Why the M needs IBIS

[Dazzajl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The question is this….

Who is more profitable to Leica? The purist or the person that wants to be seen using a Leica M but isn’t interested in honing a craft to get the best from it? 

I think we all know who.

On the bright side, if you’re a purist you don’t really want/need anything past the M240 or M10 at all push and the supply of them will probably outlast many of us. 

[FarbSpieler]

5 hours 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.

Yes! This!

[FarbSpieler]

2 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

The question is this….

Who is more profitable to Leica? The purist or the person that wants to be seen using a Leica M but isn’t interested in honing a craft to get the best from it? 

I think we all know who.

On the bright side, if you’re a purist you don’t really want/need anything past the M240 or M10 at all push and the supply of them will probably outlast many of us. 

We don’t buy the M to ‘be seen’ with it. We buy it because we want the rangefinder experience, the simplicity, the direct connection to the image. If anything, it’s the opposite—most of us shoot with Ms despite the difficulty, not because we’re trying to impress someone.

Not keen on honing the craft—not an issue, there’s the Q, SL, Digilux, you named it. But the M should remain all about removing non-essential features, not adding them.

[Dazzajl]

47 minutes ago, FarbSpieler said:

We don’t buy the M to ‘be seen’ with it. We buy it because we want the rangefinder experience, the simplicity, the direct connection to the image. If anything, it’s the opposite—most of us shoot with Ms despite the difficulty, not because we’re trying to impress someone.

Not keen on honing the craft—not an issue, there’s the Q, SL, Digilux, you named it. But the M should remain all about removing non-essential features, not adding them.

And you are that purist that appreciates the M for all it has been and all it gives you. I don't think that that is the demographic of customer that will be buying the majority of new M models. I'd like to be proved wrong on that but I don't feel I will??

 

[DadDadDaddyo]

Just to be clear. 

It's the photographers who need IBIS.

But, then, why do those who need IBIS feel they need the M?

It's up to the camera manufacturer to decide how and when to meet photographers' need for IBIS, recognizing that meeting such a need is surely good business. 

But look. Most of Leica's camera offerings, literally most, already include IBIS, or OIS. The Q series, the SL series, these are Leica's mainstream offerings to its mainstream customers. 

The M series is the exception, but that doesn't equate to making IBIS a requirement for the M series. 

If Leica needed to put IBIS into the M for Leica to survive, well, that'd be just a crazy situation.

I don't know, but I'd guess, that Leica management and its planners are very much interested in creating a future that doesn't rely on the M series to ensure Leica's survival. I'll bet they'd like to enable the M series to survive, but that they also aren't interested in betting the whole farm on making an M that meets so many customers' needs that it will ensure Leica's survival. 

And why? Because they really do know that the M series doesn't have the features that appeal to the broad swath of their potential customer base. 

How do they know that? Well for one thing, they make it. 

But also, at levels known best to Leica, some significant proportion of Leica customers are choosing and buying Qs and SLs.

Some Leica users say the M needs IBIS. But, again, the question really is, why do they feel they need the M?

So they can grapple with its limitations? Is that really what they want to do? Hold the camera still? Focus manually? Figure out exposure?

Look again at the Q, or the SL, expressly designed to meet many customers' clearly expressed needs for contemporary conveniences:

Size and weight? -> Q

Gain entry into an incredible system of optics, including M lenses? -> SL

Can these models be focused manually? Sure.

Do they have that much sought after electronic viewfinder? Yup.

One more time:

Why does the M need IBIS?

And why do folks who need IBIS need the M?

Edited February 28 by DadDadDaddyo
tiny typo

[SrMi]

With IBIS, the M camera would preserve all its characteristics while expanding its shooting envelope. Why is it bad to have better technical image quality?

Some people, especially younger ones, can handhold the camera at much slower speeds than the older ones. Similarly, it is with eyesight. Is using glasses a betrayal of M's legacy, as it prevents us from seeing the 28mm frame? Should we shoot only without glasses, regardless of whether we can see properly to focus?

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No argument. The only question: can Leica squeeze it into the body?  It is jam-packed and maxed out for its register distance as it is. 

[Stevejack]

10 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Just to be clear. 

It's the photographers who need IBIS.

But, then, why do those who need IBIS feel they need the M?

 

Not really no, it’s the higher megapixel sensor that needs IBIS if you want to maintain like-for-like sensor performance across the digital bodies. 
You can’t just increase the specs in one area and not another.

IBIS has creative applications sure but that’s not what’s at the core of the argument here;  you simply can’t make a picture with an M using the 60mp sensor in the same way you did it with the 24mp sensor. You can compensate (reduce the resolution in post, use better shooting technique, etc.) but the fact remains that you get a different result from one camera to the next without some form of compensation. 
 

It’s similar with the e-shutter; readout speeds which were fine with 24mp sensors are too slow for 60mp sensors. There’s an extra 36 million pixels which need to be exposed and it takes longer. Readout times need to be faster to compensate or you simply can’t make the same picture on the 60mp sensor as you did on the 24mp sensor without suffering artifacts. 
 

Creative applications aside, the need for IBIS was triggered when they chose to increase the sensor size.

[Henners]

If they can add IBIS and it be disabled for those that don't want it, then that can only be a good thing. It does make a difference and can allow more creative freedom to do longer shutter speeds without having to pre-plan or take a tripod.

