Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) It looks like the next SL will not have inbuilt IS due to Leica producing SL lenses with IS. But the M(11), is there a possibility? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 Hi Lax Jought, Take a look here What are the chances that the new M will have inbuilt IS?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FrozenInTime Posted June 2, 2016 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2016 0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted June 2, 2016 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2016 Zero chance I think. Unless they can shrink all the other electronics to allow IBS to fit (note how much larger Sony A7 cameras became with version 2) because I do not see people accepting another increase in body thickness nor them tooling up to produce another body design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregm61 Posted June 2, 2016 Share #4 Posted June 2, 2016 To be honest there are times I think the IS in my Olympus E-M1 throws my equilibrium off. I have to straighten/level more images I capture with IS-equipped cameras than I ever had to using a body like the M262. I personally hope they never add it to the M system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted June 2, 2016 Share #5 Posted June 2, 2016 I think allowing faster shutter speeds through better high-ISO sensor performance would be the preferred (and preferable AFAIC) route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2016 Share #6 Posted June 2, 2016 IBS makes the sensor assembly thicker, thus the body thicker. Unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #7 Posted June 2, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Zero chance I think. Unless they can shrink all the other electronics to allow IBS to fit (note how much larger Sony A7 cameras became with version 2) because I do not see people accepting another increase in body thickness nor them tooling up to produce another body design. I thought that might be the case. I did consider that IS would make the body a little bit thicker, but I read Steve Huff's predictions for this year and there was the suggestion that Leica may make the next M thinner, so that pretty much makes IS an improbability. To be honest, I didn't really mind the thickness of the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted June 2, 2016 To be honest there are times I think the IS in my Olympus E-M1 throws my equilibrium off. I have to straighten/level more images I capture with IS-equipped cameras than I ever had to using a body like the M262. I personally hope they never add it to the M system. IS was never really on my 'want' list for future Ms, I've been ok without it thus far. Of course, IS would make life a hell of a lot easier when dealing with low light but it's not a total deal breaker. But IS is important for video and that is where it would've been very convenient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted June 2, 2016 I think allowing faster shutter speeds through better high-ISO sensor performance would be the preferred (and preferable AFAIC) route. ISO improvement is always, always, helpful. Not really fussed about faster shutter speeds, I mean it would be nice to have 1/8000 but 1/4000 is great, particularly if it helps with a quieter shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #10 Posted June 2, 2016 IBS makes the sensor assembly thicker, thus the body thicker. Unacceptable. I know you're just being sarcastic but just a bit thicker to accommodate IS, I don't mind. However, I am aware of the Leica community's outrage at the M240's thickness (which, as I have said earlier, isn't a problem for me). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #11 Posted June 2, 2016 Just elaborating on what I was saying above - I had my heart set on the SL as the camera that can handle everything else that my main camera (the M9-P) cannot. I can do a lot of things with the M9, but I'd need a backup camera to cover the rare occasion I need an extra-wide lens, or telescopic lens. Where the SL would shine for me is in the video function, I've been seeing some amazing video footage from the SL on youtube and I'm impressed, AND I can use my current lenses too. BUT, the only thing that is holding me back is IS. This is where the Sony A7s II shines. So, I figured I might hold back on the A7s II, IF (and BIG if) the new M has IS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2016 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2016 I know you're just being sarcastic but just a bit thicker to accommodate IS, I don't mind. However, I am aware of the Leica community's outrage at the M240's thickness (which, as I have said earlier, isn't a problem for me).I'm not being sarcastic. We are talking several millimeters. Consider the hoo-ha here about 0.6 mm on the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #13 Posted June 2, 2016 It's sarcastic if you were outraged too. But 0.6mm is a non-issue for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2016 Share #14 Posted June 2, 2016 Me too. I'm happy with the size of the M digitals, but they cannot get thicker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #15 Posted June 2, 2016 Me too. I'm happy with the size of the M digitals, but they cannot get thicker. Assuming that the next M will be thinner due to improved engineering, how much thicker would it have to be to accommodate IS (compensating for the improved engineering)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 2, 2016 Share #16 Posted June 2, 2016 Assuming that the next M will be thinner due to improved engineering, how much thicker would it have to be to accommodate IS (compensating for the improved engineering)? Interesting question. Assuming (guessing, speculating) that there could be a choice, would you prefer: A, a thinner digital M, or B, a digital M the same size as the M240 but with Image Stabilisation? I think I'd go for B. But of course, neither may be available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #17 Posted June 2, 2016 Interesting question. Assuming (guessing, speculating) that there could be a choice, would you prefer: A, a thinner digital M, or B, a digital M the same size as the M240 but with Image Stabilisation? I think I'd go for B. But of course, neither may be available. B for me, no question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2016 Share #18 Posted June 2, 2016 B would have a protruding mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted June 2, 2016 Share #19 Posted June 2, 2016 ISO improvement is always, always, helpful. Not really fussed about faster shutter speeds, I mean it would be nice to have 1/8000 but 1/4000 is great, particularly if it helps with a quieter shutter. What I meant is that using faster shutter speeds (even 1/125 in low light would be great in most circumstances), as long as you are able to push the ISO up at a given aperture and retain acceptable IQ, can reduce the need for IS to some extent (although we're not going to get 3-4 stops of sensor improvement overnight...). Video is indeed a different story. But then there are other cameras, including the SL, which seem to be better suited to video than the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted June 2, 2016 Share #20 Posted June 2, 2016 In my opinion, the increased thickness is a problem. As far as I know the increased thickness of the M digital cameras (M8, M9 ans M) is responsable for the 0,68 magnification. Leica had the choice to make the front glass of the viewfinder larger or to decrease the magnification. Those bodies would have been even ticker if Leica hadn't choose to make the bayonet mount stick out more of the front of the digital Ms than on the film Ms. The normal magnification was/is 0,72 on the vast majority of the film Ms from the M2 up to the new M-A. The exception being the M3/MP (0,91) M6J (0,85) and the 0,85 and 0,58 versions of some of the later Ms. 0,68 may be better when using a 28mm on the M, but it decrease the focusing accuracy with lenses like the Noctilux, 75, 90 and 135mm. Together with the fact that a sensor need more accuracy than a film, it was a drawback. The SL body shows us that Leica could make the M digital much slimmer if they decided to make the bayonet mount stick even more of the front of the body. But this may have induced some problems with the connection of the wheeled rangefinder lever to the rangefinder. And the body would have been slimmer but the total length of the body + lens would have been the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.