IBIS comparison: Canon EOS R5 vs Sony α1

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,315
2,079
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
The-Digital-Picture has completed an exhaustive comparison between the Canon EOS R5 and Sony α1 and IBIS performance between the two cameras.
The comparison has 680 highly analytical test subject results, which should quash any risk out outliers. Both cameras perform extremely well in these tests, but it looks like the Canon EOS R5 performs just a little bit better.
From The-Digital-Picture
I experience a 1/3 – 2/3 stop advantage with the Canon camera. That difference is not dramatic, and the bottom line is that IBIS is valuable in both camera brands. This feature adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here. IBIS is one more reason to love the latest mirrorless camera models. Read the full comparison
Canon EOS R5 $3899...

Continue reading...


 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
760
177
So how many stops does the R5 IBIS gain you compared to having no IBIS at all? I'm thinking test results, not marketing claims.
 

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
434
255
However the persons hands may not be consistently steady every shot, as can be seen in the results there is variation, and the focal length has an impact, etc etc.

My reading of the data is around 4 stops on this test, but it depends where you choose your start and end points from.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
760
177
However the persons hands may not be consistently steady every shot, as can be seen in the results there is variation, and the focal length has an impact, etc etc.

My reading of the data is around 4 stops on this test, but it depends where you choose your start and end points from.
That's true - there is variation between test shots. That's why Brian Carnathan repeated each trial ten times. So it comes down to an average gain in stops.
I do wonder if there is a difference between focal lengths. Maybe so, maybe not. That would be interesting to test.
 

TinTin

EOS M50
Sep 18, 2019
37
59
This surprises me because Sony IBIS is traditionally terrible.
I still guess that they did not use OIS lenses with the R5 to keep it fair.
You're right: they did not.

As stated in the article:

With identical Canon and Sony non-stabilized lenses in the lab at the same time, this comparison hit the top of my to-do list, becoming the priority.

...
[IBIS] adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
Good to see the A1 has improved IBIS. My A7RIII is only good for about 2 stops. A1 is my next camera, but I am eagerly waiting to see how the R3 holds up even though it's pixel challenged.
 
Jul 30, 2021
4
3
The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters. those who bitch about it are the couch "content creators & professional reviewers" who never produce anything at all. (including youtubers). Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,742
2,145
Hamburg, Germany
You're right: they did not.

As stated in the article:
Thanks for pointing out that this test compares performance with non stabilized lenses. To be more precise, they used just one lens on each body for the comparison: The systems respective native 50 mm 1.2 high end lens.

So you really can't generalize this result. For one, based on testing with just one focal length you can't extrapolate into how each system fares with for example a 24 and a 100 mm lens. It also can't be applied to consumer grade lenses like the Canon RF 50 mm 1.8 STM, as those constrain the image sensor motion further.

I would also expect Canon to further their advantage when it comes to combining lens IS with IBIS, since the larger mount gives them more freedom to move the sensor around. So these results also don't apply to that.

But for the specific case of the 50 mm 1.2 lens, this looks like a nice test and as that is a lens that does benefit from stabilization, it is good to see that Canon demonstrates a striking absence of Doom once more.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,908
12,232
Thanks for pointing out that this test compares performance with non stabilized lenses. To be more precise, they used just one lens on each body for the comparison: The systems respective native 50 mm 1.2 high end lens.

So you really can't generalize this result. For one, based on testing with just one focal length you can't extrapolate into how each system fares with for example a 24 and a 100 mm lens. It also can be applied to consumer grade lenses like the Canon RF 50 mm 1.8 STM, as those constrain the image sensor motion further.

I would also expect Canon to further their advantage when it comes to combining lens IS with IBIS, since the larger mount gives them more freedom to move the sensor around. So these results also don't apply to that.

But for the specific case of the 50 mm 1.2 lens, this looks like a nice test and as that is a lens that does benefit from stabilization, it is good to see that Canon demonstrates a striking absence of Doom once more.
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.
 

PerKr

EOS 90D
Jul 11, 2018
139
139
Sverige
The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters. those who bitch about it are the couch "content creators & professional reviewers" who never produce anything at all. (including youtubers). Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.

Well, the speed, resolution and dynamic range of the EOS 20D is good enough for 90% of the shooters out there. Actually, at least 95% of all shooters out there don't actually need anything more capable than the 1D mkII when it comes to stills. Whenever we think we do, it's just because we're generally not skilled enough.

If we specifically want the best image stabilisation, Sony just isn't it. "good enough" isn't even close to being the best and so "good enough" just isn't good enough.
 

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
344
225
I was always wondering how image stabilisation works and remember, that Uncle Rog said it is magic.
So may guess is, that the electronics of IS-Systems are adapted stepwise by trial and error depending on long series of experiments: make thousands of photos with a primitive initial status, under ramdom conditions. Change parameters and compare whether something happens, change again until you see some improvement and repeat it so much times until you have good results. If this is in some way true, then IS-Systems can only have optimal results under certain conditions (those similar to the test-setting) and improvements cannot easily be done, because it would require another long series of testing.
Only guessing. :)
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,742
2,145
Hamburg, Germany
I was always wondering how image stabilisation works and remember, that Uncle Rog said it is magic.
So may guess is, that the electronics of IS-Systems are adapted stepwise by trial and error depending on long series of experiments: make thousands of photos with a primitive initial status, under ramdom conditions. Change parameters and compare whether something happens, change again until you see some improvement and repeat it so much times until you have good results. If this is in some way true, then IS-Systems can only have optimal results under certain conditions (those similar to the test-setting) and improvements cannot easily be done, because it would require another long series of testing.
Only guessing. :)
I very strongly doubt that is how IBIS systems are developed.

They should just be based on motion sensors (Inertial Measurement Units and Gyroscopes) in the body and lens to detect how the camera moved in a given time. The sensor is suspended on a movable platform that is then offset by the measured amount of movement to effectively put it back into the place where it had been originally. Do this at an sufficiently high rate and you'll limit the relative motion between the subject and sensor.

To eliminate motion (blur) more effectively (and this is definitely done in Canon's system) methods from control theory can be used to better regulate the relationship between measurements of movement and movement of the sensor.

That does not negate your conclusion that the conditions under which IBIS is most effective are limited. But your reasoning does not sound related to the reality of engineering.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
749
511
39
Philadelphia
The IBIS on the a1 is good enough for 90% of shooters. those who bitch about it are the couch "content creators & professional reviewers" who never produce anything at all. (including youtubers). Sony Catalyst Software can produce even better results than Canon's claimed 8 stops of stabilization.
its an extra step that though and more time. I dont want to add any more time editing that i already have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,908
12,232
I very strongly doubt that is how IBIS systems are developed.

They should just be based on motion sensors (Inertial Measurement Units and Gyroscopes) in the body and lens to detect how the camera moved in a given time. The sensor is suspended on a movable platform that is then offset by the measured amount of movement to effectively put it back into the place where it had been originally. Do this at an sufficiently high rate and you'll limit the relative motion between the subject and sensor.

To eliminate motion (blur) more effectively (and this is definitely done in Canon's system) methods from control theory can be used to better regulate the relationship between measurements of movement and movement of the sensor.

That does not negate your conclusion that the conditions under which IBIS is most effective are limited. But your reasoning does not sound related to the reality of engineering.
IS is programmed also to be predictive not just reactive.