5 axis IBIS coming to next Canon EOS R series camera [CR2]

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
I'm not sure about "bad light," but it is a little early to be fretting over a feature that promises improved control over camera shake, while at the same time scolding those who want IBIS. Such naysayers, sounding like Eeyore from Winne the Pooh, are entitled to a "spot light."

I've paraphrased, but the above sentiments have been expressed throughout this thread. Please go back and read the thread and you'll see examples of each. I'm surprised, even scanning through, you didn't catch them.
I strongly suggest that you read more carefully. No one has fretted over IBIS, merely asked questions about possible long term alignment issues.
No one has scolded those who want IBIS. What people have mentioned is that in their experience, or in the experience of some photographers, IBIS on a FF camera may not be as effective as those who champion it's wonderfulness believe. People (like me) have said that as long as they have lenses with IS, then IBIS is not necessary. That doesn't imply it won't be necessary for others or that it won't be beneficial to everyone.

I don't believe that you are intentionally inflaming the issue, but like many forum members, your posts often tend to exaggeration and misinterpretation.
 
Reactions: caMARYnon

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,234
252
Southeastern USA
I strongly suggest that you read more carefully. No one has fretted over IBIS, merely asked questions about possible long term alignment issues.
No one has scolded those who want IBIS. What people have mentioned is that in their experience, or in the experience of some photographers, IBIS on a FF camera may not be as effective as those who champion it's wonderfulness believe. People (like me) have said that as long as they have lenses with IS, then IBIS is not necessary. That doesn't imply it won't be necessary for others or that it won't be beneficial to everyone.

I don't believe that you are intentionally inflaming the issue, but like many forum members, your posts often tend to exaggeration and misinterpretation.
Do you believe that Canon's implementation of IBIS will be a technical failure?
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
361
209
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
Do you believe that Canon's implementation of IBIS will be a technical failure?
No one knows. So far, no company could fully address the inherent shortcomings of the IBIS technology, including sway, jagged picture, limited usefulness in long focal lengths, heat, performance in low light, etc. All the companies report is their "success stories" in certain situations which are echoed by direct or indirectly paid reviewers and repeated by some forum dwellers. Actual users of technology may have reservations. Perhaps Canon can do a little bit better implementation job than the competition.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Architect1776

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,234
252
Southeastern USA
No one knows. So far, no company could fully address the inherent shortcomings of the IBIS technology, including sway, jagged picture, limited usefulness in long focal lengths, heat, performance in low light, etc. All the companies report is their "success stories" in certain situations which are echoed by direct or indirectly paid reviewers and repeated by some forum dwellers. Actual users of technology may have reservations. Perhaps Canon can do a little bit better implementation job than the competition.
I hope so. They've stuffed the rf 50mm f/1.2L with a lot of new tech, but no IS. If IBIS can help reduce shake roughly 3-stops between 24-70mm, that would be wonderful.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,017
586
Irving, Texas
sorry, but i cannot follow you here and consider the statement BS. No disrespect to you, just to this statement.

I Do NOT believe any human being can differentiate "the look" of images captured using a) in-lens stabilizer (IS) or b) in-body (IBIS) or c) both systems active.

But maybe it's just my poor pair of eyes. My ears also fail to hear significant differences between a well mastered CD and a well-mastered Vinyl LP. But I do notice bandwidth compressed streams.
That's because you don't own both.
 

nchoh

EOS 80D
Apr 3, 2018
198
103
Calgary
So there are those who think that IBIS is best, or that it should be included in the camera...

Let's look at IBIS for a bit. The current iterations are 5 axis - X, Y, rotation, tilt and pan.

We know that X, Y and rotation can be stabilized without moving the sensor out of the plane of focus.

Tilt and pan stabilization CANNOT be achieved in body without the the sensor plan being misaligned with the plane of focus.

So yes, Canon is right and the others who have selling 5-axis stabilization have been selling some gimmickry!

Just one of the reasons why Canon did not implement IBIS.
 

tmc784

I love photography
Apr 1, 2018
68
21
I took pictures with 5DIV with 24-70 II lens , neither of them have IBIS/IS, all my pictures are tack sharp, if I want to use the very slow shutter speed , I seat my camera on a tripod and took picture with a remote switch.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,234
252
Southeastern USA
So there are those who think that IBIS is best, or that it should be included in the camera...

Let's look at IBIS for a bit. The current iterations are 5 axis - X, Y, rotation, tilt and pan.

We know that X, Y and rotation can be stabilized without moving the sensor out of the plane of focus.

Tilt and pan stabilization CANNOT be achieved in body without the the sensor plan being misaligned with the plane of focus.

