Why the M needs IBIS

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What does an M camera “need”?

• to work straight out of the box, as it says on the tin
• a rangefinder
• M mount
• the best available sensor, particularly dynamic range and colour rendition
• good battery life
• direct controls

I can think of no single improvement in the M11 series that the camera needed. 

Nice to haves?  Go to the opening post, rinse and repeat. 
 

[Advertisement]

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

[Nitnaros]

I really want IBIS to get into the M line more than any other feature 

the M’s were always famous for their ability to use slow shutter speeds, but no more with the current high resolution sensors

IBIS doesn’t require to fiddle around with menu items, digital configuration options. It’s just there. Easy peasy

The point about too much digital - since the M8’s, face it, the M’s are digital 

[Smudgerer]

11 hours ago, lct said:

What about comparing 2cv to 4L?

Both of those needed their own IBIS / stabiliaation, I owned/drove a few of them, so I know. Great vehicles, simple, practicle, reliable, easy to repair........Just what would be good to have back with the M's.

[jrichie]

12 hours ago, FarbSpieler said:

I don't think it's a replacement for the M rangefinder line, but it could be an interesting development. Somewhat new, between the M and Q.

Leica kind of cornered itself with the M10. The M10/-R is very close to being a perfection: classic dimensions, stunning files, pure classic rangefinder experience, direct tactile control over the essentials, omission of non-essentials. I believe it's a timeless camera already.

But once you hit that sweet spot, where do you go next? The M11 is proof of that struggle. More flexibility—but at the cost of purity and simplicity that made the M10 special. Great camera, but have they really made a better M than the M10-R? Or just a different one?

Without a major tech breakthrough, Leica is stuck tweaking details rather than making meaningful improvements in their M rangefinders. In my opinion, the M10 was the last natural evolution of the classic M. Everything after feels like an attempt to justify a new model, rather than a necessary step forward.

I actually don't care if it is an M or not tbh - in fact if its closer to the T / CL with a full frame 24mp camera with L mount and EVF the same as the Q3,  I will be buying it.

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, Nitnaros said:

I really want IBIS to get into the M line more than any other feature 

the M’s were always famous for their ability to use slow shutter speeds, but no more with the current high resolution sensors

IBIS doesn’t require to fiddle around with menu items, digital configuration options. It’s just there. Easy peasy

The point about too much digital - since the M8’s, face it, the M’s are digital 

For many of us, if you need IBIS, you need another system. I don’t say this to be smart, or to make little of what you say.  I understand what you say; it’s just that, the more “features” that get added to the system, the more it departs from what its strengths are.

Perhaps the real point is, if you feel 60MP needs IBIS, then perhaps the M needs less MP …

[Alberti]

On 2/7/2025 at 10:55 PM, Pelu2010 said:

And if the M would have ibis, it would be much easier to hold long shutter exposure. 

But it would not have to be complex. Just 2D. For instance the only reason I have seen (seen very often on the M8 files, almost never on the M240, and still now and then on the M10r but the latter is due to being able to seen smaller details maybe) is the unintentional movement of the camera body due to my way to activate the shutter release. So to me that is two-dimensional.

• No need for tilt movements (which would make the stack thicker and battery drain ditto shorter. Yes like adding features to those cars. Then you need a bigger battery. And a larger body. And a better strap. And . .  a new impact mechanism in case of a crash to insure the camera does not die after the first fall from a table to a floor. So you need more insurance. Then you need another credit card limit. 

So: that 'wish' for a feature is more a luxury than a necessity - though a French member has had a lot of trouble with the newest high res sensors (M10R/M11) - maybe because of the abundance of wine 😉 in the capital city.

And I agree: maybe go for lower pixel count. I had almost zero problems with the M240; lenses 'felt' better often (the high-res sensors need 'newer' glass/ require you to get the gas fever).

And like JaapV always points out, there are software apps to remedy shake in a few simple steps. My need was never so high to go for that. I just let my imagination go. For others to detect my propensity for what the Germans call 'Schlimmverbessern'. Destroy while improving. I know what that is. That is how I handle my self-made and self-invented audio systems. . . 

Edited February 10 by Alberti

[FarbSpieler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When someone says “the M needs IBIS,” the real issue isn’t the M.
It’s that this person is trying to use the wrong tool for their needs.

Same goes for “because of high resolution…”
If high MP requires IBIS, then maybe the M doesn’t need a high-res sensor either.

M is not about adding features—it’s about removing them, distilling photography to its absolute essentials.
If you need convenience, there’s no shortage of options: the Q, SL, or any other camera that makes decisions and does the work for you.

