Image stabilization in the lens, sometimes called optical image stabilization or OIS, is one application of the feature. The other—more common more recently it would seem—is in-body stabilization, or IBIS.
Various arguments are put forth touting one over the other. The biggest difference is that OIS works better for longer telephoto lenses, needing smaller movement for correction, and IBIS works for all the lenses that fit on a body. That's been part of the fun with mirrorless cameras, many of which can use all sorts of different kinds of old and different lenses via adapters.
But here's the likely reason Canon uses in-lens IS and not IBIS: because the company developed the technology for binoculars.
Current Canon 10x30 IS II image-stabilized binoculars
And then it made the next logical step—it incorporated the same technology into a camera lens. But a lens for film cameras—which virtually all serious consumer cameras were in 1995, when the first real IS lens, the Canon EF 75–300mm ƒ/4–5.6 IS USM, was introduced.
(By the way, the claim that Nikon "invented" IS because it incorporated crude vibration-reduction in a 1994 film point-and-shoot, the Zoom 700VR, is pretty specious. Canon was so far ahead of Nikon where in-lens IS is concerned that Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry [MITI], which essentially ran most of the country's industrial policy during Japan's dominant years, had to pressure Canon to share it with Nikon for the good of the mother country. According to some insider rumors at the time.)
Makes sense that a film camera would have to use in-lens IS, doesn't it? Hard to shift a sensor when there's no sensor to shift.
The only mainstream film camera I know of from that era that could actually move the film plane around was the Contax AX (1996), a "Frankencamera" of sorts born of Yashica's frustration with Zeiss. Yashica had partnered with Zeiss since Zeiss stopped making cameras in 1972, the two companies taking the old Zeiss model name "Contax" as a brand name, but Zeiss was reportedly a cantankerous partner in those days. According to mumbled asides from my contacts at Contax back then, I gathered that Zeiss didn't bend over backwards to cooperate with Yashica and Yashica wasn't in the driver's seat in the relationship, despite supplying most of the technology (and money). Zeiss decided what it would build and Yashica had to order runs of lenses and pay for them pretty much like Zeiss was an OEM and Yashica was any old outside customer. Anyway, when autofocus came along, Yashica asked Zeiss to build autofocus lenses, and Zeiss said nope, ain't gonna do it. Or the German equivalent. There was too much slop in AF mechanisms at the time, and Zeiss was unwilling to compromise film-plane parallelism and mechanical integrity. But Yashica had some pretty serious engineering chops, and, because it was so eager to build an AF Contax anyway, it engineered the AX to move the film plane up and back as an end-around means of achieving AF with manual-focus lenses! Weird, but then camera history is full of weirdness. The few people who actually used it tended to like the AX, but even though it moved the whole film transport mechanism it wasn't "sensor shift" in any way that had anything to do with image stabilization.
Anyway, the fact that it was developed in the film era via binoculars, along with its continuing suitability to long teles, is no doubt why Canon sticks with in-lens IS today. That is, it's due to the historical circumstances and timing of its development as much as to the superiority of the one strategy over the other. I'm sure the sensor-shift IS patents mostly belong to others, too, although I can't back that up. (the Internet seems woefully deficient in industrial history generally, and I don't find much about the history of image stabilization; for some of the information in this post I'm just relying on my potentially fallible memory.)
Where Canon (and Nikon) seem to be exposed these days is not precisely in the lack of IBIS as in dual-IS technology, where in-lens and in-body stabilization work together in concert. This area of camera tech isn't quite up to speed yet, from what I've seen of it so far, but it likely will be soon.
Meanwhile, Olympus leads with IBIS, probably with Sony in second place; people are taking sharp pictures at exposure times up to several seconds with the "overdeveloped" E-M1 Mark II, and Olympus claims that IS technology is limited by the movement of the earth, which doesn't make much sense to my small brain but sure sounds impressive.
It's pretty astonishing that IS works at all, much less that it works so well. I remember the first time I ever experienced it...with some then-brand-new Canon binoculars that my late uncle Cam purchased for watching sailboat races. The steadying effect on the image, handheld on a moving boat, was wondrous. All these years later, IS still seems like a pretty wonderful feature to me—but then, I've always been a handheld photographer, and one who likes to shoot in low light.
