FarbSpieler Posted February 10 Share #221 Posted February 10 Advertisement (gone after registration) 12 minutes ago, Nitnaros said: 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? The Leica M is the last true purist’s camera on the market. If you want IBIS, you have dozens of cameras to choose from—SL, Q, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, you name it. If you need more automation, more safety nets, more ‘help’ from the camera, you're already fine, the industry has you covered. But the M? It’s the only one left that by design demands skill, mastery, and intent with zero interference. It’s not about being ‘more capable’ in the modern sense—it’s about being minimalist, simple and pure. If you want IBIS, you can have it anywhere else. But please leave the M to us, the purists. It’s the last refuge we have. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10 Posted February 10 Hi FarbSpieler, Take a look here Why the M needs IBIS. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SrMi Posted February 10 Share #222 Posted February 10 1 hour ago, costa43 said: 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. I understand the concern about including IBIS when it affects other factors, such as the shutter used or the thickness of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 10 Share #223 Posted February 10 9 hours ago, IkarusJohn said: Perhaps the real point is, if you feel 60MP needs IBIS, then perhaps the M needs less MP … Its really rather odd that Leica never uprated the film M to medium format ..... others tried. But we now have what is effectively a camera capable of producing results technically as good as and probably better than (I'm talking about information capacity of colour images) medium format, but in a package still suited most of all to use in a tight envelope of parameters. I'm getting bored by all this chatter about hypothetical viabilities. I have cameras with IBIS but I also own tripods. Slow shutter speeds which require IBIS can also show subject movement due to the subject moving😮. If its a static subject then a tripod make much better sense. I rarely use IBIS because it can work but doesn't always. At least with a tripod you can be certain that it will work. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPettigrew Posted February 10 Share #224 Posted February 10 34 minutes ago, Nitnaros said: 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? Maybe it needs none. The M isn’t about chasing advancements—it’s about preserving. Unless, of course, we’re talking about some truly new tech—like a sensor that captures light in a non-linear way, like film does. That, indeed, would be an advancement in the spirit of the M. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 10 Share #225 Posted February 10 10 minutes ago, LPettigrew said: Maybe it needs none. The M isn’t about chasing advancements—it’s about preserving. Unless, of course, we’re talking about some truly new tech—like a sensor that captures light in a non-linear way, like film does. That, indeed, would be an advancement in the spirit of the M. The M must evolve. Stagnation is the enemy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted February 10 Share #226 Posted February 10 With most prime focal lengths, lens changes on M bodies are common place. One benefit that comes with IBIS is the ultrasonic cover glass cleaning cycle; my M cameras do seem more prone to sensor dust than IBIS equipped EVIL cameras. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPettigrew Posted February 10 Share #227 Posted February 10 Advertisement (gone after registration) 8 minutes ago, SrMi said: The M must evolve. Stagnation is the enemy. The M has already evolved—just in the right way. Stagnation isn’t the enemy; compromise is. And change for the sake of change—that’s even worse. The M doesn’t need to keep up with tech or trends. That’s the whole point. It’s a tool for people who want absolute purity. If ‘evolution’ means turning it into just another feature-packed machine, then it's not progress—that’s just losing what makes the M special. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted February 10 Author Share #228 Posted February 10 The M11 is already corrupted by the pull in two directions. The two complementary viewfinders, rangefinder and EVF, are necessary for the rangefinder to return to a purer form. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitnaros Posted February 10 Share #229 Posted February 10 10 minutes ago, LPettigrew said: The M has already evolved—just in the right way. Stagnation isn’t the enemy; compromise is. And change for the sake of change—that’s even worse. The M doesn’t need to keep up with tech or trends. That’s the whole point. It’s a tool for people who want absolute purity. If ‘evolution’ means turning it into just another feature-packed machine, then it's not progress—that’s just losing what makes the M special. "preserving" is an interesting point I personally would call it "balancing the minimalist approach with inevitable tech progress" (inevitable is that most people do shoot digital today, and that you dont want to shoot a 1MP sensor) that said ... Leica (Company) will go the way of advancements -- so they can market the M12 marketing an M12 as "preserving" of what we have already will not generate enough sales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 10 Share #230 Posted February 10 44 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said: With most prime focal lengths, lens changes on M bodies are common place. One benefit that comes with IBIS is the ultrasonic cover glass cleaning cycle; my M cameras do seem more prone to sensor dust than IBIS equipped EVIL cameras. Are you changing lenses with the shutter closed or open? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 10 Share #231 Posted February 10 33 minutes ago, LPettigrew said: The M has already evolved—just in the right way. Stagnation isn’t the enemy; compromise is. And change for the sake of change—that’s even worse. The M doesn’t need to keep up with tech or trends. That’s the whole point. It’s a tool for people who want absolute purity. If ‘evolution’ means turning it into just another feature-packed machine, then it's not progress—that’s just losing what makes the M special. I agree that change for the sake of change is bad. Opposing the change just because it is a change is also bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 10 Share #232 Posted February 10 (edited) 26 minutes ago, raizans said: The M11 is already corrupted by the pull in two directions. The two complementary viewfinders, rangefinder and EVF, are necessary for the rangefinder to return to a purer form. The rangefinder on the left, built-in EVF on the right ... ba dum tss! Edited February 10 by SrMi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 10 Share #233 Posted February 10 Can hardly be RF + built-in EVF i fear. RFs need to have a large baselength to be accurate. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/419064-why-the-m-needs-ibis/?do=findComment&comment=5755288'>More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted February 10 Share #234 Posted February 10 (edited) vor 7 Stunden schrieb lct: M is about M lenses. They deserve the best and it can only be the M mount so far. Yes and no. There are some M-lenses like the 50/1 (non-ASPH) Noctilux or the 75mm Noctilux that I truly love. But using them wide open for portraits in dynamic scenes with low light means a ridiculously low hit rate on a RF. The experience adapted on an SL is already much better, but on a Sony A1 with AF adapter and IBIS it's another level. It enables me to use these lenses properly in conditions what they are made for: Portraits of living people in low light (Noctilux!) with shallow depth of field and not just still life from a tripod. So, I do not speak for all M lenses (35mm Cron is fine on an M), but for those that I find exceptional in the M lineup. 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! Edited February 10 by 3D-Kraft.com Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/419064-why-the-m-needs-ibis/?do=findComment&comment=5755290'>More sharing options...
lct Posted February 10 Share #235 Posted February 10 AF adapters for M lenses have an M mount too but they can hardly help for manual focusing. Not sure if they can be of any help for a possible EVF-M either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted February 10 Share #236 Posted February 10 vor 34 Minuten schrieb lct: Not sure if they can be of any help for a possible EVF-M either. The AF adapter does not need any help from the EVF but the EVF is not limited to lenses between 28 and 135mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevejack Posted February 11 Share #237 Posted February 11 (edited) 6 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said: Yes and no. There are some M-lenses like the 50/1 (non-ASPH) Noctilux or the 75mm Noctilux that I truly love. But using them wide open for portraits in dynamic scenes with low light means a ridiculously low hit rate on a RF. The experience adapted on an SL is already much better, but on a Sony A1 with AF adapter and IBIS it's another level. It enables me to use these lenses properly in conditions what they are made for: Portraits of living people in low light (Noctilux!) with shallow depth of field and not just still life from a tripod. So, I do not speak for all M lenses (35mm Cron is fine on an M), but for those that I find exceptional in the M lineup. 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! When I use the shallow 50s on my A1 for unposed portraits of the kids, burst mode is brilliant. On my Canon f/0.95 I focus as best I can then use burst mode as I rock myself backwards and forwards through the plane of focus. At 30fps you'll nail focus on at least one shot every time. I do this for kids running / cycling as well, just allow the subject to transition through the plane of focus while on burst and you have your in-focus f/0.95 action shot. It brings new life to these lenses when the hit-rate is so high for non-static scenes. Edited February 11 by Stevejack 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 11 Share #238 Posted February 11 11 hours ago, Nitnaros said: ... The internal storage a great convenience and the USB-C charging working with standard equipment compared to a proprietary charger. I'm sure that's right. I have no problem with those developments, including losing the baseplate (I know others don't agree). My point is that those are small improvements which are worthwhile, and don't detract from what the M system is about. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 11 Share #239 Posted February 11 12 hours ago, 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 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted February 11 Share #240 Posted February 11 I wish Leica would focus more on their own color science. At the moment, Hasselblad has an obscenely large advantage in this area. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now