should my image be stabilized?
August 6, 2016 11:38 AM Subscribe
I am looking at buying a Fuji x100t. It has a lot of things I am looking for in this type of camera (basically an upmarket fixed lens). It has good reviews. But I noticed it does not have image stabilization. Every camera I have owned has had this feature in some way.
I am not asking for opinions on this camera, but rather how important this feature is on a camera like this? This having a fast, fixed prime lens. My feeling is it would capture quickly enough where some shake wouldn't be a problem. But I don't know for certain and would appreciate more experienced photographers take on this.
Many thanks
I am not asking for opinions on this camera, but rather how important this feature is on a camera like this? This having a fast, fixed prime lens. My feeling is it would capture quickly enough where some shake wouldn't be a problem. But I don't know for certain and would appreciate more experienced photographers take on this.
Many thanks
I shoot professionally and IMO it's mostly marketing, and I have never used IS or sought it out in a lens and I've never heard anyone rave about it. However I'm not a low light or pixel peeper kind of guy, so maybe if I shot weddings in dark halls or something I would feel differently. On the list of things that I would look for in a camera system IS wouldn't even be on my radar and I certainly wouldn't consider it a deal breaker. The X100T is a great camera.
What does make quite a big difference for sharpness, which is a major advantage of the Fuji X series cameras, is the lack of anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. Images from the Fuji cameras are very sharp.
The rule of thumb for camera shake
A useful rule, but it assumes 35mm format and a reflex camera, which the Fujis are neither. IMO you can handhold it a lot lower because of the leaf shutter. SLRs vibrate a lot no matter how steady your hands are.
OP, I know you didn't ask for camera opinions but I like the Fuji X series quite a bit (I had 2 of the X100) and and I would recommend getting one of the cameras with interchangeable lenses. The Fuji lenses are excellent and worth buying into their system for. Xpro1's are cheap used right now since the 2 just came out (if you like the optical viewfinder) or XE1/2 (if you like the small form factor).
posted by bradbane at 12:33 PM on August 6, 2016
What does make quite a big difference for sharpness, which is a major advantage of the Fuji X series cameras, is the lack of anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. Images from the Fuji cameras are very sharp.
The rule of thumb for camera shake
A useful rule, but it assumes 35mm format and a reflex camera, which the Fujis are neither. IMO you can handhold it a lot lower because of the leaf shutter. SLRs vibrate a lot no matter how steady your hands are.
OP, I know you didn't ask for camera opinions but I like the Fuji X series quite a bit (I had 2 of the X100) and and I would recommend getting one of the cameras with interchangeable lenses. The Fuji lenses are excellent and worth buying into their system for. Xpro1's are cheap used right now since the 2 just came out (if you like the optical viewfinder) or XE1/2 (if you like the small form factor).
posted by bradbane at 12:33 PM on August 6, 2016
I disagree with the other posts here. Yes, the Fuji has a fast lens, so you can bump the ISO and shoot at a wider aperture in low light.
The exposure of a shot doesn't change because your lens is faster. If you're trying to take handheld photos inside a cathedral, museum, or of cityscapes or street photos at night, you may have to shoot at f/2.0 handheld. You're losing a ton of sharpness at that aperture and you have little depth of field, which can be a hindrance for a streetscape/landscape, etc.
Shooting handheld on a camera/lens with IS, you can crank the ISO, maintain a narrower aperture (f/4.0 or even f/5.6) and keep the accompanying additional sharpness and depth of field that comes with stopping a lens down.
I'd look hard at a Micro 4/3 with in-body stabilization, along with the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 (though on M4/3 you'd lose shallow depth of field that you probably do want for closeup/portrait, etc.) or a Sony e-mount with the same lens. You wouldn't have IS with the Sony/Sigma 19mm combo, but you'd be trading one stop of light for saving a TON of money, gaining image quality and having a much more flexible camera setup.
I'd also disagree that the shutter/mirror has anything to do with handholding shots. Camera shake is going to come from you when shooting handheld, not from an SLR's mirror slap. On a tripod, mirror slap comes into play. But not handheld.