Mike
(Thanks to John McMillin)
Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
William Schneider: "Oh, a binocular post! I use a pair of Canon 10x42 L IS WP binoculars for astronomy and the IS feature is outstanding beyond words. The Canon optics are first rate, so even if the IS feature fails someday, they are still sharper and provide a wider view than my other binoculars.
"You mention having used a pair on a boat. Shown below is a page from the user's manual giving one reason why the 10x42 L IS WP binoculars may be a top choice for people who use binoculars around water."
Scott Kirkpatrick (partial comment): "The multi-seconds hand-held exposures with Olympus E-M1 Mark II are real—I've done it, and you can read about it by others in various places. But it requires combining IBIS and OIS in one special lens, the Olympus 12–100mm ƒ/4 IS PRO."
Richard Skoonberg: "Leaders in IBIS? Mike, you are a former Pentaxian! You forgot to mention the Pentax K-1, which uses its IBIS for its Pixel Shift Resolution, which is utterly amazing with still subjects—rivaling medium format; its Astrotrace technology, which allows it to take up to five minute exposures by moving the sensor in concert with its GPS; and the K-1 also provides modest level and perspective correction in-camera.
"Plus the K-1 offers 4–5 stops of image stabilization."
Bob Johnston: "I suspect that the use of IBIS vs. OIS has more to do with patent ownership than anything else. As far as I can remember Minolta were the first to have IBIS. According to Wikipedia they used it in the Dimage A1 in 2003. They certainly were the first to use it in a DSLR—the Dynax 7D (Maxxum 7D) in 2004 or 2005. They called it AS—Anti Shake. Of course Sony inherited the patents and have a large share in Olympus."
Mike replies: I owned a Konica-Minolta 7D that I bought used in 2006. It was really one of my favorite cameras ever. The AS on mine seemed to work wonders—it sold me on the feature, and I wouldn't swear that any of the cameras I've tried since then that had some form of IS have worked as well...I'm quite sure a few of them didn't. The color accuracy was also excellent. I would have used mine far longer than I did, but I started experiencing electronic glitches and Sony wouldn't repair it. I still have the old K-M 7D somewhere.
John McMillin: "Another historic factor favoring Canon's allegiance to OIS—it was the only way to stabilize the image in an OVF, which was the universal standard. A stable VF image is especially important in telephoto work, which lines right up with Canon's market niche. Today, with EVFs feeding live images from the sensor, IBIS stabilizes the observed image, too, negating this advantage.
"The third advantage of OIS for Canon and Nikon is how it boosts consumer interest in buying new OEM lenses. If you lived through the first OIS revolution, you probably replaced most of your EF lenses (which you'd bought a decade before to replace your MF lenses). Then, when improved generations of OIS arrived, that was another reason to trade up again. What would it cost to upgrade a standard set of pro zooms and long primes? Plenty, and Canon likes it that way. Meanwhile, owners of Minolta, then Sony, and now Pentax DSLRs are content to know that each new camera body will probably improve the IBIS performance of all our current lenses.
"But you know that, Mike—that was your advice, IIRC, about the first two. (And thanks for the credit, too! I've made the same point on various forums to tepid response, so I'm happy that you could run with it here.)"
Sid: "Having used my Canon 10x42 L IS binoculars for birding for more than a decade, I am still delighted by their performance, optically, electronically, and mechanically. Now and then I use my Canon 10x30 IS binoculars, the original version, because they're lighter and more compact, though they're no match for the excellence of the 10x42. If Canon should offer a Mark II upgrade of the 10x42, I'd likely be a buyer."
I hadn't realised IS only came into being (for camera lenses) as late as 1995 - I had thought it was there from the beginning of the EOS system. But I'm probably thinking about USM which was there (theoretically) from the beginning.
Being a Canon shooter I'm firmly on the in-lens side of the fence. One argument that I have always found persuasive is this. In-lens systems allow the solution to be tailored to the requirements of that particular lens. The stabilization requirements for e.g. a 35mm lens and a 300mm lens will probably be different because the amount of image movement is likely to be different. Therefore the solution, which should be tailored to the requirement, might also be different. (The same is true of AF systems, and diaphragm movements, of course.) That can only be done with an in-lens solution. Surely an IBIS system is a one size fits all solution, which can't be ideal for most lenses?
I like the idea of hybrid solutions, however.
