To IBIS or not to IBIS?

Bill Blackwell

Bill Blackwell

Leica M Shooter
Local time
7:10 PM
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
1,899
Ronald M said:
IBIS is kind of a fraud. It works against me at high speeds and I do not know when to turn it on for low.
A grip for the M10R has become my friend
Click to expand...
Godfrey said:
Hmm. I don't seem to have any trouble holding my 50 Mpixel Hasselblad 907x or 40 Mpixel Leica M10-M still enough to get critically sharp prints, even at exposure times down into the 1/30 to 1/60 sec range*. If you cannot achieve that, then I understand your sentiments, but I suspect this is an issue that varies individual by individual.

*On inspection, I have several photos posted that were made at 1/15, 1/20, 1/25, and 1/30 second with the M10-M, and 1/30 to 1/50 second with the 907x. They're quite sharp, even at 100% on screen. I certainly wouldn't not buy a 40 or 60 Mpixel camera for reason of lack of IBIS, although image stabilization is a nice plus when needed. Image stabilization is particularly useful when working with a medium long focal length hand-held in marginal light, from my experience with it.

Oh yeah: I carry a tripod regularly, My field tripod is light and sturdy, and enables photographs that I could not otherwise achieve. I don't find it much of a burden.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the disconnect between the IBIS naysayers and the IBIS must have proponents for high resolution sensors (essentially anything above 24 megapixels).

I've bought into the notion that higher resolution sensors magnify movement in the same way longer lenses do. Thereby - where IBIS is absent - requiring the use of higher shutter speeds to compensate. Others say that notion is a myth and suggest that a 40+ megapixel sensor is no more sensitive to movement than a 4 megapixel sensor (or any film camera platform for that matter). In fact this same group insists that IBIS is necessary for video only.

Frankly I'd like to be set straight once and for all. ...
 
I think that idea that higher resolution sensors are no more sensitive to movements than lower resolution ones is only true if you view/print the images at the same size or view them from the same distance but then what's the point of having the higher resolution? As soon as you want to take advantage of the higher resolution and look closer/crop into the image it will make a difference.
 
I have two cameras, maybe three, with IBIS. I use it. I seem to get stable low-shutter speed shots. Am I imagining this? What's the problem?
 
IBIS is not relevant for digital M at this time. If Leica Camera AG will ever able to fit it in to M body, they will charge +5K$ for it.

Not sure why some thinks what 10MP sensors are any different from 40 MP sensor regarding IBIS.
It is just more or less MPs getting on the blur.

And are those for real, with claim how IBIS is video only?
Video is just a sequence of stills. :)

 
I've had several Olympus M4/3 bodies with IBIS and a lot of other brands without it. Makes no difference to me whether it's there or not. If it's there, I use it. If it's not, I don't. And high resolution sensors...I only have some 24 and 36 mp cameras which are now sorta mid-level resolution. I've had no problem using them without any type of IS.

My IS technique is to set the ISO to Auto, topping out to 3200 or 6400 with a minimum shutter of 1/100 and just taking pictures. I can always change these settings as I go along. I'm kind of an "ƒ/8 and be there" photographer.
 
Bill Blackwell said:
I've bought into the notion that higher resolution sensors magnify movement in the same way longer lenses do.
Click to expand...

High resolution sensors do not magnify movement, they just make it visible. The motion becomes visible when it overlaps multiple pixels on the sensor, which is more likely when those pixels are smaller. Lower resolution sensors with larger pixels mask movement when the motion is contained within a single pixel. For us to see movement in the image it has to be seen by multiple pixels on the sensor.

If I pixel peep in a raw file shot with a high resolution sensor I might see movement, but when I size the output down I'm then turning several pixels into single pixels, and that can render the movement invisible.
 
Last edited:
The greater the number of pixels with a given sensor size, the smaller the size of each individual pixel.

M10: 5952 x 3968
M11: 9528 x 6328

There are over 2.5x as many pixels on the M11.

When images are displayed at 100%, M11 images are displayed 2.5x larger than M10 images. Even if images are captured under the same conditions and with the same level of hand or camera shake, blur in M11 images will be more than doubled when displayed, and be more noticeable.

However perceived blur will be the same at the same print/image magnification.

If you want to use the extra pixels to make a bigger image, you will magnify the blur at the same time. So you need to be more careful with camera motion.

To make use of the extra pixels, the camera movement needs to be reduced from what it is with the lower resolution camera (for easy math, 4x greater resolution requires half the shake as before, to take full advantage of the higher res.)

Higher res won't cause more blur or be more visible when looking at a photo from the same distance. But it will show camera shake more precisely.
 
I just scanned a bunch of negatives I shot with a film M6 back in the early 90's. Nearly every shot is soft, a lot of it was low light.
You have to readjust your eye from even average digital files, as they are very much sharper than the film files I'm looking at.
So I would happily accept IBIS if it was offered, but I am happy to work without it (I have an M240 and a Sigma FP).
 
The best IS is in the lens as it is optimized for the actual lens I was told over in body IS.

Not sure how having both would work, but my guess is that the in lens IS would be the default for the higher performance. Don’t know if the interaction of two separate systems: one in lens; one in camera would; would in use interfere with each other. Anyways that is my guess.