The M needs a stabilizer no more than a Japanese sword needs one.
If you want precision, you train your hand and spirit—not the blade.

Edited February 10 by FarbSpieler

[lct]

M is about M lenses. They deserve the best and it can only be the M mount so far.

[Nitnaros]

3 hours ago, FarbSpieler said:

When someone says “the M needs IBIS,” the real issue isn’t the M.
It’s that this person is trying to use the wrong tool for their needs.

Same goes for “because of high resolution…”
If high MP requires IBIS, then maybe the M doesn’t need a high-res sensor either.

M is not about adding features—it’s about removing them, distilling photography to its absolute essentials.
If you need convenience, there’s no shortage of options: the Q, SL, or any other camera that makes decisions and does the work for you.

The M needs a stabilizer no more than a Japanese sword needs one.
If you want precision, you train your hand and spirit—not the blade.

absolutely agree that one beauty of the M system is the art of achieving more with less, in terms of user interface - keep it focused on photography and dont turn it into a smartphone or computer in camera form. That is hard, very hard  and an area Leica is excellent in

that said, IBIS does not increase complexity for the user and usability 

its just technical innovation, I dont see the point why to resist to that

I can easily argument that instead of:
"When someone says “the M needs IBIS,” the real issue isn’t the M.
It’s that this person is trying to use the wrong tool for their needs."

I say if you dont want more innovation, why not then go back to an M8 or M9.
Why bother with an M12 :-))

I like the 60MP on the M11 and the much improved exposure metering. 
I can now for example shoot landscapes and cityscapes with it; in a super compact camera, with quality and leveraging my already existing set of M lenses. And have no limitation on print sizes.
IBIS would increase flexibility.

--
I believe a real question with digital tools and circuitry in a camera is longevity:
- lack of spare parts after say 15 years of launch
- lack of batteries since they are typically coming in a proprietary format.

IBIS means more electro-mechanical parts, yes, but the M is already full of electronics.

I am wondering how I can still use my M9-mono in 15 years from now if it has an electronics issue.
That is what concerns me with electronics and associated functionalty and circuits...
 

[LPettigrew]

3 hours ago, FarbSpieler said:

When someone says “the M needs IBIS,” the real issue isn’t the M.
It’s that this person is trying to use the wrong tool for their needs.

Same goes for “because of high resolution…”
If high MP requires IBIS, then maybe the M doesn’t need a high-res sensor either.

M is not about adding features—it’s about removing them, distilling photography to its absolute essentials.
If you need convenience, there’s no shortage of options: the Q, SL, or any other camera that makes decisions and does the work for you.

The M needs a stabilizer no more than a Japanese sword needs one.
If you want precision, you train your hand and spirit—not the blade.

This! 

IBIS changes how the M works. The M is about direct control, not automation. It reduces the tool to essentials. It's about removing features until there's nothing left to remove. It's about less. Not about more.

Higher resolution and better metering enhance this tool without eroding its identity—IBIS does.

With the M, the photographer is in control, not the camera. Adding IBIS introduces more moving parts and an unnecessary layer between the photographer and the image, taking the M a step closer to every other camera.

I think, if you want IBIS, autofocus, eye-tracking, subject recognition, focus stacking, flippy screen, touch menus, video features, PASM dial, auto HDR, scene modes, computational tricks—you're misleading yourself. You don’t need an M. You need a different type of camera.

[costa43]

3 hours ago, FarbSpieler said:

When someone says “the M needs IBIS,” the real issue isn’t the M.
It’s that this person is trying to use the wrong tool for their needs.

Same goes for “because of high resolution…”
If high MP requires IBIS, then maybe the M doesn’t need a high-res sensor either.

M is not about adding features—it’s about removing them, distilling photography to its absolute essentials.
If you need convenience, there’s no shortage of options: the Q, SL, or any other camera that makes decisions and does the work for you.

The M needs a stabilizer no more than a Japanese sword needs one.
If you want precision, you train your hand and spirit—not the blade.

Well said..

M is not about adding features—it’s about removing them, distilling photography to its absolute essentials.

[evikne]

As far as I'm concerned, they can remove light metering too. By removing all automation, you can no longer complain to anyone but yourself if the result is not as expected. 

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, costa43 said:

Well said..

M is not about adding features—it’s about removing them, distilling photography to its absolute essentials.

I agree, as long as the features interfere with the shooting experience.

I am all for adding features/changes that do not interfere (invisible changes that do not affect shooting), such as IBIS and changes in the electronics and software to speed up startup, shorten blackouts, improve AWB, etc.

[costa43]

Just now, SrMi said:

I agree, as long as the features interfere with the shooting experience.