[The first USM lens was the EF 35–135mm ƒ/4–5.6 USM lens of 1990. --Mike]
Posted by: Tom Burke | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 09:30 AM
Hmmm. That "long lens" thing is really counterintuitive. I would think the corrections needed would be _greater_ with a long lens because every photographer twitch is magnified 8x in a 300mm lens, or something like that. Maybe if you are moving only the iris . . . ??? Would love to understand the mechanics of all that better if there are any engineers in the TOP-verse.
[It's because of the location of the correction. A small group of elements in the middle of the lens is all that has to be moved. IANAE. --Mike]
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 10:13 AM
"Olympus claims that IS technology is limited by the movement of the earth:
Is this Olympus way of trying to prevent customer whining if they don't get sharp photos during an earthquake?
Posted by: Daniel | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 10:34 AM
“Olympus claims that IS technology is limited by the movement of the earth.” The other day I tried it with the 300mm, IBIS + OIS.
It's true! As soon as I touched the release button the EVF image was completely frozen and I could feel the tectonic plate vibrate under my feet.
Posted by: s.wolters | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 10:42 AM
The multi-seconds hand-held exposures with Olympus M1 mark ii are real -- I've done it, and you can read about it by others in various places. But it requires combining IBIS and OIS in one special (12-100 mm) lens. Incidentally, one thing that OIS cannot do is correct for rotation about the axis of the lens. That's why IBIS is only "5-axis". The sixth axis would be the AF by moving the image plane that you describe. But it is limited in its effect to short focal length lenses. Even two generations ago, I found you could take pretty nice macro photos handheld with objects a few inches from the lens with the Olympus E-PL5 and their inexpensive 60 mm macro lens.
Posted by: scott kirkpatrick | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 10:56 AM
We (I) tend to think of Canon as a camera company that makes lenses. Maybe they're a lens company that makes cameras.
At list prices, the dollar value of my lenses is much greater than that of my single camera body.
Posted by: Speed | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 11:08 AM
This makes me miss my clunky Canon 28-135 IS lens. It had a reassuring "settling" while it stabilized the image. I could see it through the viewfinder and it made me confident.
Posted by: emptyspaces | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 11:39 AM
I think the EOS M5 already has in body stabilization that works with lens stabilization
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/eos-m-series-digital-cameras/eos-m5-ef-m-18-150mm-is-stm
Posted by: Michael Perini | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 11:45 AM
Tom Burke's comment is one I've read before from others, but equally valid (from the other side) is that IBIS offers IS with all lenses.
I've shot Sony A mount, digicams that use IS, Nikon F mount and Sony E mount. The IS on my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 is excellent. But the IS that I get with a 30/1.4 or 28/2 on the A6500 beats the VR that I don't get with the Nikkor 35/1.8 (or the 85/1.8 for that matter). Tamron makes a couple VR primes for Nikon and Canon, but otherwise, lens-based IS is only good if it's in the lens.
Overall, I guess my preference would be to have both and make them work together, like Panasonic lenses do. Failing that, I have a mild preference for sensor-based IS simply because it is available for all lenses. But it's not a showstopper - I did switch from Sony to Nikon some years back knowing I'd be giving up IS with the 35 & 85. To me, IS is like sensor quality ... at this point, it's good enough and ubiquitous enough that I can take it for granted and make my buying decisions based on other factors.
Posted by: Dennis | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 11:56 AM
So, for S. Wolters, photography makes the earth move. Interesting. There's probably a name for that.
Posted by: Patrick J Dodds | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 12:04 PM
Mike,
I have a strong feeling that OIS sometimes mal functions and causes blurred images. In those situations I use my non stabilized 50mm lens (mostly in low light situations). I think it has given me better images. This may be just a subjective sensation but I believe it is there for sure. It may be because I tend to support the camera on some stable objects in such situations. It is said that the image stabilization should be switched off when using a tripod. I too am for hand held use of camera and hate to switch between stabilization and non stabilization.
Posted by: Ranjit Grover | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 12:53 PM
PS I've also read that canon has both IBIS and OIS in video mode, but defaults to OIS in Stills mode, so I'm not sure which is accurate
Posted by: Michael Perini | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 12:54 PM
Just for kicks, I did a quick search of the U.S. Patent Office with the terms "camera image stabilization" and "optical image stabilization". (Its really quite easy at the Patent Office website,) Since most foreign companies also file patents in the U.S., it should give an indication of who is innovating in a field. Pairing the above terms with the company names, Canon had 25, Nikon had 6, and Fuji, Pentax, Panasonic, Samsung, Konica Minolta, and others all had one or more potentially relevant patents filed. Since a single device or development can result in several patents, the number is only an approximation of the level of activity, but it seems that Canon is the most active in this area.
