rumor that showed the IBIS mechanism. Even though it was drawn in schematics, the IBIS mechanism showed quite a few moving parts.
> 
> Contributors are not saying that the engineers are going to mess it up, rather, they pointed out that reliability is an issue that Canon takes seriously and that Canon would delay release until a reliable mechanism is developed,... versus some of the competition who would just deliver less robust systems.
> 
> Professionals expect Canon cameras to take a significant beating. Professionals don't expect Sony Cameras to take a beating. That's the difference.


Well, Sony hasn’t really made a high end pro camera yet. Their “pro” lines are equivalent to both Canon and Nikon’s Mid lines.


----------



## fentiger (Dec 12, 2018)

did canon 1st use Image stabilisation in binoculars or lenses ?


----------



## Treyarnon (Dec 12, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Yes!
> 
> Once upon a time, long long ago, Canon decided to go with lens IS. Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much. It was a good decision and all was well.
> 
> ...



Canon developed lens IS back in the film days.. because, shifting an entire roll of film is kinda difficult.

When digital came along, it was Minolta (which became the Sony camera division) who developed IBIS. Olympus and Panasonic followed suit.


----------



## Talys (Dec 12, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> We have the controversy, IS in the lens, or IBIS? Which is better?
> …
> 
> Then Olympus and Panasonic start with lens IS AND IBIS, and the combination outperforms both....
> ...


I'm not sure I've seen any cogent arguments that IBIS + ILIS is a BAD thing. Most people who want in-lens stabilization simply say that they wouldn't give it up, whether or not the camera body has IBIS. I don't think there are a lot of folks who say "no, I don't want IBIS!".

In many cases (like me), it really comes down to this: the only way to get IBIS on full frame enthusiast camera is to buy a Sony, and that just has a bunch of other compromises that makes it unattractive as a system. Like, if I'm going to use a mirrorless, and I have to choose between IBIS and DPAF, I'll choose DPAF every time. But would I take both? Sure!


----------



## melgross (Dec 12, 2018)

A difference between IBIS and lens based stab. is that with the optical elements at the nodal point on the lens, the module only needs to move a microscopic amount to have a very large affect on the sensor. But sensor based IS is different because the sensor needs to move the entire amount of the shake at the rear of the camera. It also has to account for the wobble of the lens itself. Lens based IS can deal with larger movements than can IBIS.

While controlling the module in the lens can be quite difficult, it’s been refined for decades by Canon. In fact, it worked well way back then on video cameras for which it was first developed for photographic purposes. Yes, it was used in binoculars early on, where shake can be quite a problem in the higher magnification lengths.

One variation of IBIS has a sensor with a much larger sensing area, and pixel count, than the image needs. As the image moves around on that large sensor it can account for some camera shake. It’s not really used much because it’s not effective on all modes of shake.

But again, IBIS simply doesn’t look as good when everything is considered. There’s a difference between sharp, and etched. In lens looks sharp, while IBIS looks etched.

It’s better than nothing, but since cost is the real issue here, not quality, we see that Sony also has in lens IS. Wonder why?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 12, 2018)

melgross said:


> A difference between IBIS and lens based stab. is that with the optical elements at the nodal point on the lens, the module only needs to move a microscopic amount to have a very large affect on the sensor. But sensor based IS is different because the sensor needs to move the entire amount of the shake at the rear of the camera. It also has to account for the wobble of the lens itself. Lens based IS can deal with larger movements than can IBIS.
> 
> While controlling the module in the lens can be quite difficult, it’s been refined for decades by Canon. In fact, it worked well way back then on video cameras for which it was first developed for photographic purposes. Yes, it was used in binoculars early on, where shake can be quite a problem in the higher magnification lengths.
> 
> ...



One of the peculiarities of camera forums is the propensity of people to latch onto single techniques or architectures as panacea for all problems. 

Personally, I enjoy discussing and learning about technology without advocating for any flavor of it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

And now Canon is being bashed for a feature that hasn't been officially announced, that hasn't been demonstrated, and that hasn't been reviewed.

"It won't work! It will break the camera! It isn't necessary and I don't want to pay for it! Stop responding to the competition!"

And of course those who want IBIS are being bashed too, directly and implicitly.

"You are so naïve! Can't you take good pictures without it? Real photographers use tripods! Don't you know how great high ISO looks these days? Why would you want to take MOVIES with a STILLS camera? Aaarrggghhhh!"

Echoes of the dawn of digital dSLRs?

Thankfully, in some parts of the world, The Market still has some influence. If it works, great! If it doesn't, on to the next indispensable feature.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

melgross said:


> But again, IBIS simply doesn’t look as good when everything is considered. There’s a difference between sharp, and etched. In lens looks sharp, while IBIS looks etched.



sorry, but i cannot follow you here and consider the statement BS. No disrespect to you, just to this statement. 

I Do NOT believe any human being can differentiate "the look" of images captured using a) in-lens stabilizer (IS) or b) in-body (IBIS) or c) both systems active. 

But maybe it's just my poor pair of eyes. My ears also fail to hear significant differences between a well mastered CD and a well-mastered Vinyl LP. But I do notice bandwidth compressed streams.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 12, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ... "It won't work! It will break the camera! It isn't necessary and I don't want to pay for it! Stop responding to the competition!" ...



*It won't work!* - I haven't really seen that said here.

*It will break the camera! * - I haven't really seen that said here.

*It isn't necessary and I don't want to pay for it!* - personal opinion.

*Stop responding to the competition!* - Really?

Now who's painting a bad light on others?


----------



## melgross (Dec 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> One of the peculiarities of camera forums is the propensity of people to latch onto single techniques or architectures as panacea for all problems.
> 
> Personally, I enjoy discussing and learning about technology without advocating for any flavor of it.


I’ve got a lot of familiarity with these. IBIS came about because of cost issues. It was felt that it would be a whole lot cheaper, and it is. The first years were a disaster though. IBIS was simply terrible. Each generation gets better. Five years ago I would even think of using IBIS fir anything, I’d rather take the chance with shake.

Now, it’s fine most of the time. In camera is still better, but that may change later on.


----------



## melgross (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> sorry, but i cannot follow you here and consider the statement BS. No disrespect to you, just to this statement.
> 
> I Do NOT believe any human being can differentiate "the look" of images captured using a) in-lens stabilizer (IS) or b) in-body (IBIS) or c) both systems active.
> 
> But maybe it's just my poor pair of eyes. My ears also fail to hear significant differences between a well mastered CD and a well-mastered Vinyl LP. But I do notice bandwidth compressed streams.


You may not believe it, but it’s true nevertheless. I’m by far from the only one seeing it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

nchoh said:


> *It won't work!* - I haven't really seen that said here.
> 
> *It will break the camera! * - I haven't really seen that said here.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure about "bad light," but it is a little early to be fretting over a feature that promises improved control over camera shake, while at the same time scolding those who want IBIS. Such naysayers, sounding like Eeyore from Winne the Pooh, are entitled to a "spot light."

I've paraphrased, but the above sentiments have been expressed throughout this thread. Please go back and read the thread and you'll see examples of each. I'm surprised, even scanning through, you didn't catch them.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> Ah yes, a few cheap, tiny acceleration sensors [from any smartphone] could still be placed near front end of lens. But not the moving around of glass elements. But ... innovative Canon.


Silly me. I keep forgetting about your masterful design and engineering chops. Disassembling my smartphone now to install those parts onto my EF 35mm f/1.4L II.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Silly me. I keep forgetting about your masterful design and engineering chops. Disassembling my smartphone now to install those parts onto my EF 35mm f/1.4L II.


 
ah here comes the Canon Fan Boy. lolz.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 12, 2018)

melgross said:


> You may not believe it, but it’s true nevertheless. I’m by far from the only one seeing it.


Melgross, "etched" is the perfect description. I have been looking for the right word since getting my Olympus. Etched is the word.

I think the problem people (including me) are having with our friend here is not his desire for IBIS. Just his obnoxious manner when he makes his claims/demands. I don't think anyone is against IBIS. I know I am not. Heck, if a combination of IBIS / lens IS makes things better then I am all for it. Who wouldn't be? 

But for a guy constantly running around like he does, well, it kind of reminds one of a puppy that hasn't quite mastered the training pads nor the doggy door.

But that's who he is.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

nchoh said:


> *It won't work!* - I haven't really seen that said here.
> 
> *It will break the camera! * - I haven't really seen that said here.
> 
> ...


Oh! Here's a quote from you.
"Throw in the fact the size of the stabilization mechanism and I think there is going to be a lot of trade off versus robustness."
And you were responding to an earlier post fretting about IBIS related failures, I believe.
Yes, I'm paraphrasing such sentiments by saying, "It will break the camera."


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> ah here comes the Canon Fan Boy. lolz.


Yes. I am the Tesla to your Edison.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Melgross, "etched" is the perfect description. I have been looking for the right word since getting my Olympus. Etched is the word.
> 
> I think the problem people (including me) are having with our friend here is not his desire for IBIS. Just his obnoxious manner when he makes his claims/demands. I don't think anyone is against IBIS. I know I am not. Heck, if a combination of IBIS / lens IS makes things better then I am all for it. Who wouldn't be?
> 
> ...



Interesting. I've never noticed the etched look before, though some friends have shown a lot of pics from their newer Olympus cameras. Do you have any examples? That would be helpful.

So, your shots without IBIS don't look etched? Examples, examples.

Great. We now have another worry, "IBIS will make my photos look etched!"

But at least we could then use the old line, "Hi! Would you like to come up to my room to see my etchings?"


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

You are "etched"! Worse than being p4wnd! .... oO


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

the last time "etched" crossed my mind was when i looked at some of my old Kodachrome slides. They are literally etched.


----------



## Otara (Dec 12, 2018)

Does sound a lot like some of the hifi claims made by enthusiasts, absent blind testing etc.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> Canon chose a route that works for big white teles. They were not innovative enough to even think about anything else. that's all.


How do you know?
They were talking about the superiority of inlens IS at long focal lengths for years which means to me that they tried doing it. Or do you not have the imagination to think of that?
[sarcasm off]

By the way, Canon's in lens stabilitsation is now pretty much up to 5 stops. Reportedly Sony's heroic IBIS is barely 3 stops even on their short to medium focal lengths. I know which I would rather have.But as others have said, I would not object to both, I just don't take the pueriley oversimplistic antagonistic view of it that you do.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 12, 2018)

*For me, having IBIS is a deal-breaker.* I consider IBIS an unwanted and unneeded complication to an otherwise great camera. YMMV.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 12, 2018)

c.d.embrey said:


> *For me, having IBIS is a deal-breaker.* I consider IBIS an unwanted and unneeded complication to an otherwise great camera. YMMV.


I am wary of such declarations. At the moment, I don’t want a camera without an optical viewfinder. However, it’s possible that in the future, “great cameras” all come without them. Same possibility with IBIS.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2018)

c.d.embrey said:


> *For me, having IBIS is a deal-breaker.* I consider IBIS an unwanted and unneeded complication to an otherwise great camera. YMMV.


[Facetiousness detector beeping.]

That's exactly what I said when Honda added ABS. Then I said it again when they added TCS. Backup camera? No way. I remember being upset when the Accord no longer offered manual transmission! Automatic just adds too much weight and complication!
BTW, we are buying a new Honda this week.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 12, 2018)

Again, is there actually any track record of IBIS systems failing or causing sensor misalignment on other cameras, or are we just so bored we're manufacturing boogeymen here?


----------



## nchoh (Dec 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Oh! Here's a quote from you.
> "Throw in the fact the size of the stabilization mechanism and I think there is going to be a lot of trade off versus robustness."
> And you were responding to an earlier post fretting about IBIS related failures, I believe.
> Yes, I'm paraphrasing such sentiments by saying, "It will break the camera."



From robustness to breaking the camera is quite a hyperbolic leap. So who's going into a tizzy?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2018)

nchoh said:


> From robustness to breaking the camera is quite a hyperbolic leap. So who's going into a tizzy?


Ah. Kit.!


----------



## dak723 (Dec 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not sure about "bad light," but it is a little early to be fretting over a feature that promises improved control over camera shake, while at the same time scolding those who want IBIS. Such naysayers, sounding like Eeyore from Winne the Pooh, are entitled to a "spot light."
> 
> I've paraphrased, but the above sentiments have been expressed throughout this thread. Please go back and read the thread and you'll see examples of each. I'm surprised, even scanning through, you didn't catch them.



I strongly suggest that you read more carefully. No one has fretted over IBIS,* merely asked questions* about *possible* long term alignment issues.
No one has scolded those who want IBIS. What people have mentioned is that in their experience, or in the experience of some photographers, IBIS on a FF camera* may not be as effective* as those who champion it's wonderfulness believe. People (like me) have said that *as long as they have lenses with IS,* then IBIS is not necessary. That doesn't imply it won't be necessary for others or that it won't be beneficial to everyone.

I don't believe that you are intentionally inflaming the issue, but like many forum members, your posts often tend to exaggeration and misinterpretation.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I strongly suggest that you read more carefully. No one has fretted over IBIS,* merely asked questions* about *possible* long term alignment issues.
> No one has scolded those who want IBIS. What people have mentioned is that in their experience, or in the experience of some photographers, IBIS on a FF camera* may not be as effective* as those who champion it's wonderfulness believe. People (like me) have said that *as long as they have lenses with IS,* then IBIS is not necessary. That doesn't imply it won't be necessary for others or that it won't be beneficial to everyone.
> 
> I don't believe that you are intentionally inflaming the issue, but like many forum members, your posts often tend to exaggeration and misinterpretation.



