IBIS-Not, because… the Trade-off

[Lioneye]

So I’ve been lurking a bit, and posting just a bit, and I hear a lot of complaints about the a6300 not having IBIS and how awful of Sony because of that. And then I hear people explain that the a6300 would have to be much bigger if it had IBIS, and that would make the camera just like the larger A7RII, etc., and cost so much more, too. So, OSS in the lenses allows the a6300 to be smaller, while IBIS in the A7RII allows for non-stabilized lenses to be utilized, but it’s bigger. I get it. It’s the trade-off.

 

Yet still every day someone rants at Sony for the a6300 not having IBIS. I googled optical stabilization and it seems (to my less educated brain) that IBIS requires actual moving parts inside the camera to stabilize the image on the sensor. And that these mechanical parts take up lots of room inside the camera. And that also costs more.

 

So here’s my question… is it really possible mechanically, or electronically, to actually put IBIS in the a6xxx models without swelling the size, weight and cost up? or do we just live with the trade-off?

 

Thanks for your time

[Golem]

You transparently pretend that you

have not answered your own question.

[Lioneye]

Maybe I was just fooling myself? I wondered if I was missing something, since so may folks posed the IBIS requirement. So, the answer to my either-or question is, "yes"!

 

Thanks Golem!

[chrisqphoto]

Maybe I was just fooling myself? I wondered if I was missing something, since so may folks posed the IBIS requirement. So, the answer to my either-or question is, "yes"!

 

Thanks Golem!

yea... I'm sorry friend you answered your own question. it's a situation like the sound of one hand clapping.

[beautiful queens servant]

is ibis related to siri who knows all

[wedge]

Here's a sensor from an A7RII, with all the IBIS stuff still attached.

There's no ruler on there.  But just by eyeballing it, I'd guess it adds roughly half an inch in all dimensions.  Maybe more... 

 

 

[Austerror]

Technically IS it possible?

 

Yes.

 

Cost effective?

 

No.

 

In the future, perhaps it will be.  But Sony is only just starting to put IBIS into small camera bodies.  I'm sure that in a year or two or 5 we'll see it in an A6000 sized body. Once Sony has figured out how to minimize the IBIS mechanics.

[molan]

So I’ve been lurking a bit, and posting just a bit, and I hear a lot of complaints about the a6300 not having IBIS and how awful of Sony because of that. And then I hear people explain that the a6300 would have to be much bigger if it had IBIS, and that would make the camera just like the larger A7RII, etc., and cost so much more, too. So, OSS in the lenses allows the a6300 to be smaller, while IBIS in the A7RII allows for non-stabilized lenses to be utilized, but it’s bigger. I get it. It’s the trade-off.

 

Yet still every day someone rants at Sony for the a6300 not having IBIS. I googled optical stabilization and it seems (to my less educated brain) that IBIS requires actual moving parts inside the camera to stabilize the image on the sensor. And that these mechanical parts take up lots of room inside the camera. And that also costs more.

 

So here’s my question… is it really possible mechanically, or electronically, to actually put IBIS in the a6xxx models without swelling the size, weight and cost up? or do we just live with the trade-off?

 

Thanks for your time

 

Sony have not been able so far to do it without the increase space and cost, so I'll say no.

 

Still no IBIS is a deal breaker for me, then I'll rather get a Nikon.

 

Fortunately I am not in the marked for APS-C but FF, and Sony's FF have IBIS.

[PierreP]

Even if the A6300 had been bigger, I'd have bought it. Regarding the price, I guess that an A6000, with nothing more than IBIS (and PDAF for adapted lenses) wouldn't have cost much more than the A6300. 

 

I just think Sony has focused to AF speed, which will be the selling argument of the APS-C line-up : APS-C for sport, FF for image quality.