Posted by: Richard Newman | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 01:30 PM
This is at best a semi-sequitur, but your essay reminded me that, as a teenager, I was reliably able to shoot my father’s prewar Zeiss Contax II with its collapsible 50mm f/2 Sonnar lens at 1/10 second, and often could get away with 1/5 second.
I don't know whether that was attributable to my steady hands (they were a lot steadier at 17 than they are at 70) or the design of the Contax’s focal plane shutter which, unlike those of the Leicas of that era, moved vertically rather than horizontally across the film. It certainly had nothing to do with the mass of the camera, which makes even my Fuji X-T2 feel like a brick.
Alas, the Contax was lost during one of my parents’ long-ago moves, but I do have a “Kiev” carbon copy — http://www.ChrisKern.Net/miscl/kievRangefinder.jpg — which continued to be manufactured for many years after the invading Red Army seized the Contax manufacturing equipment in Dresden and Jena, and relocated it to Ukraine. My father, apparently missing his old camera, picked it up during a business trip to Eastern Europe while he was serving as a foreign service officer during the 1970s. I've never tried to run any film through it, but everything seems to be in working order so maybe a modest test is in order.
Posted by: Chris Kern | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 02:17 PM
Nikon's argument for VR being in-lens rather than in-camera:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Images/Micro-Sites/VR/in_lens_vr/
(I'm thinking an EVF is the key to IBIS working effectively. An OVF would give the blurred image Nikon describes)
Posted by: SteveW | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 02:34 PM
Yes Patrick, unfortunately a certain A. Einstein seems to have the patents.
Posted by: s.wolters | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 03:28 PM
Canon's optical image stabilization system has been among their crown jewels for many years, and it keeps getting better. This week, for example, I'm working with Canon's EF 200-400 F4L IS USM which has an integrated and optically matched 1.4 teleconverter. This sucker is a 9 lb honker, Canon's most optically-perfect zoom but certainly the heaviest. Not something designed for handheld shooting. But I have taken several usable handheld images with it using that optical image stabilizing system. The OIS in this lens, and a few other more recent models, features three modes, set on the barrel, where you tell the lens what to expect.
And speaking of binos, I second William's applause for Canon's image stabilizers in big binos! I have a pair similar to his, an 18x50, and they can produce a very smooth handheld view that would be othewise impossible with such a narrow field of view.
It's my understanding that Canon basically OWNS optical image stabilization and licenses the technology to many other optical companies.
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 03:42 PM
The dual IS in my Panasonic GX80 works superbly. Better than IBIS alone in my Olympus cameras, but not quite as spectacular as dual IS with an Olympus camera and (suitably equipped) lens combo. I fear your recent negative experience with an eBay GX8 might have put you off Panasonic's excellent technology: unlike even recent Olympus cameras, the GX80 has a wonderfully smooth and quiet shutter too with no evidence of the shutter shock prevalent in earlier models.
Posted by: David S Wilson | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 03:46 PM
"One argument that I have always found persuasive is this. In-lens systems allow the solution to be tailored to the requirements of that particular lens. The stabilization requirements for e.g. a 35mm lens and a 300mm lens will probably be different because the amount of image movement is likely to be different. Therefore the solution, which should be tailored to the requirement, might also be different."
Right; lens focal length is needed.
Wrong; the AF lenses and camera bodies communicate, so the IBIS knows the FL.
Also: The IBIS systems I know of, Oly, Panny and Sony, all allow the FL of adapted manual focus lenses to be entered.
This can be very exciting, and terrifying! I popped the 8 mm Oly Lenscap Fisheye on my E-M5, put it up to my eye, and half pressed the shutter release. Bang, Crash! Camera tried to jump out of my hand - Turn IT OFF!
The last non-AF lens I had used on that body was 600 mm. No damage, and I learned my lesson - for now.
Less clear is how important focal distance may be. The geometry says it should matter. Oly bodies put focal distance in EXIF* Panny and Sony don't, which doesn't mean they don't know it, at least approximately.
And yet, the Oly IBIS I've used with MF lenses has worked quite well.
