Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/4/2025 at 5:49 PM, jonoslack said:

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). 

This right here.

I’ve changed my mind on this subject (used to think IBIS was needed).

M’s especially with the modern sensors do not need IBIS for low light.

The 1/2 stops with the latest sensors makes a massive difference especially when viewing at print size.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, smuseby said:

And what exact is “IBIS” (for us unwashed). 

In-body image stabilization. The sensor is moved to counteract camera movement, thus stabilizing the image and compensating for handheld camera shake.

Welcome to the forum!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...back to the topic of IBIS relating to camera technology:

I think the eventual evolution of camera gear will arrive at global shutters and digital stabilization. No sensor on wobbly longlegs, needing extra space to freely dance. This will allow stabilization without increasing the body thickness, which I prefer; nay, DEMAND. I still have an M240, and it still works as it was designed, but it is just too thick. Yet even at that thickness, present mechanical IBIS mechanisms don't fit.

If in future times processing power increases (what a concept) and sensor quality and speed increase (ditto) proper digital stabilizations should not be a problem. Whether it is an M16 or an M16-EF, or even an M20-EF-AF-IR-UV-NASCAR-F1 is then irrelevant.

Until that sort of technology arrives and is found acceptable, I'll manage to do without IBIS and with a slim and relatively traditional camera body.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, henning said:

I think the eventual evolution of camera gear will arrive at global shutters and digital stabilization.

Digital Stabilization only works for video.

57 minutes ago, henning said:

This will allow stabilization without increasing the body thickness, which I prefer

The mechanical shutter can be removed with a global shutter or stacked sensor. That makes enough space for IBIS without increasing thickness.

P.S.: M11 applies digital stabilization to the live view. It helps with focusing when using a magnified view.

Edited by SrMi
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SrMi said:

Digital Stabilization only works for video.

The mechanical shutter can be removed with a global shutter or stacked sensor. That makes enough space for IBIS without increasing thickness.

P.S.: M11 applies digital stabilization to the live view. It helps with focusing when using a magnified view.

Then you’d have to move the lens rear element forward to keep the register distance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, henning said:

...back to the topic of IBIS relating to camera technology:

I think the eventual evolution of camera gear will arrive at global shutters and digital stabilization. No sensor on wobbly longlegs, needing extra space to freely dance.

I suspect that we will eventually gain a 'virtual tripod' with the entire camera fitted with gyros and linked to gps and able to hold itself steady, even in shaky hands. Until then I too will do without IBIS .....😉

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital stabilization already exists. The thing holding it back is the larger sensor needed making for a larger camera , lenses with extended coverage, higher costs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
vor 10 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Digital stabilization already exists. The thing holding it back is the larger sensor needed making for a larger camera , lenses with extended coverage, higher costs. 

Again, this is only the case, when you talk about video stabilization (if you are not willing to accept a crop). For stills, it is no solution because you'll still have the motion blur.

vor einer Stunde schrieb jdlaing:

Then you’d have to move the lens rear element forward to keep the register distance.

No, we discussed that already earlier here. You can place the electro-mechanics on the front side of the sensor when the mechanical shutter got eliminated.

Edited by 3D-Kraft.com
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jdlaing said:

Then you’d have to move the lens rear element forward to keep the register distance.

The IBIS mechanism could be in front of the sensor, where the mechanical shutter resides. However, the thickness matters mostly where we hold it. Moving only the lens mount should be OK. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...