IBIS, lack of, Feedback

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 hours ago, o2mpx said:

Has the absence of ibis been an obstacle?

Never, as far as I'm concerned.

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

Magnification issue, screen or print, not MP issue per se. 

Yes. However, we must accept that many qualify their images at the pixel level, not as print or online-shared quality.

[Carlos cruz]

10 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The minimum handholding shutter speed depends on the photographer. If I want sharpness at the pixel level, I use 1/2f for 24MP and 1/4f for 60MP.

 

22 minutes ago, PeterKelly said:

Yes

At 76 years old my hands are not as steady as they once were. I compensate by using high shutter speeds which obviously limits low light shooting.

If IBIS could be incorporated in future M bodies without much change in size and layout I would be a happy camper 

 

21 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Magnification issue, screen or print, not MP issue per se. 

Could be true, I am just trying to think off all the photos from history when 200 iso was considered a fast film, and how much it changes with each generation. Nowadays I think everyone is used to 800 iso, probably the younger generations will  probably consider nothing less than 2000. I believe we shouldn’t be complaining about low light shooting.   On the other hand you have cinema which operates with much higher magnification ratios, much slower (1/48) shutter speed and no one is asking for stabilised lenses (except for Das Boot in the 70’s) of course there are tripods, dollies, steadicams and all sort of rigs to stabilise camera but handheld shots are still a thing. Unless you’re shooting on moonless nights in your basement 2000 iso is more than plenty in my opinion.  

[pgk]

Although I do have cameras with IBIS, in practice I use OBIS, but neither freeze subject motion. No doubt IBIS has its uses but for me they are few and far between.

[Crem]

19 hours ago, o2mpx said:

Has the absence of ibis been an obstacle?

There are times I grab my SL2-S and use it instead of the M for the following reasons: IBIS, ISO 25k, and EVF. Basically photography in really dark situations is much better on the SL2-S and I don’t need a tripod. So IBIS would be nice to have, but it’s not something I care much about in the M. It wouldn’t convince me to upgrade, but I totally get why people want it. 

[pgh]

19 hours ago, o2mpx said:

Has the absence of ibis been an obstacle?

For me, absolutely.

I find a 35mm format camera north of about 45 mp with no IBIS to be a lot less appealing. I’m a photographer who very much prefers to not use a tripod. Specifically for Leica M’s, what this forum is about - they are not designed as tripod cameras. (Yes they are fine to use on tripods, I know, but that’s not where their advantages shine brightest).

The issue with no IBIS is that you need a higher minimum shutter speed (usually 3x/f or more) for 60 mp to be reliably sharp, depending on the photographer. For me, this negates enough of the gain in image quality achieved with these sensors to be essentially a moot point. Give me 30 mp (or 24) and the ability to reliably shoot handheld at 1.5/f instead.

I also have an X2d, and I would have not entertained getting it for a second without the IBIS. It’s great and quite appropriate in that tool, as it would be in a 60 mp M camera.

Then again, to keep the M simple, just drop the megapixel wars and keep it 24-40 mp. If IQ advancements are so important there’s certainly work to be done in the DR and noise departments still.  

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Carlos cruz said:

 

 

Could be true, I am just trying to think off all the photos from history when 200 iso was considered a fast film, and how much it changes with each generation. Nowadays I think everyone is used to 800 iso, probably the younger generations will  probably consider nothing less than 2000. I believe we shouldn’t be complaining about low light shooting.   On the other hand you have cinema which operates with much higher magnification ratios, much slower (1/48) shutter speed and no one is asking for stabilised lenses (except for Das Boot in the 70’s) of course there are tripods, dollies, steadicams and all sort of rigs to stabilise camera but handheld shots are still a thing. Unless you’re shooting on moonless nights in your basement 2000 iso is more than plenty in my opinion.  

I don’t see how cinema is a relevant comparison.

The degree of sharpness in a single captured frame is far less important, and cinema is almost by definition always capturing motion - something IBIS does not aid in. 

This is a weird argument that just neglects all of the practical uses of a tool that have already been well demonstrated. If it’s not for you, that’s fine - but there are now a lot of pictures made that were not technically possible when ISO 200 was considered a fast film. That’s because of technological progress including IBIS. Your argument boils down to “we don’t need those photographs that weren’t possible before” - which is fine as far as opinions go but have fun making that convincing. 

[Al Brown]

1 hour ago, Carlos cruz said:

handheld shots are still a thing. 

Hand holding (or shoulder ENG style supported) fully rigged Alexa Plus with Optimo 24–290mm comes close to 20 kilos, much *much* much more stable than a Leica M with any random lens.

[FarbSpieler]

20 hours ago, o2mpx said:

Has the absence of ibis been an obstacle?

No.

Every other camera out there has IBIS. If that’s what you need, the options are endless.

