jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Thank you for a well-reasoned asessment, Ben
tlitody
Well-known
Well you'd be wrong about that. I want an M9 to be able to use ZM lenses on a digital body with FF sensor. The alternative would be a digital slr and complete different system. But I'm fast going off the idea due to all the problems and unreliability that people such as yourself keep reporting.
Fact you've been to factory is totally 100% superfluous to any argument about Leica QC. How nice the people are is also totally 100% superfluous to any argument about Leica QC. The fact QC is difficult is also totally 100% superfluous to any argument about Leica QC. You either get it right or you don't. Leica are not getting it right. We'll see what happens with the next version but if it also has problems I'll go the dslr route.
Alberti
Well-known
Agree:
Weather sealing can already start with the closing of the small seams in the top of the camera, such as between the housing and the RF windows. I once looked at my camera with a 15x magnifying glass: there is a big opening to be seen. Just adding a bit of silicone jelly (from the inside; of a type that does not harden) would reduce the passage of moist and humid air to the innards of the RF mechanism.
Take a case yesterday: I walked with my camera outside in the frost, entered a restaurant, and don't like to put the camera is an isolating plastic bag immediately of course.
So just more attention to details helps.
albert
dfoo
Well-known
I still don't see how adding IS, sensor cleaning or even focus confirmation could make it less of an M.
Ben Z
Mentor
I suggest you don't read any QC threads on DSLR forums in that case, or else you'll end up going the pencil-and-sketch pad route...and if you do, I suggest avoiding Eberhard-Faber because the points on their #2 soft have a habit of breaking easily
tlitody
Well-known
I suggest you don't read any QC threads on DSLR forums in that case, or else you'll end up going the pencil-and-sketch pad route...and if you do, I suggest avoiding Eberhard-Faber because the points on their #2 soft have a habit of breaking easily
Sure I know other manufacturers have their problems too but if I'm going to have to pay at least 3 times as much for a much more basic camera then I expect it to just work out of the box. Is that too much to ask from a company that would have us beleive their products are the best or should I be resigned to Leica being just as problematic as other brands. That seems to be what you are saying.
Ben Z
Mentor
What I'm saying is that as long as a product is designed and built by humans there are likely to be issues arising from human error. That's true of everything, not just cameras. If the unique qualities of the Leica rangefinder system don't mitigate for you, and cheaper cost does, then you've found your decision. It doesn't work that way for all of us.
tlitody
Well-known
I rekon the reason why people don't want it is because they won't be able to make macho claims and one upmanship about hand holding at slow shutter speeds. Often see "I can shoot at 1/8 of sec" as some kind of badge of honour.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Well, it probably is - in the unlikely event that they are telling the truth.
Of course, we can all shoot at 1/8, some of the time and with wide enough lenses.
IF it could be incorporated with no increase in camera size or loss in battery life, if course I'd like it. Otherwise -- nah, I'll live without it.
Cheers,
R.
rustysheepdog
Member
Irrespective of the difficulties of getting IS into an M-something, the idea is wonderful. I can handhold my Pentax K10 with a 90mm lens and get most shots properly shake free at 1/60th, whereas I struggle with a 90 on the M8 even at 1/125th. But that's maybe because I'm getting dithery in my old age, or because the shutter release on my M8 is heavy, far from smooth and has what feels like a half inch of overtravel after the shutter is tripped . . . Mmm, maybe let's scrap the IS idea and go for a smooth let-off which stops dead once the shutter starts to move.
I'd rather rely on lens speed and high ISO instead of IS.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've had several cameras with in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS). For what it is intended to do, it works well.
What it is intended to do is to increase the exposure time at which a lens can be hand-held with acceptable results by stabilizing camera motion. The general range of improvement that I've seen in use with Pentax and Olympus DSLRs is between one and three stops, that is, where with a particular lens I would normally have to use 1/200 second as the minimum exposure time to prevent camera motion blurring, I can often get away with 1/100, 1/50 and even 1/25 second and still get sharp results.
