Do you want image stabilisation in camera?

Do you want image stabilisation in camera?

  • Yes

    Votes: 155 45.7%

  • No

    Votes: 184 54.3%
  • Total voters
    339
Yes while it could be useful, the reason why people loved the Leica M so much to begin with was because of it's simplicity and reliability. By putting in such a technology, it could hinder the reliability of the camera.

I say leave it out until Leica become more trustworthy with their electronics, which they are yet to prove.
 
Is there anyone technically minded enough to explain how it works ... in layman's terms?
 
I would rather add more sensitivity to the sensor and have longer battery life.
 
Last edited:
JSU said:
No, it makes no sense in a camera primarily used with wide angle lenses.
Click to expand...

You're mistaking the way you use the camera with the way everyone else does.


I think in camera image stabilization is a good fit for the digital M. It's a camera heralded for low light use. Internal image stabilization may not be a widely utilized feature. But it is a useful one.

And there are really no downsides. Except the fact that the size of the Leica limits the size of the battery. But battery technology gets better as the years go on. With the pro SLR bodies taking 5,000 frames before recharging and laptops faster than my first computer having 10 hours of battery life the Leica battery will also evolve.

What else could go wrong with internal image stabilization? It breaks? Then what's the difference. You can just keep going with your array of wide lenses like nothing happened.
 
Since I would never use a lens longer than 90mm on a M9, image stabilization is irrelevant. I could only see it being useful on lenses with focal lengths of 180mm or longer, and no one will really use such lenses on an M9 (or any other M). The best form of image stabilization is a steady hand.
 
Resounding Yes!
Also weather sealing, video capture, GPS geotagging, wifi data transfer.

If I am to pay top dollars for a camera, I want something better than a 10 year old digital sensor inside a 50 year old metal box.
 
swoop said:
Except the fact that the size of the Leica limits the size of the battery. But battery technology gets better as the years go on. With the pro SLR bodies taking 5,000 frames before recharging and laptops faster than my first computer having 10 hours of battery life the Leica battery will also evolve.
Click to expand...

I wonder: If the entire baseplate was used as a battery, could the capacity be larger? You could sell two different capacities of battery, then, with one being the size of a Leicavit.
 
axiom said:
Resounding Yes!
Also weather sealing, video capture, GPS geotagging, wifi data transfer.

If I am to pay top dollars for a camera, I want something better than a 10 year old digital sensor inside a 50 year old metal box.
Click to expand...

I would kill for weather sealing. If the M9 were weather sealed I never would have dropped it in the first place.
 
Keith said:
Is there anyone technically minded enough to explain how it works ... in layman's terms?
Click to expand...

I believe they use an accelerometer which tells the camera which direction and, funnily enough, the acceleration and that operates the motor the sensor is attached to, to nullify the camera movement within certain parameters. i.e. it won't fix panning effects. It can give you 4 or so stops of extra speed.

Do you remember watching the on car camera in formula 1 racing a few years ago. The images were barely visible they were shaking so much from car vibration. Watch it now and the image is "rock steady".

Iphones have an acceleromter built in which can be utilised by Iphone software developers.
 
I would've paid another $1000 for full weather-sealing but all future lenses would have to be weather-sealed as well. By weather-sealing, I am talking about the dump-tons-of-liquids-on-it-and-then-hose-it-off kind of weather-sealing, too.

I would also wind to re-cock the shutter if that saved any battery power, as well.

Oh sorry... I thought this was the "M10 wants" thread.
 
Also, I do not know how well a sensor-shift based image stabilization would work with such a short distance between the lens and sensor (not forgetting each lens is coded).
 
Keith, there's a short entry on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization and also a discussion on Bob Atkins' site http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/image_stabilization.html. I like IS as it reduces the need to use a tripod, and anything that lessens the amount of gear I have to carry is good. It's useful even with WA lenses when light levels are very low, as long as you remember dynamic subjects will still have motion blur.
IS technology is still developing. The IS on my EF 20-200/4L IS gives 4 stops, while earlier IS only gave around 2 stops. With Leica's longer product cycles, it would be to their advantage to include sensor shift IS as there would likely be significant improvement with each generation - which would drive upgrade sales. Not happy news for traditionalists but good commercial sense for Leica.
A digital M with IS and dust reduction (preferably Olympus's patented SSWF system, which seems to work best) would be a great product. IMHO it's silly not to incorporate these practical features in the digital age - not to do so is like having an uncoupled RF in a film body.
 
IS, i probably wouldn't use it anyway so no big deal.

weather sealing is a HUGE deal (mostly peace of mind IMO, when in more adverse shooting conditions).

video, wifi etc are all things that would detract from the experience. these are all things that I would turn off and never use. GPS tagging of images (photo location tagging) would be cool though...
 
Weather sealing would be awesome, IS would be cool if it was properly implemented, but it would always be a liability. Lets be careful that we are not really wishing for a Japanese SLR covered in features and buttons though...
 
tlitody said:
Do you remember watching the on car camera in formula 1 racing a few years ago. The images were barely visible they were shaking so much from car vibration. Watch it now and the image is "rock steady".
Click to expand...

For video you can do this kind of thing entirely in software. No need for an expensive camera. (If you already have an expensive computer that is.)

If image stabilization results in a bigger body it is not worth it for me. Otherwise it could be quite useful for low light photography.
 
I don't see why it wouldn't be useful, especially for those who shoot in low-light. The ability to shoot at lower speeds with confidence would be great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top