To IBIS or not to IBIS?

One of the interesting things I’ve found with the 907x / CFV II 50c (which does not have IBIS) is that if I use the back on a film body (like a 500C/M) I am more easily able to hand-hold slower speeds, whereas with the 907x and XCD lenses it can sometimes be a trick. You’d think that the mirror slap etc of the 500C/M would induce more vibration but for some reason it doesn’t seem to matter. Wonder why that is? Maybe the size and weight of the camera and lens help it? Perhaps the use of the older lenses? Or is it just me?
 
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?
I think you misunderstand what I wrote. A good picture is possible when out of focus or blurred, if it is a good picture. Great image or color will not make the photo but they can help it. If sharpness and color were primary we would be using engraver's lenses. Sheesh, really?

Look at this one, a bit out of focus but one of the greatest out of the Depression Era photos. (Dorothea Lange. Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California. March 1936 | MoMA) Sensor size bother you? I have gotten some wonderful photos on an old Sony DSC S70, 3.3MP sensor with great color.


()​


And I do not "except" movement but I will "accept" it.

I do not know about anyone else on this board but light and color mean a lot to me, and content. What story is the photo telling? And never forget the primary rule of photography: If it is red, take a picture of it. ;o)

Happy Trails everyone.
 
Last edited:
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
I think I need some kind of stabilization to read that rolling sentence. :)
 
I'm of the opinion that camera shake is easy to see in any file that can be seen even on a laptop sized screen. Of course, being able to zoom into a photo more (due to more MPs) allows you to magnify the shake. What I do not believe is that 40-60mp shows camera shake that previous lower resolution sensors do not. I use a 50mp camera without IBIS (Fuji GFX-50R) and routinely shoot at 1/60th and 1/125th when I have to. Once in awhile, I see some blur at 1/60th (I'm shaky) but not anymore than I'd see with my lower res cameras. IBIS does allow one to photograph stationary objects at very low shutter speeds (even 1 second, etc) and get a clean image. There's no doubt about that.
 
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)
The nice thing is that IBIS actually opens up the creative envelope for blur further, as you can take pictures at low speeds handheld, keeping backgrounds and foregrounds sharp but having a blurred moving subject. Or you can turn IBIS off and blur the whole shebang.
 
I'm of the opinion that camera shake is easy to see in any file that can be seen even on a laptop sized screen. Of course, being able to zoom into a photo more (due to more MPs) allows you to magnify the shake. What I do not believe is that 40-60mp shows camera shake that previous lower resolution sensors do not. I use a 50mp camera without IBIS (Fuji GFX-50R) and routinely shoot at 1/60th and 1/125th when I have to. Once in awhile, I see some blur at 1/60th (I'm shaky) but not anymore than I'd see with my lower res cameras. IBIS does allow one to photograph stationary objects at very low shutter speeds (even 1 second, etc) and get a clean image. There's no doubt about that.
There was a rash of one second photos out of the X2D when it first came out. Beard hairs were sharp. We have the technology to do great things now. Speaking for myself only, it is skills which need to catch up to the technology.
 
I agree with GMOG and splitimagereview here in saying that how useful IBIS will be to you depends on print size and your own personal tolerance for blurry images. It's a lot like how higher resolution will result in tighter tolerances with regards to the plane of focus: if you're printing at the same size as you were printing on lower resolution cameras it won't be a problem. But it may become something to consider changing your technique if you use the increased resolution to print larger. And part of that is also your personal preference for what an acceptable depth of focus is.

There are photographers who've embraced grain, motion blur, focus blur, high contrast and alternative processes. Use the tools to find out what you like and then use them to make your work.

That said, I think at this point there's little reason not to have IBIS in a digital camera in 2023. If people are paying for higher resolution camera companies better damn well make it as easy as possible to get your money's worth. Expecting people to put an M on a tripod is ludicrous. But then again so is a 60MP M...
 
I agree with GMOG and splitimagereview here in saying that how useful IBIS will be to you depends on print size and your own personal tolerance for blurry images. It's a lot like how higher resolution will result in tighter tolerances with regards to the plane of focus: if you're printing at the same size as you were printing on lower resolution cameras it won't be a problem. But it may become something to consider changing your technique if you use the increased resolution to print larger. And part of that is also your personal preference for what an acceptable depth of focus is.

There are photographers who've embraced grain, motion blur, focus blur, high contrast and alternative processes. Use the tools to find out what you like and then use them to make your work.

That said, I think at this point there's little reason not to have IBIS in a digital camera in 2023. If people are paying for higher resolution camera companies better damn well make it as easy as possible to get your money's worth. Expecting people to put an M on a tripod is ludicrous. But then again so is a 60MP M...
Your Honor, may it please the court, I take exception with that statement. I will be running a test of some 50mm lenses on an M9 and you can be sure that the M9 will be on a tripod. I am pretty sure I need not explain why I will be using a tripod.

And as an aside an opinion shared at the local photo club by a retired local pro was to always use a tripod. He said they will reduce blur a lot. But what the hell would he know? I know it appears to be dogma to not put M bodies on tripods but I would like to advance that this is an individual decision dependent upon a lot of variables and not a flat out rule to be limned by the believing followers. Other than "If it is red take a picture of it" there are no rules in photography. ;o)
 
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)

In the case of NatGeo, most printed images were on the small side, often several to a page. So, the effects of camera-shake would be greatly reduced.