Do you believe that Canon's implementation of IBIS will be a technical failure?


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Do you believe that Canon's implementation of IBIS will be a technical failure?


No one knows. So far, no company could fully address the inherent shortcomings of the IBIS technology, including sway, jagged picture, limited usefulness in long focal lengths, heat, performance in low light, etc. All the companies report is their "success stories" in certain situations which are echoed by direct or indirectly paid reviewers and repeated by some forum dwellers. Actual users of technology may have reservations. Perhaps Canon can do a little bit better implementation job than the competition.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> No one knows. So far, no company could fully address the inherent shortcomings of the IBIS technology, including sway, jagged picture, limited usefulness in long focal lengths, heat, performance in low light, etc. All the companies report is their "success stories" in certain situations which are echoed by direct or indirectly paid reviewers and repeated by some forum dwellers. Actual users of technology may have reservations. Perhaps Canon can do a little bit better implementation job than the competition.


I hope so. They've stuffed the rf 50mm f/1.2L with a lot of new tech, but no IS. If IBIS can help reduce shake roughly 3-stops between 24-70mm, that would be wonderful.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 13, 2018)

4fun said:


> sorry, but i cannot follow you here and consider the statement BS. No disrespect to you, just to this statement.
> 
> I Do NOT believe any human being can differentiate "the look" of images captured using a) in-lens stabilizer (IS) or b) in-body (IBIS) or c) both systems active.
> 
> But maybe it's just my poor pair of eyes. My ears also fail to hear significant differences between a well mastered CD and a well-mastered Vinyl LP. But I do notice bandwidth compressed streams.


That's because you don't own both.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2018)

Stop your kvETCHING!


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 13, 2018)

Ok...ok it's about time


----------



## nchoh (Dec 13, 2018)

So there are those who think that IBIS is best, or that it should be included in the camera...

Let's look at IBIS for a bit. The current iterations are 5 axis - X, Y, rotation, tilt and pan.

We know that X, Y and rotation can be stabilized without moving the sensor out of the plane of focus.

Tilt and pan stabilization *CANNOT *be achieved in body without the the sensor plan being misaligned with the plane of focus. 

So yes, Canon is right and the others who have selling 5-axis stabilization have been selling some gimmickry!

Just one of the reasons why Canon did not implement IBIS.


----------



## tmc784 (Dec 13, 2018)

I took pictures with 5DIV with 24-70 II lens , neither of them have IBIS/IS, all my pictures are tack sharp, if I want to use the very slow shutter speed , I seat my camera on a tripod and took picture with a remote switch.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2018)

nchoh said:


> So there are those who think that IBIS is best, or that it should be included in the camera...
> 
> Let's look at IBIS for a bit. The current iterations are 5 axis - X, Y, rotation, tilt and pan.
> 
> ...


To be clear, old friend, I'd buy an RF without the IBIS, as long as it is a step up from the EOS R in terms of ergonomics, EVF, and IQ. Otherwise, what advantage would it have over the trusty 5DIV? But a well reviewed IBIS that offers several stops for handheld when using my current 35mm f/1.4, or the crazy rf 50mm 1.2L would be wonderful. If it works, and has few drawbacks, why wouldn't a photographer want it? If Canon goes years without offering it, or if it is introduced and bombs, ok, the naysayers are right.


----------



## melgross (Dec 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Interesting. I've never noticed the etched look before, though some friends have shown a lot of pics from their newer Olympus cameras. Do you have any examples? That would be helpful.
> 
> So, your shots without IBIS don't look etched? Examples, examples.
> 
> ...



I’m not saying that it turns your photo into an etching. The difference is subtle. But it’s there. No I don’t have, offhand, examples I could use here, because I don’t have the same pictures taken both ways. I used to do testing, but I don’t have the proper bodies on hand to do this now. If someone with a new Nikon Z7 would do this with a high quality Nikon lens, not one of their new, mediocre lenses for the camera, we might be able to have something to discuss. I don’t recall if the camera allows you to turn IBIS off.


----------



## melgross (Dec 13, 2018)

Otara said:


> Does sound a lot like some of the hifi claims made by enthusiasts, absent blind testing etc.


No, it isn’t. This has been tested over the years.

I ran a commercial film lab for quite some time. I was also a color expert, involved in using, teaching, and evolving color standards, and testing methodologies. Admittedly, that was a while ago.

Still, some things don’t change. We could get a half dozen experts looking at the same test image, and while all of us were excellent in color perception, we still saw colors slightly differently. Nevertheless, we could always agree on what we were seeing, whether it was color, sharpness, or other deviations.

That is because the image is up there, in front of us. As long as the individuals have the training, knowledge and professionalism to work together, it’s not a problem.

Audio is a very different matter. It’s fleeting, for one thing. There’s no way we can have the same note hanging in the air. Because of that, even prosessionals can disagree about what they hear. Though real professionals, not just self described ones (and I’ve come across too many) can still find common ground, and usually agree about overall sound.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 13, 2018)

For all those arguing against IBIS, you can always turn it off. Just let people who would utilize that feature enjoy it. 

I don't utilize focus peaking, 4K 60 etc, but I'm not going to argue the case for getting more bang for your buck features.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 13, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> No one knows. So far, no company could fully address the inherent shortcomings of the IBIS technology, including sway, jagged picture, limited usefulness in long focal lengths, heat, performance in low light, etc. All the companies report is their "success stories" in certain situations which are echoed by direct or indirectly paid reviewers and repeated by some forum dwellers. Actual users of technology may have reservations. Perhaps Canon can do a little bit better implementation job than the competition.



This is why it seems that Canon is behind many times. They sit back and observe and see if there is a better way. Look at the AF bandwagon all jumped on with whirly screws etc. that looked like some 1800's mechanical monster. Canon observed and was late to the game but wow did they ever change the whole paradigm for lens communication. Notice all have gone the way Canon pioneered over 30 years ago now and are in many cases just now catching up. I am hoping history repeats itself with IBIS and Canon has a real solution that is as elegant as the EF mount was.


----------



## Talys (Dec 13, 2018)

nchoh said:


> So there are those who think that IBIS is best, or that it should be included in the camera...
> 
> Let's look at IBIS for a bit. The current iterations are 5 axis - X, Y, rotation, tilt and pan.
> 
> ...


I'm not really an IBIS fan, but if you check out 5-axis IBIS in a Sony body with a lens without image stabilization (and turn it on/off), you will notice that when on, the image appears less jittery, especially when it's an image with greater magnification (whether because of a combination of distance + focal length, or viewfinder magnification).

So, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a gimmick. However, practically, it doesn't change exposure settings for me by enough to matter, but I'm also not one to lower my shutter speed to the absolute lowest possible to get one more stop of ISO. I'll just use a flash, which some people seem to absolutely hate these days. I think that flashes/strobes create so many opportunities that would be otherwise missed. It isn't just about depth of field and ISOs, either -- If a photographer insists on only using available light, there's no opportunity to artificially create highlights, shadows, contrast, harden, soften or rake light, and so on. I guess it's just one more reason I've not totally leapt onto on the mirrorless bandwagon.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> To be clear, old friend, I'd buy an RF without the IBIS, as long as it is a step up from the EOS R in terms of ergonomics, EVF, and IQ. Otherwise, what advantage would it have over the trusty 5DIV? But a well reviewed IBIS that offers several stops for handheld when using my current 35mm f/1.4, or the crazy rf 50mm 1.2L would be wonderful. If it works, and has few drawbacks, why wouldn't a photographer want it? If Canon goes years without offering it, or if it is introduced and bombs, ok, the naysayers are right.



I was only making the point that Canon was BS customers as to why they did not implement IBIS. And to refute some of the BS claims that Canon was holding back on IBIS just so that they could sell more expensive ILIS systems.

To be clear, IBIS needs more X,Y space for IBIS to work properly. We know that the R mount has a larger throat size, so if anyone were to implement a good IBIS, Canon would be well placed to succeed.

Also tilt and pan stabilization can really only properly done In Lens. So the ideal design would be a split of 2-axis stab in lens and 3-axis stab in body (x,y,rotation). But that would require fast communications between lens and body. And we know who has implemented faster communications? Canon.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> I'm not really an IBIS fan, but if you check out 5-axis IBIS in a Sony body with a lens without image stabilization (and turn it on/off), you will notice that when on, the image appears less jittery, especially when it's an image with greater magnification (whether because of a combination of distance + focal length, or viewfinder magnification).
> 
> So, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a gimmick. However, practically, it doesn't change exposure settings for me by enough to matter, but I'm also not one to lower my shutter speed to the absolute lowest possible to get one more stop of ISO. I'll just use a flash, which some people seem to absolutely hate these days. I think that flashes/strobes create so many opportunities that would be otherwise missed. It isn't just about depth of field and ISOs, either -- If a photographer insists on only using available light, there's no opportunity to artificially create highlights, shadows, contrast, harden, soften or rake light, and so on. I guess it's just one more reason I've not totally leapt onto on the mirrorless bandwagon.



"the image appears less jittery...' Correct. 
But if the IBIS is correcting for pan or tilt, then the sensor plane is not not aligned to the place of focus... so less sharp away from the axis of pivot even if the image is less jittery. IMO gimmicky.

To be sure, I wouldn't mind a IBIS for some lenses, and sometimes I don't need super sharp photos either. I put out the points to kill some of the BS that has been posted on this thread. And as I said, Canon will probably put out the best IBIS/ILIS system soon enough.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 13, 2018)

nchoh said:


> And we know who has implemented faster communications? Canon.



so has Nikon. And made mount wider. And put IBIS into both Z7 *and* Z6. and don't tell me they are less capable than Canon. they were just too scared in 1987 to jettison their 1957 F-mount for fear of customer backlash (while Canon did take the heat of disgruntled FD owners).

Nikon also had VR in-lens stabilization for a long time, so they sure are aware of relative advantages of both systems. and still decided to equip their mirrorfree cameras with IBIS. and so far i have not heard "etching" stories from Z6/Z7 users. abd their sensors have not overheated/exploded up to now.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 13, 2018)

4fun said:


> so has Nikon. And made mount wider. And put IBIS into both Z7 *and* Z6. and don't tell me they are less capable than Canon. they were just too scared in 1987 to jettison their 1957 F-mount for fear of customer backlash (while Canon did take the heat of disgruntled FD owners).
> 
> Nikon also had VR in-lens stabilization for a long time, so they sure are aware of relative advantages of both systems. and still decided to equip their mirrorfree cameras with IBIS. and so far i have not heard "etching" stories from Z6/Z7 users. abd their sensors have not overheated/exploded up to now.



And why do I care about Nikon?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 13, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’m not saying that it turns your photo into an etching. The difference is subtle.



My view on this is that it is not so much the effect of IBIS on image quality, as the additional sharpening that many seem to do on Olympus images resulting from the smaller sensor size and resultant greater image magnification for any particular viewing size. I think this arises from two aspects: firstly, if the image is less than perfectly focussed or the exposure less than perfect, the corrections needed are far more apparent than an equivalent FF image. Secondly I suspect many are processing MFT images with the same formula they processed APS-C/FF images and that does not always work.
I have noticed both these effects when comparing MFT and FF images from my own kits.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 13, 2018)

Swinging or tilting the back plane (sensor) has no effect on overall sharpness unless you are talking about very significant movements that exceed the optical corrections of the lens. It will have a small effect on the plane of ideal focus at your subject but since the purpose of IBIS is to maintain the orientation of the subject to the camera one would assume that would be corrected by the IBIS mechanism. The chances of seeing any variation in the focal plane of the image without using highly advanced testing equipment should be remote IMO.

Modern lenses provide an infinite number of equally sharp back planes of focus. If they didn't you wouldn't have technical cameras with back plane movements or be able to use tilt lenses, bellows, extension tubes and such. Some lenses are better than this than others , of course, but at those levels of rotation it's hard to image any modern lens having a problem.

Not saying they're aren't possible issues with IBIS, I just don't things that's one to work about.

Tilting the sensor doesn't mean that the corners of you images won't be sharp. That's not how lenses work.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 14, 2018)

nchoh said:


> And why do I care about Nikon?



Simple: because they can IBIS and Canon cannot (yet) ... 

i don't care what you care about. I just pointed out in this ongoing discussion that not only Sony but also Nikon and Fujifilm and most other makers are offering in-body stabilization because it has value for most of their customers and works well. By itself and In parallel with IS in lenses, when properly implemented. 

Hope Canon gets their act together on this one as well.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 14, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Won't all that movement increase the likelihood that the sensor will get out of alignment after a number of years?



Or even after a couple rides across the parking lot in a Pelican case (w/ wheels)? 

I really do wonder about durability. Unlike a couple elements inside a lens that are moving in a single plain (I'm guessing this is the case, else they'd claim more 'axes') The sensor moving in every direction possible just sounds reckless. Sorry to rain on the parade, but I want mine nailed down.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 14, 2018)

4fun said:


> Simple: because they can IBIS and Canon cannot (yet) ...
> 
> i don't care what you care about. I just pointed out in this ongoing discussion that not only Sony but also Nikon and Fujifilm and most other makers are offering in-body stabilization because it has value for most of their customers and works well. By itself and In parallel with IS in lenses, when properly implemented.
> 
> Hope Canon gets their act together on this one as well.


u

As I and many on this thread have pointed out, there are problems with IBIS.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 14, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Sorry to rain on the parade, but I want mine nailed down.



