• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 100 / Fuji GFX 100 IBIS at slow shutter speeds with the 110/2

Fuji GFX 100 IBIS at slow shutter speeds with the 110/2

October 11, 2019 JimK 4 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “GFX 100”.

I’ve previously tested the Fujifilm GFX 100 IBIS with the 110mm f/2 lens. I was seated for those tests, and I didn’t test shutter speeds that were low enough to find the place where the IBIS couldn’t handle the camera motion. I vowed to try again. This time I was standing, which made me less stable. I also wanted to try higher shutter speeds, since there have been questions about the IBIS having a deleterious effect at those speeds. Needing to go to higher shutter speeds forced me out of my studio environment. I set up on a sunlit target with two low-contrast slanted edges:

Before, I varied the light level to change shutter speeds. I can’t do that outside, so I used a variable neutral-density filter on the lens.

Here are the details of the test conditions:

  • AF-C
  • Medium spot, centered
  • Continuous low drive mode
  • EFCS
  • Lossless compressed Raw
  • ISO 100
  • f/4
  • Exposure mode A, center weighting
  • 77 mm Heliopan variable neutral density filter

With IBIS on, set the filter to low attenuation, which gave me a shutter speed of about 1/1600 second. I made about 25 continuous-drive exposures, turned the filter down about a stop, and did it again. I kept on doing that until about 1/10 second, then turned IBIS off and ran the series again, this time stopping at 1/25 second (no point in being silly about this).

I ended up with about 400 images.  I developed them in Lightroom, with default settings except for the following:

  • White balance set to daylight
  • Adobe monochrome profile
  • Sharpening turned off
  • Noise reduction turned off

Using my automatic registration program, I adjusted the cropping in Lightroom for each image so that they were centered. I computed the MTF50 — a proxy for sharpness — for all the images with Imatest with the region of interest being a horizontal edge (Just to make sure, I also looked at vertical edges, with about the same results, but those data aren’t presented here). Imatest spit out the data in cycles per pixel. With my new Matlab code, I converted that to cycles per picture height. For the statistics calculations, I removed outliers, which I defined as points more than two standard deviations away from the mean after conversion of the MTF50 samples with a logarithmic nonlinearity.

The vertical axis is the MTF50 in cycles per picture height. The horizontal axis is the denominator of the shutter speed — 1/100 second is plotted as 100. The heavy lines are the mean (aka mu, aka average) values. The thinner lines are the mean minus the standard deviation (aka sigma). The black x’s are the individual exposures, including the outliers removed from the data set used for the statistical calculations.

With IBIS off, things don’t look so good:

Comparing the IBIS and non-IBIS statistics:

It looks like high shutter speeds are nothing to fear with IBIS on, even if IBIS isn’t doing any good there. It also looks like IBIS is safe down to 1/40 second, or slower than one over half the focal length. I expect that the camera will be even more stable in single shot drive mode, instead of the continuous mode I tested. Standing is about the worst commonly-used shooting position. I will test some more.

 

 

GFX 100

← Sony a7RIV IBIS — 180 mm, MF Sony a7RIV IBIS with the 35 mm f/1.4 Zony →

Comments

  1. Ilya Zakharevich says

    October 12, 2019 at 6:44 pm

    Finally, I paid attention to the distribution of “better than average” points “on the left”, where σ is large. Surprisingly, this distribution does not differ much from “a uniform distribution in a certain interval”.

    Offhand, I cannot invent a model of shake in which “much better than average” has a comparable probability to “just a bit better than average”. Is there something I miss?!

    (Of course, one of possible explanations is that this “equidistribution” is just an optical illusion, and it would disappear when one would try to quantify it…)

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 12, 2019 at 8:28 pm

      The sample space is small for that kind of calculation. I can do some histograms with larger sample sets.

      Reply
      • Ilya Zakharevich says

        October 15, 2019 at 1:38 am

        Well, this is a wild goose chase — it is absolutely unclear how this may have happened — but it is also quite unclear whether the answer would have any use…

        On the other hand, until one knows the answer — how can we be sure that it cannot be useful? You see: I’m completely lost! 😉

        But thanks for the offer anyway — even if you decide not to follow up!

        Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fuji GFX 100 IBIS performance with 32-64 mm zoom says:
    October 13, 2019 at 8:17 am

    […] tested the GFX 100’s IBIS performance with the 110 mm f/2 lens here and here. That’s probably the native G lens that needs IBIS the most, since the 120 macro, […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.