RustyRus wrote: gdanmitchell wrote: Lukacs wrote: tuomkok wrote:
OIS is generally less effective than IBIS especially with wide angle lens.
I agree, if size has to be increased, then it is better to make body larger. However, I do not believer that IBIS would make the camera much larger. increase in size from X100V to VI was almost insignificant. Sony A7c series is almost X100 size despite FF sensor, large battery and IBIS.
X100 has APS-C sensor, it's significant smaller than MF, even FF is significant smaller.
BF and S9 has almost a same construction, check the thickness difference of the two cameras, S9 has IBIS: BF vs. S9
I'd expect a camera with MF sensor even more difference.
If you look more generally at thickness differences between IBIS-equipped cameras and those without IBIS, the difference is generally very small, perhaps on the order of a few millimeters.
The question isn’t really “what is the thinnest camera in the world.” It is whether perhaps a bit of additional thickness is worth the added utility for most users. In a camera that is intended to be used entirely from the tripod, the answer might be no. But in a camera that is intended to be used almost exclusively for handheld photography, especially one without a particularly large aperture lens, the answer is more likely to be yes.
A thought experiment: If Fujifilm had produced the RF in a form that was a couple of millimeters thicker and with IBIS, do you imagine that there would have been loud complaints about those extra millimeters?
They didn't-
Its available for sale as is- This topic has been beaten to death by those people not interested in the camera (mostly you). Move along
I was replying to a previous post in the thread. And the post following yours else suggests that the topic is not dead. If you feel that it is dead, feel free to not participate.
Also feel free to not read my posts. The “hide me” feature is your friend if you cannot resist.
Lukacs wrote:
There were information about that the problem was not a several mm more thickness (which would ruins the aesthetic of the camera for me, like BF vs. S9), but because the lens on sensor Fuji claimed a need for significant larger lens. I think if other manufacturer can make this kind of camera with IBIS, let's make it and I'll applaud. Meantime you should buy the closest alternative, Leica Q3.
My understanding — perhaps flawed — was that perhaps Fujifilm could not quite drop in the existing miniMF IBIS mechanism since the sensor is closer to the read of the lens on this fixed lens model. As we know, IBIS doesn’t necessarily work equally well across the frame — see, for example, the XE5 specs that give a different number of effective stops in the center and at the edge.
My guess is that Fujifilm had not yet resolved all of the issues with putting IBIS in the RF. I suspect that eventually they will.
Jun 18, 2025 at 02:28 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16835819 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
