Which image stabilization is better

I suggest the biggest reason for the 'switch' is related to advertising revenues among the webzines like DP Review. It has never been the case that IBIS vs. OIS was an either-or choice. Any 'debate' over this was only in the minds of the profiteering marketing suits at CanoNikon. Richard Butler, fess up. Cameras with IBIS could also provide more user control over it, for example to simulate some degree of tilt-shift functionality. DPR did not like live view either.

The likes of DPR should have lauded them at the time and ignored the FF fools, most of whom used apsc anyway, which overall has no advantage over m I'm not sure we've ever questioned the value of IBIS. We weren't generally fans of clunky live view systems bolted awkwardly onto SLRs, but not because of where it was introduced. My two cents worth DPreview should have been taking the lead not playing catchup with emerging technologies.

If they started adding IBIS to the list of cons when it started becoming useful it would have forced manufacturers to take a serious look into it. I was looking at the X-H1 but because of the negatives around it like: battery life, lock ups and the fact that they used older tech on it I decided going for the E-M1 MK II. I wanted to go Fuji a while back but the current issues just make me feel uneasy paying so much money for something that should be reliable.

The reasoning for this is pure physics. Longer lenses move the center of gravity of the whole combo further forward. Any vibrations would be most minimal in the center of gravity. So if you can put the stabilisation closer to that area, it has to do less work. A differentiating factor these days is the inbuilt stabilisation - that is all I look for in the reviews. Videos play a deciding factor when paying top amount for cameras that cost the same. Shame the Fuji XT3 does not offer one yet gets "great" reviews.

DPReview has been a bit slow. But better than never. I took a handheld shot the other night with my OMD-Em1m2 and mm in dying light at more than three seconds, dead steady it was.

This is serious technology, not an afterthought. I agree with the latest sentiments here. Only now do they decide on this when the last of the major manufacturers start implementing this is too little too late!

IBIS has been offered with great effect by several manufacturers other than Canon or Nikon for over a decade! Now that one of the Big Two has finally included it as a feature, dpreview suddenly decides IBIS is worthy of inclusion is something so basic to consumers as a pro and con list. Nikon and Canon took over a decade to offer meaningful mirrorless systems. Congratulations, it took your site only 4 months to prove it is simply a marketing tool of CaNikon.

I've been shooting Minolta Sony for over 40 years. It's always amused me watching my Canon and other buddies try and explain why they overpaid for each and every IS lens they purchased when I've had in-body IS for many years and saved tens of thousands of dollars in the process.

Mostly though, they look down their nose stating that "Professionals don't shoot Sony" as a way of justifying their brand and the extra cost of each lens. It's nice to see you boys finally catching up with what has been a well known secret for many years: Minolta Sony has been leading the pack from behind You can say others have been "paying for IS in every lens" if you wish.

Yeah, you really showed them! Its wonderful when a "pro" reviewer catches up to the rest of us. And also, the world is not flat.

I guess, that next he'll be telling us that salt is a good spice for food, and if its going to rain, we might take along an umbrella.

I've read enough reviews to know which sections of a review are of more importance to me. I pay attention to what is new but my focus is on the aspects that will affect my use. The listing the lack of IS as a CON on a camera, will let me know it's not there, but is still a side note for why I read the reviews.

That said, I'm also glad for the clarification on why the change. I just hope the reviews continue the detailed examination of still photography, even on cameras that are marketed for their video capabilities. Minolta and Pentax were the initiator of that trend Take, for example the mm telephoto for Nikon, Canon and Sony.

All the same price but the Sony has no in-lens stabilization. Probably because the lens has it but it has no way to use it in that configuration. Also the development cost of the lens is shared between all lenses sold. I'm a still photographer and don't give a rat's about video.

As long as pros and cons are outlined clearly and I can skip over anything to do with video in a review, fine. For video a must, but not a deal breaker for photo. Bottom line is to capture the best moment possible, with or without OIS. What if you are both a hobbyist and a seasoned photographer?

I've been a hobbyist for more than 50 years which IMO makes me as seasoned as anybody. I wonder if the manufacturers will stop putting IS in their lenses now that just about everyone is putting it in their bodies?

