IBIS vs Lens image stabilization

[SwampGrizz]

Need some help here….one of these days, (not soon) I’m going to move up from my trusty little R50 and get a full frame camera. The R50 has no IBIS, and I’m currently using image stabilized lenses. So far, so good. I’m wondering if adding IBIS to image stabilized lenses is overkill, or will it be worth the extra money to get a super-duper stabilized rig. Or does it even work that way? The real world implication of this is in the decision between an R8 (no IBIS), and an R6mk2 (IBIS). I’m sure the R6mk2 is a better camera in most regards, but for the type of shooting I do, I think the R8 would do just fine. Given the cost differential between the two, is IBIS worth it? Please note that I don’t do video, and most of the things I take pictures of stay still. I don’t shoot sports or wildlife, and can live with the pared down set of controls on the R8. My only hesitation is the IBIS/non-IBIS issue. Many thanks in advance for the advice.

By the way, I have looked at YouTube videos and Reddit chats about this, and they are all over the place. There are IBIS fanboys and IBIS haters, and I got fed up with it. I thought I would come here where the real experts are, and where truth lives.
Thanks!

 

[Archibald]

Depends on your shooting. Are you getting photos with motion blur due to camera shake?

If you shoot landscapes in good light, or shoot with flash, then IBIS won't be contributing much. If you are rarely bothered by blurry pics, then it is not important.

I'm often shooting handheld in dim light but still want sharp photos with low noise. I resort to shooting in continuous mode at too-low shutter speeds. Many will be blurry, but one or two will be sharp. And that's all I need. IBIS will improve the keeper rate.

Modern image stabilization is miraculous. Sometimes they are ALL sharp.

We took pictures successfully for more than a hundred years without IBIS, so it is certainly possible. On the other hand, why not take advantage of new technology? That is important especially if it is a hobby! (IMO)

 

[Archibald]

Ivory-billed Woodcreeper, shot at 500mm with a shutter speed of 1/60 sec. Gotta have all the image stabilization I can get.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Are you saying that in body stabilization + lens stabilization (R6mk2) is worth the extra money over no in body stabilization + lens stabilization (R8)?

Great photo, by the way…….

 

[Archibald]

Are you saying that in body stabilization + lens stabilization (R6mk2) is worth the extra money over no in body stabilization + lens stabilization (R8)?

Great photo, by the way…….

I can't determine value in your hands!

 

[SwampGrizz]

I understand that you can’t determine value based on my shooting habits. My question is based purely on the technical merits of the two different cameras, one with IBIS and one without IBIS when paired with lenses that have stabilization. It doesn’t matter who is holding the camera. Again, I don’t own either an R8 or an R6mk2, but one day will trade up from my R50. I’m just trying to decide if the R6mk2 is worth the extra money based just on IBIS.

 

[Only RF]

As you know you get extra stops with IBIS. I think that would also base it on how you currently shoot. Do you get a lot of shots that are OOF or have micro blur that concern you? If not then you may not need it.

I ordered an R5 and 100-500. The lens came first so I used it on my R (which has no IBIS) and I didn’t miss a beat. I’ll post a shot later.

 

[SwampGrizz]

So if I understand everyone correctly, it DOES matter how I currently shoot. With my non IBIS R50 and stabilized lenses, I currently get very few OOF shots. By that logic, the R8 with my stabilized lenses should get the same stabilization results, ignoring the FF vs APSC and other differences. So if I can get good stable shots with the R8 and stabilized lenses, then the extra IBIS stabilization in the R6mk2 doesn’t buy me anything, given the way I shoot. Correct?

 

[Only RF]

Unless you are doing a lot of panning with slow shutter speeds, night concerts or dark venues, etc that IS will be plenty.

R with 100-500

• Join to view EXIF data.

R with EF 100-100 II and 2X

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Many thanks to all that have responded. I have learned something today.

 

[Only RF]

ISO is not an issue the days. 40000 with the R. Denoised using Adobe AI.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Only RF]

Many years I took this handheld with the EF 24-70 2.8 II that did not have IS and no IBIS.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[RickyRed]

There are no draw backs with a camera using IBS. For stills photography.Even though I dont use either camera , I do use the R5-R7. With the R7 and The little RF Sigma's 2,8. No lens IS. With IBS, there really no need for lens IS.. Even though I have not used the R6. series, I would think that it would be a better choice.The R6 has IBS. A larger battery and a better view finder

 

[MikeZ]

I thought that lens stabilization was added to IBIS, so that the effect was cumulative. So, for example if the camera brought you 3-5 stops and the lens 3, then when combined you'd get effectively 6-8 stops. Is that not correct??

 

[Archibald]

I thought that lens stabilization was added to IBIS, so that the effect was cumulative. So, for example if the camera brought you 3-5 stops and the lens 3, then when combined you'd get effectively 6-8 stops. Is that not correct??

Who said it was incorrect??