Image stabilization does NOTHING to minimize subject motion. Photographing a person walking at a normal pace with 1/15 second exposure time is going to have some blur to it regardless of how still the camera can be held.
Based on that and my experience in use, image stabilization is particularly useful when working with medium tele lenses hand-held *in good light*. It is of vanishingly little practical usefulness in extending street photography into lower light or when working with wide-angle lenses.
I tend to use mostly fast 28mm to 50mm lenses with my M9. Image stabilization is of little real use with those focal lengths for the subject matter I shoot (people in low light). It would be useful when I fit the 90mm f/4 or 135mm f/4.5 lens, as it allow me to use longer exposure times with those lenses while minimizing camera shake.
The way IBIS works is to match the average expected movement of the camera to the average resonant frequencies of human musculature according to focal length, and shift the sensor to compensate for that motion at different exposure times. The various implementations of IBIS all require some additional space and structure in the camera body, depending on the range of operation it is intended to try to compensate and the amount of stabilization desired, making the body a bit larger. The sensor floats, essentially, and moves up, down, sideways, etc as the camera moves in the opposite direction. The range of sensor motion of a leading IBIS system (the Olympus E-5 and E-M5 systems) means that the sensor can move as much as 1cm off the central lens axis with longer focal lengths.
You can imagine that, at the extremes, there may actually be some image degradation if a particular lens' coverage is pretty tight to the format, or if the compensating motion is not precisely tuned to the focal length.
Most of the existing IBIS systems have proven to be pretty simple and robust in use ... I haven't heard of too many Pentax, Sony, or Olympus bodies with broken IBIS mechanisms in the repair shops.
Whether to add this feature to the Leica M is a toss up based on how well it can be fitted, how much size tradeoff is acceptable, how useful it might be for some things, etc. If you are always using 75/90/135 mm focal lengths in good to middling light, I expect it would be a significant advantage. If you are normally using shorter focal lengths and shooting people in dim circumstances, it will likely prove to be much ado about nothing at all.
One thing to note is that a good IBIS system is just about completely transparent to the user experience. An additional button or menu option to turn it on and off as desired is all that is required. So adding it to a Leica M, modulo the size/cost/usefulness items, would have little to no practical impact on the use of the camera ergonomically.
G
PS: none of my present cameras have IBIS, and I haven't missed it. ;-)
What it is intended to do is to increase the exposure time at which a lens can be hand-held with acceptable results by stabilizing camera motion. The general range of improvement that I've seen in use with Pentax and Olympus DSLRs is between one and three stops, that is, where with a particular lens I would normally have to use 1/200 second as the minimum exposure time to prevent camera motion blurring, I can often get away with 1/100, 1/50 and even 1/25 second and still get sharp results.
Image stabilization does NOTHING to minimize subject motion. Photographing a person walking at a normal pace with 1/15 second exposure time is going to have some blur to it regardless of how still the camera can be held.
Based on that and my experience in use, image stabilization is particularly useful when working with medium tele lenses hand-held *in good light*. It is of vanishingly little practical usefulness in extending street photography into lower light or when working with wide-angle lenses.
I tend to use mostly fast 28mm to 50mm lenses with my M9. Image stabilization is of little real use with those focal lengths for the subject matter I shoot (people in low light). It would be useful when I fit the 90mm f/4 or 135mm f/4.5 lens, as it allow me to use longer exposure times with those lenses while minimizing camera shake.
The way IBIS works is to match the average expected movement of the camera to the average resonant frequencies of human musculature according to focal length, and shift the sensor to compensate for that motion at different exposure times. The various implementations of IBIS all require some additional space and structure in the camera body, depending on the range of operation it is intended to try to compensate and the amount of stabilization desired, making the body a bit larger. The sensor floats, essentially, and moves up, down, sideways, etc as the camera moves in the opposite direction. The range of sensor motion of a leading IBIS system (the Olympus E-5 and E-M5 systems) means that the sensor can move as much as 1cm off the central lens axis with longer focal lengths.
You can imagine that, at the extremes, there may actually be some image degradation if a particular lens' coverage is pretty tight to the format, or if the compensating motion is not precisely tuned to the focal length.
