Image stabilisation - do I need it?

[blueovercream]

I'm looking to buy a (used) mirrorless camera + pancake lens for general all-round use when my DSLR is too bulky to carry. On bikepacking trips, hiking etc.

I've been looking at a couple of Fujifiim options - the X-T2 which, from reading, is my preference and the X-H1 which is a fair bit bulkier but has in-body image stabilisation. No prime lens that I can find has optical stabilisation.

So my question is - do I need image stabilisation? Will I be disappointed without it? I don't think I'll be taking many photos in really low light but dawn/dusk for sure.

Thanks!

[Gad-Westy]

It s certainly handy sometimes. But what lenses are you thinking? As a few Fuji options have OIS. Not quite the same as having IBIS as well but you d not be losing out much.

Sorry, just read the pancake bit. I guess you’re thinking 18 or 27mm?

[Derek Smith]

I find it very effective in low light levels. I can obtain an acceptable image at 1/4 sec and have had the occasion 1/2. It's quite remarkable. I have 7.5 stops of stabilisation on my MFT Panasonic G9 and leave it on all the time - except when videoing.

I had three stops on my Panasonic TZ compact, which I used for holidays etc. The improvement in quality of image was noticeable.

With the bulk, and whether it's worth the extra weight, only you can answer.

[Simpo Two]

blueovercream said:

I'm looking to buy a (used) mirrorless camera + pancake lens for general all-round use when my DSLR is too bulky to carry. On bikepacking trips, hiking etc.

I've been looking at a couple of Fujifiim options - the X-T2 which, from reading, is my preference and the X-H1 which is a fair bit bulkier but has in-body image stabilisation. No prime lens that I can find has optical stabilisation.

So my question is - do I need image stabilisation? Will I be disappointed without it? I don't think I'll be taking many photos in really low light but dawn/dusk for sure.

Thanks!

Depends. On a long lens, it's a useful thing to have. The 'rule' is to have a shutter speed faster then the reciprocal of the focal length (ie if using a 300mm lens use 1/300th or faster. However with good technique you can do much better than this. If your subject is landscapes, which are typically wideish-angle, camera shake is much less of an issue.

In low light and if something is moving, IS/VR won't help freeze the movement; you need a faster shutter speed or bigger aperture or higher ISO (or a combination of those).

ETA: This answer applies to lenses with image stabilisation; I haven't used a camera with in-body stabilisation.

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 26th October 13:00

[Russet Grange]

No.

[Tony1963]

‘Need’? Well, no, of course you don’t.

But as most photographers will agree, IS is just a part of the equipment now, just as autofocus is. Use it well and it can be a huge help.

One thing to read about though: I’ve read over the years that IBIS with super and ultrawide lenses isn’t a good thing, as the sensor can’t cope with the differing requirements over its whole area. IS lenses are better for that.

[Whoozit]

I have the X-T2.

With a pancake lens, so fairly wide angle, IS or IBIS is less necessary, depending on your camera holding skill. At 24mm FFE I can handhold images up to about 0.2 seconds reliably, beyond that I take several to be sure. So in dusk/dawn light, or in woods, and needing a higher aperture for depth of field, I struggle.

Bear in mind my test for sharpness is pixel peeping at 100%. That may not be relevant to you.

It is the key reason I started carrying a tripod for landscapes about ten years ago, I wanted nice light and handholding wasn't going to get me there.