Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[chez]

The moment you start to carry a tripod and a few lenses, the relative weight saving becomes negligible.

Most middle aged man have far greater weight loss potential watching their diet and doing more exercise.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not true. Even the tripod can be smaller and lighter for a compact mirror less system. I'd say I saved at least 40% weight going from a Canon based landscape kit to one based on Sony...maybe even more. Even my pack is smaller and lighter.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not true. Even the tripod can be smaller and lighter for a compact mirror less system. I'd say I saved at least 40% weight going from a Canon based landscape kit to one based on Sony...maybe even more. Even my pack is smaller and lighter.

Do you have figures to back that up?

I use pretty often my RRS 1 series tripod with my H6D-100c with excellent results...

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

Do you have figures to back that up?

I use pretty often my RRS 1 series tripod with my H6D-100c with excellent results...

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, I don't appreciate your tone here.

Here's my old kit:

5d2
7d
Zeiss 18
Zeiss 21
Zeiss 35
Zeiss 109

New kit:

A7R
A7R2
Batis 18
Loxia 21
Loxia 35
Loxia 85

You do the math.

I've also changed my tripod and pack...both reducing weight. Also little things like L-plates weigh less for mirror less. Add everything up and you reduce weight quite substantially.

[Rob C]

There is still question about size mattering, whether light and rigid is as good as heavy and rigid. (I'm thinking of tripods - you think for yourselves.)

Mass is sometimes better able to protect from vibration and breeze. Personally speaking, as amateur, I find that a light tripod - with two legs extended, offers me all the support I need in order to frame with a long lens; try framing, without support, with a 500 reflex. Two legs give enough stability in a chosen plane - usually the horizontal - and tilting the whole enchilada up or down is easy when no third leg to adjust. Of course, I still go for fast shutter speeds where I can, and as I like fairly open apertures at the moment (when not in block mode) that comes naturally.

With a monopod, the only thing you can really depend upon is that you won't reach the centre of the Earth.

[Martin Kristiansen]

And don’t forget stabilized bodies allow lighter tripods. That’s a fact.

[32BT]

And don’t forget stabilized bodies allow lighter tripods. That’s a fact.

Which brand recommends stabilization with a tripod?

[Martin Kristiansen]

If you go with a lightweight tripod and it’s not as steady as you would like in a bit of a breeze then they all do. And if you decide to use a monopod to save weight and would like to use a 28mm prime at low iso and slowish shitter speed then stabilization helps a great deal. Experience with the actual kit has taught me that.

[32BT]

If you go with a lightweight tripod and it’s not as steady as you would like in a bit of a breeze then they all do. And if you decide to use a monopod to save weight and would like to use a 28mm prime at low iso and slowish shitter speed then stabilization helps a great deal. Experience with the actual kit has taught me that.

Between "that's a fact" and pure bs there is a large gray area of hearsay and personal experience. On this site we prefer cold hard numbers and controlled examples in case of "that's a fact", but you likely know that already, therefore i hope you don't mind me calling bs on this, so we can get to the bottom of it.

Monopod: the last thing you want to do for effective stabalization is move the point of rotation away from the system. A monopod does exactly that. (That would be pure logic and therefore fact.)

The kind of vibrations induced by a tripod are not very well countered by stabilization, since it isn't designed for that type, but i love to be proofen wrong. Then the original question stands: which brand recommends the use of stabilization and tripod?

[Martin Kristiansen]

Between "that's a fact" and pure bs there is a large gray area of hearsay and personal experience. On this site we prefer cold hard numbers and controlled examples in case of "that's a fact", but you likely know that already, therefore i hope you don't mind me calling bs on this, so we can get to the bottom of it.

Monopod: the last thing you want to do for effective stabalization is move the point of rotation away from the system. A monopod does exactly that. (That would be pure logic and therefore fact.)

