I recently started shooting with a Nikon Z 7 and noticed something interesting when reviewing some images from a shoot. There was a feature that I didn’t pay much attention to, but I think it’s really undervalued.
Before the Z 7, I was shooting with a Nikon D810 and primarily the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. My version lacked VR, and while some of my other lenses had it, I didn’t get into the habit of using it.
On the Z 7, stabilization is available for any lens, as it is built into the sensor. Having it always available has already expanded my handheld shooting envelope, allowing for some shots that would have otherwise required too high of an ISO. Additionally, this opens up a number of possibilities for stabilizing lenses that have never had the option of VR.
For example, this recent shot required me to dangle the camera out at arm’s length to get the appropriate perspective and was about 3 stops slower than the reciprocal focal length guideline. Despite those two factors, it is sharp, given the shallow depth of field. Don't take this as a technical test, as the light source created both fringing and a fine grid pattern that isn't present under normal light.
Given this was an adapted Nikkor 24 f/1.4, there would not have been a reasonable way to stabilize this shot before the Z 7, and my test shots with VR disabled were too blurry to be usable. I understand VR itself isn’t revolutionary, but to me, always-available VR is a huge convenience. It isn’t a replacement for a tripod, but for marginal situations, it can be a huge help.
Lastly, I’ve noticed an increasing movement against tripods in the places I enjoy shooting- for instance, Zion National Park banned some instances of tripod use and many buildings prohibit it outright. In these cases, VR is the only option for adding stability.
Have you shot with a body that has built in image stabilization? I didn’t consider it an essential feature on lenses before, but it’s already proven useful.
Cover image by Yunming Wang
I love my Nikon Z6 IBIS, it works very well. Better than my Sony's it seems. However, the thing I don't like about IBIS is it tends to add at least 100g to the camera weight. This makes my EOS R, RP or the X-T3 so much better and easier to carry around as a travel or street camera than the IBIS cameras that often weigh significantly more. I kind of hope Nikon makes a lightweight non IBIS mirrorless cam at some point.
I doubt the IBIS systems add a significant amount of weight on their own. Instead, it seems like you're comparing cameras with significantly different specs.
Comparing the XT-3 and XH-1, that 100 grams difference is less than 10% of even an absolutely basic kit of body and 16-55 lens.
Compare the weight difference of a VR lens to a non-VR lens, then multiply that by the number of lenses with which you normally travel.
Weight savings with IBIS is incredible.
"There was a feature that I didn’t pay much attention to, but I think it’s really undervalued."
Trust me, it's not cause it was undervalued... you just weren't paying attention. (I'm not trying to pile on, there's a point to all this.) Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus shooters have been lovin' on IBIS and specifically buying IBIS bodies for years. If you never looked outside of your system to find a feature that could potentially change how you shoot I hate to say it but that's on you. I'm not saying we should all have GAS and be lusting after every new gizmo but every once in awhile something comes along that really opens new doors.
So the question is; are we open to being amazed by a new feature? Are brand loyalty or technological preconceptions holding us back? I'm a full frame Sony shooter, but I am open-minded enough to let that go if Olympus' E-M1X truly turns out to be the better solution for motorsport? I dunno but I try so someday I'll maybe rent one and see. It sounds like you had loyalty to Nikon that prevented you from exploring new features until they handed it to you. Perhaps that's not an issue and your images are good anyway or the cost of switching would have outweighed the advantage of IBIS. But either way it sounds like you never made that decision cause you never tried IBIS or took the word of the people who raved about it. That seems like the lesson to be learned for all of us here.
I've had and shot VR enabled lenses. They're nice to have, but for 99% of what I shoot, they aren't a critical factor. Having it built into the body is a nice convenience and could enable some new shots going forward that were marginal before- none of that is worth switching thousands of dollars of kit for.
If you hop kits every time a new feature comes out, you'll be broke.
Next article: "This Ford Feature is a Game Changer" (click) "On the Ford, power steering is available for any truck, as it is built into the base price. Having it always available has already expanded my handsfree envelope, allowing me to finish my McDonalds coffee at too high rate of a speed as I head to my next wedding... It also has seat belts!!!!!"
I discovered my camera has a digital sensor . It is truly amazing . No more film.
Ummm, more like Nikon is late to the game. IBIS premiered 15 years ago in Minolta SLRs. Almost the entire industry had it before Nikon did. Only Canon is left...
Fortunately Nikon and Canon users have enjoyed VR/IS lenses for years. I don’t disagree that IBIS is beneficial (that’s what the article is about), but it is disingenuous to say Nikon is late to the game.
Welcome to Year 2005. :)
“Z7 changes the game for Nikon users.”
There. I fixed it for you. If you don't like that, try,
“Nikon joins the club, leaves Canon lonely.”
The rest of us, Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, & Sony users, (in alphabetical order), have been playing the game with those rules for years, now.
As a Pentaxian, I've always had in-body stabilization and swear by it. Why pay for stabilization every time I buy a new lens?