jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Since Sony announced the A7ii, I've been trying to figure out the possible value of in-camera stabilization. I think it applies only to hand-held, low shutter speed photography.

If I am using a good tripod, image stabilization of any kind offers no advantage.

If I am hand-holding the camera and shooting at a high shutter speed relative to the lens focal length (< 1/[focal length]), image stabilization offers no advantage.

So the advantage of stabilization appears to be when hand-holding a camera and shooting at a relatively low shutter speed.

In-lens stabilization appears to offer a two stop advantage. Sony claims a 4.5 ev step advantage for the in-camera stabilization on their new A7ii when using a lens with in-lens stabilization. Olympus claims "up to 5 ev steps" for their 5D in-camera image stabilization.

Considering the tradeoff between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, 4-5 ev steps is huge for--for low shutter speeds and hand-held. If I understand this correctly, a 3 ev step advantage allows you to shoot at 1/8s with ISO 800 instead of shooting at 1/60s with ISO 6400, or to shoot with an f/4 prime instead of a much more expensive f/1.4 prime. Lower ISO (lower noise) and/or less expensive lenses--sounds good for street photographers in poor light conditions.

Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to both in-lens and in-camera stabilization. A good summary of these can be found at: http://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization.

Bottom line: What's the big deal with the Sony A7ii? Does it eliminate the need for the A7S?

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

I think they also have weather sealed the body, and improved the auto focus. That will help it compete with the DSLR's that are being used by wildlife enthusiasts. Sony is going to be grabbing market share for the next several years with their innovation in mirrorless. Hopefully the e-mount aftermarket lenses will keep up the same innovation. We could use a 100-300 mm.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I think that depends. For instance, with no stabilisation you're shooting an animal foraging in the bush, your preferred setting is 1/1000sec @f/5.6 and iso400 but the lack of light (but not really a low light scenario) means you have to choose f/2.8 or you have to push the ISO to 1600 neither of which is optimum. With stabilisation, you can simply cut the shutter speed to 1/250th.

Yep, same goes for using a Monopod although not with the same degree of certitude.

Pretty much! At high shutter speeds, the general consensus is that stabilisation is not much help and some claim it makes things worse although there are two camps, one saying worse another saying it makes no difference.

I think you have to be careful of marketing department claims. 4.5 steps is no doubt measured at optimum and in real life situations the reality may well be something less.

It's a big deal for us long time Minolta users with legacy non-stabilised glass especially the fast MF primes. It's also a big deal for us old-timers who may not be as steady as we used to be. It would be an understatement to say I was pretty disappointed when Sony ditched IBIS with the arrival of E-Mount Mirrorless cameras and OSS stabilised lenses, I thought IBIS was dead and buried; I am astonished and grateful to find out I was wrong and also that the new IBIS is a big improvement.

MtnMan Loc: ID

The writings I have seen suggest that in-lens stabilization does a better job than in-camera stabilization. One reason given is that it optimizes the stabilization to the lens.

A reason give for doing it in-camera is that allows reducing the prices of the lenses.

I don't know the truth of any of those assertions but if this interests you some digging might be in order.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I think that may have been the case before 5-axis IBIS but I think it may not be the case any more and I'm not positive but 5-axis is probably not possible in lens. The big advantage, at least for me is that all lenses including older MF ones become stabilised; maybe not a big thing for everyone.

I don't think Sony or Olympus sell their lenses any cheaper because of this, just more profit for them but TBH, I don't really care.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

The only minor correction I would add here is that the rule of thumb pertains to "Full frame" cameras (since it was initially devised for 35MM film eons ago) - with a DX or other crop factor camera that additional apparent magnification needs to be taken into account. Thus, if 1/200th second is the threshold for FX with a 200MM lens, 1/300th second would be needed using that focal length on a DX camera (and 1/400th on the 4/3 cameras where the crop factor is 2).

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

There are a couple of things to consider: One is that lenses can be indeed manufactured much cheaper. The other thing is that one should get better overall results using other manufactures lenses when using an adapter.

Not to mention that it is a vast improvement over the in camera stabilization that I have in my Sony A580. And I have no complaints. Couple that with the fact that this camera has one of the best I.Q.'s on the market, it is a win/win situation.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Hey, is this a Sony party?! Pretty quiet in here! :lol:
Do keep in mind that shooting at very slow speeds will only stabilize the camera/lens. It will NOT stabilize the object being photographed. If it moves, it's still only 1/8 shutter speed or whatever.
I know you guys are probably all hung up on Sony's but if you switched to Canon, you know all those lenses that you guys are wishing for........, well, you'd already have them all! :lol: :lol:
SS

PS, seriously, just how many axis's are there??

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^THIS. :thumbup:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^THIS TOO. :thumbup:

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Take for instance this example. Even when I shoot handheld with a ton of light with my vintage 200mm...having the 5 axis kick in, makes it very easy to frame my shot (and focus) very accurately. Besides, you can't always have a tripod with you...and 5 axis stabilization makes it even more of a possibllity.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Yeah, but those lenses are only 2 axis(I believe), not 5. More is better.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I've used IS so rarely that I forget that I have that feature. So, it is no big deal to me either way.
--Bob

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

In lense IS tends to be better for longer lens while the in camera IS tends to be better for normal and wide angle. All the reviews that I have read seem to support these "tends". For Olympus and Panasonic, the in camera IS helps make the lense less complicated. Their price is cheaper than most full frame and APS-C lenses for the equivalent lense size. The reason they are not cheaper than they are is because of the lense design, fast speed, and quality. Because the lenses are dealing with a smaller sensor and diffraction at smaller openings, the lenses require that they be designed and built (quality) better than their larger counterparts. Since there is less material required to build a 4/3rds lense, I believe this to be the main source of cost reduction.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

SharpShooter, there are three axises with two movements to each axis; movement along the axis and rotational movement around the axis. The camera can only correct for five of the six axial movements at the sensor.