Why the M needs IBIS

[TeleElmar135mm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 58 Minuten schrieb Corius:

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

Magenta cast?

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

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.

Something else to go wrong …

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

 

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.

It's not 'accidental.' It's a learned skill - like a muscle memory, but of the eye. What I think people forget, is that one can make great, full frame, photographs even if not looking through the viewfinder. The camera is just a dumb object - it will make a photograph without you constantly peering through it. And more often than not, that somewhat 'accidental' framing makes for a much more interesting photograph that breaks from the constraints of the stuck mind.

Removing the finder completely would certainly make it hard to focus the rangefinder patch. But if you do struggle with eyeglasses and wider lenses, Leica, Voigtlnder, Zeiss and others make 28 and wider external finders that can work well. 

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

It's not 'accidental.' It's a learned skill - like a muscle memory, but of the eye.

"Letting things land where they land" is not a skill.

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Something else to go wrong …

That is true, theoretically. However, in practice, IBIS failure is very rare. How many have reported IBIS failure with SL series or Panasonics? O

[charlesphoto99]

6 minutes ago, SrMi said:

"Letting things land where they land" is not a skill.

I think perhaps it's important that I illustrate my point. A couple of shots from last week. The first is with a 28 Summicron at f/2. I focused on the subject, and then dropped the camera below eye level, almost to the ground, and shot away until I got the expression/moment I wanted. It's full frame, un-cropped. Being a 28, it's not so important what is or isn't in the shot to the sides, and one could miss the central part, the moment and expression, by obsessing over the cropping. 

The second is with a 135mm APO. I know, from eye memory, that there is space to either side of the frame lines, and above and below the frame lines, at infinity (more to the sides, a bit less top/bottom). With this type of shot I wanted more or less exact framing. I can't use EVF's as they make me want to have a seizure. So through lots of practice, and, yes, some skill, I know how things are going to look with the imperfect frame lines of the M. 

By saying letting things land where they land, I'm not implying letting a monkey loose at a typewriter it will eventually type out some Shakespeare, I'm saying that being loose can/may actually bring more depth and magic to one's images (it's hard to put into words) beyond the tunnel vision one can become trapped in with an SLR/EVF type of finder. It still takes skill to show up, understand light and exposure, and focus and timing, to best manipulate that looseness into making a great image. 

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!

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you look at any of my posted photographs here on the forum you will see images cropped only to correct for horizons (I have a 1.5 degree cant which is me not the camera). Accurate framing with an M is surprisingly easy. Take a look.

[charlesphoto99]

11 minutes ago, pgk said:

If you look at any of my posted photographs here on the forum you will see images cropped only to correct for horizons (I have a 1.5 degree cant which is me not the camera). Accurate framing with an M is surprisingly easy. Take a look.

Yeah, I seem to have a built in cant as well. Most noticeable with the 135. Above image has a .2 correction, though it can be up to 1-2 degrees if I don't pay really close attention. I find it easiest to use the bottom of the rangefinder patch as a level on the horizon, and then raise and lower from that for framing. 

[DadDadDaddyo]

It's the use of the word "need" that bugs me. 

If the suggestion is that a steady camera is a prerequisite for a sharp picture, especially at high resolution, you'll find no argument from me. 

I shoot Large Format film, as well as Medium Format film. It does indeed requires care. But not one of my Medium or Large Format cameras employs image stabilisation. 

And I assure you, I produce utterly sharp results with those systems, just as I do with the Leica M11 and M11M. Look at them up close and they'll blow you across the room. 

If you want to be able to shoot without the need for care, by all means, insist on every mechanical and digital assist you can get or the engineers can devise. And enjoy!

In fact, let's start another discussion entitled, "Why the M needs built-in flash".

I don't even own a flash. 

But, seriously, hand me anybody's M11 and I will produce a photograph without degraded sharpness or other artifacts.

That said, should I fail to do so, I won't blame it on the fact that I'm using a high resolution sensor.

Bottom line: if Leica produced an M Series body with Image Stabilization I would certainly welcome it and accept it without complaint. Handheld shots at even lower shutter speeds? Hooray!

But that said, my own lived experience has taught me that I can produce results of the highest technical quality, even at very high resolutions, without Image Stabilization. 

It's fine for others to say that they can't. 

But don't tell me no one can. 

Edited March 1 by DadDadDaddyo

[Jeff S]

On 2/28/2025 at 7:28 PM, DadDadDaddyo said:

I shoot Large Format film, as well as Medium Format film. It does indeed requires care. But not one of my Medium or Large Format cameras employs image stabilisation. 

And I assure you, I produce utterly sharp results with those systems, just as I do with the Leica M11 and M11M. Look at them up close and they'll blow you across the room. 

 

No tripod, including large format?

[TeleElmar135mm]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Jeff S:

No tripod, including large format?

no tripods please  

 

 

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!

[Smudgerer]

No tripod, no IBIS, a pretty awful viewfinder, but a good eye and sense of timing..........