Lenses would be more affordable and reliable I suppose that it would certainly remain on zoom telephotos to enhance the bodies IBIS. I suspect, also, that it won't be disappearing anytime zoom across the board and that the marketing will say "must have" I understand why you take that stance for a general audience but those of us who don't shoot video, the distinction is not an issue. It is funny to see all the comments about pro and con Canon here. I actually came to tell you about some out-of-this world Canon FD lenses I own and cannot use on any Canon digital camera that I am aware of.

I still have a few FD bodies that use film, but there is a case for digital work these days, obviously. Because I ended up buying a Micro four third camera and an adapter, so I could do available light photography with my FD 85 f1. At the time it wasn't available, but I am thinking of getting me a body with built-in IS, because it would extend my range of low light opportunities Another neat thing about using these old lenses on today's mirrorless cameras: My adapter is not very smart, so I need to stop down the lenses manually and let the exposure time follow.

The screen, in the meantime retains its brightness - unlike the old SLRs: you stopped down the lens to see the depth of field - in almost total darkness. Now, I could trade in my Canon EF Kit - to buy another Micro Four Thirds body with IS - or to buy one of these full frame mirrorless bodies of today which would effectively return my lenses to their original focal lengths and make another one my wide angle zoom viable again as well. Provided that these mirrorless cameras are actually built small enough so that FD lenses can be adapted to them without IS, the Canon is out, of course.

And I am still cross with them that they didn't build the EF system small enough to accommodate my FD lenses, but that is another story You will also discover that there are brilliant FD lenses still available at reasonable costs on eBay.

I bought a mint FD mm f4 - tiny and light 52mm front element! There are still LOTS of FD lenses - most very good, but not the top-of-class versions like these three - where all that came from. And your point about the second hand market is still very valid as well, I think. And the one you make about prime vs. Did any one mention the great possibility of using lenses from pre IS. I am still using a slightly older Minolta f1. IS in lens is paid for each lens so at the end it is a lot more costly than in body.

Further more, it makes lenses bigger, technically difficult to built and more fragile. Then you have a lens "with" IS and another "without", you happen never knowing which is which. IBIS is for a long time my preference to the point I would not buy a camera without it unless it is a fixed lens camera then efficiency come into play.

My only extended-warranty claim was on a stabilized Nikon, on which AF and stabilization failed. Oh, wait a minute! I'm not picking one over the other other than to say that a camera with image stabilization is a good thing. Then again I come from a time when image stabilization was based on how steady I could hold a camera. Missing from all this is that, generally, a lens with images stabilization costs more, and can be a little bigger than a lens without. Since I prefer to shoot video with a dedicated video camera that aspect isn't much of a factor.

Photos ruined by camera shake, hello? How is that not a clear advantage?! The consequence - consumers were shortchanged for years. Even now, clueless DSLR idiot types still abound! Absolutely right AdamT. Olympus had it working really effectively for numerous years and then Sony, Panasonic, and even Fuji also have working versions.

Yeah, also Pentax. Until Canikon start using them, they are just something nice to have but not so essential. In another 12 months, hopefully, you will also recognise the significance of mirrorless technology.

Until very recently, the true significance of MILCs was trivialised because Canikon did not have any serious mirrorless cameras. That will change soon, and you will do that and tell us about all the things that have been true for a long time already, no need to chimp or do fine AF adjustment of lenses, or about silent shutters, WYSIWYG, Who doesn't edit their images, even when they are JPEGs?

The idea that an EVF shows one the "final" image is so hilarious. All I need to know at the time of capture is that I didn't blow out any highlights. Everything else comes later. I hope there will always be an OVF alternative left in the market because OVFs do not reduce battery life, do not lag, do not stutter, do not reduce resolution because the electronics cannot cope, do not look like rubbish in some light when the white balancing isn't working well, do not blind you when your eyes have adapted to low light, etc.

I get that some people like EVFs, but there is no reason to pretend that they are right for everyone. That would be fine, but I'd never go full EVF unless there is no option left anymore.