This whole argument goes out the window if you're planning to use a tripod regularly. If that's the case, sure, go for the Fuji. But if you're going to be handholding, think about what you want to do with your photography. I'd say that if your goal is closeup/portrait photography handheld even in low light, the Fuji is fine. If you want to shoot landscape, street or anything other than closeups in low light, I would look at something else.
posted by cnc at 2:59 PM on August 6, 2016
The exposure of a shot doesn't change because your lens is faster. If you're trying to take handheld photos inside a cathedral, museum, or of cityscapes or street photos at night, you may have to shoot at f/2.0 handheld. You're losing a ton of sharpness at that aperture and you have little depth of field, which can be a hindrance for a streetscape/landscape, etc.
Shooting handheld on a camera/lens with IS, you can crank the ISO, maintain a narrower aperture (f/4.0 or even f/5.6) and keep the accompanying additional sharpness and depth of field that comes with stopping a lens down.
I'd look hard at a Micro 4/3 with in-body stabilization, along with the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 (though on M4/3 you'd lose shallow depth of field that you probably do want for closeup/portrait, etc.) or a Sony e-mount with the same lens. You wouldn't have IS with the Sony/Sigma 19mm combo, but you'd be trading one stop of light for saving a TON of money, gaining image quality and having a much more flexible camera setup.
I'd also disagree that the shutter/mirror has anything to do with handholding shots. Camera shake is going to come from you when shooting handheld, not from an SLR's mirror slap. On a tripod, mirror slap comes into play. But not handheld.
This whole argument goes out the window if you're planning to use a tripod regularly. If that's the case, sure, go for the Fuji. But if you're going to be handholding, think about what you want to do with your photography. I'd say that if your goal is closeup/portrait photography handheld even in low light, the Fuji is fine. If you want to shoot landscape, street or anything other than closeups in low light, I would look at something else.
posted by cnc at 2:59 PM on August 6, 2016
What do you shoot? This is going to determine whether IS is a nice-to-have or irrelevant.
Indoors at night, restaurants/bars, concerts, performances - IS definitely helps, especially when you are hitting the limits of what high ISO and a fast lens can do for you. Indoors during the day should be fine with a fast lens. Restaurants in particular are really poorly lit, so IS would be very useful there.
Fast-moving objects like kids, people talking or walking, sports - IS won't be relevant, because the shutter speed will already be fast enough that any camera shake won't matter (unless you're shooting those at night, in which case it will help).
Outdoor scenes, street photography, landscapes - IS will only be relevant in the evening and early morning. Dusk in particular is a beautiful time to shoot, and you're likely to again hit the limits of high ISO and your lens.
People and portraits - depends where you're shooting, see above for possible settings. People often move, but having IS won't prevent your subject's motion blur, only your camera's.
Macro photography - not sure, but IS probably won't be the limiting factor in your shots.
Faraway objects where you want to zoom in a lot (for example, planes taking off, sports photography from stadium seats, etc.) - this is where IS really shines, and doubly so in low light. But if you want to do this kind of photography, get a different camera, since the Fuji X100T has a fixed lens.
How do you like to shoot? If you do a lot of candid photography, IS will probably be helpful, since you'll be more prepared for a wider variety of shots, including handheld shots at slow shutter speeds. If you're willing to carry a tripod, then yes, all of these arguments become irrelevant. You can also brace your elbows, control your breath, put your camera on a solid object, or take multiple shots at a time to ensure at least one of them comes out not blurry.
And of course, if you have shaky hands, having IS becomes more important.
Personally, my impression is that you need to go below f/2.0 if you want to do serious indoor/low-light/evening photography without IS. But if you are okay with a bit of blur in a casual snapshot, are willing to use flash, don't mind carefully bracing yourself or taking the time to take 3 shots at once when you need to, or don't take much of that kind of photo in the first place, then you're fine.
But honestly, this reviewer hit the nail on the head.
The Myth of More can get in the way of being inquisitive and thoughtful about what is right in front of you, right now. You can use whatever gear you have to examine your own astonishingly varied, nuanced and personal universe, the one all around you and the one that exists uniquely inside your head. Pictures and ideas are around us and in us, everywhere, all the time, but because we often become so obsessed with the tools that record them, we all too often never get to create them, let alone see them.
