image stabilization for M anytime soon?

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I think you will find that I didn't write 'snobby Luddite morons' in quotes erl, so it wasn't actually a quote, just the general observation (from getting out and about in other camera forums) that Leica users go around telling people how superior their photographs are because they use (spoken under hushed breath for dramatic effect) 'a Leica'. So obviously its not a quote, its an impression of the ludicrously skewed veiw many camera users have of the Leica community, and the irony is, its fueled by part of the Leica community!

 

A Leica M is a niche camera for a niche use and is used just like any other camera to get a type of photo that a photographer wants. Its not superior to any other camera in that regard. There are a lot of people who threw their arms up in the air at the concept of a digital Leica M (and aren't their are some who do now use a digital Leica despite the initial outrage?). I wouldn't dream of calling them hypocrites (behind the ball maybe), just as I'm sure you wouldn't dream of calling long term Leica users inferior photographers if the M10 has IS and people like it. So why do you validate doing so in a pre-emptive strike by adopting the stance of "Why would one "need" IS in an M camera if one knows how to use it anyway?" ? You seem to be saying either sign up for the Leica myth of traditionalism by campaigning against IS, or ship out? I'd say the M8 blew away the myth of traditionalism, its just that the implications of that have never sunk in for a few people.

 

So for the record I'll counter your "As far as I.S. is concerned, the reality probably is that it will never happen in a Leica M camera" with the idea that not only will an M10 have IS, a self cleaning sensor, and myriads of other off the shelf modern functions, but it may not even be the traditional M shape. Its possible, so I hope it doesn't give you nightmares.....

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Well, if you insist on visiting peanut... I personally have yet to meet a photographer worth his salt using Leica and claiming his photographs are " better" (whatever that may be) than anybody else.. If I go " into the forums" I can find any number of delusional fools claiming this for any brand, but photographers? None. And your last sentence - I think you have missed the essence of the concept of a niche manufacturer. I can assure you Leica will never introduce a " Me too" M camera.

[erl]

Sorry Steve, but your last post is verging on incomprehensible, at least to rational thinkers. You have failed miserably to understand either my comments or your own. There is nothing factual in what you have have stated. Only opinion, which of course you are entitled to. But don't expect to be taken as credible.

[redbaron]

Steve, if you're not quoting someone else then I take it you are expressing your own opinion. Tosser.

 

Don't bother responding. I won't be able to read it.

[bill]

Given it is all packaged into small bodies already the technology should fit into an M sized body.

 

Ah, another expert on M design.

 

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.

 

Exactly. (my bold)

 

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.

 

Quite.

 

Would this: Google Image Result for http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/doisneau_kiss.jpg be a better photo if it were pin-sharp?

 

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.

 

Agreed.

 

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?

 

Not necessarily - see above.

 

In case it is a worry for you that an M10 has IS, it can be switched off on most decent cameras

 

And why should I pay for something that I will never use just so that technophile geeks who believe that sharpness is king and the camera should do all the work can have an un-necessary piece of photographic bloatware?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[250swb]

Sorry Steve, but your last post is verging on incomprehensible, at least to rational thinkers. You have failed miserably to understand either my comments or your own. There is nothing factual in what you have have stated. Only opinion, which of course you are entitled to. But don't expect to be taken as credible.

 

I'm very sorry for getting your back up erl, I misunderstood what you were saying and didn't realise it was certain Leica wouldn't introduce IS on an M camera, given my assumption that it was the very a lack of facts that could mean the opposite. I'm pleased to see I am allowed an opinion though, however way off it was.

 

As regards the the 'moron' opinion, with regard to a couple of other posts, that was a flash of insight wasn't it! I didn't realise the Leica Forum was interchangable with 'Nikon' or 'Canon' or DPR forums for rude people. I'll watch my words in future, and theirs.

 

Steve

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

And why should I pay for something that I will never use just so that technophile geeks who believe that sharpness is king and the camera should do all the work can have an un-necessary piece of photographic bloatware?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

I guess its modern life. I've got a car that can do 130mph, but the speed limit is 70mph. Thats a bummer. The option of .dng and .jpeg clutters the menu up when I only want .dng, thats a bummer. I dodn't use a 135mm lens on my cameras, but I still get the damned framelines, thats a bummer.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Hi Bill,

 

I guess its modern life. I've got a car that can do 130mph, but the speed limit is 70mph.

 

Steve

You drive the wrong roads in the wrong country, sir.

[bill]

Hi Bill,

 

I guess its modern life. I've got a car that can do 130mph, but the speed limit is 70mph. Thats a bummer. The option of .dng and .jpeg clutters the menu up when I only want .dng, thats a bummer. I dodn't use a 135mm lens on my cameras, but I still get the damned framelines, thats a bummer.

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve, and that is my point exactly. It is always a fine line that the designers have to tread. Where I hit a problem - and I am not putting you in this category - is with those who turn up here with laundry lists of what the M9 should be and the M10 "must" be because "everyone wants" [insert as applicable]. The answer to their problems is simple - buy something else. I am all for evolution, but revolution often means that the baby goes out with the proverbial. There is a Leica M "ideology" for want of a better word, which places the tool in context with the photographer's aims and needs. I use Leica M because it doesn't get between my vision - in both senses - and my objective. Some people don't get it, some do.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[leicar7]

Whew hoo! People actually rose to the bait!

 

Canon's use of IS in primes doesn't start until 200mm. Some small sensor zoom lenses and the 70-200 zooms for the FF models have it. In other words, for the range of appropriate M focal lengths, even Canon hasn't seen the need for IS.

 

Reasonably skilled M users already know that they can expect equivalent results using one or two stops slower shutter speeds in low light than SLR users can expect. That's about the supposed advantage conferred by IS to SLR users.

 

If one has bought an M9 expecting to use it in the manner of a P&S, you just bought the wrong kind of camera. M cameras are designed to be aimed and framed with their viewfinders, not be held at arms length and composed on the LCD screen. If that is one's intention, IS will not solve that issue. It is impossible to hold a camera sufficiently well with that technique to obtain high image quality.

 

For kripe's sake, some forumers were envisioning their desires for an M10 before there was a pirated photo of an M9. This commentator's advice to all and sundry is to (1) take a deep breath and relax; (2) buy and use an M9 for at least two years and a minimum of 10,000 photos to build the mind-muscle memory; (3) then send me a thread stating why IS is necessary to improve your photography or to what degree it is desireable.

 

For the life of me, I simply cannot fathom the S2 team's failure to incorporate this necessary technology into the S2 system. Truly, it baffles me. Master the equipment and enjoy it as it is.

[henning]

I find it hard to understand why sensor based IS would not be desirable if it doesn't increase the size of the camera, increase the power drain and can be turned off.

 

Yes, IS is most welcome in a 400mm lens, but the possibility of getting a sharp image with a 35mm lens when shooting at 1/2 sec is also useful.

 

I love Leicas; they are my favourite personal cameras and I've been using them continuously for nearly 50 years, but I've also been using many other cameras when those have been more appropriate tools than a 35mm rangefinder. The advances that other companies, particularly those that produce 35mm SLR's have come out with are often useful. Even Leica decided that a through the lens meter might be desirable.

 

Even autofocus, which is often relied upon too much can be useful. But in my estimation one of the most important advances in driving technical quality in photos higher has been image stabilisation. I got a Canon 100-400 zoom with IS as soon as it came out. No, it's no competition under ideal circumstances to a 400/2.8 Telyt, but when I'm carrying it all day and have no chance of using a tripod I'll have way more keepers with the zoom with stabilisation than with the Telyt that I left at home.

 

Even when you're taking a picture of a moving subject there are many moments when that subject is quiet, hits a peak or is still for some other reason. IS can get you a picture then at a much slower speed than you can get without IS. The discussion about whether you want a sharp picture or not is a completely different one, and getting a blurred picture is generally easier than getting a sharp picture.

 

IS is not the first thing I want in an M10, but if it's possible to include it with no penalty, I'll gladly accept it. Various companies have shown that sensor based IS works and has really no downsides, so why not?

[henning]

Whew hoo! People actually rose to the bait!

 

Canon's use of IS in primes doesn't start until 200mm. Some small sensor zoom lenses and the 70-200 zooms for the FF models have it. In other words, for the range of appropriate M focal lengths, even Canon hasn't seen the need for IS.

