IBIS comparison: Canon EOS R5 vs Sony α1

[Joules]

IS is programmed also to be predictive not just reactive.

Hence, my comments on control theory.

The first section just serves to illustrate that even if you wanted to keep the IBIS extremely basic you would not have to rely on random trial and failure an get a result that works only as long as you are lucky, as the post I replied to seemed to imply.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I do wonder if there is a difference between focal lengths. Maybe so, maybe not. That would be interesting to test.

Canon states that there is.
Only certain lenses are rated for the highest shake resistance.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters.

Even if that is true, better is better.

Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.

Catalyst browse works by cropping.
It can't really be compared with IBIS + OIS.

 

[InchMetric]

You are absolutely right about not generalizing. In another thread I gave a link to a YouTube where a pro could not get a sharp shot from 60 hand held with the 400mm f/5.6L (non IS) + 1.4xTC at 1/320s on the R5.

That's been my experience with a 700mm f8 lens (vintage Questar 700 mirror lens) on the R5, as opposed to my former Nikon Z6. My main impression is that I'm not sure whether the R5 IBIS is on, or doing anything (and I'm aware of the menu gymnastics to get it to operate on a non-Canon lens.)

The Nikon Z6 with an OLD Nikon 400 f2.8 (AF, not IS) that weighs a ton (and handheld) was impressive.

 

[AlanF]

That's been my experience with a 700mm f8 lens (vintage Questar 700 mirror lens) on the R5, as opposed to my former Nikon Z6. My main impression is that I'm not sure whether the R5 IBIS is on, or doing anything (and I'm aware of the menu gymnastics to get it to operate on a non-Canon lens.)

The Nikon Z6 with an OLD Nikon 400 f2.8 (AF, not IS) that weighs a ton (and handheld) was impressive.

Inertial mass could come into this in a serious way. Mirror lenses are very light and easy to shake around in contrast to the Nikon doorstop.

 

[fox40phil]

Does the R6 has better IBIS then the R5? Because of bigger pixels?

 

[InchMetric]

Inertial mass could come into this in a serious way. Mirror lenses are very light and easy to shake around in contrast to the Nikon doorstop.

It's a 4-pound lens.

 

[AlanF]

It's a 4-pound lens.

What does the 400/2.8 weigh? The newer version weighed over 11 lb.

 

[HenryL]

What does the 400/2.8 weigh? The newer version weighed over 11 lb.

6.4lb

 

[AlanF]

6.4lb

He was writing about the Nikon 400/2.8 not the latest Canon, which is 6.4lb! The Nikon we were talking about because of its inertial mass will be in excess of 11lb. But, I don't know by how much.

 

[Joules]

Does the R6 has better IBIS then the R5? Because of bigger pixels?

If you mean that because of the lower resolution you can get away with a lower shutter speed on the R6, well, kinda. When compared to the R5 or any other body with higher resolution at the same viewing size, there won't be any difference. Shutter speed only becomes 'a disadvantage' for higher resolution bodies once you wish to benefit fully from all of that potential for extra detail.

As for the actual IBIS, I don't know why the R6 and R5 would have different IBIS units. And if they did, certainly the R6 would not have the better one.

 

[InchMetric]

What does the 400/2.8 weigh? The newer version weighed over 11 lb.

I think the point is that it’s not a light lens, and more important I’m comparing each with and without ibis. It’s about the stops of improvement. And handholding a long 11 pounds for photo testing gets shakier than handholding a short 4 pounds.

 

[AlanF]

I think the point is that it’s not a light lens, and more important I’m comparing each with and without ibis. It’s about the stops of improvement. And handholding a long 11 pounds for photo testing gets shakier than handholding a short 4 pounds.

It's the rapid movements that cause lens shake during normal shutter speeds and are corrected by the IBIS. A lens of 3-4lb reacts very quickly to muscular twitches whereas a heavy 11 ilb lens has 3-4x the inertial drag to movement. One of my older physicist friends who some years ago developed a shake went over to heavy lens to dampen his shakes.

 

[Shooterdad]

Canon 8 stops, Sony 3 stops. This test doesn't really compare Canon and Sony IBIS. Canon IBIS works with IS lenses, and add up the IS stops. Sony IBIS doesn't.

 

[HenryL]

He was writing about the Nikon 400/2.8 not the latest Canon, which is 6.4lb! The Nikon we were talking about because of its inertial mass will be in excess of 11lb. But, I don't know by how much.

What is this "Nikon" you talk about???

 

[Joules]

Canon 8 stops, Sony 3 stops. This test doesn't really compare Canon and Sony IBIS. Canon IBIS works with IS lenses, and add up the IS stops. Sony IBIS doesn't.

This test has nothing to do with lens IS. It only compares the IBIS performance with the non stabilized 50 mm 1.2 lens of each system.

 

[fox40phil]

If you mean that because of the lower resolution you can get away with a lower shutter speed on the R6, well, kinda. When compared to the R5 or any other body with higher resolution at the same viewing size, there won't be any difference. Shutter speed only becomes 'a disadvantage' for higher resolution bodies once you wish to benefit fully from all of that potential for extra detail.

As for the actual IBIS, I don't know why the R6 and R5 would have different IBIS units. And if they did, certainly the R6 would not have the better one.

Yeah I meant this. Higher MP needs shorter shutter speed for sharp photos. We have seen this since the 5DS(r).
I think the modul is the same, but with only 20MP you have some more space for short mistakes. Would be nice to know how big is the difference .

 

[Ian K]

Does the R6 has better IBIS then the R5? Because of bigger pixels?

Not according to canon specifications.

 

[entoman]

Continue reading...

I don't dispute the results of the test, but I do wonder whether it is purely the stabilisation that is causing the Canon images to be sharper than those from the Sony.

There could be other explanations, e.g. most people would regard the Canon as being more comfortable (and therefore steadier) to hold, due to better ergonomics.