Why the M needs IBIS

[Dazzajl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 minutes ago, algrove said:

and also woks in the Q

The Q has lens based stabilisation, rather than in body but your point stands well. This is not new tech to Leica models

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

24 minutes ago, algrove said:

"One more thing that can go wrong" 

So sad to read since it seems with the M11 Leica has lost much of its luster by not employing great software engineers to design AND solve their freezing issues.

At least IBIS works well in the recent SL line and also woks in the Q. I know that are very different to the M line, but at least there is experience with IBIS if M teams are talking with Sl and Q teams.

Q has OIS, which is a different technology. Interestingly, Q is the only camera I know that can automatically turn off stabilization at higher shutter speeds (it should be parametrizable, though).

[elmars]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jonoslack:

I couldn't agree more Elmars - and a rangefinder with single electronic framelines would be nice!

That would be a much more important innovation than an IBIS. Or an improved viewfinder.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

The Q has lens based stabilisation, rather than in body but your point stands well. This is not new tech to Leica models

Perhaps Leica could develop a shaky M lens mount?

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Yes, but how many cameras broke because of IBIS? I'd say that IBIS failure ranks very low on the list of possible failures.

How many cameras have had coffee stain LCDs, sensor corrosion, AF motor failures, bricking, corrupted and lost image files and magenta cast on images …

The point is not how reliable IBIS  is, what other manufacturers achieve, or what you can turn off. It is Leica’s track record with unnecessary digital “enhancements”.  What is missing from each “improvement” in the digital M cameras is a clear-eyed assessment “Is it necessary”, combined with, will Leica make a mess of it.

By all means, Leica, keep up with the Sonys and Fujis of this World, but don’t do it with the M system. That’s where the SL and Q are the perfect platforms. If people want an M sized L mount, go for it.  But don’t lose sight of the charm of the M system, and make the best digital version of the M6.

Does that mean a lack of innovation?  No, we wouldn’t have a digital M, Monochrom or M10-D if that were the case. Innovation is great in improved dynamic range, faster processors, better batteries, improved viewfinder and … quality control?

A new M with lots of features, IBIS, bricking, freezing, file corruptions … and on and on, isn’t what the M system should be about, in my view.

[SrMi]

49 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

How many cameras have had coffee stain LCDs, sensor corrosion, AF motor failures, bricking, corrupted and lost image files and magenta cast on images …

The point is not how reliable IBIS  is, what other manufacturers achieve, or what you can turn off. It is Leica’s track record with unnecessary digital “enhancements”.  What is missing from each “improvement” in the digital M cameras is a clear-eyed assessment “Is it necessary”, combined with, will Leica make a mess of it.

By all means, Leica, keep up with the Sonys and Fujis of this World, but don’t do it with the M system. That’s where the SL and Q are the perfect platforms. If people want an M sized L mount, go for it.  But don’t lose sight of the charm of the M system, and make the best digital version of the M6.

Does that mean a lack of innovation?  No, we wouldn’t have a digital M, Monochrom or M10-D if that were the case. Innovation is great in improved dynamic range, faster processors, better batteries, improved viewfinder and … quality control?

A new M with lots of features, IBIS, bricking, freezing, file corruptions … and on and on, isn’t what the M system should be about, in my view.

In that vein, Leica should never launch an M12, as it may come with new problems, regardless of IBIS presence.

The M10 and M11 are already so far away from the M6 that making the best digital version of the M6 could also include the removal of the mechanical shutter and IBIS. Based on interviews, Leica does not think those two elements alone would compromise an M's essence, and I agree with that.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Question: Suppose an EVF-M with IBIS. Would it be thicker than the M240?

[raizans]

Wetzlarian Pessimism seems to rear its head whenever convenient.

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

In that vein, Leica should never launch an M12, as it may come with new problems, regardless of IBIS presence.

The M10 and M11 are already so far away from the M6 that making the best digital version of the M6 could also include the removal of the mechanical shutter and IBIS. Based on interviews, Leica does not think those two elements alone would compromise an M's essence, and I agree with that.