So yes, Canon is right and the others who have selling 5-axis stabilization have been selling some gimmickry!

Just one of the reasons why Canon did not implement IBIS.
To be clear, old friend, I'd buy an RF without the IBIS, as long as it is a step up from the EOS R in terms of ergonomics, EVF, and IQ. Otherwise, what advantage would it have over the trusty 5DIV? But a well reviewed IBIS that offers several stops for handheld when using my current 35mm f/1.4, or the crazy rf 50mm 1.2L would be wonderful. If it works, and has few drawbacks, why wouldn't a photographer want it? If Canon goes years without offering it, or if it is introduced and bombs, ok, the naysayers are right.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
284
98
Interesting. I've never noticed the etched look before, though some friends have shown a lot of pics from their newer Olympus cameras. Do you have any examples? That would be helpful.

So, your shots without IBIS don't look etched? Examples, examples.

Great. We now have another worry, "IBIS will make my photos look etched!"

But at least we could then use the old line, "Hi! Would you like to come up to my room to see my etchings?"
I’m not saying that it turns your photo into an etching. The difference is subtle. But it’s there. No I don’t have, offhand, examples I could use here, because I don’t have the same pictures taken both ways. I used to do testing, but I don’t have the proper bodies on hand to do this now. If someone with a new Nikon Z7 would do this with a high quality Nikon lens, not one of their new, mediocre lenses for the camera, we might be able to have something to discuss. I don’t recall if the camera allows you to turn IBIS off.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
284
98
Does sound a lot like some of the hifi claims made by enthusiasts, absent blind testing etc.
No, it isn’t. This has been tested over the years.

I ran a commercial film lab for quite some time. I was also a color expert, involved in using, teaching, and evolving color standards, and testing methodologies. Admittedly, that was a while ago.

Still, some things don’t change. We could get a half dozen experts looking at the same test image, and while all of us were excellent in color perception, we still saw colors slightly differently. Nevertheless, we could always agree on what we were seeing, whether it was color, sharpness, or other deviations.

That is because the image is up there, in front of us. As long as the individuals have the training, knowledge and professionalism to work together, it’s not a problem.

Audio is a very different matter. It’s fleeting, for one thing. There’s no way we can have the same note hanging in the air. Because of that, even prosessionals can disagree about what they hear. Though real professionals, not just self described ones (and I’ve come across too many) can still find common ground, and usually agree about overall sound.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
329
169
For all those arguing against IBIS, you can always turn it off. Just let people who would utilize that feature enjoy it.

I don't utilize focus peaking, 4K 60 etc, but I'm not going to argue the case for getting more bang for your buck features.
 
Reactions: YuengLinger

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
166
133
117
Williamsport, PA
No one knows. So far, no company could fully address the inherent shortcomings of the IBIS technology, including sway, jagged picture, limited usefulness in long focal lengths, heat, performance in low light, etc. All the companies report is their "success stories" in certain situations which are echoed by direct or indirectly paid reviewers and repeated by some forum dwellers. Actual users of technology may have reservations. Perhaps Canon can do a little bit better implementation job than the competition.
This is why it seems that Canon is behind many times. They sit back and observe and see if there is a better way. Look at the AF bandwagon all jumped on with whirly screws etc. that looked like some 1800's mechanical monster. Canon observed and was late to the game but wow did they ever change the whole paradigm for lens communication. Notice all have gone the way Canon pioneered over 30 years ago now and are in many cases just now catching up. I am hoping history repeats itself with IBIS and Canon has a real solution that is as elegant as the EF mount was.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,044
312
Vancouver, BC
So there are those who think that IBIS is best, or that it should be included in the camera...

Let's look at IBIS for a bit. The current iterations are 5 axis - X, Y, rotation, tilt and pan.

We know that X, Y and rotation can be stabilized without moving the sensor out of the plane of focus.

Tilt and pan stabilization CANNOT be achieved in body without the the sensor plan being misaligned with the plane of focus.

So yes, Canon is right and the others who have selling 5-axis stabilization have been selling some gimmickry!

Just one of the reasons why Canon did not implement IBIS.
I'm not really an IBIS fan, but if you check out 5-axis IBIS in a Sony body with a lens without image stabilization (and turn it on/off), you will notice that when on, the image appears less jittery, especially when it's an image with greater magnification (whether because of a combination of distance + focal length, or viewfinder magnification).

So, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a gimmick. However, practically, it doesn't change exposure settings for me by enough to matter, but I'm also not one to lower my shutter speed to the absolute lowest possible to get one more stop of ISO. I'll just use a flash, which some people seem to absolutely hate these days. I think that flashes/strobes create so many opportunities that would be otherwise missed. It isn't just about depth of field and ISOs, either -- If a photographer insists on only using available light, there's no opportunity to artificially create highlights, shadows, contrast, harden, soften or rake light, and so on. I guess it's just one more reason I've not totally leapt onto on the mirrorless bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: YuengLinger

nchoh

EOS 80D
Apr 3, 2018
198
103
Calgary
To be clear, old friend, I'd buy an RF without the IBIS, as long as it is a step up from the EOS R in terms of ergonomics, EVF, and IQ. Otherwise, what advantage would it have over the trusty 5DIV? But a well reviewed IBIS that offers several stops for handheld when using my current 35mm f/1.4, or the crazy rf 50mm 1.2L would be wonderful. If it works, and has few drawbacks, why wouldn't a photographer want it? If Canon goes years without offering it, or if it is introduced and bombs, ok, the naysayers are right.
I was only making the point that Canon was BS customers as to why they did not implement IBIS. And to refute some of the BS claims that Canon was holding back on IBIS just so that they could sell more expensive ILIS systems.

To be clear, IBIS needs more X,Y space for IBIS to work properly. We know that the R mount has a larger throat size, so if anyone were to implement a good IBIS, Canon would be well placed to succeed.

Also tilt and pan stabilization can really only properly done In Lens. So the ideal design would be a split of 2-axis stab in lens and 3-axis stab in body (x,y,rotation). But that would require fast communications between lens and body. And we know who has implemented faster communications? Canon.
 
Reactions: bokehmon22

nchoh

EOS 80D
Apr 3, 2018
198
103
Calgary
I'm not really an IBIS fan, but if you check out 5-axis IBIS in a Sony body with a lens without image stabilization (and turn it on/off), you will notice that when on, the image appears less jittery, especially when it's an image with greater magnification (whether because of a combination of distance + focal length, or viewfinder magnification).

So, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a gimmick. However, practically, it doesn't change exposure settings for me by enough to matter, but I'm also not one to lower my shutter speed to the absolute lowest possible to get one more stop of ISO. I'll just use a flash, which some people seem to absolutely hate these days. I think that flashes/strobes create so many opportunities that would be otherwise missed. It isn't just about depth of field and ISOs, either -- If a photographer insists on only using available light, there's no opportunity to artificially create highlights, shadows, contrast, harden, soften or rake light, and so on. I guess it's just one more reason I've not totally leapt onto on the mirrorless bandwagon.
"the image appears less jittery...' Correct.
But if the IBIS is correcting for pan or tilt, then the sensor plane is not not aligned to the place of focus... so less sharp away from the axis of pivot even if the image is less jittery. IMO gimmicky.

To be sure, I wouldn't mind a IBIS for some lenses, and sometimes I don't need super sharp photos either. I put out the points to kill some of the BS that has been posted on this thread. And as I said, Canon will probably put out the best IBIS/ILIS system soon enough.
 
Reactions: Talys

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
And we know who has implemented faster communications? Canon.
so has Nikon. And made mount wider. And put IBIS into both Z7 *and* Z6. and don't tell me they are less capable than Canon. they were just too scared in 1987 to jettison their 1957 F-mount for fear of customer backlash (while Canon did take the heat of disgruntled FD owners).

Nikon also had VR in-lens stabilization for a long time, so they sure are aware of relative advantages of both systems. and still decided to equip their mirrorfree cameras with IBIS. and so far i have not heard "etching" stories from Z6/Z7 users. abd their sensors have not overheated/exploded up to now.
 

nchoh

EOS 80D
Apr 3, 2018
198
103
Calgary
so has Nikon. And made mount wider. And put IBIS into both Z7 *and* Z6. and don't tell me they are less capable than Canon. they were just too scared in 1987 to jettison their 1957 F-mount for fear of customer backlash (while Canon did take the heat of disgruntled FD owners).

Nikon also had VR in-lens stabilization for a long time, so they sure are aware of relative advantages of both systems. and still decided to equip their mirrorfree cameras with IBIS. and so far i have not heard "etching" stories from Z6/Z7 users. abd their sensors have not overheated/exploded up to now.
And why do I care about Nikon?
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,135
315
I’m not saying that it turns your photo into an etching. The difference is subtle.
My view on this is that it is not so much the effect of IBIS on image quality, as the additional sharpening that many seem to do on Olympus images resulting from the smaller sensor size and resultant greater image magnification for any particular viewing size. I think this arises from two aspects: firstly, if the image is less than perfectly focussed or the exposure less than perfect, the corrections needed are far more apparent than an equivalent FF image. Secondly I suspect many are processing MFT images with the same formula they processed APS-C/FF images and that does not always work.
I have noticed both these effects when comparing MFT and FF images from my own kits.