Do you like the idea of the X100T? Does it make you want to get out and take photos? If so, then it's a good camera for you. (Just make sure to buy extra batteries.)
posted by danceswithlight at 4:32 PM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Indoors at night, restaurants/bars, concerts, performances - IS definitely helps, especially when you are hitting the limits of what high ISO and a fast lens can do for you. Indoors during the day should be fine with a fast lens. Restaurants in particular are really poorly lit, so IS would be very useful there.
Fast-moving objects like kids, people talking or walking, sports - IS won't be relevant, because the shutter speed will already be fast enough that any camera shake won't matter (unless you're shooting those at night, in which case it will help).
Outdoor scenes, street photography, landscapes - IS will only be relevant in the evening and early morning. Dusk in particular is a beautiful time to shoot, and you're likely to again hit the limits of high ISO and your lens.
People and portraits - depends where you're shooting, see above for possible settings. People often move, but having IS won't prevent your subject's motion blur, only your camera's.
Macro photography - not sure, but IS probably won't be the limiting factor in your shots.
Faraway objects where you want to zoom in a lot (for example, planes taking off, sports photography from stadium seats, etc.) - this is where IS really shines, and doubly so in low light. But if you want to do this kind of photography, get a different camera, since the Fuji X100T has a fixed lens.
How do you like to shoot? If you do a lot of candid photography, IS will probably be helpful, since you'll be more prepared for a wider variety of shots, including handheld shots at slow shutter speeds. If you're willing to carry a tripod, then yes, all of these arguments become irrelevant. You can also brace your elbows, control your breath, put your camera on a solid object, or take multiple shots at a time to ensure at least one of them comes out not blurry.
And of course, if you have shaky hands, having IS becomes more important.
Personally, my impression is that you need to go below f/2.0 if you want to do serious indoor/low-light/evening photography without IS. But if you are okay with a bit of blur in a casual snapshot, are willing to use flash, don't mind carefully bracing yourself or taking the time to take 3 shots at once when you need to, or don't take much of that kind of photo in the first place, then you're fine.
But honestly, this reviewer hit the nail on the head.
The Myth of More can get in the way of being inquisitive and thoughtful about what is right in front of you, right now. You can use whatever gear you have to examine your own astonishingly varied, nuanced and personal universe, the one all around you and the one that exists uniquely inside your head. Pictures and ideas are around us and in us, everywhere, all the time, but because we often become so obsessed with the tools that record them, we all too often never get to create them, let alone see them.
Do you like the idea of the X100T? Does it make you want to get out and take photos? If so, then it's a good camera for you. (Just make sure to buy extra batteries.)
posted by danceswithlight at 4:32 PM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
With stills, stabilization is just a bad excuse for justifying slow shutter speeds caused by dim zoom lenses. Even if the camera's motion is corrected for, changes in the scene cannot be, e.g the subject turning their head or moving their eyes. The same applies to tripods - they are no replacement for the right shutter speed if the scene can move. If you want sharpness in arbitrary scenes you need a fast enough shutter speed, and I like 100th minimum and at least twice the focal length, whatever everyone else says.
With a decent maximum aperture and a fast sensor you don't need the crutch of stabilization and as I've explained, you are better off without it.
posted by w0mbat at 4:36 PM on August 6, 2016
With a decent maximum aperture and a fast sensor you don't need the crutch of stabilization and as I've explained, you are better off without it.
posted by w0mbat at 4:36 PM on August 6, 2016
This is one of those, "If you have to ask, the answer is 'no'" questions. There's a fair amount of hyperbole on this thread already:
I shoot professionally and IMO it's mostly marketing, and I have never used IS or sought it out in a lens and I've never heard anyone rave about it.
