Re: Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
gdanmitchell wrote:
The question of how much weight and bulk is added when incorporating IBIS is tricky to answer. I spent some time looking for a straightforward, reliable answer without success. There are some general comments on camera forums and elsewhere suggesting that the IBIS mechanism is actually quite small and adds little bulk/weight to the sensor system, though it seems obvious that it should add some.
We can look at cameras that exist(ed) in both IBIS and non-IBIS versions, though this is often complicated by the fact that they are different generations, and the addition of IBIS isn't the only difference. (There are some comparisons out there involving Fujifilm and Olympus cameras, for example.)
In general the IBIS-equipped camera appear to be a bit larger and heavier, though to look at them you probably would not immediately notice the difference. In most cases, from what I've seen, you would not notice a weight difference either, since it is small.
However, the difference is likely to be greater with cameras using a larger sensor. For example, the miniMF sensor on the Fujifilm GFX system is said to be larger and heavier than, say, the similar system on the Fujifilm x-trans cameras such as the XT, XH2, X100vi, XE5 and so on. It seems reasonable to think that the effect on a FF camera might lie somewhere in between.
What we can say for sure is that there are some pretty small and light camera that incorporate IBIS. In fact, it is readily become essentially a standard feature in cameras.
As mentioned earlier, all decisions about camera design involve compromises and trade-offs. These are pretty subjective matters — for example, there's no way to state objectively that the added weight/bulk of IBIS is a universally good or bad thing relative to the advantages of IBIS. So manufacturers make choices, we discuss, and buyers vote with their wallets.
(If anyone has authoritative sources for facts about the actual weight and bulk of IBIS systems... and non-cherry-picked examples, that would add to the discussion. Oh, and maybe we could try to keep the ad hominem attacks out of the conversation... if we're really interested in facts?)
this is what the original rx1 sensor assembly looks like:
the difference in size is about 1/2 inch in depth from the sensor surface. the difference in size on the x and y dimensions is probably even greater than that.
this is how the sensor sat in the original rx1 (you can see the mounting points of the lens from the other picture here):
how much weight and size growth there would be from adding IBIS depends on how the engineers choose to move other things around and what sacrifices they decide are worthwhile, BUT the camera has to get half an inch deeper or the lens has to stick out half an inch further (or some combination of the two) in order to allow the depth of the IBIS mechanism.
Jul 16, 2025 at 01:49 PM
Previous versions of sebboh's message #16852733 « Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced! »
