LocalHero1953 Posted March 25, 2017 Share #21 Posted March 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Would the Leica M type 240 be a better photographic tool if Leica had developed it to include sensor stabilisation? Is that not one of the main reasons Leica did not increase the megapixels in the M10 to, for example, 36MP (to the disappointment I suspect of many would be upgraders). I wonder this because it is hard to think of a mainstream serious amateur or professional camera on the market today which does NOT have good image stabilisation built in. It is regarded as an essential component presumably because, for many people, it is extremely difficult to take a genuinely pin sharp image on a large sensor without it. I know many Leica photographers will not agree but then why is stabilisation such a key selling point? If Leica could do this I for one would not feel that it detracted from the rangefinder experience. You still have to focus but an in focus image would not be marred by camera shake, however slight. Maybe it is impossible for Leica to incorporate it. Lburn My bolding. You could add a TTL viewfinder, AF and a few other things to the list, Until we have total design a la carte and manufacture to order, camera makers have to choose which features to include that they think will sell enough to make a profit. The more Leica offers features close to what other brands do the more they, as a smaller company, are onto a loser. You will see plenty of similar comments here about what they'd like Leica to include ( pick any of the other M10 threads at random), but in the end we all have the same choice: pick the camera that is closest to what suits us, Leica or other. None of them will suit us exactly! In the case of IS, yes, I would like it as well, but I recognise there are trade-offs in size and weight that I don't want Leica to make. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 Hi LocalHero1953, Take a look here Sensor stabilisation in a Leica M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 25, 2017 Share #22 Posted March 25, 2017 There's a shake reduction filter in Photoshop if you're having problems. Have you ever used it? ho-hum is the most charitable description. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 25, 2017 Share #23 Posted March 25, 2017 Would the Leica M type 240 be a better photographic tool if Leica had developed it to include sensor stabilisation? Is that not one of the main reasons Leica did not increase the megapixels in the M10 to, for example, 36MP (to the disappointment I suspect of many would be upgraders). I wonder this because it is hard to think of a mainstream serious amateur or professional camera on the market today which does NOT have good image stabilisation built in. It is regarded as an essential component presumably because, for many people, it is extremely difficult to take a genuinely pin sharp image on a large sensor without it. I know many Leica photographers will not agree but then why is stabilisation such a key selling point? If Leica could do this I for one would not feel that it detracted from the rangefinder experience. You still have to focus but an in focus image would not be marred by camera shake, however slight. Maybe it is impossible for Leica to incorporate it. Lburn The real reason is: a. body size b. the camera is basically designed for optimal use with focal lengths from 28-90 mm, in which case stabilization is not really needed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 25, 2017 Share #24 Posted March 25, 2017 One lesson I have learned from using IS is that it actually only solves the lesser of the two blur challenges: camera movement. If you have anything to do with photographing people and activity, then subject movement is the bigger problem, which IS doesn't solve. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 25, 2017 Share #25 Posted March 25, 2017 [...] the camera is basically designed for optimal use with focal lengths from 28-90 mm, in which case stabilization is not really needed. Try to focus handheld a 90mm or even 50mm lens with a Leica macro adapter on. Perfectly doable but better have steady hands then. Tripods are of great help of course but the same is true for telephotos. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardgb Posted March 28, 2017 Share #26 Posted March 28, 2017 [snip] ... That leaves in body stabilization which means that the sensor has to move, something that seems quite contrary to a long standing tradition of physical precision. [snip] I recall that Leica uses shims under the sensor to locate it to within 0.01mm vertical to the sensor plane (i.e. towards or away from the lens), which is then firmly clamped in position. I presume is necessary to give sufficient accuracy with large-aperture lenses in conjunction with the rangefinder system (which would have its own tolerances). Introducing movement in the 2 directions 'along' and 'across' the sensor plane to cope with movement of the image relative to the sensor would necessarily forego the fixed and critical front-back precision. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted March 31, 2017 Share #27 Posted March 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) keep stabilisation away from the M, it's not necessary for the M's main competencies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted March 31, 2017 Share #28 Posted March 31, 2017 i will always prefer a drink or two over sensor stabilization. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.