And I shoot the same way: make sure everything is in range and sort it out later although I do want to change this - I feel I edit too much in post. But still, the EVF can show you this before you take the shot if you don't use flash. Ross the Fidler That's the "I'm going to put you in a box because I don't have real arguments" tactic. I prefer OVFs because they have real advantages. I don't mind anyone else appreciating the perks of EVFs -- there are certainly some, but none that couldn't be achieved by hybrid finders -- but the notion that everyone ought to embrace EVFs because they are a recent development is untenable.

This whole "DSLRs are dinosaurs" narrative is preposterous and has been for the last ten years, because that's how long we had to listen to this nonsense. I don't think you are clinging to the past and respect your experience. For reasons I can't adequately explain I just like the electronic image - perhaps because that is how I will first see the results on the monitor. The strength or your preference made me realise my own. I get your point Class A.

One thing to not is that OVFs have been as good as they can get for a long time. EVFs have gotten a lot better over the past years, and they may continue to get better still. Also, although a hybrid viewfinder may be better in the absolute sense, that comes at a cost: the mirror, flange distance, etc still need to be there.

And so does the separate AF array and light meter. MILCs are simpler in their design. It's not always about the absolute best thing, it's about the best thing for the money: the thing that solves the most important problems - which I agree is up to the individual - against the lowest cost.

And, also, it's about what makes sense from a user experience point of view. To me, at least. But I think that a camera should just let you shoot and not require your attention. WADR with all due respect , those who feel they need to make statements like that have something to work out. DPR 15 years too late. And in an industry driven by tech, this is shameful for a site like this to be so behind the times.

For stills, it's easy to shoot with both. You shoot more carefully with no stabilization and you just push the cameras with IBIS more. As an Olympus user, I have nothing but praise for their 5 axis in camera stabilization. It is amazing, and should be included as a standard, just as DPR is now going to mention.

The sample video, using a gimbal, camouflaged that deficiency. Although duly disclosed, this obscures what a buyer is apt to obtain with the camera alone. Most enthusiasts' video will be hand held, making 5-axis stabilization a great advantage. Viewers respond to video stability more favorably than just about anything else, after audio. The fact that the X-T3 Hadrian's Wall visit yielded only screen grabs, presumably because the actual video was a bit shaky, and the audio was unusable, should be considered.

BTW, all hybrid cameras ought to be accompanied by some snap-on wind muff for the on-board mics. This would cost next to nothing and be much tidier than most DIY dead cats. External mics can be awkward and obtrusive when traveling. I would add here 'fluidity of motion,' too - if we are talking about recording 'motion' vs. However, manufacturers push choppy 4K 30 FPS and stupid builtin 5. I take an external mic with fur wind muff even to my multiday canoe trips with a lot of portages - because a good sound does make a huge difference - even more so with a consumer camcorder.

But what can be more awkward, stupid, and unsafe than a mic input under a flip-out monitor? It's not off-topic - people here complain that manufacturers or those who influence the crowd, like DPR, either ignore or do not promote really useful features well too often. About the rotational compensation: does anyone know if this is actually likely to occur in photography? And rotation along the X and Y axis, also sure.

Unless the goal is to stabilise something like your entire body leaning left or right. But then the center point of the rotation would be way outside the camera body, and I wonder if any camera can compensate for that.

Rotational blur in still shots can occur at very slow shutter speeds. Video is more vulnerable because the shutter speeds tend to be slower, and because rotational wobble tends to occur over periods longer than it takes for a single shutter actuation. Thus, even if video is shot with a relatively fast shutter speed, the viewer will see rotation as the shooter's hands tilt or jitter radially over the duration of a clip. When you hold your camera with the left hand around or below the lens, you have that support centered below the optical axis.

With your right hand around the camera grip, the second support point is off-center. As you now hit the shutter button you induce a slight off-center rotational moment. How the timing between the inducing of this rotational moment and the shutter delay works out is hard to say and probably varies a lot depending on a number of variables. How large the rotational moment is depends on how forceful you depress the shutter button and on how much depressing the shutter button is a downward force vs a compressing of grip around the camera and how much weight you support via your left hand vs how much via your right hand.

Why do we care what stance dpreview takes on IS, or anything else? I ask advice from members here, but this site is just a gathering place for Photographers. I have a lot of respect for most of the members, and I've met some great people that take the time to give their opinions to others.