We buy the M because it doesn’t have those aiding features—because it’s pure, direct, and demands something from the photographer. That’s the whole point.

[Corius]

Is it not the case that greater pixel density does not increase the amount of blur if the two images are viewed at the same size? However, if you view each at 100% then you will see more blur.

So, while you're not taking full advantage of the greater sensor density, it will look just as good as an image taken on a less dense sensor when rendered at the same final print/screen size.

Edited Tuesday at 05:49 PM by Corius
Changed "size" for "density" in the 2nd paragraph

[Carlos cruz]

52 minutes ago, pgh said:

I don’t see how cinema is a relevant comparison.

Maybe both cinema and photography work with images or it’s a better point of reference than Balkan choir music. You’re certainly right that perception of single picture and - sequence of those are different but they fall under same set of rules, you have aperture, exposure time, and iso. I’d say that cinema in regard has much more constraints, and probably more tools than average photographer, but new tools are usually introduced when you need to overcome limitations. I never said or implied that I’d like to censor photography.  In my opinion m cameras already give you ability to overcome most of constraints we’re discussing here. If you believe that technological progress helps you with your photography do use it.  I am not trying to be a luddite radical  here but before we change m cameras into 17 programmes, autofocus wonder with waterworks  maybe it’s time to ask if we really need another camera system like that. I chose m cameras for simplicity. 

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, Corius said:

Is it not the case that greater pixel density does not increase the amount of blur if the two images are viewed at the same size? However, if you view each at 100% then you will see more blur.

So, while you're not taking full advantage of the greater sensor size, it will look just as good as an image taken on a less dense sensor when rendered at the same final print/screen size.

The sensor size remains the same, but the resolution changes.

The nice thing about M11 is that, if the situation requires it, you can reduce the resolution, shoot it with a slower shutter speed, and still have sharp images at pixel level as you would with a 24MP camera. An M11 is both a 60MP and an 18MP camera.

When shooting people, the shutter speed is probably around 1/250 sec, which should cover the focal length up to 50mm at 60MP (1/4f).

Edited Tuesday at 05:47 PM by SrMi

[Pelu2010]

I use a gimbal if I need images to be more stable with longer shutter … 

 

these are out of camera. 
 

 

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!

[Carlos cruz]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

Hand holding (or shoulder ENG style supported) fully rigged Alexa Plus with Optimo 24–290mm comes close to 20 kilos, much *much* much more stable than a Leica M with any random lens.

Depending on how you hold it, what’s your position etc but all in all it’s easier to hold m  still for fraction of a second than bigger setup for few minutes shot

[charlesphoto99]

19 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The nice thing about M11 is that, if the situation requires it, you can reduce the resolution, shoot it with a slower shutter speed, and still have sharp images at pixel level as you would with a 24MP camera. An M11 is both a 60MP and an 18MP camera.

When shooting people, the shutter speed is probably around 1/250 sec, which should cover the focal length up to 50mm at 60MP (1/4f).

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is how it works. My understanding is that the image is taken at 60MP and then downsized in camera to 36 or 18. So you're still getting the blur of the 60MP, but one doesn't see it as much because you are not viewing it as large. 

[setuporg]

15 hours ago, Fgcm said:

Deal breaker for me

Having it or not having it?

[SrMi]

16 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is how it works. My understanding is that the image is taken at 60MP and then downsized in camera to 36 or 18. So you're still getting the blur of the 60MP, but one doesn't see it as much because you are not viewing it as large. 

If you downsize, either in the camera or in post, you reduce the blur by the same amount as when you shoot with a lower resolution sensor.

[SrMi]

37 minutes ago, Pelu2010 said:

I use a gimbal if I need images to be more stable with longer shutter … 

What kind of gimbal?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Alberti]

6 hours ago, lct said:

Obstacle to slow shutter speeds here. I don't use my M11 for speeds slower than 1/(2f)s. I kept my M240 for that. Not a huge issue but the M11 is the first M since the 50s to suffer from that. It has excuses but i won't buy the M12 or a possible EVF-M if Leica doesn't fix this issue with IBIS or otherwise. YMMV.

My bad I traded in my M240-P. It was great. Slow lenses like 5.6/28 worked fine, were sharp, albeit cheeks on the side were often more rosy than necessary.

Now whole series of images with e.g that lens have to be thrown away because the camera essentially has built-in Alzheimer, sort of. 

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, Alberti said:

My bad I traded in my M240-P. It was great. Slow lenses like 5.6/28 worked fine, were sharp, albeit cheeks on the side were often more rosy than necessary.

Now whole series of images with e.g that lens have to be thrown away because the camera essentially has built-in Alzheimer, sort of. 

Why don't you use a lower resolution with that lens? I read that someone from Leica uses a lower resolution when shooting with old lenses.