Why the M needs IBIS

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, SrMi said:

That is a valid point, though I strongly disagree that Stephen Shore, Ansel Adams, Eggleston, Friedlander, etc, made boring pictures.

None of whom used cameras with IBIS. 

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

None of whom used cameras with IBIS. 

Some of them used the best "IBIS" available: a tripod.

But that is not the point. The point is whether a photo with no fast subject movement is boring.

[Knorp]

Stop moaning : even the new GFX100RF has no IBIS ... 😈

[Jon D]

In this day and age all cameras are becoming homogenised, with very little differentiation between them, and with cameras more and more being designed as a Swiss Army knife type solution for photography and video. It’s nice that the M stands unique as a manual focus, rangefinder, slow-down-and-think-about-what-you’re-doing tool. I would hate to see Leica go down the route of blurring the lines between the SL, M, and Q ranges in an attempt to be more Canon/Sony/Fuji. 

[lct]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

[...] The point is whether a photo with no fast subject movement is boring [...]

True for the Real Leica Man and HCB followers tring hopelessly to copy the Master

[hillavoider]

7 hours ago, Knorp said:

Stop moaning : even the new GFX100RF has no IBIS ... 😈

And has the same issues 

Edited March 21 by hillavoider

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, SrMi said:

But that is not the point. The point is whether a photo with no fast subject movement is boring.

Not the point at all. A photo with either a moving or a stationary subject can be boring - it's up to the photographer to make them not so. By that same token, just because a photo is tack sharp doesn't make it not boring - nor does a blurry photo make it bad. It's reductionist thinking when it comes to making photographs that is boring and non-productive, especially when based on so called gear restraints. 

[SrMi]

9 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Not the point at all. A photo with either a moving or a stationary subject can be boring - it's up to the photographer to make them not so. By that same token, just because a photo is tack sharp doesn't make it not boring - nor does a blurry photo make it bad. It's reductionist thinking when it comes to making photographs that is boring and non-productive, especially when based on so called gear restraints. 

My reply was to post #422, where @adan claimed that a photo that does not freeze movement is boring.

[charlesphoto99]

31 minutes ago, SrMi said:

My reply was to post #422, where @adan claimed that a photo that does not freeze movement is boring.

I know. Which is reductionist thinking, imo, though I think he was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. 

[setuporg]

Remember that in Islamic tradition, Iblis (Arabic: إِبْلِيسْ, romanized: IBIS) is the name for the devil or Satan, a figure who refused to bow down to Adam and was cast out of paradise, becoming a symbol of temptation and evil. 

 

Edited March 24 by setuporg

[SrMi]

32 minutes ago, setuporg said:

Remember that in Islamic tradition, Iblis (Arabic: إِبْلِيسْ, romanized: IBIS) is the name for the devil or Satan, a figure who refused to bow down to Adam and was cast out of paradise, becoming a symbol of temptation and evil. 

The correct quote would be

Iblis (Arabic: إِبْلِيسْ, romanized: Iblīs),

 

[setuporg]

18 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The correct quote would be

Iblis (Arabic: إِبْلِيسْ, romanized: Iblīs),

That's for the L-mount.