I guess you don't shoot in uncontrolled situations, then? Didn't shoot at > 100mm in a dark venue with your ISO already cranked to ≥ 3200? Professionals come in all stripes. If it's marketing, I'm curious as to why it turns up in $10,000 lenses and the reviewers commonly note that they can get 3-5 extra stops out of it. It's real popular with the birding set. I understand you and OP are probably not doing that, but do we have to make categorical statements like this which ignore realities experienced by many people?
IS is nice, but it is really just compensation for small sensors and low ISO values. The x100t has a big ASP-C sensor and a wide lens, so IS is far from necessary.
Many people would call APS-C sensors small. It has utility even on wide lenses, in the very specific situations where some would find it helpful. It could be useful even when one is also using high ISO values, for example, with large lenses. Or in a dark place.
With stills, stabilization is just a bad excuse for justifying slow shutter speeds caused by dim zoom lenses.
Or it helps compensate for heavy/bulky lenses. Experienced people find my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens heavy and not particularly dim. My 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 lens is both heavy and dim at 600mm, but it's actually also lighter than most other ways I can get to 600mm on F-mount. And I know this is nitpicking, but dim zooms don't cause slow shutter speeds; they just require the photographer to increase the ISO OR lower shutter speed. Many people welcome the option to lower their shutter speed that image stabilization grants them.
Image stabilization is a tool. If you don't already know how to use it, or are not interested in making an effort to learn the how and why, just skip it. Here's an article about how to use Nikon's image stabilization (they call it VR). I don't expect you to read that, but the length and detail it goes into should explain my point about knowing how to use the tool properly. That's one manufacturer's system. Each one has its own quirks to know and understand.
Properly used, image stabilization can enable you to use a slower shutter speed than the common "reciprocal rule" referenced upthread where you would want a shutter speed of 1/40 for a 35mm equivalent lens. But that's not all it could do. It could help compensate for a moving platform - say you're taking photos from a helicopter or a boat. Even "stationary," either of those platforms will introduce "shake" to your image if you are not careful. It could enable you to get a shot that a large lens might make more difficult, or enable you to stop down and lower your shutter speed and still avoid a blurred image. But if this paragraph didn't make sense to you immediately, then you don't need it enough to factor into your buying decision.
A reason to avoid getting IS is that it's another setting to manage. If you don't mind fiddling with your settings every time you're in a different shooting situation - and nearly every photography ask on Metafilter is from people who DO mind - then feel free to get it and turn it on/off every so often as needed. But if you're going to forget that it was on or off or that it's a setting you need to deal with, don't get it. Or get it and leave it off permanently.
It's a tool. Tools warrant consideration in their proper use. If you're not willing to think about how you use it, it's not for you.
posted by Strudel at 7:18 PM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I shoot professionally and IMO it's mostly marketing, and I have never used IS or sought it out in a lens and I've never heard anyone rave about it.
I guess you don't shoot in uncontrolled situations, then? Didn't shoot at > 100mm in a dark venue with your ISO already cranked to ≥ 3200? Professionals come in all stripes. If it's marketing, I'm curious as to why it turns up in $10,000 lenses and the reviewers commonly note that they can get 3-5 extra stops out of it. It's real popular with the birding set. I understand you and OP are probably not doing that, but do we have to make categorical statements like this which ignore realities experienced by many people?
IS is nice, but it is really just compensation for small sensors and low ISO values. The x100t has a big ASP-C sensor and a wide lens, so IS is far from necessary.
Many people would call APS-C sensors small. It has utility even on wide lenses, in the very specific situations where some would find it helpful. It could be useful even when one is also using high ISO values, for example, with large lenses. Or in a dark place.
With stills, stabilization is just a bad excuse for justifying slow shutter speeds caused by dim zoom lenses.
Or it helps compensate for heavy/bulky lenses. Experienced people find my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens heavy and not particularly dim. My 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 lens is both heavy and dim at 600mm, but it's actually also lighter than most other ways I can get to 600mm on F-mount. And I know this is nitpicking, but dim zooms don't cause slow shutter speeds; they just require the photographer to increase the ISO OR lower shutter speed. Many people welcome the option to lower their shutter speed that image stabilization grants them.