Maybe it’s just me, but I imagine if you can float and actuate a sensor such that it reacts in near real time to random input in 5 degrees of freedom, you can figure out how to put it back where it started.

A kinematic mount is one such solution. Hardstops that respectively restrain 1-, 2-, and 3-degrees of freedom will repeatably return to the same location and orientation. You have to shim them in place at assembly, but that’s no different from a traditional fixed sensor.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 14, 2018)

4fun said:


> Simple: because they can IBIS and Canon cannot (yet) ...
> 
> i don't care what you care about. I just pointed out in this ongoing discussion that not only Sony but also Nikon and Fujifilm and most other makers are offering in-body stabilization because it has value for most of their customers and works well. By itself and In parallel with IS in lenses, when properly implemented.
> 
> Hope Canon gets their act together on this one as well.



Perhaps with regard to IBIS we should differentiate between "doing the right thing" and "doing the thing right"!!


----------



## 4fun (Dec 14, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Perhaps with regard to IBIS we should differentiate between "doing the right thing" and "doing the thing right"!!



yes. "really right".

= IBIS + Lens IS working seamlessly together. And each one easily user-switchable.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Or even after a couple rides across the parking lot in a Pelican case (w/ wheels)?
> 
> I really do wonder about durability. Unlike a couple elements inside a lens that are moving in a single plain (I'm guessing this is the case, else they'd claim more 'axes') The sensor moving in every direction possible just sounds reckless. Sorry to rain on the parade, but I want mine nailed down.


Canon introduced the Canon Macro EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM in 2009. 4 axis in lens image stabilization (hybrid).


----------



## 4fun (Dec 14, 2018)

nchoh said:


> u
> 
> As I and many on this thread have pointed out, there are problems with IBIS.



and there are also problems with lens-IS, sensors, AF systems, cameras and lenses, numerous problems!

the choice is yours ... either fret over (potential) problems and (possible) side-effects in some specifiic use scenarios ... or stop worrying and enjoy the benefits .., and switch it off, when not useful.

If and when "innovative Canon" finally comes up with IBIS. Might take them another few years, who knows.

IBIS is far more useful and beneficial for many more users than (4k or any other) video recording in stills cameras.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. "really right".
> 
> = IBIS + Lens IS working seamlessly together. And each one easily user-switchable.



Wasn't it you saying in lens IS was no longer necessary due to IBIS?


----------



## 4fun (Dec 14, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Wasn't it you saying in lens IS was no longer necessary due to IBIS?



No, not exactly. With current tech I consider IS still a good thing for *tele lenses* ... plus IBIS in addition for something like an extra 1 or 2 stops of stabilization.
For shorter focal lengths lenses - eg a 50mm f/1.2 - I'd be willing to take without IS if body has a good IBIS.

Overall I am always in favor of avoiding duplicated items/cost with each and every lens, when it can also be done once per camera body. Even more so, when moving mechanical shenanigans are involved. 

So ideally: solid state camera body, with the following functions "really right" integrated:
* Conversion of incoming photons into electrons and their subsequent processing and storage [sensor, CPUs, imaging pipeline, memory cards, software ]
* Blocking/Unblocking of incoming photons [aka "shutter"]
* Variable size round opening for incoming photons [ aka "aperture/iris"]
* Effective, automatic bundling of incoming photons precisely on sensor plane [aka "AF system"] 
* Effective, automatic stabilization of image on sensor and in viewfinder/display [aka "IBIS"] 
* Control points for those items [aka rings, dials, wheels, knobs, buttons, sliders, touchscreens, menu system etc.] ideally combined with status information displays. For example, instead of a "dumb top display" I'd prefer a fully customizable, combined control/information element. On camera body, instead of adding yet another "control ring" to each single lens!

For example something like this ...





https://photorumors.com/2012/03/23/interesting-mirrorless-camera-concept/

But it will probably be many more years until "innovative Canon" finally "invents" and drop feeds those "innovations" to us customers..


----------



## Otara (Dec 14, 2018)

melgross said:


> No, it isn’t. This has been tested over the years.
> 
> I ran a commercial film lab for quite some time. I was also a color expert, involved in using, teaching, and evolving color standards, and testing methodologies. Admittedly, that was a while ago.
> 
> ...



Thats pretty much a classic recipe to be vulnerable to cognitive biasses. If you'd acknowledged that claims without blind testing are vulnerable to error, Id take you more seriously, but you're arguing from an 'expert' perspective instead.

Its not like its been impossible to have highly stabilised images in the past after all, it just needed other techniques.


----------



## nchoh (Dec 14, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon introduced the Canon Macro EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM in 2009. 4 axis in lens image stabilization (hybrid).



Actually, it had extra sensors but still 2 axis of movement. What I read.


----------



## degos (Dec 14, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Maybe it’s just me, but I imagine if you can float and actuate a sensor such that it reacts in near real time to random input in 5 degrees of freedom, you can figure out how to put it back where it started.



But that's another mechanism, in a camera type that is moving away from mechanisms. Plus the gyros for all the axes.

I think IBIS is great in principle but I'm worried that it introduces a major points of failure for the body. If you trawl the 'spares or repairs' listings on eBay there are lots of lenses with failed IS, including ones that can't AF when the IS is active.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 14, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ...if you can float and actuate a sensor such that it reacts in near real time to random input in 5 degrees of freedom, you can figure out how to put it back where it started.



Yeah, I don't doubt Canon can pull it off—just makes me nervous. It's reassuring that they're not going to throw out some half-baked solution solely for marketing purposes.

But ultimately it seems to me like a giant leap in complexity to solve a problem that barely exists. I know not all lenses can correct 5 stops of shake, but many can—many more will as time goes on I suspect. And I've got a tripod…..


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2018)

Otara said:


> Thats pretty much a classic recipe to be vulnerable to cognitive biasses. If you'd acknowledged that claims without blind testing are vulnerable to error, Id take you more seriously, but you're arguing from an 'expert' perspective instead.
> 
> Its not like its been impossible to have highly stabilised images in the past after all, it just needed other techniques.


Blind testing is particularly difficult for colours.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 14, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Do you believe that Canon's implementation of IBIS will be a technical failure?


As an aside here, I have an Olympus E-510. It got used a lot! It went on lots of hikes and canoe trips because it was so much lighter than my Canon gear. It had a rough life. It was also the first Olympus camera to have IBIS. It still works! I know that this is only one data point and that one can not form conclusions about the technology from it, but it is safe to say that: A) it has survived 11 years and still works, and B) whatever comes out now from Canon *WILL* be better.


----------



## melgross (Dec 14, 2018)

Otara said:


> Thats pretty much a classic recipe to be vulnerable to cognitive biasses. If you'd acknowledged that claims without blind testing are vulnerable to error, Id take you more seriously, but you're arguing from an 'expert' perspective instead.
> 
> Its not like its been impossible to have highly stabilised images in the past after all, it just needed other techniques.



We work very hard to not have those biases. It’s why a group of experts makes these decisions. Of course, you can deny everything, if you like. How do you think we arrive at these standards? Groups of experts in the field work them out. The technical work needs to be understood, and put in perspective. We do double blind testing too. How do you think this is all done, even in the companies working on it?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 14, 2018)

degos said:


> But that's another mechanism, in a camera type that is moving away from mechanisms. Plus the gyros for all the axes.



It would be the same mechanism, presumably. I believe Sony and Olympus float the sensor in a magnetic field. The same field would be used to return it. Hard stops are robust and simple; we are talking about 6 machined parts.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Yeah, I don't doubt Canon can pull it off—just makes me nervous. It's reassuring that they're not going to throw out some half-baked solution solely for marketing purposes.
> 
> But ultimately it seems to me like a giant leap in complexity to solve a problem that barely exists. I know not all lenses can correct 5 stops of shake, but many can—many more will as time goes on I suspect. And I've got a tripod…..


From a marketing perspective, tripods are a very hard sell to a huge part of the market. They are indispensable in some situations, but very inconvenient in many.

When using a tripod, even lens IS isn't needed, so they aren't 100% relevant to the discussion of reducing camera shake for handheld situations.

I'm glad you get along well without much need for IS. Ten years ago I felt that way. But as I've aged, and as sensors have become more unforgiving of shake with higher resolutions, I'm grateful for IS on prime lenses and the few non-White zooms that have it. I like it on the 16-35 f/4 IS, and need it on the 85mm f/1.4L IS (which is a big reason I traded in my 85mm f/1.2L). It helps. It works. And, for better or worse, videographers are swaying the market towards more and more IS.

Most fairly experienced photographers understand it is harder to compensate for shake within the body as opposed to within the lens. We get it. Lectures regarding the difficulties are a lot of wasted breath/typing, in my opinion, because if Canon produces a FF body that has 3-stop IBIS to help those of us with current ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II lenses, or who want a little help with the new rf 50mm f/1.2L, we will jump right on it, or maybe wait for reviews and some early adopters to let us know how things are working out.

This is why I am surprised by so many posts that seem to be intended to prove it can't work. Fine. Such posts are predicting Canon will either not offer IBIS, or will be embarrassed by its ineffectiveness once they do. But many of these same posters have cheered 75MP sensors without worrying about noise!

If Canon offers it, really, how likely is IBIS to be an ineffective failure?

If worried, don't be an early adopter. I don't plan to be, but within six months or so, with good reviews and no widespread reports of breakdowns, I'd love a robust, pro-level mirrorless FF body with IBIS.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 14, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> But ultimately it seems to me like a giant leap in complexity to solve a problem that barely exists. I know not all lenses can correct 5 stops of shake, but many can—many more will as time goes on I suspect. And I've got a tripod…..


Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd. A good tripod is large, even when collapsed, heavy, and draws a lot of attention.

And setting up a tripod to take a shot can take anywhere from about a minute to several minutes. Holding the camera relatively still and taking a shot takes a few seconds. I'd much rather just have a camera or lens that can stabilize itself instead of having to carry around and set up a tripod every time I need an extra stop or two of shutter speed.

This doesn't even get into places where having a tripod just simply isn't even allowed.

Tripods have their time and place. But saying that they're just as practical or convenient as having stabilization in a camera or lens is ridiculous.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Actually, it had extra sensors but still 2 axis of movement. What I read.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd. A good tripod is large, even when collapsed, heavy, and draws a lot of attention.
> 
> And setting up a tripod to take a shot can take anywhere from about a minute to several minutes. Holding the camera relatively still and taking a shot takes a few seconds. I'd much rather just have a camera or lens that can stabilize itself instead of having to carry around and set up a tripod every time I need an extra stop or two of shutter speed.
> 
> ...


Absolutely right.


----------



## Durf (Dec 14, 2018)

I just recently bought a Pentax K1 that has IBIS for shooting my vintage lens collection and immediately noticed my keeper rate has drastically increased. Best investment I made in a long time!
IBIS and lenses with IS make a HUGE difference in my opinion; especially with my long lenses and now that I'm getting older.

A tripod is nice to use for certain types of photography but sucks to have to constantly carry it everywhere!

All of my modern lenses with my main Canon kit have IS and my keeper rate is almost 100%....unless I'm in a rush and not being careful. I know my keeper rate would be much lower without IS.

If the EOS R would of had IBIS I highly likely would of bought that instead of the K1. But I'm not waiting on Canon any longer! (and I got a GREAT deal on the K1) The K1 is actually a really nice machine, no regrets!


----------



## nchoh (Dec 14, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization



"Development of the new HYBRID Image Stabilizer (HYBRID IS) began with the search for a system that would sense and compensate for both types of camera shake. Simultaneous compensation for both angle and shift camera shake is an elusive goal: the solution was two sensors and a new algorithm. In addition to the conventional angular velocity sensor to detect angle-based camera shake. HYBRID IS incorporates a new acceleration sensor. Camera movement detected by the two sensors is integrated by a newly developed algorithm to calculate the amount and direction of movement"
https://global.canon/en/imaging/l-lens/technology/hybrid_is.html

All literature that I found indicate that there are extra sensors, not extra actuators, to correctly determine how much to correct for pan/tilt and/or X/Y shift. It's a bit tricky to understand, but it does prove the point that ILIS can handle most stabilization needs.


----------



## Quackator (Dec 14, 2018)

Looking at the breakdancer advice from Nikon how to clean stabilized sensors, on Sony's overheating problems and the fact that stabilizers don't neutralize object movement... I would prefer a body without in body stabilization.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 14, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd.



I was KIDDING about the tripod! Sorry to get your blood pressure up...


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 14, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> This is why I am surprised by so many posts that seem to be intended to prove it can't work. Fine. Such posts are predicting Canon will either not offer IBIS, or will be embarrassed by its ineffectiveness once they do. But many of these same posters have cheered 75MP sensors without worrying about noise!



I'm not trying to prove anything. I think I said "makes ME nervous" and I explained why. My own personal opinion. And the 'carry a tripod at all times'—I was kidding.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> I've said it before on here:
> 
> The R series was rushed out the door. Canon puts together good products, so overall the R is a good camera. The control ring is brilliant, the feel of the camera is good, the lenses aside from the kit lens are spectacular (not that the kit lens is bad, it's just not as improved as you'd think it would be).
> 
> ...



Agree - however those RF lenses / releases out of the door by Canon were the best of the releases I've ever seen in a ML announcement be it from Canon rivals as well Sony and Nikon.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 14, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> From a marketing perspective, tripods are a very hard sell to a huge part of the market. They are indispensable in some situations, but very inconvenient in many.
> 
> When using a tripod, even lens IS isn't needed, so they aren't 100% relevant to the discussion of reducing camera shake for handheld situations.
> 
> ...


Also, I have yet to see a venue that has a “no IBIS” policy, and there are a lot of places where tripods are banned.......


----------



## flip314 (Dec 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Also, I have yet to see a venue that has a “no IBIS” policy, and there are a lot of places where tripods are banned.......



There's an idea! Canon can pay venues to implement "NO IBIS" policies to sell more EOS R cameras.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2018)

nchoh said:


> "Development of the new HYBRID Image Stabilizer (HYBRID IS) began with the search for a system that would sense and compensate for both types of camera shake. Simultaneous compensation for both angle and shift camera shake is an elusive goal: the solution was two sensors and a new algorithm. In addition to the conventional angular velocity sensor to detect angle-based camera shake. HYBRID IS incorporates a new acceleration sensor. Camera movement detected by the two sensors is integrated by a newly developed algorithm to calculate the amount and direction of movement"
> https://global.canon/en/imaging/l-lens/technology/hybrid_is.html
> 
> All literature that I found indicate that there are extra sensors, not extra actuators, to correctly determine how much to correct for pan/tilt and/or X/Y shift. It's a bit tricky to understand, but it does prove the point that ILIS can handle most stabilization needs.



Well, I have no idea how many sensors / actuators it takes to qualify as controlling / compensating an axis. Canon seems to say the sensor/actuator are one and the same... calling them "angular velocity sensor (vibration gyro)" All I know is that Hybrid IS was developed specifically for macro and it is stated that it allows for 4 axis.

"Conventional image stabilizers of the type found in Canon IS lenses incorporate an angular velocity sensor (vibration gyro) to compensate for angular camera shake. Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the sensor, the IS system calculates the amount of blur on the image plane, after which lens elements in the IS are positioned to compensate for the shake. However, this type of image stabilizer can neither detect nor correct shift camera shake common to handheld macro photography.

The Hybrid IS includes an acceleration sensor in addition to the conventional angular velocity sensor (vibration gyro). Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the two sensors, a newly developed algorithm calculates the amount of blur on the image plane, after which lens elements in the IS are positioned to compensate for the two types of shake – a first in an interchangeable lens for SLR cameras and an excellent way to solve the problem of camera shake in macro photography."

And yes, I happen to think ILIS is superior in all cases.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And yes, I happen to think ILIS is superior in all cases.



ILIS in Canon lenses, I believe the best ones are 5 stops......

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II, 5.5 stops....

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II when used with an IS lens, 6.5 stops.....


----------



## nchoh (Dec 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ILIS in Canon lenses, I believe the best ones are 5 stops......
> 
> IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II, 5.5 stops....
> 
> IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II when used with an IS lens, 6.5 stops.....



So in this confusing world of image stabilization, let's think about this a bit...

Is there a way of objectively measuring how many stops the IS works. OK. Let's just take Olympus at their word. They say it is 5.5 stops.

Firstly, it is supposed to be 5 axis

"The 5-axis covers up/ down, left/right and rotation movements. " https://www.hireacamera.com/en-gb/b...lympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-image-stabilisation/ Whoa... that is actually only 3 axis of IS, up/down = 1, left/right =1 !

Then there is the question of the size of the sensor. Being a smaller sensor, the same travel of the sensor (during stabilization) would equate to more than 50% ~ 70% (someone do the math) more stabilization than a a Full frame sensor.

Throw in the fact that the M43 sensor has a variable image size... there's a lot of fudge room to play around with.

Panning IS is auto but not tilt. Why? My guess is that the amount of energy to stabilize vertical shake is significantly more. What happens when your sensor is 4 times larger?

We also know that image stabilization is of greater need in longer larger lenses. Throw that into the equation and the 5.5 stops does not translate well into FF cameras. Yes, there are advantages to being small, so let's be careful extrapolating to a FF camera.

No I am not against IBIS. I am just laying out the many challenges to implementing IBIS.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2018)

nchoh said:


> So in this confusing world of image stabilization, let's think about this a bit...
> 
> Is there a way of objectively measuring how many stops the IS works. OK. Let's just take Olympus at their word. They say it is 5.5 stops.
> 
> ...



And Olympus is Micro 4/3rds. I own a Canon FF and an Oly M4/3. I'll take the in lens IS any day of the week for longer focal lengths.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ILIS in Canon lenses, I believe the best ones are 5 stops......
> 
> IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II, 5.5 stops....
> 
> IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II when used with an IS lens, 6.5 stops.....



Do you believe the reality of those figures? Download the CIPA instructions for measuring IS and you will see the caveats. They use a vibratory device that they admit is quite different from what happens in practice and that camera manufacturers can design their IS systems to do well in their artificial tests - a bit like the diesel emissions scandal. I take those figures with a big pinch of salt as well as those from lenstip etc who have their own arbitrary definitions of what is sharp. See http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html for CIPA.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And Olympus is Micro 4/3rds. I own a Canon FF and an Oly M4/3. I'll take the in lens IS any day of the week for longer focal lengths.


I agree with you.

I also have a FF Canon and an Oly. The Canon ILIS beats the Oly IBIS hands down at longer focal lengths. At shorter ones, it’s hard to tell.

My real point is that this is not an A or B choice. Both systems working together are better than either one on its own... Canon already has ILIS, they are not going to toss it out the window and go to IBIS only, and companies like Olympus and Panasonic has already demonstrated ( commercial products) that you can use the two systems together and that the result is better than either system on its own.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Dec 15, 2018)

Another Canon/Oly user here, except most of my Canon lenses tend to be older generations with realistically 2-3 stop ILIS while my m43 equipment is newer. Hence, my personal bias is toward IBIS. However, for long lenses it was pretty well determined by Oly that IBIS alone wasn't up to task. It is well documented Oly had original prototypes of their ultra sharp 300 mm in the field for testing and quickly determined their existing IBIS implementation was inadequate. The 300 mm was optically redesigned and many body model's firmware was reworked. It took about two years, but ILIS was added to the 300 (and other in process lenses) and a method to sync. ILIS and IBIS was incorporated. The result per CIPA testing is worth 6.5 stops. At essentially the same time Panasonic, who had all ILIS implementations, added IBIS with similar results. Clearly moving around a FF sensor has engineering challenges beyond that of the much smaller m43 size, yet why not use the technology if it can simplify or allow improvements in the optical design of several lenses in the 'normal focal length' range?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> I also have a FF Canon and an Oly. The Canon ILIS beats the Oly IBIS hands down at longer focal lengths. At shorter ones, it’s hard to tell.
> 
> My real point is that this is not an A or B choice. Both systems working together are better than either one on its own... Canon already has ILIS, they are not going to toss it out the window and go to IBIS only, and companies like Olympus and Panasonic has already demonstrated ( commercial products) that you can use the two systems together and that the result is better than either system on its own.



You are very right, I think. It would never hurt to have both and it fun to read the "one or the other" comments.

