Why the M needs IBIS

[Stevejack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

52 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I could disagree more.  Simply adding features because you can hardly sits with "das wesentliche".  Cheesy marketing streamlines aside, the paradigm of the M has always been add only what is essential, rather than only exclude things if they affect shooting.

Look at the fuss when Leica added a meter to the M5!  The reason the M system is special is because it's different, and only has what you need to take a photo, and it is (well, was until the M11) perfectly resolved.

I guess some would argue that IBIS has now become essential at 1/15 to 1/60 due to the larger megapixel sensors Leica have chosen to use. 

At some point in the design process there has to be a tipping point. We've added feature X and now we need technical support from element Y to make sure that the people's experience in using the camera remains identical between models. 

 

Edited February 11 by Stevejack

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 Simply adding features because you can hardly sits with "das wesentliche".

I agree. Anything added should preserve the character of M. That does not mean that nothing should be added.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Stevejack said:

I guess some would argue that IBIS has now become essential at 1/15 to 1/60 due to the larger megapixel sensors Leica have chosen to use. 

At some point in the design process there has to be a tipping point. We've added feature X and now we need technical support from element Y to make sure that the people's experience in using the camera remains identical between models. 

 

My slowest shutter speeds are the same for 40MP and 60MP sensors. 

[IkarusJohn]

20 minutes ago, SrMi said:

That does not mean that nothing should be added.

No one said that. Mind you stuff can always be taken away - Monochrom, M60, M-A - successful and popular cameras …

[Alberti]

3 hours ago, Smogg said:

I wish Leica would focus more on their own color science. At the moment, Hasselblad has an obscenely large advantage in this area.

And collaborate - just like in the M8/9 days with Kodak.
Many still talk about those camera’s as “the Kodachrome bodies”.  Such as - ‘I bought a large box of 1000 rolls of slide film for just $3000. ‘

[Nitnaros]

in terms of color - Leica has IMHO never managed a great white-balance on the M bodies;
that's frustrating and time consuming, meaning requiring post-processing

I shoot also Fuji GFX - the colors are way more natural, particularly under difficult lighting conditions (indoors etc.)
--

Besides all that, I do think we have been discussing the M's and their future from 2 very different angles:

- one angle being the shooting experience and user-interface experience; focus on the process of image making. There, all the arguments regarding focusing on the absolute minimum come in

- secondly, the angle of focusing on the final image product; higher MP count providing more flexibility, more modern sensors and dynamic range, IBIS to enable shots that you cant get otherwise without tripod etc etc. What counts here is the result, not the process of making

so the (A) "making of" versus (B) "the result"

that said, both aspects are not completely independent from each other, complicating things a bit.
How you make something will influence how you shoot and what results you get. 

But different people have different weighing of (A) versus (B)

would you agree?

 

 

 

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, Nitnaros said:

But different people have different weighing of (A) versus (B)

would you agree?

Absolutely! For me, “making” is definitely the most important factor. Otherwise, I would have chosen a different camera.

[lct]

Unsure i'm clever enough to understand the question. Either modern or legacy tools can be preferred for both making and achieving reasons.

[IkarusJohn]

23 minutes ago, lct said:

Unsure i'm clever enough to understand the question. Either modern or legacy tools can be preferred for both making and achieving reasons.

Ah, but you have so much to be modest about! 😄 (with apologies to Winston Churchill)

The question is whether or not to add IBIS to the next digital M.  Is that an image taking issue or an image quality issue?  Well, having IBIS in my X2D, I am completely unaware its there.  Does that make it an image quality issue?  I guess, if you accept the validity of the dichotomy.

Do I want it in an M camera?  Tricky question.  I want the best DNG files I can use (like the files from my M Edition 60 and my Monochrom), which would suggest that it is an image quality issue for me.

However, that isn't really the point.  Live view metering off the sensor, in camera cropping, pixel binning and much else in the M11 fall into the same category - set it and forget it.  Video would be the same.  But I don't want any of it.  So, I don't really see the question addressing the issue.  I really don't want another "feature" in a digital M.  So, not I don't want to see IBIS in an M camera.

The M3 really broke no new technological ground.  The trick with the camera was that it refined existing technologies into a package that people still admire today.  Now, happy M11 owners won't like this one bit, but when you read about experiences with the M11 and how long it has taken Leica to fix them, I think an updated M60, in an M10 body, would be perfect.  Just doing the basics really well.

Just saying ...