Image stabilization is a tool. If you don't already know how to use it, or are not interested in making an effort to learn the how and why, just skip it. Here's an article about how to use Nikon's image stabilization (they call it VR). I don't expect you to read that, but the length and detail it goes into should explain my point about knowing how to use the tool properly. That's one manufacturer's system. Each one has its own quirks to know and understand.
Properly used, image stabilization can enable you to use a slower shutter speed than the common "reciprocal rule" referenced upthread where you would want a shutter speed of 1/40 for a 35mm equivalent lens. But that's not all it could do. It could help compensate for a moving platform - say you're taking photos from a helicopter or a boat. Even "stationary," either of those platforms will introduce "shake" to your image if you are not careful. It could enable you to get a shot that a large lens might make more difficult, or enable you to stop down and lower your shutter speed and still avoid a blurred image. But if this paragraph didn't make sense to you immediately, then you don't need it enough to factor into your buying decision.
A reason to avoid getting IS is that it's another setting to manage. If you don't mind fiddling with your settings every time you're in a different shooting situation - and nearly every photography ask on Metafilter is from people who DO mind - then feel free to get it and turn it on/off every so often as needed. But if you're going to forget that it was on or off or that it's a setting you need to deal with, don't get it. Or get it and leave it off permanently.
It's a tool. Tools warrant consideration in their proper use. If you're not willing to think about how you use it, it's not for you.
posted by Strudel at 7:18 PM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, with the caveat that I'm a hobbyist, and one who hasn't used a VR lens in 10 years, or shot less than 6x6cm in 6, I think that VR is nice to have, but not a deal breaker.
It'll let you hand hold slower. Probably 1/15 or 1/8 on that camera, which is a big advantage in low light on a static subject. However, low light performance for digitals has gotten stupidly good in the last few years, to the point that I think you're overthinking it.
If you like the camera, just get it and use it. VR doesn't matter for any photography I can imagine you'd choose a fixed lens apsc camera for.
posted by switchbladenaif at 10:00 PM on August 6, 2016
It'll let you hand hold slower. Probably 1/15 or 1/8 on that camera, which is a big advantage in low light on a static subject. However, low light performance for digitals has gotten stupidly good in the last few years, to the point that I think you're overthinking it.
If you like the camera, just get it and use it. VR doesn't matter for any photography I can imagine you'd choose a fixed lens apsc camera for.
posted by switchbladenaif at 10:00 PM on August 6, 2016
In my day, we handheld at midnight with slow lenses and slow film and we liked it, by golly!
Seriously, though, I think of the 20 or so years I spent in professional and serious amateur photography before I had my first camera with IS. I even had to focus manually! Through it all I got some amazing photos.
If I had the Fuji, I wouldn't even worry about it. It's got a fast standard focal-length lens and a wider range of ISOs and shutter speeds than I could ever dream of in the day. If I was going to work in low light, I'd have a tripod or take lots of shots to hope some were sharp enough.
As was said here already, IS is just a tool in the photographer's box, and the best camera is worth nothing without the photographer wielding it. You do the best you can with the tools you have.
posted by lhauser at 10:50 PM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously, though, I think of the 20 or so years I spent in professional and serious amateur photography before I had my first camera with IS. I even had to focus manually! Through it all I got some amazing photos.
If I had the Fuji, I wouldn't even worry about it. It's got a fast standard focal-length lens and a wider range of ISOs and shutter speeds than I could ever dream of in the day. If I was going to work in low light, I'd have a tripod or take lots of shots to hope some were sharp enough.
As was said here already, IS is just a tool in the photographer's box, and the best camera is worth nothing without the photographer wielding it. You do the best you can with the tools you have.
posted by lhauser at 10:50 PM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've had cameras both with and without IS and, as a relatively competent amateur, have never really noticed a big difference. In my opinion, the range of conditions where it's useful is pretty narrow.
With the X100T specifically, you might find something like this tiny folding tripod to be a useful alternative. It's designed for an iPhone, but you can detach the tripod from the phone mount and screw it into the standard tripod mount. It's small enough not to extend past the body of the camera, so I just leave it attached all the time and it's been super-convenient.