Not really.

The point is keeping the digital M focussed on must have rather than like to have.  Not sure why a digital M6 would require the removal of the mechanical shutter. That makes no sense to me.

Based on just about everything Leica says about the M system, the “essentials” is the driving paradigm.  Without that, it is just another company competing with Sony.

[SrMi]

58 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The point is keeping the digital M focussed on must have rather than like to have. 

Yes, I agree.

59 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not sure why a digital M6 would require the removal of the mechanical shutter.

That is not what I wrote.

[Stevejack]

9 hours ago, jonoslack said:

1. In my cameras which do have IBIS I sometimes (quite often) get inexplicably shakey images when the IBIS should have corrected them (Olympus, Sony and Leica)

I ran into this issue when shooting swallows at 1/4000sec on my A1. I believed shutter speeds above 1/2500 would eliminate any evidence of interference from the IBIS but I was proven wrong by an engineer on one of the Sony groups. The IBIS mechanism is extremely fast and will induce blur on the sensor even during extremely quick exposure times. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself - now I turn IBIS off completely on my cameras unless I have a specific need for it (See below)

9 hours ago, jonoslack said:

5. I don't believe it's necessary - the high ISO is so good now that by using AUTO ISO I can get sharp images (even in really low light) 2x focal lenth or 4x focal length sorts it. . . . .  and to those who insist on using full manual exposure - you could just go to Auto ISO (with 4x or 2x shutter speed) for those critical situations in the dark!

The one issue I have here is that using shutter speed to eliminate camera shake removes the option to use it as a creative choice. The 1/15 to 1/60s range is my most used shutter speed for photographing people indoors so that evidence of motion in gestures is apparent. In a room full of people, photographs can look lifeless if everyone is frozen in place with a high shutter speed. Someone who is clearly gesturing with their hands, or throwing their head back in laughter, should (IMO) show signs of obvious motion blur in comparison to those who are in static poses. This is better emphasised when the remainder of the image is perfectly still. Higher resolution sensors are making it harder to shoot in this 1/15-1/60sec range without artefacts from camera shake being apparent.  I understand this is just a creative choice, and motion will still be relative to any minor blur induced by camera shake, but it's probably the one time that I turn IBIS on with any of my 50mp + cameras. 

I think if Leica chooses to increase the sensor resolution again for the M12, calls for IBIS will get louder. People who've been using the camera in the same way they always have will start to notice camera shake more and more. Downsampling is a valid solution, and will probably stay as the best solution, but I guess it comes down to Leica's taste for maintaining the integrity of the image at full resolution versus relying on downsampling. In terms of adding it to the M; If they can't, they can't - but if they can, they should. 

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

That is not what I wrote.

Then I clearly misunderstood this:

Quote

The M10 and M11 are already so far away from the M6 that making the best digital version of the M6 could also include the removal of the mechanical shutter and IBIS

 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Then I clearly misunderstood this:

 

 

You bolded the wrong part. I said that the best digital version of the M6 could also include the removal of the mechanical shutter and IBIS. I did not write that a digital M6 would require the removal of the mechanical shutter.

No future M requires the removal of the mechanical shutter, but it could include the removal of the mechanical shutter.

 

[Smudgerer]

15 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Hi There

I understand your point, and I suppose I need to explain why I oppose IBIS

1. In my cameras which do have IBIS I sometimes (quite often) get inexplicably shakey images when the IBIS should have corrected them (Olympus, Sony and Leica)

2. as has been stated many times by Leica - an M camera needs to be fatter to fit IBIS in . . . . . and if they proved wrong then it would seem likely that by leaving it out they could make the camera thinner. 

3. It will cost money

4. it's one more thing to go wrong

5. I don't believe it's necessary - the high ISO is so good now that by using AUTO ISO I can get sharp images (even in really low light) 2x focal lenth or 4x focal length sorts it. . . . .  and to those who insist on using full manual exposure - you could just go to Auto ISO (with 4x or 2x shutter speed) for those critical situations in the dark!

6. It's a crutch, and a complication, and I just don't think that's what M cameras are about. 

I know there is a big movement who want it, and of course I'll accept it if it appears, but I won't welcome it.

best

Jono

I am totally with Jono on this IBIS issue, all points 1-6, and this from a photographer who has more experiance of the marque than most here on this forum, time to listen up, us users and Leica too..............The M doesn't need this, doesn't need further electronic "aids" or complications, in fact in my opinion it needs the reverse, simplification and to some extent a considered step back to it's basics.

Thank you Jono.

[costa43]

Two separate lines chaps. A heritage line and a modern line. The camps are well defined. 

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

 

You bolded the wrong part. I said that the best digital version of the M6 could also include the removal of the mechanical shutter and IBIS. I did not write that a digital M6 would require the removal of the mechanical shutter.

No future M requires the removal of the mechanical shutter, but it could include the removal of the mechanical shutter.

 

Sorry, I’m being dim witted. Why could an M6 include the removal of the mechanical shutter?  When did that look like a good idea?

[IkarusJohn]

43 minutes ago, costa43 said:

Two separate lines chaps. A heritage line and a modern line. The camps are well defined. 

Hate being defined. 

Why would the Das Wiesentliche M not be modern?
 

Edited March 4 by IkarusJohn

[evikne]

The film M also evolved, but at a much slower pace. I'm not against progression, but you can't rush it. That only leads to bad and unstable solutions (as we've already started to see?). Improvements will come of their own accord, when the time is right.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

Just now, IkarusJohn said:

Hate being defined. 

Why would the Das Wiesentliche M not be modern?
 

No reason it cannot in my opinion. What it does not do too well at is being a hybrid. Leica is trying to please all sides currently and moving forward that might prove harder to do. It seems like there is some demand for both a modern M and an M model that sticks to it's roots. We have so many modern options nowadays, it would be sad to lose something different. I'm always pro choice if it is possible.

[Smudgerer]

33 minutes ago, evikne said:

The film M also evolved, but at a much slower pace. I'm not against progression, but you can't rush it. That only leads to bad and unstable solutions (as we've already started to see?). Improvements will come of their own accord, when the time is right.

Yes you are right..........I had no intentions or desires to change up to the M11 versions for the first 3 years (?) since it was launched, the earlier M11's instability being the dominant reason, but then along came the M11-D only a few months after I was forced to trade back my well loved but troubled child M10-D so I had a decent credit with Leica and I went for the 11-D with some trepidation and a cast iron promise that a return and credit would be mine if for any reason I didn't like it and to my surprise and some relief I quickly found that yes I did like it, liked it a lot. There's much in the camera that luckily I found I could ignore, ( like with the M10-D ), so since the initial set-up experiments I have no reason to use Fotos, ( which I profoundly dislike anyway for a number of reasons ), and the camera has proven to be a joy to use. I also recently traded a couple of other M's and added the M11-M to the kit and feel that is now a good place to call a halt for the foreseeable future.

Improvements and stability came very late to the M11 line, perhaps Leica overstepped with it and many suffered the result of inadequate firmware development out of the trap and thus too many reliability issues that put off quite a few early adopters. I feel that the M11 was a good idea but was let out into the wild way too early and without enough real world testing, but it's fine now, 3+ years later, but that's really not good enough and hopefully Leica has learned a lesson from all of that.

Complications, too many features encourage events like the earlier M11's woes to come about. The M has matured very well indeed since "going digital", some backward steps for sure but all in all it's a great camera, I don't know if Leica can draw a line under stuffing more capabilities into the M, but I do wish that they would seriously consider that, however manufactures of any gadget be it a coffee maker or a camera find it hard to stay in one place nowadays and still hold and grow their customer base so it is what it is and I guess IBIS will come along someday, a M-EVF will come along too probably, the question is whether such "improvements" are necessary or appealing to Leica's present base customers.