* Not terribly accurate, esp. at closest and longest.
Posted by: Moose | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 04:22 PM
On the subject of patents: When the Oly IBIS was introduced, I recall that the talk among the 4/3 discussion forums was that, since Oly already had a patent for shaking the sensor (for cleaning) then that allowed them to get around the prior patents that Minolta would have held for their IBIS. This is all off the top of my head and gleaned from aforementioned net-forums so I guess it falls under the category of "interesting if true".
Posted by: Phil | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 05:24 PM
Great story and finally an explanation for the differing lens- versus body-based stabilization approaches favored by different brands. On my Pentax K3-II, I use Carl Zeiss or Takumar lenses from the 1960s with an adapter, and as has been mentioned with respect to the K-1, get 4 or 5 stops better results than the old "1/focal length" limit for handheld shots. 135mm lens, 1/10 or 1/8 of a second exposure time, works most of the time in low light. Funny that Canon would let itself be compromised in how it offers shake reduction to its customers, just due to its historical connection with binoculars, rather than acknowledge the better usefulness of the in-body stabilization used by its rivals and somehow acquire it for Canon's own models. At least that's my feeling from using my Pentax. Funny that both Canon and Nikon, usually so superior about their technology, are the odd men out in the implementation of this useful feature. Yet another reason to keep one's mind open about cameras from different brands.
Posted by: Jeff Clevenger | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 05:30 PM
Mike,
I too have a 7D languishing in a drawer having developed the black frame problem. Also I had to tape the battery drawer closed. Otherwise I agree, it was a great camera.
Posted by: Bob Johnston | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 05:49 PM
As I remember, Bo's correct that IBIS was a Minolta development that Sony inherited when they gained Minolta and their engineers. As I recall comparative tests at around that time, The IBIS was was equivalent up until close to 200mm and after that there was a small advantage to OIS. With developments since then this may or may not still be true.
Further, it was generally felt that OIS was better for video because the mecahanism was further from the recording. I recall speculation that this was why in the earlier days of micro ft, the Panasonic versions (that did better with video) used OIS while the more still photography orientated Oly used IBIS.
Posted by: Mike Fewster | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 06:16 PM
I've found my Olympus IBIS to be quite good at longer focal lengths, and the EM1 mark ll I rented was pretty much miraculous with telephoto lengths. My K1 is not as good, but it is reliably decent, and I can count on 1/13 of a second usually being sharp at 50mm with my not-so-steady hands (just slow enough to show a little water blur if you want it).
Posted by: John Krumm | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 06:36 PM
OIS requires an extra lens element, which means the lens design has to be compromised to do so. Also, OSS seems problematical in wide aperture lenses, because few such lenses have OIS.
Thus IBIS just makes a lot more sense. And IBIS works a lot better with wider angles, allowing you to get really long exposures with such lenses.
And OIS can still be used even though the body has IBIS. So IBIS is a no-brainer, especially considering how affordable it is. Cameras like the EM-10 MK II show that IBIS can be implemented very affordably.
Posted by: Jackson Bart | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 08:05 PM
I know that the moment I buy another camera Sony will announce pixel shifting like Hasselblad and Pentax have.
With all the computational power and image recognition in cameras today, some camera company should get object tracking to shift the sensor to lock onto an object when you are panning. It would be really good for racecar photography for instance.
My problem with long exposures has always been the subject moving , not so much the camera. People, and trees in the wind are the worst. Its almost like being backfocused. The background is sharp but the person you are photographing is blurred. That's why I always shot with a leaf shutter and a hint of fill flash way back in the dark ages. It would always sharpen things up.
Oh, one more thing. Luis Alvarez at Bell & Howell patented the in lens optical stabilization we know now using what is essentially a reverse telescope pivoting in the lens in 1963. Kodak patented a system using a bunch of moving prisms in 1945.
Guided missiles were the big application of most of the image stabilization systems in the 60s and they used moving sensors in the form of video tube.
I remember that the way to hotrod Sony cameras for the half inch reel to reel video portapacks was to get a government surplus Newvicon tube that was reputedly out of a vietnam era missile guidance system. Super sensitive all the way into the infra red, and good recovery from camera flashes and I suppose bomb explosions at night.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 08:55 PM
IS correcting for the earth's rotation speed would be interesting. We're moving about (depending on the distance from the equator)1600 - 1700 km/hr. So, accurate correction would involve camera onboard GPS being used to calculate your location speed. The closer you get to a pole, the slower you travel.
