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
It does seem a little superfluous in an M body I must admit ... I regularly hand hold my M8 down to 1/8 and aside from motion blur due to subject movement it's usually sharp.

IS won't stop them moving!
 
Keith said:
It does seem a little superfluous in an M body I must admit ... I regularly hand hold my M8 down to 1/8 and aside from motion blur due to subject movement it's usually sharp.
Click to expand...

Well, if your hands are that steady, IS would let you hand-hold down to 1/2 when you need it. Keep the ISO two stops lower in low-light settings, netting you less noise. Would be great with those slow wideangles.

So that's a resounding YES from me, together with the acknowledgement that Leica probably won't do it - it takes a few camera generations to develop it, and it would probably seem un-M-like to some people.

Weather sealing would be nice, too.
 
Sensor cLeaning would be fantastic. IS not as usefull. Sensor vibrator to knock dust off in my canons is a world of difference from older eos models. I wish my m8 and rd1 had that feature. Not a deal breaker or maker but, a nice feature for sure. 🙂
 
I don't own an M9 but I do find VR useful on the only lens I have that has it. It is a 70 to 300 zoom and VR is useful at 70mm as well as 300mm. Having it in a body like the M9 would be useful for the reasons other have already stated. If you have not tried it you do not know how helpful it can be. If you don't want to use it you can turn it off, at least that is the case in the IS/VR version in lenses. I think it could be very useful.

Bob
 
I say keep the M9 simple.
Image stabilization works well but why complicate a good thing?

Work on your technique, shutter release and fitness so you can hold the camera steady for the perfect and spontaneous shot.
Go out and take some photos... Use it the way an M should be used. Actually go out and takes a lot of photos.
Take a spare battery with you and most of all have fun. 😉
 
I can't think of a good reason not to have Image Stabilisation if its possible. What are the downsides? It can be switched off if you don't want it, on the other hand if it gives another three stops of usable hand holding you don't necessarily need a Noctilux.

As for the grumpy argument 'I don't want to pay for things I don't use', well I bet there are already some things on the M9 (or a film MP) that many people don't use already, but they accept them whether its the 'B' function or 2500 ISO.

Steve
 
No to feature bloat in general. There are plenty of cameras offering this.
I'm not old enough yet to want an anti-Parkinson crutch.

250swb said:
I can't think of a good reason not to have Image Stabilisation if its possible. What are the downsides?
Click to expand...



The yes voters have voted for a camera that is at least 2 mm thicker.
 
Last edited:
I want for the M9.2, that's coming out in September 2012: Image stabilisation, Full Auto Mode, Autofokus, GPS, ....

....cause many people will buy it, and I'll save enough money to buy one of this M9, that will flood the second hand market.
 
Not if it makes the camera bigger or heavier or less reliable, or if it reduces the number of pics I can shoot with one battery. Otherwise yes. But I suspect that it would have at least one of those undesirable effects. Also, I'd want to be able to turn it on or off.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'm still saying NO... There are plenty of cameras available with image stabilization.

How many great photos have been taken with a Leica with no image stabilization?

It's just fluff gentlemen. You don't need it.
 
Last edited:
Nikon Bob said:
I don't own an M9 but I do find VR useful on the only lens I have that has it. It is a 70 to 300 zoom and VR is useful at 70mm as well as 300mm. Having it in a body like the M9 would be useful for the reasons other have already stated. If you have not tried it you do not know how helpful it can be. If you don't want to use it you can turn it off, at least that is the case in the IS/VR version in lenses. I think it could be very useful.

Bob
Click to expand...

I don't know about Leica's IS but on my D90 the VR lenses make a huge difference for me......I'm not as steady as I used to be and they help......however it does make the lenses even BIGGER ug!
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not if it makes the camera bigger or heavier or less reliable, or if it reduces the number of pics I can shoot with one battery. Otherwise yes. But I suspect that it would have at least one of those undesirable effects. Also, I'd want to be able to turn it on or off.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have any noticeable effect on battery life. It only needs to be on for the total amount of time your shutter is open.

So if you shoot 1000 images per battery charge at 1/10th a second each average (quite pessimistic), that's
100 seconds total operation per battery charge. Change your average exposure time to 1/60th and total shutter time is only 17 seconds.
 
Last edited:
With long lenses I use a tripod, which beats image stabilization, and on the run a beanbag is ideal.
Much better than a fatter camera with a higher power consumption. Although the larger camera could accommodate a larger battery.
 
Double Negative said:
Less things to go wrong. Less reason for Leica to raise the price even more. 😉

If I need all these things, I have a Canon DSLR w/L lenses to handle the rough stuff.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I've noticed the price of Canon's going up unduly when they introduced IS, rather it seems all this is cheap technology nowadays.

And how much bigger have cameras got when IS was introduced, in fact is there any camera that has been noticably bigger than its non-IS cousin? I'd say that generally speaking when a manufacturer has introduced an IS camera its always been smaller than its predecessor.

As for being worried about battery life, well, it may be a consideration if you thought Leica may just bolt IS on to an M9 without thinking about it. Is it really likely that Leica wouldn't consider that?

Is it difficult to clean a sensor with a swab? Of course not, generally speaking. But when does dirt get on your sensor, when you get home? Thats a laugh. No, dirt gets on your sensor while you are out making photographs and changing lenses. So its wrong to want some reliability by having a sensor that can shake the dust off when its most needed out 'in the field'?

I despair with you all. IS and a dust busting sensor wouldn't have any outward or functional disadvantage for an M9. If the technology and timeline had been a year or two either way the M8 could have had it. So now you'd all be asking for Leica to remove it.....I think not.

Steve
 
250swb said:
I'm not sure I've noticed the price of Canon's going up unduly when they introduced IS, rather it seems all this is cheap technology nowadays.

And how much bigger have cameras got when IS was introduced, in fact is there any camera that has been noticably bigger than its non-IS cousin? I'd say that generally speaking when a manufacturer has introduced an IS camera its always been smaller than its predecessor.

As for being worried about battery life, well, it may be a consideration if you thought Leica may just bolt IS on to an M9 without thinking about it. Is it really likely that Leica wouldn't consider that?



Steve
Click to expand...
How far would the sensor have to move for IS? How to make that compatible with the shifted microprisms? How to make it compatible with the digital corner corrections? Where is Leica going to put the extra fatness? Quite apart from the mechanical tolerances of that moving sensor in the M system. Or would you build in an even larger sensor and make the IS digital rather than mechanical. We have a saying: the best helmsmen sit on the beach... Note that small IS cameras are all small sensor cameras that don't have to struggle with register distance issues, so comparing those is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom