# IBIS comparison: Canon EOS R5 vs Sony α1



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2021)

> The-Digital-Picture has completed an exhaustive comparison between the Canon EOS R5 and Sony α1 and IBIS performance between the two cameras.
> The comparison has 680 highly analytical test subject results, which should quash any risk out outliers. Both cameras perform extremely well in these tests, but it looks like the Canon EOS R5 performs just a little bit better.
> From The-Digital-Picture
> I experience a 1/3 – 2/3 stop advantage with the Canon camera. That difference is not dramatic, and the bottom line is that IBIS is valuable in both camera brands. This feature adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here. IBIS is one more reason to love the latest mirrorless camera models. Read the full comparison
> Canon EOS R5 $3899...



Continue reading...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Aug 9, 2021)

No. This is a Canon Rumors site. The R5 is waaaaay better.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 9, 2021)

This surprises me because Sony IBIS is traditionally terrible.
I still guess that they did not use OIS lenses with the R5 to keep it fair.


----------



## AJ (Aug 9, 2021)

So how many stops does the R5 IBIS gain you compared to having no IBIS at all? I'm thinking test results, not marketing claims.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 9, 2021)

AJ said:


> So how many stops does the R5 IBIS gain you compared to having no IBIS at all? I'm thinking test results, not marketing claims.


how can that really be measured, it depends on how steady the user hands are.


----------



## AJ (Aug 9, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> how can that really be measured, it depends on how steady the user hands are.


Stops gained is a relative measure, not absolute.


----------



## Otara (Aug 9, 2021)

However the persons hands may not be consistently steady every shot, as can be seen in the results there is variation, and the focal length has an impact, etc etc.

My reading of the data is around 4 stops on this test, but it depends where you choose your start and end points from.


----------



## AJ (Aug 9, 2021)

Otara said:


> However the persons hands may not be consistently steady every shot, as can be seen in the results there is variation, and the focal length has an impact, etc etc.
> 
> My reading of the data is around 4 stops on this test, but it depends where you choose your start and end points from.


That's true - there is variation between test shots. That's why Brian Carnathan repeated each trial ten times. So it comes down to an average gain in stops.
I do wonder if there is a difference between focal lengths. Maybe so, maybe not. That would be interesting to test.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 9, 2021)

While I'm happy to root for Canon, I wonder if he tested more than one body of each. It doesn't sound like he did. It seems unlikely that there are no variations between bodies of the same model from the same manufacturer.


----------



## TinTin (Aug 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> This surprises me because Sony IBIS is traditionally terrible.
> I still guess that they did not use OIS lenses with the R5 to keep it fair.


You're right: they did not.

As stated in the article:



> With identical Canon and Sony non-stabilized lenses in the lab at the same time, this comparison hit the top of my to-do list, becoming the priority.
> 
> ...
> [IBIS] adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 10, 2021)

Good to see the A1 has improved IBIS. My A7RIII is only good for about 2 stops. A1 is my next camera, but I am eagerly waiting to see how the R3 holds up even though it's pixel challenged.


----------



## Jaeger (Aug 10, 2021)

The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters. those who bitch about it are the couch "content creators & professional reviewers" who never produce anything at all. (including youtubers). Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 10, 2021)

Selecting the Proper Brick Wall for Photographic Tests


----------



## Joules (Aug 10, 2021)

TinTin said:


> You're right: they did not.
> 
> As stated in the article:


Thanks for pointing out that this test compares performance with non stabilized lenses. To be more precise, they used just one lens on each body for the comparison: The systems respective native 50 mm 1.2 high end lens.

So you really can't generalize this result. For one, based on testing with just one focal length you can't extrapolate into how each system fares with for example a 24 and a 100 mm lens. It also can't be applied to consumer grade lenses like the Canon RF 50 mm 1.8 STM, as those constrain the image sensor motion further.

I would also expect Canon to further their advantage when it comes to combining lens IS with IBIS, since the larger mount gives them more freedom to move the sensor around. So these results also don't apply to that.

But for the specific case of the 50 mm 1.2 lens, this looks like a nice test and as that is a lens that does benefit from stabilization, it is good to see that Canon demonstrates a striking absence of Doom once more.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2021)

Joules said:


> Thanks for pointing out that this test compares performance with non stabilized lenses. To be more precise, they used just one lens on each body for the comparison: The systems respective native 50 mm 1.2 high end lens.
> 
> So you really can't generalize this result. For one, based on testing with just one focal length you can't extrapolate into how each system fares with for example a 24 and a 100 mm lens. It also can be applied to consumer grade lenses like the Canon RF 50 mm 1.8 STM, as those constrain the image sensor motion further.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right about not generalizing. In another thread I gave a link to a YouTube where a pro could not get a sharp shot from 60 hand held with the 400mm f/5.6L (non IS) + 1.4xTC at 1/320s on the R5.


----------



## PerKr (Aug 10, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters. those who bitch about it are the couch "content creators & professional reviewers" who never produce anything at all. (including youtubers). Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.



Well, the speed, resolution and dynamic range of the EOS 20D is good enough for 90% of the shooters out there. Actually, at least 95% of all shooters out there don't actually need anything more capable than the 1D mkII when it comes to stills. Whenever we think we do, it's just because we're generally not skilled enough.

If we specifically want the best image stabilisation, Sony just isn't it. "good enough" isn't even close to being the best and so "good enough" just isn't good enough.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 10, 2021)

I was always wondering how image stabilisation works and remember, that Uncle Rog said it is magic. 
So may guess is, that the electronics of IS-Systems are adapted stepwise by trial and error depending on long series of experiments: make thousands of photos with a primitive initial status, under ramdom conditions. Change parameters and compare whether something happens, change again until you see some improvement and repeat it so much times until you have good results. If this is in some way true, then IS-Systems can only have optimal results under certain conditions (those similar to the test-setting) and improvements cannot easily be done, because it would require another long series of testing. 
Only guessing.


----------



## Joules (Aug 10, 2021)

Berowne said:


> I was always wondering how image stabilisation works and remember, that Uncle Rog said it is magic.
> So may guess is, that the electronics of IS-Systems are adapted stepwise by trial and error depending on long series of experiments: make thousands of photos with a primitive initial status, under ramdom conditions. Change parameters and compare whether something happens, change again until you see some improvement and repeat it so much times until you have good results. If this is in some way true, then IS-Systems can only have optimal results under certain conditions (those similar to the test-setting) and improvements cannot easily be done, because it would require another long series of testing.
> Only guessing.


I very strongly doubt that is how IBIS systems are developed.

They should just be based on motion sensors (Inertial Measurement Units and Gyroscopes) in the body and lens to detect how the camera moved in a given time. The sensor is suspended on a movable platform that is then offset by the measured amount of movement to effectively put it back into the place where it had been originally. Do this at an sufficiently high rate and you'll limit the relative motion between the subject and sensor.

To eliminate motion (blur) more effectively (and this is definitely done in Canon's system) methods from control theory can be used to better regulate the relationship between measurements of movement and movement of the sensor.

That does not negate your conclusion that the conditions under which IBIS is most effective are limited. But your reasoning does not sound related to the reality of engineering.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 10, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters. those who bitch about it are the couch "content creators & professional reviewers" who never produce anything at all. (including youtubers). Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.


its an extra step that though and more time. I dont want to add any more time editing that i already have to.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2021)

Joules said:


> I very strongly doubt that is how IBIS systems are developed.
> 
> They should just be based on motion sensors (Inertial Measurement Units and Gyroscopes) in the body and lens to detect how the camera moved in a given time. The sensor is suspended on a movable platform that is then offset by the measured amount of movement to effectively put it back into the place where it had been originally. Do this at an sufficiently high rate and you'll limit the relative motion between the subject and sensor.
> 
> ...


IS is programmed also to be predictive not just reactive.


----------



## Joules (Aug 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> IS is programmed also to be predictive not just reactive.


Hence, my comments on control theory.

The first section just serves to illustrate that even if you wanted to keep the IBIS extremely basic you would not have to rely on random trial and failure an get a result that works only as long as you are lucky, as the post I replied to seemed to imply.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 10, 2021)

AJ said:


> I do wonder if there is a difference between focal lengths. Maybe so, maybe not. That would be interesting to test.


Canon states that there is.
Only certain lenses are rated for the highest shake resistance.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 10, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters.


Even if that is true, better is better.



Jaeger said:


> Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.


Catalyst browse works by cropping.
It can't really be compared with IBIS + OIS.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You are absolutely right about not generalizing. In another thread I gave a link to a YouTube where a pro could not get a sharp shot from 60 hand held with the 400mm f/5.6L (non IS) + 1.4xTC at 1/320s on the R5.


That's been my experience with a 700mm f8 lens (vintage Questar 700 mirror lens) on the R5, as opposed to my former Nikon Z6. My main impression is that I'm not sure whether the R5 IBIS is on, or doing anything (and I'm aware of the menu gymnastics to get it to operate on a non-Canon lens.)

The Nikon Z6 with an OLD Nikon 400 f2.8 (AF, not IS) that weighs a ton (and handheld) was impressive.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> That's been my experience with a 700mm f8 lens (vintage Questar 700 mirror lens) on the R5, as opposed to my former Nikon Z6. My main impression is that I'm not sure whether the R5 IBIS is on, or doing anything (and I'm aware of the menu gymnastics to get it to operate on a non-Canon lens.)
> 
> The Nikon Z6 with an OLD Nikon 400 f2.8 (AF, not IS) that weighs a ton (and handheld) was impressive.


Inertial mass could come into this in a serious way. Mirror lenses are very light and easy to shake around in contrast to the Nikon doorstop.


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 10, 2021)

Does the R6 has better IBIS then the R5? Because of bigger pixels?


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Inertial mass could come into this in a serious way. Mirror lenses are very light and easy to shake around in contrast to the Nikon doorstop.


It's a 4-pound lens.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> It's a 4-pound lens.


What does the 400/2.8 weigh? The newer version weighed over 11 lb.


----------



## HenryL (Aug 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What does the 400/2.8 weigh? The newer version weighed over 11 lb.


6.4lb


----------



## AlanF (Aug 11, 2021)

HenryL said:


> 6.4lb


He was writing about the Nikon 400/2.8 not the latest Canon, which is 6.4lb! The Nikon we were talking about because of its inertial mass will be in excess of 11lb. But, I don't know by how much.


----------



## Joules (Aug 11, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> Does the R6 has better IBIS then the R5? Because of bigger pixels?


If you mean that because of the lower resolution you can get away with a lower shutter speed on the R6, well, kinda. When compared to the R5 or any other body with higher resolution at the same viewing size, there won't be any difference. Shutter speed only becomes 'a disadvantage' for higher resolution bodies once you wish to benefit fully from all of that potential for extra detail.

As for the actual IBIS, I don't know why the R6 and R5 would have different IBIS units. And if they did, certainly the R6 would not have the better one.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What does the 400/2.8 weigh? The newer version weighed over 11 lb.


I think the point is that it’s not a light lens, and more important I’m comparing each with and without ibis. It’s about the stops of improvement. And handholding a long 11 pounds for photo testing gets shakier than handholding a short 4 pounds.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 11, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> I think the point is that it’s not a light lens, and more important I’m comparing each with and without ibis. It’s about the stops of improvement. And handholding a long 11 pounds for photo testing gets shakier than handholding a short 4 pounds.


It's the rapid movements that cause lens shake during normal shutter speeds and are corrected by the IBIS. A lens of 3-4lb reacts very quickly to muscular twitches whereas a heavy 11 ilb lens has 3-4x the inertial drag to movement. One of my older physicist friends who some years ago developed a shake went over to heavy lens to dampen his shakes.


----------



## Shooterdad (Aug 11, 2021)

Canon 8 stops, Sony 3 stops. This test doesn't really compare Canon and Sony IBIS. Canon IBIS works with IS lenses, and add up the IS stops. Sony IBIS doesn't.


----------



## HenryL (Aug 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> He was writing about the Nikon 400/2.8 not the latest Canon, which is 6.4lb! The Nikon we were talking about because of its inertial mass will be in excess of 11lb. But, I don't know by how much.


What is this "Nikon" you talk about???


----------



## Joules (Aug 12, 2021)

Shooterdad said:


> Canon 8 stops, Sony 3 stops. This test doesn't really compare Canon and Sony IBIS. Canon IBIS works with IS lenses, and add up the IS stops. Sony IBIS doesn't.


This test has nothing to do with lens IS. It only compares the IBIS performance with the non stabilized 50 mm 1.2 lens of each system.


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 13, 2021)

Joules said:


> *If you mean that because of the lower resolution you can get away with a lower shutter speed on the R6, well, kinda. *When compared to the R5 or any other body with higher resolution at the same viewing size, there won't be any difference. Shutter speed only becomes 'a disadvantage' for higher resolution bodies once you wish to benefit fully from all of that potential for extra detail.
> 
> As for the actual IBIS, I don't know why the R6 and R5 would have different IBIS units. And if they did, certainly the R6 would not have the better one.


Yeah I meant this. Higher MP needs shorter shutter speed for sharp photos. We have seen this since the 5DS(r).
I think the modul is the same, but with only 20MP you have some more space for short mistakes. Would be nice to know how big is the difference .


----------



## Ian K (Aug 13, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> Does the R6 has better IBIS then the R5? Because of bigger pixels?


Not according to canon specifications.


----------



## entoman (Aug 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I don't dispute the results of the test, but I do wonder whether it is purely the stabilisation that is causing the Canon images to be sharper than those from the Sony.

There could be other explanations, e.g. most people would regard the Canon as being more comfortable (and therefore steadier) to hold, due to better ergonomics.


----------