I can't wait, my old Gitzo weighs 8 lbs.
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html
Posted by: brad | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 11:29 PM
to Hugh, who wrote, "Guided missiles were the big application of most of the image stabilization systems in the 60s and they used moving sensors in the form of video tube.
I remember that the way to hotrod Sony cameras for the half inch reel to reel video portapacks was to get a government surplus Newvicon tube that was reputedly out of a vietnam era missile guidance system. Super sensitive all the way into the infra red, and good recovery from camera flashes and I suppose bomb explosions at night. "
Nowadays it's subject tracking, facial recognition, and ever-more detailed and enlargable image sensors. The primary applications of these minor miracles is obviously military. When we focus our cameras, we're using tech created to aim weapons of war. Does anyone think this was all done for artistic purposes?
Posted by: John McMillin | Monday, 10 July 2017 at 11:55 PM
Working in low light as I do a lot, I also have the problem that subject motion is often the problem -- musicians for sure, even people just talking. (And roller derby of course!)
I did some vaguely careful testing of Nikon VR (and it's not the newer VRII) some years back and found it fairly disappointing, but actually I'm generally disappointed by optical VR, and very frequently get surprisingly useful results from IBIS. My test reports are here. Also the test target I used is available there as a TIFF if you want to do your own testing.
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 01:01 AM
@mouse: I didn't know that IBIS systems could behave differently depending on the FL of the attached lens. Thank you.
Posted by: Tom Burke | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 02:09 AM
As popular still cameras are starting to develop impressive video capabiities, we will begin to see different philosophies of image stabilization required to stabilize around the kind of intentional motions that video or fast sports action introduce. For example, Leica's OIS 90-280 will recognize a pan movement, and ignore sideways motion while stabilizing vertical movement. Fuji's and Olympus' OIS long lenses tend to freeze all motion, so a movement tends to be sluggish at first, followed by a slight overshoot, which can be distracting for video.
Posted by: scott kirkpatrick | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 02:53 AM
opps, forgot to link to that 1963 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US3378326
Posted by: hugh crawford | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 03:22 AM
In-body stabilization does off a few other things: a degree of astro-tracing, sensor tilt-shift and high-resolution images. Various Pentax cameras offer some or all of them while Olympus offer high-resolution images. For that reason I think IBIS is well worth having even if one leaves it switched off a lot of the time, though the best system for longer focal lengths is as you say one which combines stabilization in both body and lens.
It may be worth keeping an eye on the high-resolution capability of IBIS. At present it is limited to tripod-only use because even very small movements mess up the alignment of the final image which is made up of several images shifted half or a single pixel apart. However, if enough in-camera processing becomes available, then hand-held high-resolution shots may become possible with any "shake" eradicated by software processing. That could be a very powerful feature, I think. As it is, my Olympus M43 camera delivers 64 mpx high-res files with better colour and acuity than the regular images, though still tripod-only. That's quite something from a "little" camera.
Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 06:37 AM
Minolta supposedly had a plan to make a stabilized camera that moves the film plane somehow but they found it too difficult to make it work in practice. So they were ready when digital came along.
Their A2 was also the first digital camera with a high resolution EVF. Years before others.
Posted by: Ilkka | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 06:52 AM
"I have a strong feeling that OIS sometimes mal functions and causes blurred images."
That could be shutter shock (or mirror slap if you're using a DSLR) impacting the moving lens element which is usually more sensitive to shutter shock than anything else.
Posted by: Jackson Bart | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 08:10 AM
I've never been a binocular person (well, I do have two eyes last time I looked) and now I know that OIS is available. But can you get AF as well? Even if it was just a "focus now" button.
Posted by: Peter Croft | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 10:19 AM
I was working as a industrial cinematographer in the 70s. In one of the helicopter shoots we used what I think was called a Dynalens -- a cantankerous rig with two parallel glass plates stuck in front of the lens. If I remember right, there as a viscous fluid between the glass plates and the glass plates moved to correct for vibrations. It worked. Kinda. Sometimes. I remember a complicated helicopter shoot where it died in the middle of the run. Finished the run handheld with a wide-angle lens.
Modern stabilization is so much simpler, lighter and more reliable for the user.
Posted by: Peter Baenziger | Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 07:19 PM