A camera with subpar autofocus, but a lens with unbeatable clarity....
or...
A camera with no IBIS (so less clarity), but with unbeatable autofocus?
I'm a Sony shooter addicted to autofocus, clarity, compact sizes, and super clean photos that I sometimes degrade in post.
I'm trying the Sony RX1R III and considering again the Leica Q3.
The RX1R experience has been disappointing. I didn't remember the lack of IBIS being an issue at all, but now I'm seeing that it's a huge problem for me (I have tremors in my hands sometimes and can't always shoot perfectly still). Could be user error or skills issue, but I've tried many adjustments to my settings and approach, but still get way fewer keepers than with my other Sony cameras.
I previously got rid of my Q3 because I wanted better autofocus. But the optical clarity was very pleasing and noticeable.
At similar price points (used), the one with no IBIS is starting to lose to the one with slightly less reliable autofocus.
Any feature that doesn't perform as well as expected is a problem. If a camera has AF, it needs to work accurately. When a camera tells me it is focused I expect it to be accurate. If a camera lacks a particular feature, you can't complain about a lack of functionality that was never promised. I find IBIS and OIS very helpful. Stabilization tech helps up to a point but is not always enough. For me, IBIS helps with wide and normal focal lengths when shooting around the 1/(focal length) shutter speed +/- 1 stop. 2+ stops faster shutter speed negates any stabilizing effect for me. 2+ stops slower and I need a tripod.
Much of what I shoot is manual focus and no IBIS. Ah, also have a bit of a tremor. I shoot like this because I enjoy the ‘M’ series and lenses and MF rangefinder film cameras. It is up to the photographer to adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of the camera system. In fact, sometimes shooting without a light meter. I prefer quality optics in that this aspect of the camera system provides an upper limit to performance. Your technique might degrade optical performance, but can’t exceed lens limitations.
For me, if I’m using AF and it’s not accurate…that’s a huge issue. I can always compensate for the lack of ibis by upping the iso and shutter… but if AF misses…you are done.
I really didn't expect not having IBIS to be an issue at all. Researching it online offered a lot of strategies for getting clear shots without it. But I didn't take into account how sensitive a 61 megapixel camera can be when my hands tremor.
christopher_icu wrote:
A camera with no IBIS (so less clarity), but with unbeatable autofocus?
I’m confused by this part of your post. What is the association between no IBIS and “less clarity?” That’s not my experience.
Perhaps you mean more susceptible to camera motion blur at longer shutter speed? “Clarity” is a different thing than resolution or sharpness.
As to whether you would prioritize better AF or better “clarity,” that probably depends a lot on what and how you photograph, right?
In your case, given the issue with hand tremors, I think that IBIS might be even more useful to you than to some other photographers. Perhaps these two cameras are not the only options you could consider, since there are other cameras that can give you both excellent AF and IBIS…
Two other related things:
1. Some people have pooh-poohed IBIS, for example saying “I shot without it for decades, so what do I need it now?!” Well, yes, we all did… because it wasn’t available. So we did the best we could with cameras that did not have IBIS or even any image stabilization at all. But IBIS not only has no significant downside (other than possibly a miniscule increase in camera weight) and real world upsides in a lot of circumstances that we regularly encounter. When we shoot handheld we’ll get a greater percentage of keepers at the lower end of the shutter speeds that we could have handheld without it… and we can use even longer exposure times (sometimes shockingly longer) in certain low light situations or when we want motion blur.
2. There’s a myth that having more MPs increases the need for camera stability. It isn’t quite that simple. If we made two photographs, say with a 10MP camera and a 50MP camera where both were handheld at the same shutter speed, and we reproduced the photographs at the same size… they would have exactly the same amount of motion blur. So there’s no downside to the higher MP camera relative to motion blur. There are only upsides — when we do manage to keep the camera stable we can probably produce even larger prints or other reproductions from the higher MP system.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m confused by this part of your post. What is the association between no IBIS and “less clarity?” That’s not my experience.
Perhaps you mean more susceptible to camera motion blur at longer shutter speed? “Clarity” is a different thing than resolution or sharpness.
As to whether you would prioritize better AF or better “clarity,” that probably depends a lot on what and how you photograph, right?
In your case, given the issue with hand tremors, I think that IBIS might be even more useful to you than to some other photographers. Perhaps these two cameras are not the only options you could consider, since there are other cameras that can give you both excellent AF and IBIS…
Two other related things:
1. Some people have pooh-poohed IBIS, for example saying “I shot without it for decades, so what do I need it now?!” Well, yes, we all did… because it wasn’t available. So we did the best we could with cameras that did not have IBIS or even any image stabilization at all. But IBIS not only has no significant downside (other than possibly a miniscule increase in camera weight) and real world upsides in a lot of circumstances that we regularly encounter. When we shoot handheld we’ll get a greater percentage of keepers at the lower end of the shutter speeds that we could have handheld without it… and we can use even longer exposure times (sometimes shockingly longer) in certain low light situations or when we want motion blur.