Edited February 11 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Ah, but you have so much to be modest about! 😄 (with apologies to Winston Churchill) The question is whether or not to add IBIS to the next digital M.  Is that an image taking issue or an image quality issue? [...]

I don't know what Truman would answer, but i want IBIS because (a) i prefer shooting handheld, and (b) i don't like blur when i don't expect it, and (c) i expect a modern camera to use slow shutter speeds the same relevant way as a legacy one. My old hands are steady enough to shoot at 1/(2f)s and i have an M40 and a Sony camera when i need to go slower, so i forgive the M11 for now, but my forgiveness won't extend to the M12 if it proves unable to do better.

Edited February 11 by lct

[IkarusJohn]

Hopefully, Leica will ensure we have choices. 

[hillavoider]

I have never had more blurry shots, not obviously blurry because of sloppy handling, but just ever so slightly blurry faces in so many photos i thought i would have nailed. 

i'm finding in anything but super bright light its very difficult to nail the focus on someones face.

its a shame because the M11 is so light, even lighter then my MP, and so compact, its the best camera to travel with, its just really annoying to have ever so slightly blurred faces in anything but bright light

i suppose i could underexpose everything with a super fast exposure and recover everything in LR, has anyone done that? does it work? 

 

 

Edited February 13 by hillavoider

[mikeamosau]

It doesn’t. 

[SrMi]

On 2/12/2025 at 8:28 PM, hillavoider said:

i suppose i could underexpose everything with a super fast exposure and recover everything in LR, has anyone done that? does it work? 

Underexposing by reducing exposure (e.g., faster shutter speed) harms IQ. The "damage" is not recoverable. Underexposing using lowered ISO can often be recovered in the post.

[RF’sDelight]

Am 8.2.2025 um 00:01 schrieb hdmesa:

…

I like the yellow brass details in the sectional drawing of the M10. Didn't recognize them back then.
But with the aluminium top plate of my M11-D I see things diffently now. 😂   (sorry, off-topic)

[henning]

My position on IBIS, M evolution, Porsches, etc. (but not politics!):

At present I have 3 or 4 digital systems and quite a few slightly active film systems. 

All would be nice with image stabilization and 3 actually have it. Obviously, my digital M system doesn't.

When still photography introduced image stabilization in the 90's, I was on it immediately when the Canon 100-400L lens came out. I was getting frustrated with Nikon at the time as they were a bit in the doldrums and looked like they were never going to make a 24mm shift lens which is what I was really wanting (needing). So I switched to Canon, got the 24TS-E and the 100-400 among other things and I've embraced stabilization since. Telephotos became much more fun. I didn't need stabilization on my Sinars, Cambo Wides, Mamiyas, Hasselblad SWC, Horizon 150 or Roundshot. I've had Leicas rangefinders since 1962 and didn't even think about wanting it for them.

Now my digital systems are Leica M (I still have an M6, M7, M2 and MDa for film), Sony and m43. One Canon remains; an IR converted body with 3 lenses. It has become obvious to me that for general photography on trips, around family and other casual use AF, zoom lenses and stabilization are very useful and often helpful. Especially my OM-1's with 12-100mm lens has stabilization that is astounding and way beyond what Sony can offer in practical terms, has numerous practical computational capabilities, shooting speeds and buffers that I haven't gotten to the limits with and AF capabilities that totally meet my needs. With current processing availabilities dynamic range and noise barriers are readily overcome and 20mp are sufficient. The OM-1 and a couple of other m43 bodies get used a lot.

There are a few areas of course where the 60mp Sony betters the Olympus, but in my personal areas of photography the Venn diagram for the OM-1 is much more inclusive than that for the Sony. So the Sonys only get hauled out for a fraction of the time.

The Leica M10M and the M11 get mostly used for what they are best at: shooting with focal lengths between 28 and 90 under a variety of lighting conditions. If I go out of the house, I always carry a camera with me, usually a Leica. This has been my practice since high school, and especially when I inherited a IIIg and Ig in 1962. IBIS won't make a big difference for the focal lengths I generally use, especially with the high ISO capabilities of the monochrome cameras. If they were 24mp, it would be fine, but I shoot at the highest mp and often downsize or crop output. Absolute crispness is nice but usually secondary to content.

