WOT - no proper image stabilisation or sensor self cleaning ???

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica website is silent about image stabilisation. Surely this camera has this essential feature. When I look at the downloaded manual, I find it uses a rather odd system of taking two photos and digitally combining them. Is this is as good as solenoid controlled five axis sensor stabilisation? I somehow doubt it.

 

The website is also silent about sensor auto cleaning as is the manual. All other modern compact interchangeable lens cameras have this feature, whether sensor shaking or ultrasonic. Does the T have this?

 

I think Leica have made an error in not incorporating both of these features, if indeed they are both missing. Certainly that would put me off.

 

Wilson

[jcraf]

My thoughts entirely.

 

Especially regarding sensor cleaning, given the shit-magnets that are my M and MM sensors (and all those digital Ms preceding).

 

I have scoured the T handbook and couldn't even see anything about cleaning the sensor one's self.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

John,

 

I agree about cleaning. It has to be one or the other. Self cleaning or get the mops out. The self cleaning on my EP-5 and my older EP-2 is amazingly effective. The downside is that when the EP-5 does finally need cleaning, you have to get an Olympus dealer to do it, as the IS magnets have to be locked in place to stop the sensor wobbling around as you wipe.

 

Wilson

[jonoslack]

Hi There

not sure about sensor cleaning- but I think it's a function of IBIS . . . which the T doesn't have - because (as I understand it) all the available systems are patented, and designing a new one is a real expense.

 

Mind you, I've not had much problem with a dirty sensor. . . . and at least the shutter is only a little snick, so camera shake isn't much of a problem.

 

But Wilson - I do agree - these things would be an asset - at least, IBIS certainly would

[k-hawinkler]

Hi There

not sure about sensor cleaning- but I think it's a function of IBIS . . . which the T doesn't have - because (as I understand it) all the available systems are patented, and designing a new one is a real expense.

 

Mind you, I've not had much problem with a dirty sensor. . . . and at least the shutter is only a little snick, so camera shake isn't much of a problem.

 

But Wilson - I do agree - these things would be an asset - at least, IBIS certainly would

 

 

Oh, how come other cameras without IBIS have builtin sensor cleaning?

[wlaidlaw]

Oh, how come other cameras without IBIS have builtin sensor cleaning?

 

K-H,

 

I would think they use the ultrasonic method.

 

Wilson

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I cleaned my M for the first time in 13 months - apart from an odd puff with a blower ..... and that was only because I was going on holiday and wanted to be sure it was 100% ok before I left. Took all of 20 minutes to get it 100% speck free using a combination of wet + the sticky lollipop thing.

 

Auto sensor cleaning is over-rated as far as I can see .......

 

Whilst image stabilisation is no doubt a bonus, if the high iso capabilities are the same as the XV then that's another function I can live without......

[mjh]

The Leica website is silent about image stabilisation.

Because there is no real image stabilisation.

 

When I look at the downloaded manual, I find it uses a rather odd system of taking two photos and digitally combining them.

Just like the X models.

 

The website is also silent about sensor auto cleaning as is the manual. All other modern compact interchangeable lens cameras have this feature, whether sensor shaking or ultrasonic. Does the T have this?

No, it does not. By the way, only ultrasonic sensor cleaning is really effective; sensor shake is a mere placebo.

Edited April 25, 2014 by mjh

[pico]

Because there is no real image stabilisation.

 

 

Just like the X models.

 

 

No, it does not. By the way, only ultrasonic sensor cleaning is really effective; sensor shake is a mere placebo.

 

We know that, ad hominen deleted.

The so-called Stabilization method was made clear earlier. .

Edited April 26, 2014 by erl

[jdlaing]

The sensor doesn't shake.

[wlaidlaw]

The sensor doesn't shake.

 

It would if I were holding a T

 

Wilson

[k-hawinkler]

The sensor doesn't shake.

 

But according to World premiere: The 2014 Leica T (Typ 701) review – Ming Thein | Photographer the shutter does shake the camera, quote: "The final question is one of where the T fits in with the rest of the ecosystem and mirrorless pecking order. It’s not a speed demon (albeit somewhat crippled by shutter shock) like the E-M1; it’s not a resolution champ like the A7R (also crippled by shutter shock)."

[wlaidlaw]

Shutter shock was a major issue with my 80-200 Vario Elmar on the EP-5. You have to avoid speeds of between 1/60th and 1/100th of a second, which meant jacking up the ISO quite a bit or having too slow a shutter speed for a long lens. It seems better with the latest firmware but I am not sure how they could alter this, unless it is the algorithm of the image stabilisation.