As a mainly casual holiday/travel photographer, my priority is enjoying my holiday and not carting gear around for photography. If IBIS exists in the camera then it just means more capability without changing the nature of the M. I don't agree with adding to the M as the purity is what makes it so good but I feel IBIS is one thing that I would be happy about.

If they don't add it I'm not going to be devastated but you know, I'll tut and shrug briefly.

[la1402]

1 hour ago, Stevejack said:

Not really no, it’s the higher megapixel sensor that needs IBIS if you want to maintain like-for-like sensor performance across the digital bodies. 
You can’t just increase the specs in one area and not another.

IBIS has creative applications sure but that’s not what’s at the core of the argument here;  you simply can’t make a picture with an M using the 60mp sensor in the same way you did it with the 24mp sensor. You can compensate (reduce the resolution in post, use better shooting technique, etc.) but the fact remains that you get a different result from one camera to the next without some form of compensation. 
 

It’s similar with the e-shutter; readout speeds which were fine with 24mp sensors are too slow for 60mp sensors. There’s an extra 36 million pixels which need to be exposed and it takes longer. Readout times need to be faster to compensate or you simply can’t make the same picture on the 60mp sensor as you did on the 24mp sensor without suffering artifacts. 
 

Creative applications aside, the need for IBIS was triggered when they chose to increase the sensor size.

So an easy fix would be an M11s with the SL3S sensor (and colours)....I am in. Please as an "M11 P S BP".

[Stevejack]

7 minutes ago, la1402 said:

So an easy fix would be an M11s with the SL3S sensor (and colours)....I am in. Please as an "M11 P S BP".

Well I sort of do hope that if Leica does an EVF-M they use a 24mp sensor, at least for their first model, just so that the e-shutter is useable. 
I’m also someone who usually turns IBIS off on my cameras that do have it, but I certainly do think Leica should add it to future M models if they’re able to. It’s just reached that point I think. 

[swatch]

It is difficult to make everyone happy unless Leica made and sold ice cream.

Moreover Leica is good at making special edition, for example D version without screen.  Or the best is a la carte program : buyer choose what to have or what not to have i.e. metering

IBIS will be added once technical limitation due to available space to be solved because Leica has been doing their very best to extend the life of M by increasing its usability i.e. visoflex and high resolving APO lenses.

AI for photography is making progress as well, maybe one day IBIS to be obsoleted by AI software.  Fingers crossed.

 

[Dr. G]

On 2/7/2025 at 2:08 PM, Smogg said:

The rangefinder makes it easier to focus in the dark when autofocus cameras refuse to focus.

Even the SL3 and Q3 have trouble manually focusing in low light.  The EVF is good, but it starts to get a little noisy when things get really dim, making it hard to critically focus.  If your using a very fast lens in a low contrast scene focus peaking isn't much help either.  AF is very inconsistent in low light with those cameras. 

FWIW, I would love to have an M camera with IBIS.  Keeping my hands steady as I get older is becoming harder and harder.  

[Dr. G]

On 2/7/2025 at 2:41 PM, IkarusJohn said:

Here’s a further thought - many hate car analogies, but Porsche went through a similar crisis.

They’ve just released a new Carrera S, and on paper it looks fabulous, faster, more refined and only available with PDK.  Here, we have half a dozen roads where you can go 110kph - the rest, 100kph or slower.  Yet, we have some of the best driving roads to be had.  Until last year, Porsche made 1 911 with a manual gear box - the GT3.  Another normally aspirated marvel of engineering technology, with speeds you can only use on the track.

If I win Lotto today, I’ll be ordering the 911 Carrera T - a tuned down, back to basics 911, with a gear stick, because I love the simple act of driving through the country I love.

John, if you lived close to me we could go for a ride and I would 100% change your mind about which 911 you should to get.  FWIW, mine has a 6 speed, no turbos, and no wing.  Believe me, you don't need a track to experience what the car offers over the other 911 variants... although it helps .  

[charlesphoto99]

14 hours ago, SrMi said:

Similarly, it is with eyesight. Is using glasses a betrayal of M's legacy, as it prevents us from seeing the 28mm frame? 

 

I've photographed an M with a 28mm wearing glasses for decades and have never felt it was an issue. Frame lines are only an approximation as it is. If one needs 'perfect' framing then I would resort to an SLR or mirrorless. In fact I often use a 24 or 18 sans external viewfinder. Letting things land where they land is an M trademark. It's what we were discussing in the EVF-M thread in regards to Winogrand's 'taking' a photograph versus 'making' or 'designing' a photograph. Of course there's a place for both, but the M just isn't that, esp on the wider end. 

[TeleElmar135mm]

vor einer Stunde schrieb swatch:

It is difficult to make everyone happy unless Leica made and sold ice cream.

(...)

 

... still on the way  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, swatch said:

It is difficult to make everyone happy unless Leica made and sold ice cream.

 

 

Yes, but only if they also sold non-dairy ice cream as well. And a sorbet. And sugar free, and...

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Yes, but only if they also sold non-dairy ice cream as well. And a sorbet. And sugar free, and...

"I ordered Strawberry, but the colour doesn't look right!"

[SrMi]

 

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Letting things land where they land is an M trademark.

Then I suggest removing the viewfinder completely and using an external rangefinder only,

Of course, I disagree that accidental framing is a trademark of M.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

On 2/5/2025 at 4:49 AM, pippy said:

For an M? This is a matter which, it could be suggested, is open to much debate......😸......

Philip.

Yes. What is stunning is that the opposition is to something inside the camera that is not observable by the user.  It is as if the user would drink something that makes his hand incredibly stable.