I am all for adding features/changes that do not interfere (invisible changes that do not affect shooting), such as IBIS and changes in the electronics and software to speed up startup, shorten blackouts, improve AWB, etc.

I somewhat agree but if they put IBIS in then we will likely lose the shutter for the space. Imagine no real shutter sound in an M and it being replaced by an electric one or nothing. That sucks! It's also one more thing that can go wrong. I do think though that there should be two lines and one of them should have all the bells and whistles as I enjoy IBIS in my SL2s and like the blurred motion shots etc that I get with it along with the really clean images in the evening. 

[LPettigrew]

13 minutes ago, evikne said:

they can remove light metering too

If IBIS and a light meter were the same kind of “automation.” While in reality, one is an essential exposure tool, and the other is a non-essential convenience feature that should be omitted when designing a purist tool.

[Steve Ash]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb FarbSpieler:

I don't think it's a replacement for the M rangefinder line, but it could be an interesting development. Somewhat new, between the M and Q.

Leica kind of cornered itself with the M10. The M10/-R is very close to being a perfection: classic dimensions, stunning files, pure classic rangefinder experience, direct tactile control over the essentials, omission of non-essentials. I believe it's a timeless camera already.

But once you hit that sweet spot, where do you go next? The M11 is proof of that struggle. More flexibility—but at the cost of purity and simplicity that made the M10 special. Great camera, but have they really made a better M than the M10-R? Or just a different one?

Without a major tech breakthrough, Leica is stuck tweaking details rather than making meaningful improvements in their M rangefinders. In my opinion, the M10 was the last natural evolution of the classic M. Everything after feels like an attempt to justify a new model, rather than a necessary step forward.

I am wondering if you actually handled the M11 as I clearly cannot follow your „M10 sweat spot“ arguments. I am still happy with my M10 but my M11M has some real life improvements. I am not talking about monochrome but the whole handling, user interface, charging by usb-c, internal storage etc. If some unexpected disposable income hits me I will say goodbye to my M10 at ease. 

[evikne]

4 minutes ago, LPettigrew said:

If IBIS and a light meter were the same kind of “automation.” While in reality, one is an essential exposure tool, and the other is a non-essential convenience feature that should be omitted when designing a purist tool.

I was more thinking of light metering vs. focusing. Manual focus and manual exposure. Together they in a way make "the world's best camera", because you cannot blame the camera for anything. The IBIS is, of course, an even more unnecessary form of automation and could easily have been left out of such a purist tool.

[Nitnaros]

interesting discussion showing two very different takes on the M

not trolling the folks who say "dont want/need IBIS and that automation" and "and like the blurred motion shots etc that I get", me, though, I want to decide when I produce a motion blur shot, and not being forced to get such a shot since I cannot do differently

regarding M10(-P) versus M11 - I own both:
I think the M11 is the clearly more capable camera. The exposure meeting in the M11 is hands-down much better.
The internal storage a great convenience and the USB-C charging working with standard equipment compared to a proprietary charger.

I have a sense we will not reconcile how we see the next gen of the M11 - with or without IBIS.

But if its not IBIS, but it is a technologically advancement (forget an EVF, that is at the opposite end of the M experience) -- what would it be?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smogg]

4 minutes ago, Nitnaros said:

 

But if it’s not IBIS, but it is a technologically advancement (forget an EVF, that is at the opposite end of the M experience) -- what would it be?

Electronic front curtain for example 

[FarbSpieler]

46 minutes ago, Steve Ash said:

I am wondering if you actually handled the M11 as I clearly cannot follow your „M10 sweat spot“ arguments. I am still happy with my M10 but my M11M has some real life improvements. I am not talking about monochrome but the whole handling, user interface, charging by usb-c, internal storage etc. If some unexpected disposable income hits me I will say goodbye to my M10 at ease. 

I had the M11 for two weeks and sent it back. You might argue that's not too long. Yet, for me it was long enough to know exactly why I prefer the M10 and M10-R.

More tech and convenience features? Sure, the M11 has them. But that was never my argument.

To me, the M body is about certain purity in shooting experience—minimalist design, great craftsmanship, only the essential features, satisfying and precise click of the shutter. So where the M10 hits the sweet spot, the M11 stumbles trying to improve on what's already nearly perfect. If you love yours, great. But let’s not pretend that USB-C and internal storage make an M so special.

... and while this is highly subjective, I also find the M11’s colors lacking. Too often, they need tweaking in post, whereas the M10 delivers beautiful results straight out of camera. At this price point, I expect to enjoy the colors always, not fight or tune them in post every time.