I got the Olympus for my wife, but also to have IBIS and focus peaking for my old manual lenses. Don, I have the Oly 12-40 Pro and it is a great lens. However, for use with my old manual lenses the sensor's crop factor is a killer. I'll need a FF Canon, but in wait and see mode right now.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> I also have a FF Canon and an Oly. The Canon ILIS beats the Oly IBIS hands down at longer focal lengths. At shorter ones, it’s hard to tell.
> 
> My real point is that this is not an A or B choice. Both systems working together are better than either one on its own... Canon already has ILIS, they are not going to toss it out the window and go to IBIS only, and companies like Olympus and Panasonic has already demonstrated ( commercial products) that you can use the two systems together and that the result is better than either system on its own.



Oly introduced IBIS very early, Panasonic were much later to the game because (so the cynics said) they wanted to protect their ILIS lens market. Olympus trumpeted their IBIS and how it was so good they did not need the cost and weight penalty of adding IBIS - then they added IBIS to their 300mm f4: the cynics said that to sell enough copies they had to do this to make it appealing to Pana owners who had bodies without IBIS. 
Then Pana developed IBIS and both companies came out with hybrid IS that made all systems even better. 
And as far as I am aware, in 10 years since MFT was introduced I have never heard a single comment about the fragility or unreliability of IBIS systems.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Oly introduced IBIS very early, Panasonic were much later to the game because (so the cynics said) they wanted to protect their ILIS lens market. Olympus trumpeted their IBIS and how it was so good they did not need the cost and weight penalty of adding IBIS - then they added IBIS to their 300mm f4: the cynics said that to sell enough copies they had to do this to make it appealing to Pana owners who had bodies without IBIS.
> Then Pana developed IBIS and both companies came out with hybrid IS that made all systems even better.
> And as far as I am aware, in 10 years since MFT was introduced I have never heard a single comment about the fragility or unreliability of IBIS systems.


 I haven't heard such a comment either, but people don't generally talk to me about such things.  However, https://www.fujirumors.com/now-pana...is-looking-forward-fujifilm-x-h1-ibis-anyway/

There are plenty of complaints out there from people with IBIS and people with IS who have had problems. I have personally not had a problem and have not had anyone tell me about a problem they have had either way... but my personal experience would only be anecdotal anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I haven't heard such a comment either, but people don't generally talk to me about such things.  However, https://www.fujirumors.com/now-pana...is-looking-forward-fujifilm-x-h1-ibis-anyway/
> 
> There are plenty of complaints out there from people with IBIS and people with IS who have had problems. I have personally not had a problem and have not had anyone tell me about a problem they have had either way... but my personal experience would only be anecdotal anyway.


I this case, they are talking about a camera meant for shooting video, where stabilization is also done by pixel shifting the image..... which (for video) is much better than IBIS


----------



## old-pr-pix (Dec 16, 2018)

Right, the fujirumors link refers specifically to 'high-end video' with rigs, dollies and cranes, not hand-held video. Plus, what was the number one complaint once the GH5S was actually in the field? *It didn't have IBIS! * Panasonic took a gamble since a) they already had several ILIS lenses, b) their target market was 'high-end video', and c) with a physically larger sensor they needed room so they could used the same body as GH5. Their target market was o.k. with the decision to leave IBIS out, but the rest of the photo world and many forum dwellers punished them severely.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> Right, the fujirumors link refers specifically to 'high-end video' with rigs, dollies and cranes, not hand-held video. Plus, what was the number one complaint once the GH5S was actually in the field? *It didn't have IBIS! * Panasonic took a gamble since a) they already had several ILIS lenses, b) their target market was 'high-end video', and c) with a physically larger sensor they needed room so they could used the same body as GH5. Their target market was o.k. with the decision to leave IBIS out, but the rest of the photo world and many forum dwellers punished them severely.


I think this is a huge problem for the industry.... How do you mass market a camera designed for a specific audience, when the majority of users will not understand the decisions that have been made, as regardless of how good the product is, it will be roasted on the net?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 16, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> How do you mass market a camera designed for a specific audience,



You don’t, you market to that specific audience.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 16, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I think this is a huge problem for the industry.... How do you mass market a camera designed for a specific audience, when the majority of users will not understand the decisions that have been made, as regardless of how good the product is, it will be roasted on the net?



IMO this has been a growing issue for Canon over a few years now. They have eschewed chasing 'spec sheet marketing' and preferred to deliver things based on feedback from pros as to what will make the photographic experience easier or better, and when that has gone against the drift of the market place they have done little to explain why they did what they did even where the reasons were sound. Maybe all that is changing?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 16, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I this case, they are talking about a camera meant for shooting video, where stabilization is also done by pixel shifting the image..... which (for video) is much better than IBIS


True. But there are many here that have said they must have IBIS for their video shooting... or else.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 17, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> You don’t, you market to that specific audience.



To expand on that, you mass-market a consumer version of the product to fund R&D and development of the professional models.

That sometimes means you have to put stuff in the consumer model that makes it more marketable (spec sheet marketing) so that you can sell enough of the consumer model. Sounds like Panasonic may put IBIS in their consumer models but leave it out in the professional models.


----------



## dtgphoto (Dec 17, 2018)

gzroxas said:


> IBIS can be useful for stills and it’s probably not gonna hurt you if you leave it on. But your choice, I know in some occasions it doesn’t work as good as it should but since Canon’s low light is very bad compared to competitors, at least I can use IBIS to compensate


I recently had a client on a 1-2-1 workshop that shot sony a7riii that we just couldn't get to take a blur free long exposure on a tripod... until we turned off the IBIS. the sony was ok but having loaded them into Lightroom later for processing the colours are very strange


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 21, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> Right, the fujirumors link refers specifically to 'high-end video' with rigs, dollies and cranes, not hand-held video. Plus, what was the number one complaint once the GH5S was actually in the field? *It didn't have IBIS! * Panasonic took a gamble since a) they already had several ILIS lenses, b) their target market was 'high-end video', and c) with a physically larger sensor they needed room so they could used the same body as GH5. Their target market was o.k. with the decision to leave IBIS out, but the rest of the photo world and many forum dwellers punished them severely.



The GH5S didn't have IBIS because the GH5 did. There were some instances where the IBIS was a flop for video purposes when shooting from a helicopter or having it mounted to a car. We had some nasty issues with it when shooting from a helicopter, even with IBIS off. Luckily, we had a GH4 with us and were able to salvage the shoot. The GH5 is the better run to gun camera, the GH5S works well for those who are rigging up the camera with external recorders, field monitors and using a big gimbal. 

Given that the GH5S was aimed at the film industry, it wasn't a massive hit because the new Blackmagic camera with the same exact sensor at just over a half the cost of the GH5S. The Blackmagic also has better codecs, including RAW and the new incredible Blackmagic Raw. The Blackmagic has some incredible features that the GH5S is missing.


----------