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/03/upshot/ten-minute-challenge-photo.html

[jonoslack]

On 2/28/2025 at 4:18 PM, SrMi said:

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.

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

Edited March 3 by jonoslack

[jjroroek]

On 2/5/2025 at 10:42 AM, M11 for me said:

With the actual M11 sensor the ISO capabilities are great. It is under normal conditions no problem to choose 4 times focal length so that IBIS is not needed.

On the other hand I immediately hear the argument that for long exposures (lets assume ½ second) you definitely need either IBIS or a tripod. But to my understanding we always need light to take fotographs so that long exposures are not needed (neither a Summilux is needed) unless you try some experimental or artistic shots. I do not use the M for such experiments.

I just made a few shots of my wife in a room last night with nice ambient light at f/2.0 and 4xfocal lenght. It resulted in ISO 3200 which is perfect for M11 sensor. 

Many themes are disussed just based on myths or lyck of experience. Why does @raizans not just try it out many shots and report about his/her own experiences? Or else explain his publishes chart. What is his conclusion? Why did he choose the title?

By the way: The article is about Canon. Canon bodies uses IBIS. Besides that many Canon lenses have IS built in but many have not. Based on that the Canon user is interested about what to do and what settings to use in either case. You can switch off both or use one of the 2 or both. You have to understand what you do. But this is sonething fully different to Leica M.

has nothing to do with experiment but normal phography in low light. At night on the street and without ibis you will  get easily a combination of 6400,  1.4, 1/125) . you canot go lower with the m11 . and higher iso on the m11 is not ideal. with my q3 i can easaly shoot at 1/30, 1600, 1.7. razorsharp, hardly any grain

Edited March 3 by jjroroek

[elmars]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jonoslack:

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.

I completely agree with you. But as you write yourself: People want it, even if it's not really necessary, and Leica will probably give in to that if it's technically possible. I'm sceptical about the M12, the necessary sensors currently still have disadvantages compared to the great sensor of the M11. For the M12, Leica should rather concentrate on a new, fast, low-vibration, good-sounding shutter.

[jonoslack]

9 minutes ago, jjroroek said:

has nothing to do with experiment but normal phography in low light. At night on the street and without ibis you will  get easily a combination of 6400,  1.4, 1/125) . you canot go lower with the m11 . and higher iso on the m11 is not ideal. with my q3 i can easaly shoot at 1/30, 1600, 1.7. razorsharp, hardly any grain

I'm happy to use 12,500 with my M11 (or even 25,000) , especially in the knowledge of how good and quick modern denoise techiques are (not that I use them much).

 

[jonoslack]

9 minutes ago, elmars said:

I completely agree with you. But as you write yourself: People want it, even if it's not really necessary, and Leica will probably give in to that if it's technically possible. I'm sceptical about the M12, the necessary sensors currently still have disadvantages compared to the great sensor of the M11. For the M12, Leica should rather concentrate on a new, fast, low-vibration, good-sounding shutter.

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

[Nitnaros]

13 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I'm happy to use 12,500 with my M11 (or even 25,000) , especially in the knowledge of how good and quick modern denoise techiques are (not that I use them much).

 

Jonathan - I don’t want to run denoise algorithms on my files. That to me is way more intrusive into my workflow than turning an IBIS option on or off 

my IBIS experience on the Fuji GFX side is fabulous - shooting down to 1/4 of a second handheld and those 100MP images coming out sharp when checking with pixel peeping

I have not experienced that IBIS working in a faulty manner 

if someone doesn’t want it, just turn it off;

camera form factor - I’m sure Leica’s M design team will look into that

one more thing that can go wrong - with that argument no innovation would be possible 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[algrove]

"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.

[SrMi]

2 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)

Shaky images are possible, especially if the IBIS is in the wrong mode. I personally have never experienced inexplicable shakey images with IBIS on, but that may be because of my photography style (I give enough time for IBIS to stabilize?). Also, with IBIS and wide angles, you may get sharp center but blurry corners. That is why the new CIPA stabilization standard provides two numbers (center and corners). Of course, one can turn IBIS off  when the situation warrants it (tripod, shutter speed fast enough).

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

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. 

Do we want the M to be thinner? The current thickness seems right to me, but without IBIS, it could be lighter, which is always a desirable improvement (to me).

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

3. It will cost money

Yes.

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

4. it's one more thing to go wrong

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

2 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!

Detail, noise, tonality, and colors are best at native ISO. The more you diverge from native ISO, the worse the IQ becomes.

There is a reason why people do not turn off IBIS when shooting in low light, and the scene warrants it.

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

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.

IBIS can be turned off to emulate the current M experience. Like SL cameras, I expect most M users will leave the IBIS turned on if an M with IBIS comes out. If it does not, I will still enjoy future models like the current one. If it does, my M will see much more usage than before.

I see an inclusion of IBIS similar to the inclusion of live view: it expands the possibilities with M.