I know you weren't looking as much for advice about the camera itself, but I have the X100T and would absolutely reach for it over any other digital camera I've owned, even some that have superior specs in most ways. The in-camera JPEG processing is phenomenal, and it handles amazingly.
posted by duien at 11:06 PM on August 6, 2016
With the X100T specifically, you might find something like this tiny folding tripod to be a useful alternative. It's designed for an iPhone, but you can detach the tripod from the phone mount and screw it into the standard tripod mount. It's small enough not to extend past the body of the camera, so I just leave it attached all the time and it's been super-convenient.
I know you weren't looking as much for advice about the camera itself, but I have the X100T and would absolutely reach for it over any other digital camera I've owned, even some that have superior specs in most ways. The in-camera JPEG processing is phenomenal, and it handles amazingly.
posted by duien at 11:06 PM on August 6, 2016
If it's marketing, I'm curious as to why it turns up in $10,000 lenses and the reviewers commonly note that they can get 3-5 extra stops out of it.
Not saying it's never useful, every tool has it's moment, but we're talking about a camera with a fixed ~35mm lens here. I doubt OP is a birder or they wouldn't be asking this question. Reviewers and copywriters say lots of things (ie. a 'stop' is a measure of light & IS does not magically create more light... but I know what you mean).
Same thing as 'do I need a leaf shutter'. I will pay a lot of money for one, but if you have to ask if it's necessary the answer is no :). The Fuji is a great camera.
posted by bradbane at 11:36 AM on August 7, 2016
Not saying it's never useful, every tool has it's moment, but we're talking about a camera with a fixed ~35mm lens here. I doubt OP is a birder or they wouldn't be asking this question. Reviewers and copywriters say lots of things (ie. a 'stop' is a measure of light & IS does not magically create more light... but I know what you mean).
Same thing as 'do I need a leaf shutter'. I will pay a lot of money for one, but if you have to ask if it's necessary the answer is no :). The Fuji is a great camera.
posted by bradbane at 11:36 AM on August 7, 2016
I would want image stabilization on that camera, and here's why: indoor available-light photography. When I see a camera with a 35mm-equivalent, prime, F2 fixed lens, that's what comes to mind. (That and macro photography, but with that focal length and a 10cm minimum focusing distance it's likely to be pretty limited in that regard.) And when I think indoor available-light photography, I think that I would want all the help I could get in terms of being able to get a sharp image, which means image stabilization so that I could squeeze out those 1/40s handheld shots and have a hope of them coming out OK.
You might think that you could get by without it because the lens is so fast, and that's true—you could probably get by. But in a camera with such a limited repertoire (no zoom, no interchangeable lens, moderate wide-angle only, mediocre minimum focusing distance) you'd want it to excel at the things that it is designed to do. Not having IS will limit you in those situations where there just isn't that much available light because for instance it's evening and you don't have much natural light coming in the windows. The fastest lens in the world will struggle in situations like that (plus at F2 things are going to be a bit soft and shallow no matter what, which won't always be what you want) and you'll find yourself punching up the ISO to compensate whereas if you had IS you would have a wider range of situations where you could keep the ISO within reasonable limits by slowing down the shutter a bit more.
There are lots of other options for $1300 or less for a camera that would probably work equally well for the things the x100t will be good at, while also giving you lots of additional flexibility. The x100t, to me, is an expensive toy rather than a "real" camera: the point of having it is to impose constraints on yourself and see what you can do within those constraints, rather than to have a camera that is the best tool for a specific job, or one that you can carry around all the time and find useful for a wide variety of situations. If it had IS I might see it as a very capable tool for a particular application, a camera that excelled at indoor available-light and which could also probably hold its own for street or landscape photography, in a pinch.
Without IS it's just a toy. Whether it's a toy that you're still interested in is another question—if you like the idea of the camera enough that you're willing to drop $1300 on it then more power to you—but I would not expect to be impressed by its performance in any particular situation. Rather, it would be a case of "given this camera's limitations, what can I make it do?"
