How does a handheld gimbal compare with image stabilization for still photos and long exposures?
Asked 1/28/2017
1 views
2 answers
0
I’m trying to understand the difference between a handheld camera gimbal and optical/in-body image stabilization (IS/IBIS). For still photography, how do their effects compare? Can a handheld gimbal replace a tripod for long exposures, or help you shoot at slower shutter speeds the way lens or body stabilization does? Also, if a camera or lens already has stabilization, does that combine with a handheld gimbal in a useful way?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
6
Do the benefits of a gimbal combine with in-body or optical image stabilization?
Yes it does, a gimbal counters macro movements while IS counter micro movements. They do work combined, although a gimbal would not reduce the need for IS, since the movement countered are not really the same.
A gimbal won't do as a tripod replacement in long exposures, and the shake is still there for the IS to counter in hand held video. When walking or biking with a cam, a gimbal does wonders - but it won't help you getting slower shutter speed.
Originally by user48814. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user48814
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A handheld gimbal and camera/lens stabilization do different jobs.
A gimbal mainly counters larger, slower body/camera movements—especially useful for video while walking, biking, or otherwise moving. Optical IS or IBIS mainly counters small, fine vibrations that cause blur.
So yes, they can complement each other: the gimbal helps with macro movement, while IS/IBIS helps with micro shake. But that does not make a gimbal a substitute for a tripod.
For stills, a handheld gimbal generally is not a practical way to get much longer handheld exposures. It can make camera movement smoother, but it does not eliminate shake well enough to serve like a solid tripod for long exposures.
Because of that, gimbals usually aren’t described in “stops” the same way lens/body stabilization is. Their benefit is more about smooth motion control than extending exposure time for sharp handheld stills.
In short: gimbals are excellent for stabilizing moving video shots; IS/IBIS is what matters more for reducing blur in handheld still photos.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why still use a tripod and ND filters instead of stacking short exposures for long-exposure landscapes?
Should Olympus 5-axis image stabilization help at 1/5 second, or is blur normal?
How much handheld low-light advantage does the Sony A7 II's in-body stabilization have over the A7R?
Do I still need a tripod for sharp landscape photos if my lens has VR/IS?
Why does image stabilization only work up to a certain shutter speed?