The Future of Image Stabilization

‘No IBIS? That’s a deal-breaker for me.’

I’ve heard it many times on forums, as if stabilization has become an essential camera feature.

I get the importance for video much more than photography, although there’s the appealing benefit of not carrying a tripod for some lower light landscape or city images. Even phones have physical rather than just software stabilization now, but combined with the ability to combine multiple images to reduce noise. If better stabilization means carrying less gear, saves the need for a monopod or gimbal, then I’m all for it.

Except..

Fujifilm maintained for a long time that optical stabilization - moving the sensor to counteract micro movements of the camera - would have an impact on image quality. Which makes sense since the sensor is no longer rigidly fixed in place.

Recent ‘vlogging’ cameras such as the Panasonic Lumix G100 and Sony ZV-E10 have been heavily criticized for not including optical stabilization (and having electronic stabilization that heavily crops the image). What I found interesting though was watching footage from the ZV-E10 processed through Sony’s Catalyst Browse software. It used gyroscope data produced by the camera, and looks excellent.

Which makes me think that in time we’ll end up going full circle.

The processing that Catalyst Browse performs is probably far too much at the moment for a camera or phone to perform in real time. But as technology and processing power continue to advance? GoPro already seems to produce excellent electronic stabilization. And if a crop is needed to perform the stabilization, then ever increasing sensor resolutions make that less of an issue.

There’s also a simplicity and implied reliability that appeals to me. Less moving parts, less to go wrong.

Using software to stabilize footage in post might not be ideal and doesn’t provide a photography solution, but once that processing is built into the camera I can see it being the best solution.