I own a SL2, and the in-body IS allows me to not use high ISO. I likely gain about 2 stops for free, meaning no increase in digital noise from amping up the light signal. The result is higher IQ.

I also still own my SL, still a fine camera, although I wish it had the user interface that evolved and was developed for the SL2 in my SL.

Certianly the SL2 is a superior camera, but like I say the first SL remains a great camera, and the real usefulness of the SL2 comes for me from not having to push ISO, lower digital noise as a result, and sharper images at crazy low shutter speeds.

I guess I could get similar results from my SL if I bought and added an auxiliary grip along with a second battery. A heavy camera is a steady camera, and certainly sniper rifles are heavy in design for a reason.

Another alternative is add a monopod. Again the added weight, but also being able to steady the camera better to allow shooting at slower shutter speeds.

Many years ago I borrowed a L-mount 24-90 from Leica to shoot NYC Fashion Week. This is a slow lens, Leica lenses for the SL were of limited availability at the time.

I had this lens for about three weeks, and it had in lens IS. One night I was walking a dark and sinister area of NYC called the Bowlery. I started taking what I would call “circus-shots” where I did not increase ISO and purposely shot into darkness.

I was not expecting any of these images to be anything, and did it as a crazy experiment to just do something improbable and dumb. The exposures were controlled by the camera, although I zoomed in and out. Mucho quick shots, shot without bracing, holding breath, or any extra care. In other words, just snapping away.

When I downloaded I was blown away. Some of the shutter speeds were 1/8th second and 1/5th second. All were tack sharp. Also I was shooting not close up and across streets into alleys. Very impressive how good IS can work.

So would I want to upgrade my SL to a SL2S? So far no because I have the SL2, but when and if I ever upgrade my SL it would be for the new modern user interface. The in body IS on a SL2S would just be a bonus. Like I said, “The SL is still a great camera.”

Know that I have the APO 35 Cron in L-mount, and also the 50 Lux in L-Mount. Dumb as it sounds having two rigged cameras is handy to avoid lens changing. Thinking of getting a APO 75 Cron to have 35-75 as a kit, but the 50 with F1.4 is already wonderful.

Did you know that Navy SEAL’s used rifles equiped with stabilization to kill Somali pirates to rescue a hostage being held in a boat being towed by an aircraft carrier in a moving rolling sea? Tom Hanks was in a film that was made about this rescue.

Cal
 
As you probably already know, I started this discussion as a direct result of reactions to statements I made in this thread, which were most definitely causing us to wander off-topic. Plus, I was beginning to question my "facts".

However, the more I read on the subject, the more convinced I am that I was essentially correct. Until now, Leica hasn't used IBIS in M bodies because doing so would make these bodies thicker, or fatter, if you will. 60 megapixels is simply going too far without it unless you're willing sacrifice speeds below 1/500 in favor if higher ISO settings or - as Godfrey observed - you use a tripod.
 
splitimageview said:
Some would say even the 40mp in the M10 is "going too far." I remember the same shake discussions over ten years ago regarding the 36mp Nikon D800...
Click to expand...
Yes, this is not a new concept. Even so, I have to admit I've been tempted by the M10-M only because its high ISO performance is so phenomenal.
 
I was recently reviewing some work by William Alfred Allard. He shot a lot for NatGeo and others, used Leicas and Kodak. He worked a lot in low light. His images are sometimes out of focus and sometimes blurred and sometimes both. Granted he shows only his best but the question is does a bit of blur ruin a photo, does it ruin a really good photo? In Allard's case it does not seem to. I really like IBIS in the cameras with it but have done OK with an M body at 1/12 also, usually an 18MP in an M9. In the military on a smoke break they used to say, "If you got 'em, smoke 'em" and I guess it is the same with IBIS. It is always on in my cameras with it. I avail myself of everything that will help me get a good image. And yes, the talent is the hardest part but I am working in it. IBIS came with the camera. ;o)
 
I get it - it's not always clarity and perfection that makes it a good picture. So if you'll except "movement" and other imperfections why would you need the higher resolution sensor in the first place?
 
Calzone said:
Not sure how having both would work, but my guess is that the in lens IS would be the default for the higher performance. Don’t know if the interaction of two separate systems: one in lens; one in camera would; would in use interfere with each other. Anyways that is my guess.
Click to expand...
Canon's current RF mirrorless cameras actually feature sensor stabilisation that works well together with the stabilised RF and even EF lenses. It makes for an even better stabilisation. I think the lens stabilises pitch & yaw, while the sensor stabilises roll (which then lens can't do) & offset.
 
DB,

Thanks for the response. I don’t know if that is true for a Leica SL2.

What you suggest makes sense. Technology is really at a really crazy level.

Those Navy SEAL’s surely had great gear to do the job. If I remember they dropped 3 bad guys at once in a rolling and pitching sea.

I’m friends with the Leica Rep, so I’ll find out if the two IS systems work together on a SL2. It seems though the in lens IS is only available on the longer zooms starting at 24-90.

Cal
 
Bill Blackwell said:
I get it - it's not always clarity and perfection that makes it a good picture. So if you'll except "movement" and other imperfections why would you need the higher resolution sensor in the first place?
Click to expand...
For many of the same reasons behind choosing 4x5, 5x7. 8x10 and other large format film. It's not necessarily for larger print sizes -- although that is certainly a possibility -- but for improved image quality even at smaller print sizes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top