1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

IBIS

Discussion in 'Canon Conflab' started by manxman2, Feb 28, 2019.

Tags:
  1. manxman2

    manxman2 Well-Known Member

    Do people think Canon have made a mistake in not including IBIS in their new cameras?
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Of the 10 Canon lenses I own, only two are not image stabilised. One of those is a 400 mm for which IBIS is less useful and the other is a shift lens most usually used on a tripod. So for me it is neither here nor there.

    I have a Fuji X-H1 which has IBIS and 3 lenses with built in stabilisation. I can't say that I've noticed much of a difference in performance attributable to the in-body stabilisation. The X-H1 is more easily held than the X-E2 I also have so it could be just the extra weight makes it more stable.

    IBIS is probably useful if you use non-stabilised primes < 100 mm and need to hand-hold for exposures longer than 1/30 s.
     
  3. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Since it would add more mechanical and electronic parts to the camera body, how much more would you pay to have it?
    The obvious solution is to for Canon to make two camera bodies: one with it and one without it, so that you have a choice. But the body with it would be more expensive, larger and heavier.

    My Pentax DSLR has it, but since the sensor's performance is so good at 400-800 ISO/ASA, I can't recall the last time I used a shutter speed slow enough handheld for it to be needed. Probably I still think like somebody using a film SLR without any of these recent 'must have' features. How did we ever survive before they existed?
     
  4. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I think it’s a huge mistake, unless recent rumours that they will add it to some future models are true, in which case they’ll only be late (last for mirrorless?) to the party. Of course it would add some cost and weight to the camera body, but you’d save that with each non-stabilized lens (although it would probably be worth including stabilization in telephotos).

    I think lack of IBIS is the biggest weakness of my Nikon D800 DSLR, and so I was relieved that the Nikon Z series bodies incorporate it, should I ever wish to switch to mirrorless. However, I regret that, so far, they haven’t followed Pentax’s DSLR example and offered a dithering action of the sensor to provide an optional anti-aliasing feature.

    I bought a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art as a super-quality lens, but like most large-aperture non-telephoto primes, it doesn’t have image stabilization (I assume it’s not practical to fit it when the lens elements would need to be so large, and the ideal length of the barrel is fairly short). So I rarely carry that lens unless I take a tripod as well.


    Chris
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    No,
     
  6. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Canon have also made a clear statement that IBIS is coming.
     
  7. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I am seriously considering a mirrorless Canon to act as second body to my rather battle scarred 6D and the factor that will probably be the determinant is not IBIS or card slots but the fact that the larger one takes the same battery as the 6D. I really don't like the idea of a second (different) spare battery and its charger in addition to the one that always sits in my camera bag.
     

Share This Page