Their experience is priceless, but if we didn't converse here, it would be at one of the many other websites, or one of the groups that I belong to. They destroyed his website, and didn't even improve dpreview in doing so. I guess they felt his competition, was hurting them too much. Don't they realize that we notice how long the same old stories are posted? Now they're seeking youtubers? That is just another form of amusement for us! Giving how many people constantly comment on DPreview's stance on any kind of topic, a lot of people do care.

And if you see DPreview largely as a site for user discussions, why do you comment on an article? So ibis instead of IS is a pro for wideangle shooters but a Con for wildlife and sportphotographers that shoots mostly with telelenses.

But i get it you review those to in General and not only for sport and wildlife shooters.. Ibis is cool but i dont need that or is so i will just slip the part where you mark the lack of ibis as a Con no big deal.

Like most gear sites, DPR receives ad revenue and monetary kickbacks for sales referrals from their site. They also depend on the goodwill of manufacturers for access. When the two titans of the camera industry both embraced the questionable double-dip profit model that required eschewing IBIS in order to sell new-and-improved stabilized lenses to their huge and loyal customer base, DPR made the wise business decision to not call them out.

Now, however, the tides have changed. A new titan has emerged, and two out of the big three brands now tout IBIS as a crowning feature.

Therefore, it is now financially safe for DPR to take the common sense approach. The can try to dress it up however they like, but the truth is obvious. They placed profits over journalistic integrity, in my opinion. However; I think DPR is trying to be unbiased and focus on the truth. After all; we would know if they were were fibbing. It's a "good is as good does" thing. Three axes work on the sensor, and two adjust the lens.

Some terms denote a specific technology—others are brand-specific labels. Camera shake is more apparent with telephoto lenses. The lenses tend to be larger and heavier than wide-angle lenses, so they are more difficult to handhold. The Reciprocal Rule means wide-angle lenses can often be handheld at slow enough shutter speeds to avoid camera shake. Image stabilization is measured in additional stops of light. Some stabilization systems add up to 5 stops of light. With image stabilization, you can handhold your camera at a slow shutter speed.

The technology gives you flexibility in low light. As a result, you have a wide range where you are likely to get sharp images. Image stabilization sounds great. It will help you make sharper images at slower shutter speeds. But it is not always the right setting to use. Sometimes it is better to find the off switch. Turn off the stabilization feature if you are intentionally moving the camera.

Like when you are panning. Panning is when you follow a moving subject with your camera. This keeps the subject in focus but adds motion blur to the background. Some image stabilization systems can figure out what you are doing and switch itself off.

Otherwise, image stabilization works against your panning efforts. The ultimate image stabilization system is your tripod. When using a tripod, switch image stabilization off. This may seem counterintuitive. If a tripod is already stabilizing your camera, you may expect the image stabilization system to sit idle. But image stabilization systems are made to detect even the slightest movements.

They pick up the small internal vibrations of your camera. Image stabilization pulls the internal elements in the opposite direction. This causes more movement and creates a feedback loop. The image stabilization system introduces motion into the frame. This is a perfect time to turn off is and let your tripod do the work.

Image stabilization is designed to detect camera motion. It is not designed to reduce the motion of your subject. A person running across your frame will still blur at low shutter speeds. If you are shooting sports at a fast shutter speed, consider turning image stabilization off. If you have problems with battery life or are running short on juice, switch off the image stabilization.

It takes a lot of energy to run the system. I cannot give you a technical answer as to which image stabilization technology is better, but I really think that sensor-based is the way to go. Canon and Nikon may have chosen to go down the lens-based path for compatibility reasons, but it would be a dream come true if they ever choose to switch to sensor-based.

String lights add personality and soft light to your living space. Here are some of the best. From roaring lions to hoppy bunnies, costumes speak to every child's unique spirit. And we've collected our favorite options. Can a phone really product usable photos at x zoom? We've got our Galaxy S20 Ultra already so join us to find out! Camera straps are on the most underrated but needed accessories. When you have the right strap, you forget it's there. These are my top picks for this year.

Toggle Search. Sensor-Based Image Stabilization The biggest advantage that sensor-based IS has over its lens-based cousin is that any lens can be used.