 

Reasonably skilled M users already know that they can expect equivalent results using one or two stops slower shutter speeds in low light than SLR users can expect. That's about the supposed advantage conferred by IS to SLR users.

 

If one has bought an M9 expecting to use it in the manner of a P&S, you just bought the wrong kind of camera. M cameras are designed to be aimed and framed with their viewfinders, not be held at arms length and composed on the LCD screen. If that is one's intention, IS will not solve that issue. It is impossible to hold a camera sufficiently well with that technique to obtain high image quality.

 

For kripe's sake, some forumers were envisioning their desires for an M10 before there was a pirated photo of an M9. This commentator's advice to all and sundry is to (1) take a deep breath and relax; (2) buy and use an M9 for at least two years and a minimum of 10,000 photos to build the mind-muscle memory; (3) then send me a thread stating why IS is necessary to improve your photography or to what degree it is desireable.

 

For the life of me, I simply cannot fathom the S2 team's failure to incorporate this necessary technology into the S2 system. Truly, it baffles me. Master the equipment and enjoy it as it is.

 

Canon's use of IS starts with 24mm.

 

Leica's have maybe a one stop advantage regarding using slower shutter speeds. If IS gave a three stop advantage, Leicas' advantage over non-IS SLR's would be 4 stops. Why stop at a one stop advantage? BTW, IS advantage is in the range of 2 to 4 stops for most systems.

 

I've taken 100's of thousands of photos without IS, many of those with Leicas. The ones that could only be taken with IS haven't been taken by me during that time. Some of those photos might have been good, might have added to my income, might have given others or me pleasure.

 

So if IS can be incorporated without any penalty other than maybe some cost which I can manage, then why not?

[250swb]

You drive the wrong roads in the wrong country, sir.

 

?

 

I drive the roads in my country, sir. Given that a 4 m.p.h. difference in maximum motorway speed is hardly a cause for irony or tongue in cheek superiority between the Dutch and UK road systems I can only assume you are making a distastful nationlistic remark. I couldn't possibly say 'out loud' what I think of that.

 

Steve

[mwilliamsphotography]

I use a Sony A900 with built in Image Stabilization so all lenses are in effect stabilized. Also have used IS and VR lenses from Canikon.

 

Stabilization is not instant.

 

In the Sony there is a bar graph in the viewfinder showing the stabilization process, so you can actually see when the image is best stabilized.

 

Leica Ms tend to be used more spontaneously.

 

IMO, the more stuff you put in the M the more opportunities you have for it to break.

 

I say, the less add-on marginally useful stuff in these cameras the better.

 

I don't want a race horse loaded down like a pack mule. I already have a pack mule ... a DSLR.

 

Thanks,

 

-Marc

[okram]

I think Leica is a hostage of its users.

 

I think they would happily go for technological progress like IS, but are afraid of "M5 syndrome".

 

But maybe I am too young for M.

[stunsworth]

I drive the roads in my country, sir. Given that a 4 m.p.h. difference in maximum motorway speed is hardly a cause for irony or tongue in cheek superiority between the Dutch and UK road systems I can only assume you are making a distastful nationlistic remark. I couldn't possibly say 'out loud' what I think of that.

 

Lighten up. Where did Jaap mention Dutch roads? I assumed he was talking about German ones. These can be an interesting experience for a number of reasons.

[leicar7]

Henning, you are correct that C has two EF zooms w/ IS: the 24-105/4 and 28-135/3.5-5.6 and the two EF-S lenses. Those all go into at least the short telephoto range and are relatively small aperture. C has no prime wide lens with IS so far. I say again, the first occurence of IS among the primes is 200mm. So, basically, my argument about the M lenses stands, in comparison to C's lineup. I haven't looked at N.

 

Does IS really correct for 3 or 4 stops of user's movement? That may be a matter of taste and willingness to accept the results. Too many such claims by the companies turn out to be optimistic, to say the least. Practiced M users, such as Bill Allard, David Harvey, and many others will assert that they have been able with good consistency to get acceptable results hand holding at one or two stops slower than they could with any SLR. Many such images are in their books. With bracing, they can even do better. In general, it might be a better use of one's time to work on technique than wait around for a technical feature to come along to cure the reason a photo didn't turn out.