2. There’s a myth that having more MPs increases the need for camera stability. It isn’t quite that simple. If we made two photographs, say with a 10MP camera and a 50MP camera where both were handheld at the same shutter speed, and we reproduced the photographs at the same size… they would have exactly the same amount of motion blur. So there’s no downside to the higher MP camera relative to motion blur. There are only upsides — when we do manage to keep the camera stable we can probably produce even larger prints or other reproductions from the higher MP system....Show more →
Fair point on the semantics. By 'clarity,' I don't mean the Lightroom slider. I mean the perception of a clean, pixel-sharp, high-fidelity image without micro-blur.
I have mild hand tremors. When you pair a 61-megapixel sensor with zero optical or in-body stabilization, the tiny pixel pitch magnifies every micro-movement in my hands. Shutter speed adjustments can only do so much. The lack of IBIS on the RX1R III is reducing (for now) my keeper rate because the sensor is punishing my physical tremors. Not always, and the camera is new so it's a first time experience.
The Leica Q3 might have a slightly less sticky autofocus system compared to Sony's best, but its excellent IBIS does better to prevent camera shake from ruining the camera's excellent optical performance.
At this point, the question isn't a theoretical math problem about print sizes. It's a physical one. Unbeatable autofocus means nothing if the actual exposure is ruined by a micro-shake the camera refuses to stabilize.The upside is that with trying several strategies yesterday that folks in another forum offered I was able to get promising results.
christopher_icu wrote:
Fair point on the semantics. By 'clarity,' I don't mean the Lightroom slider. I mean the perception of a clean, pixel-sharp, high-fidelity image without micro-blur.
I have mild hand tremors. When you pair a 61-megapixel sensor with zero optical or in-body stabilization, the tiny pixel pitch magnifies every micro-movement in my hands. Shutter speed adjustments can only do so much. The lack of IBIS on the RX1R III is reducing (for now) my keeper rate because the sensor is punishing my physical tremors. Not always, and the camera is new so it's a first time experience.
The Leica Q3 might have a slightly less sticky autofocus system compared to Sony's best, but its excellent IBIS does better to prevent camera shake from ruining the camera's excellent optical performance.
At this point, the question isn't a theoretical math problem about print sizes. It's a physical one. Unbeatable autofocus means nothing if the actual exposure is ruined by a micro-shake the camera refuses to stabilize.The upside is that with trying several strategies yesterday that folks in another forum offered I was able to get promising results. ...Show more →
The “theoretical math problem” was just a way to illustrate why your images are not any less sharp with the 67MP sensor as compared to a lower resolution sensor as a result of the hand tremors. (What is really going on is that you are looking at a smaller area of the image with greater magnification, but the actual amount of blur that you’ll see when you look at your photos is the same... even though it looks different at 100% magnification where you are viewing different sized areas of the image.)
This may mean that there is no (or only a limited) advantage for you in using the higher MP sensor, not that image sharpness will get worse with it.
But if you can live with slightly less ideal AF, in your case I suspect that IBIS will provide a more meaningful advantage for you. It isn’t that hte other camera cannot AF, it just may be slightly hard to manage its AF effectively.
I think you could also possibly think beyond those two specific cameras. For example something like one of the Sony CR cameras (smaller and lighter) with a small and light lens could give you great AF and IBIS.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The “theoretical math problem” was just a way to illustrate why your images are not any less sharp with the 67MP sensor as compared to a lower resolution sensor as a result of the hand tremors. (What is really going on is that you are looking at a smaller area of the image with greater magnification, but the actual amount of blur that you’ll see when you look at your photos is the same... even though it looks different at 100% magnification where you are viewing different sized areas of the image.)
This may mean that there is no (or only a limited) advantage for you in using the higher MP sensor, not that image sharpness will get worse with it.
But if you can live with slightly less ideal AF, in your case I suspect that IBIS will provide a more meaningful advantage for you. It isn’t that hte other camera cannot AF, it just may be slightly hard to manage its AF effectively.
I think you could also possibly think beyond those two specific cameras. For example something like one of the Sony CR cameras (smaller and lighter) with a small and light lens could give you great AF and IBIS....Show more →
I have the Sony A7CR which is my favorite. I got it to be my more portable version of my A7R V for street, event, on the go stuff. And, used that same logic for the RX1R III, it would be my smaller, even more portable A7CR, thinking the performance would have to be similar (espeically given the price point). I gave up a Leica to get the RX1R III, but still have an option to return to the Leica.
I think I'm going to do all I can to master the Sony tiny camera because besides the unfamiliar issue with no IBIS, it completes my kit better.
