DMJ Posted August 21, 2016 Share #1 Posted August 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Interesting & logical article by Ming Thein...... https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/08/19/stabilisation-is-good-but-only-up-to-a-point/#more-13109 I felt (& still feel) that I am never quite in control with my Nikon D800 & it's VR lenses. The unpredictability of smearing did (does) bother me & is the reason why I prefer the 24MP of the M240 and no stabilisation. At least there has been (is) something predictable that I can work at improving with my own technique. Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 Hi DMJ, Take a look here Stabilised M240-like is not for me. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Steve McGarrett Posted August 21, 2016 Share #2 Posted August 21, 2016 I feel that I'm not in control with D800 with and without VR lenses... (shaky mirror and shutter...) Jokes aside, IS is not a replacement for a tripod for "pixel-peeping work". When hand-holding, IS can assure critical sharpness at medium shutter speeds or "ok" sharpness at critical shutter speeds. It's difficult do both things. It may happens, but it's not certain. Here's a nice article on it, testing a few lenses including Leica ones: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8344 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 21, 2016 Share #3 Posted August 21, 2016 IS has been a godsend for me hand-holding longer lenses and slower zooms. It has replaced the necessity of carrying a tripod and extended hand-holdability several stops. IS and in-lens AF motors were what motivated me to switch to Canon from Nikon which I had been shooting for many years. It has not replaced the usefulness of a tripod for extremely slow shutter speeds or time exposures, or for critical-focusing macro subjects. But for anyone who feels that IS somehow usurps control, it can simply be switched off. As I would assume would be the case if Leica were to incorporate it in a future M model. The big issue for me would be size and weight. Unless Leica could manage it without increasing one or the other or both, I would rather they didn't bother. Any new M which is even a few millimeters larger in any dimention, or an ounce heavier, I would not buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 21, 2016 Share #4 Posted August 21, 2016 Any new M which is even a few millimeters larger in any dimention, or an ounce heavier, I would not buy. Exactly!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted August 21, 2016 Share #5 Posted August 21, 2016 Assuming there is no weight / size penalty, I'd happily take a stabilized sensor. Aside from the obvious benefit, there are others - 1) Built-in sensor cleaning helps to a degree 2) EVF would be stabilized as well - improves focus peaking - easier to use longer lenses (no mini earthquake when shooting handheld) - reduces EVF jello effect If using the EVF and longer lenses, I think the benefits are there. FWIW - the occasional smear with Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses is from the lens side of the equation as the stabilized optics spool up and steady. A stabilized sensor does not have that issue. The downside of a stabilized sensor is that it needs to know the focal length, so if using uncoded lenses or a zoom (via lens adapter), then for best performance the focal length needs to be set in-camera. I found that really tedious with the Sony A7II / A7rII (when using manual lenses). I had that set to custom buttons, so pulling up the menu wasn't a big deal. It was the remembering to do so part that I often forgot. Also, after owning the Leica SL, it desperately needs a stabilized sensor. Using the 135 APO and longer lenses was not "fun". The value of a high rez EVF is cancelled out when handholding the camera and the view is shaking all over the place. Extrapolating from that experience what the next M might be (and its EVF), I vote for having a stabilized sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 21, 2016 Share #6 Posted August 21, 2016 I want the M to be thinner, lighter and faster. If this is compatible with IS why not provided it can be switched off. I don't hold my breath though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted August 24, 2016 Share #7 Posted August 24, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any new M which is even a few millimeters larger in any dimention, or an ounce heavier, I would not buy. To be tempted by any M, it'd need to be no heavier or larger than an M9 and, preferably, on par with the M6 Classic. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.