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 1:39 PM on August 7, 2016
You might think that you could get by without it because the lens is so fast, and that's true—you could probably get by. But in a camera with such a limited repertoire (no zoom, no interchangeable lens, moderate wide-angle only, mediocre minimum focusing distance) you'd want it to excel at the things that it is designed to do. Not having IS will limit you in those situations where there just isn't that much available light because for instance it's evening and you don't have much natural light coming in the windows. The fastest lens in the world will struggle in situations like that (plus at F2 things are going to be a bit soft and shallow no matter what, which won't always be what you want) and you'll find yourself punching up the ISO to compensate whereas if you had IS you would have a wider range of situations where you could keep the ISO within reasonable limits by slowing down the shutter a bit more.
There are lots of other options for $1300 or less for a camera that would probably work equally well for the things the x100t will be good at, while also giving you lots of additional flexibility. The x100t, to me, is an expensive toy rather than a "real" camera: the point of having it is to impose constraints on yourself and see what you can do within those constraints, rather than to have a camera that is the best tool for a specific job, or one that you can carry around all the time and find useful for a wide variety of situations. If it had IS I might see it as a very capable tool for a particular application, a camera that excelled at indoor available-light and which could also probably hold its own for street or landscape photography, in a pinch.
Without IS it's just a toy. Whether it's a toy that you're still interested in is another question—if you like the idea of the camera enough that you're willing to drop $1300 on it then more power to you—but I would not expect to be impressed by its performance in any particular situation. Rather, it would be a case of "given this camera's limitations, what can I make it do?"
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 1:39 PM on August 7, 2016
If someone wants to shoot at widest aperture in a dark area - say, at a bar or at a music performance indoors, or at dusk, and they'd like some motion blur from the people without blur on the whole scene, that's a use for image stabilization with a fixed 35mm lens; they'll want the longer shutter speed.
A fixed 35mm lens does not automatically mean that there's no use for image stabilization. Fewer obvious use cases relative to other situations, but it's disingenuous to suggest that a fixed normal-to-wide lens can never benefit from image stabilization. A lot of people have said that here, and it's a really limiting perspective. If you're giving advice, say you can't think of what you'd need it for, rather than imply that it's not useful at all.
posted by Strudel at 1:41 PM on August 7, 2016
A fixed 35mm lens does not automatically mean that there's no use for image stabilization. Fewer obvious use cases relative to other situations, but it's disingenuous to suggest that a fixed normal-to-wide lens can never benefit from image stabilization. A lot of people have said that here, and it's a really limiting perspective. If you're giving advice, say you can't think of what you'd need it for, rather than imply that it's not useful at all.
posted by Strudel at 1:41 PM on August 7, 2016
As you can see, there's a really strong consensus about the utility and necessity of IS. ;-)
After thinking about my own response a little more, I guess I'd temper the whole "just a toy" verdict a little. It really depends on what you want to do with this camera. To me the x100f would be pointless without IS, but to you it may not matter at all. Basically, the lack of IS on this camera means that you'll have fewer options for dealing with marginal lighting. This camera doesn't give you a whole lot of options in general, but that's clearly an intentional part of the design.
Me, I'd prefer an interchangeable-lens camera where I had the option of adding IS or switching to a different lens, because I'd feel pretty boxed in if I paid $1300 for a camera and was stuck at 35mm, 10cm minimum distance, and no IS all the time. 35mm is a versatile focal length and F2 is fast, and I could see myself having that lens in my toolkit and putting it on the camera for a walkabout or even an entire expedition and having a ton of fun with it, but eventually I'd find it limiting and if that was all the camera could do I'd be frustrated. I could see myself considering this as a third or fourth camera if I were the sort to have multiple $1000+ camera bodies, but that ain't me. And that's aside from the actual IS issue.
