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

Lens v Body Image Stabilisation

Discussion in 'Lens Matters' started by SXH, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    That’s what I had in mind for a single sheet of film. But I thought that if you tried to move a pressure plate laterally or vertically without moving the cassette, you’d probably buckle the film, unless you could have a free loop of film to isolate the two. But if you tried to move the cassette as well, it would be very heavy for high frequencies.
    Good point I overlooked regarding DSLRs.
    I would have thought it would be cost-effective (but expensive) to repair broken IBIS. But when my camera bag slipped off a coat hook, it broke the VC mechanism of my Tamron 24-70mm, making the lens unsharp, and Intro 2020 (Tamron’s UK agents) weren’t prepared said it wasn’t practical to repair it. I would have thought that if IBIS failed, the sensor would be likely to remain stationary in the correct plane, and might still give pretty good non-stabilised images.

    An advantage of IBIS is that it’s usual to buy more lenses than bodies, so you need to pay for lens-based stabilization more often.


    Chris
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'm not going to volunteer to chuck my Fuji across the room to find out but I kinda suspect that IBIS cameras won't be as robust as non-IBIS cameras to being dropped. I guess the stats will turn up from the hire shops. I've no idea if there is a fail-safe mechanism or whether it can stick. I've a vague idea I've seen a post on here a long time ago about this.
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I've seen posts suggesting some cameras still work because the IBIS has failed in a parked position, and others suggesting the sensor has been free to rattle after a failure. I suspect it depends on the individual camera design, and the cause of failure, to be honest.
     
  4. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I read something along those lines only recently, I wish I could remember where.
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Pretty sure the parked one was actually on here. Some of the others were on DPR, which doesn't add to their credibility. ;)
     
  6. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    I can assure you that IBIS still does something to help with long telephotos. I've used it with a 500mm mirror lens & possibly a 600mm too.
    Optical (lens based) stabilization may be better at those focal lengths, but isn't available on £50 lenses!
     
  7. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Possibly a 600? On a good day I can hand-hold my 500 F4 on a 1Div ( pretty heavy combo) which is 650 mm equivalent FOV at 1/60. I say on a good day because I don't use it every day and fit I ain't. It will be a few years before I can confirm that IBIS will improve on that.
     
  8. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    I have a 600mm f8 mirror lens, but I'm not sure I've used it on my DSLR which has IBIS.
    I have used it on micro four thirds but my options there don't have IBIS :-(
    To hand hold it on MFT I need a focal reducer as the effective focal length of 1200 is rather ridiculous. With the reducer its a 900mm f5.6 yet only weighs a little more than my old (M42) 300mm/5.6.

    From the weight point of view mirror lenses are a godsend.

    Here's one of my early shots with a 500mm mirror (750mm equivalent) using Pentax's SR (IBIS) https://flic.kr/p/8SNV6T I believe systems have improved considerably since this was taken in 2010.
    Not my best shot but handheld while standing unbraced - were possible I lean on something solid or kneel down when using long lenses with out a tripod to give a more stable base.
     
  9. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    The problem with using an in-body stabilisation system in conjunction with a long telephoto lens is very simple, a very small angular movement of the lens results in a large* linear movement of the of the projected image. Sensor shift stabilisation just can't come with large linear movements. A gyro in the body of a camera will be a significant distance from the centre of mass of a long lens/body combination and may not reflect the true yaw or pitch rate making accurate sensor movement more difficult, especially if the body doesn't know the lens (think a long Sigma lens with a Sony body) meaning that accelerometers are likely to be more useful. Not that any of that means that in-body stabilisation doesn't work, simply put it isn't going to be the most effective.

    *Large and Significant are relative here.
     
  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Lens based system seem to work up to 1x magnification.

    Do the body based systems also claim to work at the minimum focus of a typical macro lens these days?

    I doubt many of us have long lenses that get close to the magnification of a macro lens.... Astrophotographers maybe but birding lenses not so much. 0.3x maximum magnification on a long lens is probably pretty good and require about a third of the sensor movement as a macro lens at 1x.
     
  11. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    Astrophotographers work with VERY small magnifications. A star (many times bigger than the earth) is a single point of light.
     
    daft_biker likes this.

Share This Page