I have the electronic viewfinders and use them with extra wide lenses, close-ups and occasional long lenses like the 180 apo-Lanthar and longer, but I could readily do without them and I certainly don't want them built in. IBIS as currently implemented in all cameras wouldn't be attractive to me due to increased camera thickness concerns (notice the thickness of the Sony A7c and cr compared with the thickness of the Leica M's). Even at my age I'm reasonably used to shooting at slow shutter speeds if necessary and would rather accept some slight blur to get the shot than complification and bloating of the camera body.

Now, Porsches: My dad bought a new 356 in 1959 and was a member of PCA (Porsche Club of America) from that year. I always liked cars and followed competition events, had cars that were fun to drive but couldn't justify a Porsche. For my 60th birthday my wife bought me a GT3; we had never discussed it, but she bought me my dream car. I will never let her go (not talking about the Porsche) and I've had a number of Porsches since then including another GT3. Now I have a Boxster, a pre-718 flat 6 with a 6-speed. No, it won't out-drag a Tesla Plaid, but it's a lot more fun to drive than other cars (except for the track; there, the GT3's were better but I'm over that now).

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Es lebe das Wesentliche!

[dante]

On 2/5/2025 at 7:23 AM, evikne said:

Won't it be a bit strange with IBIS when you can't see the effect in the viewfinder? Only after the picture is taken will you see the result (and you’ll never know for sure if you should thank IBIS or your steady hand). 😉

I feel like the frame lines shown are conservative enough that they probably cover the (small) margin of error created by IBIS systems.

D

[dante]

On 2/5/2025 at 10:19 PM, david strachan said:

Reckon a shakey sensor cleaner would be a lot more sensible than Ibis.

...

This would probably come as part and parcel of an IBIS-capable camera. And would that come as an assembly from a sensor supplier? And who makes the sensor in the M11? I thought I had read speculation that it is indeed Sony. I would say that if the A7CR assembly (60mp sensor, IBIS, ultrasonic cleaning) is what would be on offer to Leica, it would work quite well. I have used this with legacy SLR lenses in some deviant use cases, and it works quite well. Also settable over a gigantic range of focal lengths.

D

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LPettigrew]

After thinking about it a bit more, I’m firmly in the purist camp.

If you need IBIS, AF, and other convenience tech—good news! Every other camera out there already has them. The M is the last refuge for those who want pure, direct photography. Let’s keep it that way.

What if your hands tremble? The M should show it. That’s the whole point—no customisation, filters or safety nets, just you, the light, and the moment. If the image is shaky, that’s reality. Own it, or pick a different tool—there is plenty to choose from.

Leica, as company, needs to make money, sure. But that’s where the SL, Q, and other lines come handy—all the tech you want is or will be there. The M should stay niche. A heritage-based camera for the few who actually want the challenge. It’s not about mass appeal, not about making photography easier under broader range of conditions. And it shouldn’t try to be.

[Ray Vonn]

1 hour ago, LPettigrew said:

After thinking about it a bit more, I’m firmly in the purist camp.

If you need IBIS, AF, and other convenience tech—good news! Every other camera out there already has them. The M is the last refuge for those who want pure, direct photography. Let’s keep it that way.

What if your hands tremble? The M should show it. That’s the whole point—no customisation, filters or safety nets, just you, the light, and the moment. If the image is shaky, that’s reality. Own it, or pick a different tool—there is plenty to choose from.

Leica, as company, needs to make money, sure. But that’s where the SL, Q, and other lines come handy—all the tech you want is or will be there. The M should stay niche. A heritage-based camera for the few who actually want the challenge. It’s not about mass appeal, not about making photography easier under broader range of conditions. And it shouldn’t try to be.

Agree completely, but alas it's not as simple as that, if we're not in the minority now I suspect we soon will be.  It's all about EVF, spirit level, image stablisation and all manner of other gizmos within the M, etc etc.  Possibly Leica have figured that they can make a lot of money from people wanting to feel great about or seen with an M (not SL/CL, oh no, it has to be the M) but not wanting or able to put in the effort traditionally required to work it which is how it was then but not how it is now.  And I suspect they will be very profitable doing this, it's the bottom line I suppose, using the new cameras will be easier for new customers and why should they proritise people like me who have not moved with the times and operate on bare bones iso/shutter speed/aperture basis when it could be so profitable doing otherwise?  Nice while it lasted though and I'm more than happy to engage in the old equipment and methods till the camera breaks and all that's left of the M is what will seem to me a manually focused A7 III/iv/V camera with the red badge.  Unfortunately (for me), this is the reality.