And that's really all anyone can say. There is so much variety in photography in terms lf idiom, subject, and shooting style that without knowing what you like to do and how you like to shoot, nobody can really answer your question. What I can say is that IS or no, I personally would not want the x100f as my main or only camera. I personally would find it too limiting. And if I were considering this camera, I'd be looking at it as an tool for handheld low-light photography (because why else have an F2 lens?) and I'd want image stabilization because image stabilization is useful for handheld photography in low light. The lack of that feature would be galling to me, probably because I'm used to having it and losing it would make me feel as if I were in effect going from an F2 to an F3 lens. That camera is a lot less interesting with an F3.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:07 PM on August 7, 2016
After thinking about my own response a little more, I guess I'd temper the whole "just a toy" verdict a little. It really depends on what you want to do with this camera. To me the x100f would be pointless without IS, but to you it may not matter at all. Basically, the lack of IS on this camera means that you'll have fewer options for dealing with marginal lighting. This camera doesn't give you a whole lot of options in general, but that's clearly an intentional part of the design.
Me, I'd prefer an interchangeable-lens camera where I had the option of adding IS or switching to a different lens, because I'd feel pretty boxed in if I paid $1300 for a camera and was stuck at 35mm, 10cm minimum distance, and no IS all the time. 35mm is a versatile focal length and F2 is fast, and I could see myself having that lens in my toolkit and putting it on the camera for a walkabout or even an entire expedition and having a ton of fun with it, but eventually I'd find it limiting and if that was all the camera could do I'd be frustrated. I could see myself considering this as a third or fourth camera if I were the sort to have multiple $1000+ camera bodies, but that ain't me. And that's aside from the actual IS issue.
And that's really all anyone can say. There is so much variety in photography in terms lf idiom, subject, and shooting style that without knowing what you like to do and how you like to shoot, nobody can really answer your question. What I can say is that IS or no, I personally would not want the x100f as my main or only camera. I personally would find it too limiting. And if I were considering this camera, I'd be looking at it as an tool for handheld low-light photography (because why else have an F2 lens?) and I'd want image stabilization because image stabilization is useful for handheld photography in low light. The lack of that feature would be galling to me, probably because I'm used to having it and losing it would make me feel as if I were in effect going from an F2 to an F3 lens. That camera is a lot less interesting with an F3.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:07 PM on August 7, 2016
I have an x100t. I like it. I don't miss IS.
posted by doomsey at 4:46 PM on August 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by doomsey at 4:46 PM on August 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I know a response constitutes threadsit so my apologies. There are certainly a wide variation on opinions.
I have a DSLR with 5 lenses. So I didn't want to go with another camera/ interchangeable lens thing. I was looking for a good (better than an typical point and shoot) walking-around camera. My main interest is shooting people, though for serious shoots I can do that with my other camera and a portrait lens.
I know there are trade offs. There always are. And if the x100t doesn't fit the bill, stabilization or no, then I would be open to other options. And I am willing to spend about that much. Although I suppose the other option would be a one lens zoom outfit and that brings up another can of worms. But again, my thanks.
posted by jtexman1 at 5:00 PM on August 7, 2016
I have a DSLR with 5 lenses. So I didn't want to go with another camera/ interchangeable lens thing. I was looking for a good (better than an typical point and shoot) walking-around camera. My main interest is shooting people, though for serious shoots I can do that with my other camera and a portrait lens.
I know there are trade offs. There always are. And if the x100t doesn't fit the bill, stabilization or no, then I would be open to other options. And I am willing to spend about that much. Although I suppose the other option would be a one lens zoom outfit and that brings up another can of worms. But again, my thanks.
posted by jtexman1 at 5:00 PM on August 7, 2016
If you're planning to be walking around, i.e. out of doors, I feel like the lack of IS is much less of an issue because there is generally much more light outside than in. As long as you're happy with being "stuck" at 35mm all the time, the x100f would probably suit you fine. Doubly so because if you need the flexibility of an interchangeable-lens camera, you already have one. I doubt you'd even notice the lack of IS if you were out in the street during the daytime. Totally different proposition than what I had in my mind.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:10 PM on August 7, 2016
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:10 PM on August 7, 2016
The x100t is really intended to be a walk around camera in the mold of the classic rangefinder. If that's what you want, there's nothing better (at least not at sub-Leica price points). Go for it.
posted by doomsey at 5:38 PM on August 7, 2016
posted by doomsey at 5:38 PM on August 7, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by andrewcooke at 11:52 AM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]