jaapv Posted March 12 Share #401  Posted March 12 Advertisement (gone after registration) What has video got to do with this?  This is about M cameras. And yes. You even have motion blur on a tripod. A red herring in this context.  1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said: 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. 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.  Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 12 Posted March 12 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Why the M needs IBIS. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SrMi Posted March 12 Share #402  Posted March 12 (edited) 38 minutes ago, jaapv said: What has video got to do with this?  This is about M cameras. And yes. You even have motion blur on a tripod. A red herring in this context. Digital stabilization that you mentioned works only with video. @3D-Kraft.com was explaining why it works only for video (motion blur in a single frame, remains motion blur with digital stabilization). Edited March 12 by SrMi Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12 Share #403  Posted March 12 That is right I only mentioned that it did exist already as a technology. UAnd yes, IBIS only corrects camera movement. Both for video and stills. That is the basic idea of the system. As I said, video has nothing to do with ( future? ) IBIS in M cameras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted March 12 Share #404  Posted March 12 (edited) vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv: What has video got to do with this?  This is about M cameras. It was not me, who throw digital stabilization into this discussion. I only explained, who profits from it and who not, since your post suggested it as an alternative. So please don’t keep confusing cause and effect. I also would not be sure, that M cameras will be without video forever (same for IBIS). We have seen video on the M(240) and back then, many people bought it also for that reason (including me - first mirrorless fullframe video!) - but were unfortunately quite disappointed about the implementation. We all know about the relationship of Leica to Panasonic and Panasonic would be able to support them in a better implementation, if they decide not to just stand still.. Edited March 12 by 3D-Kraft.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 12 Share #405  Posted March 12 1 hour ago, jaapv said: That is right I only mentioned that it did exist already as a technology. UAnd yes, IBIS only corrects camera movement. Both for video and stills. That is the basic idea of the system. As I said, video has nothing to do with ( future? ) IBIS in M cameras. You replied to the post suggesting digital stabilization for stills without adding a disclaimer. That could have been misunderstood that you also recommend using digital stabilization for still. I know you know better. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12 Share #406 Â Posted March 12 Quite hard to misunderstand, considering the thread title and content. I see now that it can be done... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 12 Share #407  Posted March 12 Advertisement (gone after registration) 5 hours ago, SrMi said: 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. The wafer would still have to be free floated and unfastened from the package. Yes the mount could be moved forward. That might cause consternation with viewfinder blockage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted March 16 Share #408  Posted March 16 Digital, ie electronic IBIS is only limited at this time to video because of computational limitations to achieve high enough quality. Jaap's concerns regarding sensor size and lens coverage are valid, but the basic concept of digital IBIS is the only one I see as leading to an implementation that doesn't increase the body thickness substantially, and while I do have an M240 (as well as an M10 and M11) at this time, I definitely will not buy another body as thick as an M240, or more likely thicker to enable the current type of mechanical IBIS. Moving the lens mount far enough out to allow mechanical IBIS to be incorporated would entail other compromises as far as I can see. If some people want a movie capable M, let it be on the possible M-EV, and then I can avoid two things at once. 😀 Again; I definitely would like IBIS, but there are a number of things about the current M bodies that I do not want changed, and if I'm desperate for IBIS I can use other systems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 16 Share #409 Â Posted March 16 5 minutes ago, henning said: Digital, ie electronic IBIS is only limited at this time to video because of computational limitations to achieve high enough quality. Because of its nature (how it is implemented), electronic IBIS is limited to video. It stabilizes the video view to eliminate video shake by aligning individual frames. It does not help with motion blur in separate frames. Do you know of a different implementation of digital stabilization? Â 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhasman Posted March 17 Share #410 Â Posted March 17 (edited) I hope Leica has guts to keep M "only for photos" ideology forever, as it is now. No video, no IBIS /or PENGUIN, OSTRICH, whatever/, minimum number of control buttons. Sure, better, modern images processors, screens, communication technologies with any new model... once in a 5 years Edited March 17 by mhasman 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 17 Share #411  Posted March 17 16 hours ago, SrMi said: Because of its nature (how it is implemented), electronic IBIS is limited to video. It stabilizes the video view to eliminate video shake by aligning individual frames. It does not help with motion blur in separate frames. Do you know of a different implementation of digital stabilization?   