Most of the existing IBIS systems have proven to be pretty simple and robust in use ... I haven't heard of too many Pentax, Sony, or Olympus bodies with broken IBIS mechanisms in the repair shops.
Whether to add this feature to the Leica M is a toss up based on how well it can be fitted, how much size tradeoff is acceptable, how useful it might be for some things, etc. If you are always using 75/90/135 mm focal lengths in good to middling light, I expect it would be a significant advantage. If you are normally using shorter focal lengths and shooting people in dim circumstances, it will likely prove to be much ado about nothing at all.
One thing to note is that a good IBIS system is just about completely transparent to the user experience. An additional button or menu option to turn it on and off as desired is all that is required. So adding it to a Leica M, modulo the size/cost/usefulness items, would have little to no practical impact on the use of the camera ergonomically.
G
PS: none of my present cameras have IBIS, and I haven't missed it. ;-)
fti
Established
Prior to the M9 I used the Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8 almost exclusively on the 5D Mark II. It's truly amazing what IS can do for camera shake.
If I had IS capability for the M9 - I'd used it even with a 35mm lens. I can tell you that I have steady hands. I'm almost unbeatable when it comes to the electric wire buzzer game thingie, that is, I've never been beat. But carefully discerning pictures shows me that there are enough less sharp pictures due to camera shake - this is also accounting for motion blur. Having seen many many many samples before getting the M9, I think there are plenty of people that have this problem - especially because we use lower shutter speeds to account for less ISOs capabilities. Pictures are just not AS sharp as they could be with a given lens.
However there's also something to be said about keeping the M9 pure and void of gadgets. Wouldn't it be cool if there was some external IS unit which you could attach to the M. Wish I had he technical know-how then I'd probably look into making one.
If I had IS capability for the M9 - I'd used it even with a 35mm lens. I can tell you that I have steady hands. I'm almost unbeatable when it comes to the electric wire buzzer game thingie, that is, I've never been beat. But carefully discerning pictures shows me that there are enough less sharp pictures due to camera shake - this is also accounting for motion blur. Having seen many many many samples before getting the M9, I think there are plenty of people that have this problem - especially because we use lower shutter speeds to account for less ISOs capabilities. Pictures are just not AS sharp as they could be with a given lens.
However there's also something to be said about keeping the M9 pure and void of gadgets. Wouldn't it be cool if there was some external IS unit which you could attach to the M. Wish I had he technical know-how then I'd probably look into making one.
Lss
Well-known
thegman
Mentor
If technology was perfect and reliable, there is no reason not to include it, but with limited R&D budgets and engineering resources, then it seems a lot of engineering for such a small issue.
fti
Established
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Do not want in-camera IS, I have already have the in-photographer IS version...
leicapixie
Well-known
Amazing how many say no to real improvements. The IS feature has saved me many photos that i could never have done without. Auto Sensor cleaning is a must. Weather proofing of some sort should be standard on a Leica, which is barely dustproof. The lowest end DSLR all have these features. Leica lags far behind in electronics.. Can you do without? Of Course. Using a 11x14 view camera with glass plates that one has just coated may yield special results, Sally Mann.
These features would improve quality and make owning a Leica even more joy!
These features would improve quality and make owning a Leica even more joy!
gustavoAvila
Established
An IBIS mechanism would require a substantial increase in the camera body dimensions.
History has proven that Leica has very little leeway with regards to altering the basic M form factor.
As such, an IBIS equipped M could be rejected by the Leica community.
History has proven that Leica has very little leeway with regards to altering the basic M form factor.
As such, an IBIS equipped M could be rejected by the Leica community.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Welcome to the era of the 5 kg Leica. Let's add in-body IS... and auto sensor cleaning... and weatherproof the lenses (not much point in weatherproofing the body otherwise)... and make it as big as a Nikon DSLR so we can put 'advanced' electronics in...
If you want a big, heavy camera, buy a big, heavy camera. If you want an M, buy an M. The current M240 is pretty well weatherproofed but as I say, without weatherproofed lenses, who cares?
Cheers,
R.