The kind of vibrations induced by a tripod are not very well countered by stabilization, since it isn't designed for that type, but i love to be proofen wrong. Then the original question stands: which brand recommends the use of stabilization and tripod?

I can’t answer your question, as you well know. It is generally accepted that stabilization be turned off when on a tripod. Common knowledge actually. Yet when using lightweight tripods and shutter speeds of between a half second and and 2 seconds I have had better results with IBIS on than off. Do I have examples at hand? No I don’t. Am I going to look for some? No Im not. The reason is I am relating my personal experiences and don’t give a fig if you believe me or not. I’m always looking to improve my photography but I’m not unhappy with my work and I look forward to improving it. Convincing you of my methods is unimportant to me. Sorry be harsh but you call BS and where I am from that is the same as calling me a liar. If you think I’m wrong then say so but you chose to go the extra step and say I’m lying.

This argument has actually taken us a bit off topic. We arrived at this point via a convoluted path about weight saving and I said that IBIS had helped me by allowing lighter tripods and also using mono pods. If you wish to ignore that go right ahead.

I have actually done a lot of tests on this but it’s very hard to quantify. Hard to introduce the same amount of shake for each image  when testing different shutter speeds. I found the following. For long lenses lenses stabilization alone is better than IBIS alone. A combination of IBIS and lens stabilization seems to be best of all and that’s what most people are saying. If you want to go by what manufacturers are reccomending then I guess you should be OK with the 6 and even 7 stops reccomeded or rather claimed by manufacturers. I don’t get that at all. I will hand hold a standard lens with a degree of confidence at a 60th but cannot achieve satisfactory sharpness handheld at 1 second using IBIS and that’s 6 stops. Using a monopod however I have shot down to a quarter of a second with IBIS and was happy with the results. I think I posted an image of rainbow gorge on this forum doing just that. I tried with and without IBIS and the image was sharper with it on.

[Guillermo Luijk]

The kind of vibrations induced by a tripod are not very well countered by stabilization, since it isn't designed for that type, but i love to be proofen wrong.

Camera on a fragile tripod affected by wind:

IBIS off:



IBIS on:



Test link:

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/index.htm

Regards

[32BT]

Camera on a fragile tripod affected by wind:

IBIS off:



IBIS on:



Test link:

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/index.htm

Regards

Stabilization is designed for low frequency oscillation (the kind of ondulation introduced by handholding). If you submit it to broadband oscillation it will filter out the low frequency and what you get is exactly as illustrated: you go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image.

Stabilization is not designed for high frequency oscillations and spikes as introduced by a tripod, shuttershock, or even shutterbutton usage. If it was, then the pany gx8 wouldn't have a shuttershock problem. This also means that stabilization might actually introduce fuzzyness when used under circumstances where it isn't helpful.

Claiming or recommending that ibis allows lighter or less sturdy support is ill advice imo, certainly not fact, though i'm sure that with progress in technique one day ibis will be able to counter all forms of movement we can throw at it.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Stabilization is designed for low frequency oscillation (the kind of ondulation introduced by handholding). If you submit it to broadband oscillation it will filter out the low frequency and what you get is exactly as illustrated: you go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image.

Stabilization is not designed for high frequency oscillations and spikes as introduced by a tripod, shuttershock, or even shutterbutton usage. If it was, then the pany gx8 wouldn't have a shuttershock problem. This also means that stabilization might actually introduce fuzzyness when used under circumstances where it isn't helpful.

Claiming or recommending that ibis allows lighter or less sturdy support is ill advice imo, certainly not fact, though i'm sure that with progress in technique one day ibis will be able to counter all forms of movement we can throw at it.

You get theory and you get real world usage. If I remember correctly Michael was always quite adamant about focusing on the latter.  Personally I believe the above example does a fair job of replicating my experiences. If you don’t like the results then don’t use the technique. Still a bit harsh to call BS don’t you think? Anyway that’s it for me on the subject.

[BernardLanguillier]

It is also my experience that stabilization can help sometimes with unstable support.