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! Quote 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=5773058'>More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 17 Share #412  Posted March 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, jdlaing said:  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! Not everything published on the Internet is true. If you read how it is implemented (digitally cropping and repositioning the image), you can understand that it does not work for still images. A more reliable source is Wikipedia: Digital image stabilization Excerpts: This technique can not do anything about existing motion blur, ... Some still camera manufacturers marketed their cameras as having digital image stabilization when they really only had a high-sensitivity mode that uses a short exposure time—producing pictures with less motion blur, but more noise. Others now also use digital signal processing (DSP) to reduce blur in stills, for example by sub-dividing the exposure into several shorter exposures in rapid succession, discarding blurred ones, re-aligning the sharpest sub-exposures and adding them together, and using the gyroscope to detect the best time to take each frame. The last paragraph describes frame averaging with faster shutter speeds, which could be an option, but collecting the images takes a long time. It would help with the camera shake and compensate for the noise of shorter exposures (can be also done in post). Edited March 17 by SrMi 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted March 17 Share #413  Posted March 17 vor 5 Stunden schrieb jdlaing:  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! This not enough qualified text from a marketplace for used equipment simply proves that you shouldn't trust every source in every detail. A connection between still captures and digital image stabilization only exists for cameras that use it to stabilize the electronic viewfinder image (or the live view on the display). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 19 Share #414 Â Posted March 19 IBIS in an M would make it fatter. Most M users do not want that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 19 Share #415  Posted March 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, algrove said: IBIS in an M would make it fatter. Most M users do not want that. Stefan Daniel (link ) I would like to have that as well, but space is the limit here, because one of the specifications, even with the M10, was that the housing depth of the analogue M cameras should be retained. Because that's what makes the camera so handy. But it isn't ruled out that the image stabilizer could be integrated into the M at some point, for example, if we would do without the mechanical shutter and so the necessary space would be available again. Edited March 19 by SrMi 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 19 Share #416 Â Posted March 19 On 3/17/2025 at 3:08 PM, SrMi said: Not everything published on the Internet is true. How true. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 19 Share #417 Â Posted March 19 On 3/17/2025 at 8:42 PM, 3D-Kraft.com said: This not enough qualified text from a marketplace for used equipment simply proves that you shouldn't trust every source in every detail. A connection between still captures and digital image stabilization only exists for cameras that use it to stabilize the electronic viewfinder image (or the live view on the display). The Leica TL offers digital image stabilization for stills - it is doubtful whether it is very useful though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 19 Share #418 Â Posted March 19 20 minutes ago, jaapv said: The Leica TL offers digital image stabilization for stills - it is doubtful whether it is very useful though. Interesting. With digital still image stabilization, Leica TL takes two pictures (probably at a faster shutter speed to prevent camera shake) in succession and merges them. Digital stabilization does not work on single frames. The output is JPEG only. Apparently, X- Vario had something similar. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 19 Share #419  Posted March 19 I don't care about IBIS at all, since I don't photograph static, boring, "dead" stuff much. I hit the "subject-movement" shutter limit long before I hit the "hand-holdable/stable-camera" shutter limit. 😆 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! 4 Quote 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=5774006'>More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 19 Share #420  Posted March 19 24 minutes ago, adan said: I don't care about IBIS at all, since I don't photograph static, boring, "dead" stuff much. I hit the "subject-movement" shutter limit long before I hit the "hand-holdable/stable-camera" shutter limit. 😆 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! That is a valid point, though I strongly disagree that Stephen Shore, Ansel Adams, Eggleston, Friedlander, etc, made boring pictures. 2 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.