FF Mirrorless and IBIS -- comparison testing?

[DanK]

See Richard’s post #6, which describes his one test of a combination of in-lens and in-body stabilization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpcrowe]

I only shoot stills... I have worked with non IBIS cameras and non-stabilized lenses for many years before I got my first Canon lens with stabilization. Canon IS was improved drastically in the many new IS generations between the original IS which I had in the EOS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens to the latest IS generation that I had in the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens. Improvements were in the lens sensing when the camera is tripod mounted and shutting off the stabilization and additionally the choice of three stages of IS:
1. still subjects, 2. moving subjects while panning and 3. erratically moving subjects...
I used both 1 and 2 quite regularly but seldom used mode 3...

There is a difference in lens vs IBIS stabilization. The lens stabilization seems to show you what the stabilization is doing in the viewfinder better than the IBIS...

I can still function quite well for still shooting with no IBIS or lens stabilization, given a sufficiently fast shutter speed.
Example... This was done at 1/800 second at f/5.6 using ISO 100 with the lens at 64mm on an APSC camera (96mm equivalent) with no IBIS or lens stabilization...

[DanK]

I wouldn’t expect the lack of IS to be an issue until you got down roughly to 1/100 with a 96 mm (equivalent) lens, given the old rule of thumb. Of course it varies with technique and how stable the photographer is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk