Scott Root Posted November 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Will Leica introduce digital image stabilization with the M series cameras at some point like advertised for the X1? If so, it seems the technology would require double takes and could be introduced in a firmware upgrade? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Hi Scott Root, Take a look here image stabilization for M anytime soon?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 10, 2009 Not likely, Scott. Most systems work within the lens, and that is a no-go for M lenses and Leica is not charmed by the imprecision introduced by the moving parts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted November 10, 2009 The X1 image stabilization is purported to not be mechanical, but is digital in nature and I presume requires a double exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 10, 2009 One would run ito the differences between CCD and CMos I suppose, one would presume electronic stabilisation to be based on live-view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 10, 2009 Will Leica introduce digital image stabilization with the M series cameras at some point like advertised for the X1? It wasn’t exactly advertised and it isn’t real image stabilization anyway. It is merely a way of taking a picture at a high shutter speed even in low-light situations (so image stabilization becomes a non-issue) and getting rid of the inevitable noise by combining the image with another (possibly blurred) image taken at a longer exposure time. Whether this kind of “image stabilization” will make it to the final production version of the X1 is unclear. The chances of something like this implemented in a digital M are slim, for technical reasons and because of considerations concerning image quality. A real image stabilizer based on a movable sensor would be technically feasible, but Leica would have to get the technology licensed (from Sony, presumably) and find a way to accomodate the larger size of the sensor unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 10, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 10, 2009 Michael, Thank you for explaining this, I was wondering how this worked. guess it could work well if held very still and the subject not moving too much. Personally I have a couple of Oly E3 bodies with stabilized sensor, this works wonderfully and could probably work in the M... at least technically speaking. My guess is that the M solution to low light shooting will for a while to come ba called Noctilux. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 10, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The only way for Leica to do it is adopt the stabilised sensor, like Olympus use. Its a very effective system, and of course means all lenses benefit, not just those that have IS built in. You get the equivalent of a few stops extra shutter speed using Leica lenses on the EP-1 (and soon to be EP-2). Given it is all packaged into small bodies already the technology should fit into an M sized body. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted November 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 10, 2009 Having found in-body image stabilisation a benefit with SLRs, I used to think that it would be a useful addition to a digital M. That was before I got one and discovered how easy it is to keep the camera steady without mechanical or electronic aids. I think it must be the absence of mirror slap that makes the difference. In effect, IS is installed in digital SLRs to counteract the camera movement inherent in their design, which is not required in a digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garygsandhu Posted November 11, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 11, 2009 1. Use a tripod 2. Stop caffeine 3. Get a faster lens 4. Use higher iso 5. Brace yourself IS is most useful for longer lenses, not really the M's strength. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted November 11, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 11, 2009 1. Use a tripod2. Stop caffeine 3. Get a faster lens 4. Use higher iso 5. Brace yourself IS is most useful for longer lenses, not really the M's strength. 6. maybe a mono pod. although i feel this defeats the purpose of an m being compact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 11, 2009 1. Use a tripod2. Stop caffeine 3. Get a faster lens 4. Use higher iso 5. Brace yourself IS is most useful for longer lenses, not really the M's strength. Supporting both forearms on the back of a chair whilst holding a camera works wonders - with one knee on the seat. Cheers dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted November 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 11, 2009 Some of the best images I have seen (and made) are blurred! I appreciate the desire for sharp images (I am guilty) but sometimes it develops into a fetish that blinds us to the beauty, impact, and virtue of good images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted November 11, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 11, 2009 Some of the best images I have seen (and made) are blurred! I appreciate the desire for sharp images (I am guilty) but sometimes it develops into a fetish that blinds us to the beauty, impact, and virtue of good images. I agree. I'm such an instable person that no IS could help me in any way... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 11, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 11, 2009 1. Use a tripod2. Stop caffeine 3. Get a faster lens 4. Use higher iso 5. Brace yourself IS is most useful for longer lenses, not really the M's strength. 6. maybe a mono pod. although i feel this defeats the purpose of an m being compact. Absolutely agree. I would add: - Get your breath back after climbing that mountain/flight of stairs* - Don't drink - Don't smoke - If you absolutely have to, use a stringpod *dependent on fitness level IS is, as Gary said, a boon with longer lenses. I use it on my Olympus DSLRs. But on an M it is about as useful and welcome as a gearstick warmer on a Ferrari. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted November 11, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 11, 2009 and........ - stop breathing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicar7 Posted November 11, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 11, 2009 Why would one "need" IS in an M camera if one knows how to use it anyway? I advocate for less is better. Leica already provides all necessary means to obtain the highest possible image quality. It's up to the user to master what it takes. Caffein or no caffein. IS does not improve any lens's ability to render contrast. In fact, it works against that. Can't there be anywhere in photographing where KISS is still respected and desired? I'm sick of technology constantly adding "benefits" that no one really needs, and many don't even desire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 11, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 11, 2009 The problem with IS is that it does nothing to freeze subject movement. When shooting with DSLRs, I've found it is useful with long (200mm+) focal lengths and/or for shooting static subjects. So for most of my rangefinder work it would be of little value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaay Posted November 12, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 12, 2009 In-body IS is certainly the way to go and surely anyone shooting indoors would benefit? Using your 50 lux at f1.4 at 320 ISO instead of a much higher one would lead to much better pictures overall surely? When I first saw the Olympus ep-1 I assumed the stabilised sensor made it bigger overall and that had it not been stabilised they could have fitted a bigger sensor in the same space BUT when the GF1 came out which is the same size as the EP1 but has no stabilised sensor I had to conclude it does not add much bulk to the camera but is more a technical licensing issue. The Sony pro dslr manages to stabilise a full frame sensor so it is possible! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 12, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 12, 2009 Why would one "need" IS in an M camera if one knows how to use it anyway? . Why does such a widely used and accepted piece of technology have to become part of a debate about who is a superior photographer? No wonder Leica users are considered snobby Luddite morons in many camera forums. In case it is a worry for you that an M10 has IS, it can be switched off on most decent cameras, but doing so would leave good photographers hand holding an M10 at 1 second, and you as an equally good photographer hand holding at only 1/8th sec. I know wouldn't worry about being branded an inferior photographer by leaving IS switched ON. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted November 13, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 13, 2009 Why does such a widely used and accepted piece of technology have to become part of a debate about who is a superior photographer? No wonder Leica users are considered snobby Luddite morons in many camera forums. In case it is a worry for you that an M10 has IS, it can be switched off on most decent cameras, but doing so would leave good photographers hand holding an M10 at 1 second, and you as an equally good photographer hand holding at only 1/8th sec. I know wouldn't worry about being branded an inferior photographer by leaving IS switched ON. Steve Steve,I don't know where you get your quotes, or is it your own, about "snobby luddite morons" as applied to Leica users? Personally I challenge the authenticity and the accuracy. I suspect the origins to be sourced from ignorance, but I really don't care. As far as I.S. is concerned, the reality probably is that it will never happen in a Leica M camera. A greater reality is that the number of Leica shooters that could benefit from I.S. would probably also benefit from changing to a different camera. That leaves it's marketability wanting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.