 

At some point in the future, I'm sure it will become feasible to have IS in-camera for an M. But if anyone thinks he/she too young for an M, then I'd suggest that the younger the better to begin using an M and learn how to extract what it can deliver. Then IS will mean something concrete as an age onset issue.

[henning]

Henning, you are correct that C has two EF zooms w/ IS: the 24-105/4 and 28-135/3.5-5.6 and the two EF-S lenses. Those all go into at least the short telephoto range and are relatively small aperture. C has no prime wide lens with IS so far. I say again, the first occurence of IS among the primes is 200mm. So, basically, my argument about the M lenses stands, in comparison to C's lineup. I haven't looked at N.

 

Does IS really correct for 3 or 4 stops of user's movement? That may be a matter of taste and willingness to accept the results. Too many such claims by the companies turn out to be optimistic, to say the least. Practiced M users, such as Bill Allard, David Harvey, and many others will assert that they have been able with good consistency to get acceptable results hand holding at one or two stops slower than they could with any SLR. Many such images are in their books. With bracing, they can even do better. In general, it might be a better use of one's time to work on technique than wait around for a technical feature to come along to cure the reason a photo didn't turn out.

 

At some point in the future, I'm sure it will become feasible to have IS in-camera for an M. But if anyone thinks he/she too young for an M, then I'd suggest that the younger the better to begin using an M and learn how to extract what it can deliver. Then IS will mean something concrete as an age onset issue.

 

Whether IS is implemented in zooms or primes matters little once one has decided on what focal length to use by either picking out a prime or setting the focal length on a zoom. Also, Canon has a 100mm lens with IS.

 

In the Olympus range, or Sony range IS is available on ALL lenses, as opposed to Canon's or Nikon's range. Part of the reason that IS isn't available on shorter lenses with C and N is that because of the mechanism required for IS, especially the fast lenses would become very bulky.

 

Does IS provide 3 to 4 stops improvement? Yes. It has nothing to do with taste or willingness to accept poorer quality. It can and has been measured by third parties. If you go that route, I'd be able to counter that shooters who don't use IS are willing to accept lower quality because they don't use IS. It goes both ways.

 

Again, whatever technique you have developed to shoot at slower shutter speeds, IS can enhance that ability. Nobody, certainly not I, have said anything about sitting around and waiting for IS. I've photographed all my life, and have done so professionally for nearly 40 years with a very wide range of equipment, but I try to use the best tool for the job. When the tool improves and provides tangible benefits, I get that but I'm always taking photos.

 

Good photos have been made at all times by a huge range of people with all sorts of equipment. As I said initially, that is another argument and has nothing to do with this. This is about improving the technical quality of photographs and extending the useable shutter speed range. That's all.

 

Saying IS is not necessary is like saying useable higher ISO's are pointless, or going above 4Mp is pointless. Note that these positions have been put forward at various times, including on this forum. I just don't believe that. I'll use any ISO that still gives me reasonable quality, whether it maxes out at 640 or 1250 on my M8 or 400,000 on some future M. I can't particularly see any need for a 10Giga pixel camera, but if storage space keeps on increasing along with processing power maybe I'll have some use for that at some time. If there is no penalty in useability, general performance and I can afford it, why not have development continue and go in these directions?

 

If an M10, or 11 turns up with IS and the camera is bulkier and slower, I'll pass. If the upcharge for IS is $3000, I'll pass. But those issues are not what I'm talking about. IS is useful at times and at those times will allow me to get technically acceptable pictures that I probably wouldn't be able to get otherwise. That's the bottom line.

[jaapv]

Lighten up. Where did Jaap mention Dutch roads? I assumed he was talking about German ones. These can be an interesting experience for a number of reasons.

You assume right

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stealthman_1]

Aperture Priority came with the M7 in 2002, it came to the F3 in 1980. Maybe it will be in the M13.

My own testing with a D3 and 70-200 @ 70mm shows that VR offers minor benefits when one uses proper shooting techniques @ 1/15, about 1 in 8 shots are better than Non-VR shots. At 1/8th, 1 in 4, at 1/4th and 1/2 about 1 in 2 are better, at 1 second, 4 of 4 are better, but none are acceptable. At ISO1600, 1/30th @ f1.4, EV2 light is at neutral gray so the only lighting condition IS would really be a significant benefit at would be shooting neutral gray exposures in full moon light (EV-2/3). Whoopie!