 

I would be surprised if the T suffered this as badly. As I understand it, shutter shock is an interaction between the shutter vibration frequency and the frequency of the image stabilisation. As the T does not have image stabilisation, it can only have normal image blurring from using too low a speed. I suppose that is where the mass of the M240 helps, along with its very gentle shutter. Some people say that modern Leicas are still not as quiet as old ones. Wrong - the “Kerr-Clack” of my Standard 1C makes a noise that is a multiple of the noise that my M240 makes.

 

Wilson

[Peter H]

............................. It’s not a speed demon (albeit somewhat crippled by shutter shock) like the E-M1; it’s not a resolution champ like the A7R (also crippled by shutter shock)."

 

While it is a rather clumsily-constructed sentence and therefore ambiguous, careful re-reading persuades me that the phrase "crippled by shutter shock" refers to the E-M1 and not the T.

[jonoslack]

But according to World premiere: The 2014 Leica T (Typ 701) review – Ming Thein | Photographer the shutter does shake the camera, quote: "The final question is one of where the T fits in with the rest of the ecosystem and mirrorless pecking order. It’s not a speed demon (albeit somewhat crippled by shutter shock) like the E-M1; it’s not a resolution champ like the A7R (also crippled by shutter shock)."

 

Actually Karlheinz I think you've misunderstood Ming - understandably: it's the E-M1 that's crippled by shutter shock. I'll check with him.

 

all the best

[k-hawinkler]

Actually Karlheinz I think you've misunderstood Ming - understandably: it's the E-M1 that's crippled by shutter shock. I'll check with him.

 

all the best

 

Many thanks Jono for quoting the full quote.

It clearly establishes that Ming Thein constructed that offending sentence.

I didn't, I only quoted it.

Thanks again.

 

Please let us know what Ming actually meant to say. TIA.

[Peter H]

Many thanks Jono for quoting the full quote.

It clearly establishes that Ming Thein constructed that offending sentence.

I didn't, I only quoted it.

Thanks again.

 

Please let us know what Ming actually meant to say. TIA.

 

Apologies if I gave the impression it was your sentence. I thought it was clear that you were only quoting Ming, but evidently it wasn't that clear. Sorry.

 

Anyway, my money's on Ming referring to the Olympus not the Leica when he talks of shutter shock.

[wlaidlaw]

Actually Karlheinz I think you've misunderstood Ming - understandably: it's the E-M1 that's crippled by shutter shock. I'll check with him.

 

all the best

 

Jono,

 

I agree that it was the E-M1 that was “crippled” by shutter shock, which given the origin of the phenomenon is logical. However crippled is far too strong a word. A minor irritation would be a better description, with a simple work around. Other than with the 80-200 lens, I could count on the fingers of one hand, the number of images with my EP-5, spoilt by shutter shock and as I said above, with normal lenses and the latest FW, it seems to have disappeared. Now that I have a long (75-300) AF MFT lens, that does not seem to suffer from it either.

 

Wilson

[k-hawinkler]

Jono,

 

I agree that it was the E-M1 that was “crippled” by shutter shock, which given the origin of the phenomenon is logical. However crippled is far too strong a word. A minor irritation would be a better description, with a simple work around. Other than with the 80-200 lens, I could count on the fingers of one hand, the number of images with my EP-5, spoilt by shutter shock and as I said above, with normal lenses and the latest FW, it seems to have disappeared. Now that I have a long (75-300) AF MFT lens, that does not seem to suffer from it either.

 

Wilson

 

 

Hi Wilson,

 

I agree. I have the E-M5, E-M1 and A7R. I also have the Olympus 75-300 II AF lens

Those are wonderful cameras for me, once I figured out what they can do and what they can't.

The firmware update for the E-M1 made a difference for sure. I wish Sony would offer a similar fix if possible.

 

I certainly hope that the T isn't afflicted by shutter shock at all. That would be great.

IMHO there certainly is some ambiguity in how to interpret Ming Thein's sentence.

Let's see what Jono finds out.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[k-hawinkler]

Actually Karlheinz I think you've misunderstood Ming - understandably: it's the E-M1 that's crippled by shutter shock. I'll check with him.

 

all the best

 

Thanks again Jono.

Have you been able to clarify Ming's sentence?