lct Posted March 4 Share #321 Posted March 4 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 hours ago, costa43 said: Two separate lines chaps. A heritage line and a modern line. The camps are well defined. Indeed but the Moderns are not the newbies and the Ancients the oldies. Proud Modern Oldie here 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 4 Posted March 4 Hi lct, Take a look here Why the M needs IBIS. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted March 4 Share #322 Posted March 4 (edited) 21 hours ago, jonoslack said: 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) My experience too (Canon and Sony). On the other hand I find that a decent tripod is 100% effective at preventing camera movement if used properly, although tripods can't stop subject motion either. Tripods are also probably a great deal cheaper than upgrading to an IBIS equipped M body and have the advantage of also working with other cameras. Perhaps what we actually need is to redefine a tripod as an external body image stabilisation devices (EBIS) and remarket the concept. Edited March 4 by pgk typo 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsh Posted March 4 Share #323 Posted March 4 23 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 Jonathan: I am with you on this, especially points 3 and 4 - that a camera with IBIS would cost more money and there would be one more thing that could go wrong. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DadDadDaddyo Posted March 4 Share #324 Posted March 4 A little practice with a monopod can work wonders for one's landscape photography. Add a quick-release head and it doubles as a walking stick. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 4 Share #325 Posted March 4 A Leica M needing a tripod to use slow shutter speeds and/or Denoize to use base isos. Is that where “das wesentliche” is getting us really? Hard to believe that Leica cannot do better than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 4 Share #326 Posted March 4 1 hour ago, lct said: A Leica M needing a tripod to use slow shutter speeds and/or Denoize to use base isos. Is that where “das wesentliche” is getting us really? Hard to believe that Leica cannot do better than that. You don't need either to shoot an M at slow shutter speeds - and you don't need to use denoise either - but you shouldn't be frightened of using a high ISO to keep the shutter speed up! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 4 Share #327 Posted March 4 Advertisement (gone after registration) 32 minutes ago, jonoslack said: You don't need either to shoot an M at slow shutter speeds - and you don't need to use denoise either - but you shouldn't be frightened of using a high ISO to keep the shutter speed up! I don't think i'm more frightened than i used to be when i preferred shooting K25 rather than K64 in my film days. But it was easy to find K25 rolls in the stores back then. Today, when i want to shoot low isos at slow shutter speeds, i have to use my M240 or my Sony. Could be worse, but i expect Leica to do better than the M11 in this respect. Time will tell, but the insistence on championing high isos feels somewhat worrying, i did not say freightening 😉when it comes from people in the know IMHO. Nothing personal of course. 😎 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 4 Share #328 Posted March 4 (edited) 24 minutes ago, lct said: I don't think i'm more frightened than i used to be when i preferred shooting K25 rather than K64 in my film days. But it was easy to find K25 rolls in the stores back then. Today, when i want to shoot low isos at slow shutter speeds, i have to use my M240 or my Sony. Could be worse, but i expect Leica to do better than the M11 in this respect. Time will tell, but the insistence on championing high isos feels somewhat worrying, i did not say freightening 😉when it comes from people in the know IMHO. Nothing personal of course. 😎 I still don't understand why you need to shoot slow shutter speeds? unless it's to keep the ISO down, in which case the M11 gives you nearly 5 stops advantage (from a noise/ISO point of view) over the M240 You're implying that the M240 has better noise characteristics than the M11? Edited March 4 by jonoslack 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 4 Share #329 Posted March 4 1 hour ago, jonoslack said: You don't need either to shoot an M at slow shutter speeds - and you don't need to use denoise either - but you shouldn't be frightened of using a high ISO to keep the shutter speed up! I am fine shooting in the range up to metered ISO 6400. Without IBIS, I would need to make those shots at ISO 20,000 or higher (extrapolating from actual exposures with SL3). I think that is too high. Instead, I often lower the shutter speed to a range that occasionally gives me blurry images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 4 Share #330 Posted March 4 5 minutes ago, jonoslack said: in which case the M11 gives you nearly 5 stops advantage (from a noise/ISO point of view) over the M240 I do not think that is true. Per measurements and as far as I recall, the high ISO difference between M240 and M11 is about one stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted March 4 Share #331 Posted March 4 however there are things to consider here, IBIS will increase the cost of the camera body by at least 50%... and increase repair times and repair COSTS of the camera body by about 80%. OIS in the lens increases the cost of the lens, but the replacement and repair of the lens based mechanism is actually cheaper than for the IBIS systems. Its why Nikon has always done OIS for its DSLR lines. And still for the X mount lines last I checked. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted March 4 Share #332 Posted March 4 28 minutes ago, jonoslack said: I still don't understand why you need to shoot slow shutter speeds? unless it's to keep the ISO down, in which case the M11 gives you nearly 5 stops advantage (from a noise/ISO point of view) over the M240 You're implying that the M240 has better noise characteristics than the M11? ITs a very typical and common issue in the Digital camera World. They went to digital camera for convenience and to escape film limitations, but the first thing they did is restrict themselves to using standard iso ratings for film, ie 800 or lower. In fact if you want to get really bored, you can go online and find thousands of dull videos on youtube that explain why a "real photographer ONLY uses iso levels of 100-400 on a digital camera that is designed to go upwards of 56,000" 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 4 Share #333 Posted March 4 15 minutes ago, SrMi said: I do not think that is true. Per measurements and as far as I recall, the high ISO difference between M240 and M11 is about one stop. Well I'm not going to go back and check - but there is between 1.1/2 and 2 stops between the M10-R and the M11, and certainly more than a stop between the M240 and the M10 . . . . but LCT was implying that the M11 was actually worse than the M240! Incidentally I have lots of good shots taken at 25,000 ISO with the M11, and personally I don't use any denoise AI software - but then I'm not really objecting to noise!. . . . . .I do, however, shoot a great deal in low light, and I simply don't have an issue, so I find it hard to see why others do! On the other hand I don't have any objection to Leica bringing out a fat M12 with IBIS and a flippy LCD - it's fine - even a hybrid viewfinder if you like, video if you want and a special AF adapted lens mount, just as long as they also bring out a thin one with just a rangefinder and without IBIS (I explained the reasons above). 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 4 Share #334 Posted March 4 The EVF-M could make everyone agree if it is not significantly fatter than the M240, which is about 3mm thicker than the M11. I use both cameras and wouldn't mind a solution like this, but i don't know if 3mm would be enough, and i have no information about the EVF-M, if any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 4 Share #335 Posted March 4 40 minutes ago, jonoslack said: Well I'm not going to go back and check A five-stop difference would mean M240's ISO 3200 is as good or bad as M11's ISO 50000. @lct is using both cameras, and he can share his opinion on that claim. 43 minutes ago, jonoslack said: but there is between 1.1/2 and 2 stops between the M10-R and the M11 I have not seen that difference, nor has Sean Reid in his "M11: Color Studio Tests." P2P has not measured it either. 47 minutes ago, jonoslack said: but LCT was implying that the M11 was actually worse than the M240! He may have implied that the lower resolution of M240 allows him pixel-level sharpness at slower shutter speeds. M240 has, to the best of my recollection, worse low light characteristics than M11. 49 minutes ago, jonoslack said: On the other hand I don't have any objection to Leica bringing out a fat M12 with IBIS and a flippy LCD - it's fine - even a hybrid viewfinder if you like, video if you want and a special AF adapted lens mount, just as long as they also bring out a thin one with just a rangefinder and without IBIS (I explained the reasons above). I agree. My highest priority is that the M's form factor and ergonomics remain unchanged while the M continues to evolve. When I argue in favor of IBIS, I always assume that the form factor does not change, the optical rangefinder remains, and IBIS can be turned off. I'd rather have no IBIS (or other "fantasy" features) than compromise any of those items. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 4 Share #336 Posted March 4 1 hour ago, PetPhoto said: however there are things to consider here, IBIS will increase the cost of the camera body by at least 50%... and increase repair times and repair COSTS of the camera body by about 80%. The X100V (no IBIS) launch price was $1,399 in 2020, while the X100VI (with IBIS and a more expensive sensor) was $1599 in 2024. Adjusted for inflation, X100VI is cheaper than its non-IBIS predecessor. Also, no repair times or repair costs increase has been reported anywhere. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 4 Share #337 Posted March 4 17 minutes ago, SrMi said: A five-stop difference would mean M240's ISO 3200 is as good or bad as M11's ISO 50000. @lct is using both cameras, and he can share his opinion on that claim. I'm in Cornwall and don't have the original files with me, but looking through my Lightroom Library I would say that 3200 on the M240 is roughly equivalent to 25,000 on the M11 - so 4 stops. I do have all the originals of the same scenes and situations, just tedious to go through it all for the sake of an argument where it isn't the point! Maybe Leica should bring out variants to suit everyone's wants - the most obvious ones being flippy LCD, IBIS and EVF . . . . . FINE - do all of those! M12-F, M12-I and M12-E, but please please can we have an M12, which is an incremental improvement (better sensor, better, quieter shutter, better body shape (thinner, lighter) better rangefinder, better interface) - the trouble with acceding to the 'updates necessary to keep up to date' is that the end result is a Sony A1 . . 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4 Share #338 Posted March 4 18 minutes ago, SrMi said: The X100V (no IBIS) launch price was $1,399 in 2020, while the X100VI (with IBIS and a more expensive sensor) was $1599 in 2024. Adjusted for inflation, X100VI is cheaper than its non-IBIS predecessor. Also, no repair times or repair costs increase has been reported anywhere. Unfortunately Leica doesn't appear to have the same pricing strategy as Fuji, so, although the build cost may only be a bit higher I suspect that won't be reflected in the retail cost. Regarding repair costs, I don't think Fuji have had nearly the same issues with the X100VI compared to the M11 and, although the problems seem to be ironed out now, there is still a concern over Leica's FW and QA quality. I would guess that might be a factor in people's concern about adding new functionality. Anyway, only time will tell, and if Leica can deliver reliable IBIS without compromising the overall M ethos and experience then that can only be a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted March 4 Author Share #339 Posted March 4 IBIS strengthens the Leica M ethos as a handheld camera that excels in low light. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted March 4 Share #340 Posted March 4 (edited) I own the M10r and have used an M11 and I’ve actually found the m10r to be stronger in ISO than the M11 up to 12500 in various lighting scenarios. After this point the M11 is better. I rarely go that high though as I find my photos are pretty crap in really low light so in my real life use, the M10 generation stacks up still as a viable option. For me the claimed 1-2 stop difference in performance is relevant more so when it is across the range and not just at the back end. Edited March 4 by costa43 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