On the other hand, I have also seen cases where using stabilization on a stable tripod had a negative effect on absolute sharpness.

It depends on many factors such as the VR technology used, the focal length, the shutter speed, the type of support, the type of excitation,... that experience ends up being the only approach to determine what works and what doesn't. This is unfortunately no always helpful when you need to get a given shot in the field, but this is reality.
 
Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Strange how this thread flipped so quickly from the potential size and weight advantages for highly mobile hand-held (“street”) photography of a mirrorless camera carried with just one or a few lenses, none very long, to —debating tripod usage!

Some of us:
- want those advantages for “agile, mobile photography” a lot of the time
- want to use a single camera (or at least a single lens mount and lens collection) for other uses like tripod and wildlife situations
- do not buy the dogma that “heavy lenses need a bulky body”, because such lenses are supported with the left hand or a tripod, not from the body’s hand grip.

So as long as the body is big enough for well-spaced controls and the handgrip is deep enough to hold the camera when it is hanging at my side, I see no downside to a reasonably small, light body—a well-sized, agile body can definitely be smaller than any 36x24 format DSLR!

[jeremyrh]

Which brand recommends stabilization with a tripod?

Which brand admits that their tripods are a bit rubbish so you better use stabilisation? Doubt if that would pass the marketing department! :-)

[32BT]

Which brand admits that their tripods are a bit rubbish so you better use stabilisation? Doubt if that would pass the marketing department! :-)

Ha, sure, but it was a genuine question in that there may have been a (camera) manufacturer who have solved the tripod problem. Considering what Oly seems to accomplish, they might have had a solution for the smaller sensor formats for example.

[kers]

i think the quality aspect for tripods is exaggerated; i have 5 tripods of different brands - they all work well.
The more heavy they are the more stable...
That said, IS does not work well with long shutter speeds on tripods -say 1 sec and more-  is my experience.

on topic;
I do not see a reason yet i would like to buy a mirrorless Nikon.
I have an d850 that serves me well. I hope Nikon can impress me.
If the camera is not easy to combine with third party lenses that would be a big miss.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Claiming or recommending that ibis allows lighter or less sturdy support is ill advice imo, certainly not fact, though i'm sure that with progress in technique one day ibis will be able to counter all forms of movement we can throw at it.

I never claimed or recommended that. I simply did a test where IBIS improves image quality on a cheap tripod subject to wind (reason to leave IBIS ON on a tripod). In the article I also tried to find out if IBIS negatively affected image quality when the tripod was perfectly stable (reason to switch IBIS OFF on a tripod), and it affected image quality in no way.

If you prefer your beautiful theory about IBIS oscillation frequencies which contradicts both tests for me it's fine.

Regards

[EricV]

Monopod: the last thing you want to do for effective stabalization is move the point of rotation away from the system. A monopod does exactly that. (That would be pure logic and therefore fact.)

A monopod reduces rotations (roll and pitch) substantially.  In doing this, it may introduce translations, but that is likely a very good tradeoff, improving overall stabalization.

[32BT]

I never claimed or recommended that.

True, you didn't, it was a response to another entry.

I simply did a test where IBIS improves image quality on a cheap tripod subject to wind (reason to leave IBIS ON on a tripod).

If your objective is to go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image, then obviously it is going to work. The system is designed to reduce shake, so it reduces shake. What then is the point of the test?

In the article I also tried to find out if IBIS negatively affected image quality when the tripod was perfectly stable (reason to switch IBIS OFF on a tripod), and it affected image quality in no way.

And according to you what would then be the reason manufacturers suggest to switch it off?

If you prefer your beautiful theory about IBIS oscillation frequencies which contradicts both tests for me it's fine.

Regards

That "beautiful" theory helps to explain your results. Or do you have a better explanation why you do not end up with a sharp result with ibis on?

If it was meant as sarcasm, then i'm not sure why that's necessary.