- Murray
 
In the case of NatGeo, most printed images were on the small side, often several to a page. So, the effects of camera-shake would be greatly reduced.

- Murray
What's your point? Shake would not be reduced. It would be less noticeable.
 
The decision not to include IBIS in the M11 was based on form-over-function considerations. I wonder how long that approach will last. Cheers, OtL
 
In the case of NatGeo, most printed images were on the small side, often several to a page. So, the effects of camera-shake would be greatly reduced.

- Murray
Exactly, and it was acceptable due to film speeds, etc. It was better to get a shot than the perfect shot. Museums and galleries are full of small format photos with camera shake. Now, we have high ISO, IBIS, crazy fast, but great lenses now in digital, so the bar has moved. I also think that it looks a little better in film.
 
The decision not to include IBIS in the M11 was based on form-over-function considerations. I wonder how long that approach will last. Cheers, OtL
Seems to be working for them. That said, Leica has said when they can get a global shutter, they will add IBIS.
 
Not a few, but quite a lot of Allard's images are soft. I think it is also a factor of film, but yes, it is pretty much all available light photography.
Some of it is done purposely to show movement - fast moving horses, cattle being herded etc.
When I first encountered a Leica M in 1989, the pro photographers were using it because it performed well in low light - as in the body was small and the lenses were short, compact. That minimises camera shake.
I think Leica are very traditionalist anyway, but the Digital M's were expressly made to be digital versions of M (film) cameras. So why would you shoehorn an IBIS system into a smallish camera with compact lenses that is looking back to the mid-century film version?
I can see them putting IBIS into SL2's and Q3's etc
 
In many situations using a hand-held camera is the only practical option. In these situations body and, or lens stabilization can significantly increase raw data information capacity because longer shutter times are possible while maintaining overall MTF 50. Longer shutter times increase exposure which results in a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

However, IBIS adds weight, reduces battery life and only succeds in still photography when subjects are not in motion. Weight disadvantages and complexity are limited with in-lens stabilization since the body is unaffected when non-stabilized lenses are sufficient. For this reasons I prefer lens stabilization. If I enjoyed using adapted lenses, IBIS could be useful.

As GMOG mentioned above, increased pixel density in high-resolution sensors can be relevant. At the same time, the nature of the subjects, atmospheric conditions and other factors might degrade the effective MTF50 before light reaches the sensor. In this case stabilization won't help until the loss of MTF50 due to camera motion becomes greater than the native MTF50 degradation.
 
I've had both OIS and IBIS on quite a few cameras (Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony...) and in both DSLR and EVF camera types. The cameras ranged in pixel resolution from 7.5 Mpixel to 24 MPixel. My current cameras are 40 Mpixel (Leica M10-M and M10-R) and 50 Mpixel (Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c).

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 don't buy higher pixel resolution cameras to make bigger prints. Unless you're selling prints in a gallery or to big corporate installations, prints larger than about 11x17 inch or so are such a tiny percentage of the market for prints it's hardly worth the expense of a printer with a larger than 13" printing gate.

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.

The whole point of higher resolution sensors, to me, is improved detailing in the original image allowing for more options in cropping and rendering, particularly when coupled with the higher dynamic range of the more modern sensors. My print and web size output image sizing hasn't varied by much in twenty years because there's really no space to display a lot of huge prints properly and, by and large, most people's computer displays have plateaued at about the 27 to 32 inch diagonal size. FAR more of my photographs have made it into books and magazines than are ever printed large and/or framed for hanging on exhibition.

When I look through the somewhere near 700,000 photographs (the original capture, not a print image, whatever resolution it might be) I've made over the past twenty years with and without image stabilization, what stands out to me are two things:
  • Cameras in the 7.5 to 14 Mpixel range show more benefits of image stabilization than higher resolution cameras overall, and there particularly with lenses slightly longer than normal focal length in marginal lighting circumstances. Part of this is that these tend to be older sensors that can't achieve the clean, astronomical ISO settings of more modern sensors and thus the boundary of when "marginal lighting" occurs is higher than with modern sensors.

  • NO photos from any of the cameras, made hand-held, are as sharp as photos made with the same cameras fitted to a sturdy tripod, regardless of image stabilization or lighting demands.
That's what I see with my own eyes by examination, and without regard to calculating blur circles and pixel dimensions. ;)

So if you're looking for the best possible results from any camera with a good lens, use a tripod whenever it is feasible to do so. I see very, VERY little difference in the motion blur of hand-held original captures from my M10-M vs my M-D262 or Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic L1 at the same light levels and similar exposure times. What I do see with the M10-M is extraordinary detailing and remarkable dynamic range, well beyond what the others produced.

G

"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."™
 
Leaves me wondering what would be more of an anathema to the hard-core M user: a global shutter, IBIS, or both :eek:
Oh, I think both will piss off the purists!
Frankly, as one who identifies himself as a "purist", I'd much rather have a global shutter and IBIS than a rolling shutter and no IBIS (as the M11).
 
Back
Top