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
tlitody said:
German culture has a strong element of wanting to be the best and to own the best and to show off the best. That's not exclusive to Germans but I'd say it is more prevalent in Germany than other European cultures except maybe Italy. Nothing but the best will do. That is the ethos of the company and it's highly sucessful in marketing that philosphy to Germans which keeps it in business as an independant company. It's not mainstream enough to appeal to the mass marketers which makes it's an unlikely target for takeover by bigger companies.
Click to expand...

That is a rather sweeping generalization for a federal state with at least a dozen different cultures within its borders. Interestingly Mercedes for instanceis built in Schwaben, which, having lived there, I would call the lest ambitious of all german states. Anyway, I think this feeling of wanting to be the best is a general human emotion, see the recent world championship football...😉
 
jaapv said:
And now ask yourself why Leica is still around as an independent company...🙄
Click to expand...

I guess because they got lucky in the 1990s; after they were bought by a boutique company, they realized that making income from boutique customers would allow them to continue with limited development resources. Then they got lucky because the New Minimalism wave set in. Currently this works rather well, because this kind of elitist minimalism that emphasizes the feeling of authenticity and nostalgia is currently hip. So at the moment Leica can target two crowds: younger bourgeois-bohemians in search of alternative, authentic things on their way to gentrification, as aging affluent customers. I guess selling the brandname to Panasonic helped, too.

I'd put that down as a rather precarious survival though. Key business sectors were lost into separate companies. Dependence on the present fashion of nostalgia, authenticity and minimalism is problematic; who knows how long the alliance of bobos, aging lawyers and a few photographers will be interested in yesterday's camera concepts enough to support developing new variants of yesterday's product? For the strategic orientation, four CEOs in five years don't bode well, either. You can see that Leica is trying to break out of that niche by developing innovative cameras (the S2 is a good example) in sectors where customers are less innovation-averse. If Leica survives for more than the next ten years as a camera company, it will be because of those sectors; otherwise they will become a boutique repairshop catering to owners of used high-end cameras.
 
rxmd said:
I guess because they got lucky in the 1990s; after they were bought by a boutique company, they realized that making income from boutique customers would allow them to continue with limited development resources. Then they got lucky because the New Minimalism wave set in. Currently this works rather well, because this kind of elitist minimalism that emphasizes the feeling of authenticity and nostalgia is currently hip. So at the moment Leica can target two crowds: younger bourgeois-bohemians in search of alternative, authentic things on their way to gentrification, as aging affluent customers. I guess selling the brandname to Panasonic helped, too.

I'd put that down as a rather precarious survival though. Key business sectors were lost into separate companies. Dependence on the present fashion of nostalgia, authenticity and minimalism is problematic; who knows how long the alliance of bobos, aging lawyers and a few photographers will be interested in yesterday's camera concepts enough to support developing new variants of yesterday's product? For the strategic orientation, four CEOs in five years don't bode well, either. You can see that Leica is trying to break out of that niche by developing innovative cameras (the S2 is a good example) in sectors where customers are less innovation-averse. If Leica survives for more than the next ten years as a camera company, it will be because of those sectors; otherwise they will become a boutique repairshop catering to owners of used high-end cameras.
Click to expand...
Rather interesting. It completely disregards the quality appeal of the products to advanced amateurs, though, as it does the growing number of pro photographers (rather scarce on this forum, but quite visible on LUF and GetDPI) who seem to buy the camera for the sake of the tool. And, as Roger points out, cameras only generate a proportion of the revenue. Lenses and sports optics are the other money-makers.
 
Roger Hicks said:
It's also interesting to know how much Leica makes from so-called 'sport optics', too (binoculars and telescopes). It's rather more than most people think.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A visit to a UK site with a rare bird is likely to yield more views of red spots than a lifetime of camera spotting. But, Leica seems to be losing ground to Swarovski and Leica pricing of the current binocular range has put them out of reach of many core users on the birding scene.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Surely the answer is pretty simple:

Without any downside whatsoever: why not?

With any downside whatsoever: NO!
Click to expand...

But Roger, you almost must have downside by design - the overall reliability must decrease with any additional complexity 😱

I love the 'M' but also have some realistic expectations that don't really involve more features. Surely by now, and regardless of what legacy design and/or feel Leica wishes to maintain in an 'M' body, they should be able to deliver a product that offers the build quality, reliability and sealing of a high-end Nikon or Canon DSLR.
 
craygc said:
the overall reliability must decrease with any additional complexity 😱
Click to expand...

in-body IS cant be a super challenging to manufacture anymore, even for small company like Leica. + digital M is still digital camera, be there IS or not. its not as reliable as film M's in their heyday.
 
jaapv said:
That is a rather sweeping generalization for a federal state with at least a dozen different cultures within its borders. Interestingly Mercedes for instanceis built in Schwaben, which, having lived there, I would call the lest ambitious of all german states. Anyway, I think this feeling of wanting to be the best is a general human emotion, see the recent world championship football...😉
Click to expand...

I did see the football and it was patently obvious the English team didn't want to be the best. Well I'll correct that, they wanted everyone to believe they were the best but they weren't prepared to do what was necessary to be the best. So they are only the best at wanting to be best which isn't best enough.🙄
 
tom.w.bn said:
No. The IS has to "swing in" for a few seconds to be 100% effective. So normally the IS in the canon lenses starts when you press the shutter-button half way for exposure/af
Click to expand...

Not applicable to sensor based IS because canon uses lens based IS which moves a lens in the lens which gives you IS in the viewfinder(I think). Not the case with sensor based IS. And with sensor based it is only the accelerometer which needs to be active immeidately prior to tripping the shutter and not the IS motor. So Sensor based IS should be using a lot less power I think.
 
craygc said:
You would think so, but when other more fundamental aspects are not up to par you need to remain skeptical on those more tricky bits of functionality :bang:
Click to expand...

ok I understand your point, too many bad experiences when nothing could go wrong eh ? 🙂
but that's what beta testers and early adopters are for 😉
 
I would guess shutter lag time would increase when it's on, and the M9 already has more lag than the M8.

Do dslrs with in-body IS give the option to enable it only when shooting, and not when viewing to conserve battery usage?
 
Roger Hicks said:
How big is an accelerometer? And how much room is there inside an M9? (I have a much better idea of the answer to the second question).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

3mm X 5mm x 0.9mm

see following as used in the apple iphone and being utilised by new photographer software app for iphone so iphone can be placed on LF camera and warning of camera shake.

http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/12726/12726.pdf

gyroscopes? get real, they are only required to stop stuff from moving out of alignment.
 
ampguy said:
Do dslrs with in-body IS give the option to enable it only when shooting, and not when viewing to conserve battery usage?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would they use it at all when viewing?? In-body IS moves the sensor, it has no effect at all on the viewfinder.

You could possibly use it when using live view, but then the battery usage of IS is the least of your worries.
 
ampguy said:
I would guess shutter lag time would increase when it's on, and the M9 already has more lag than the M8.

Do dslrs with in-body IS give the option to enable it only when shooting, and not when viewing to conserve battery usage?
Click to expand...
Sony A900 has IS inbody. That's one reason it is very popular the other being zeiss autofocus lenses(for a price).
Check the manual if you can get hold of it from their site. I don't know if its switchable but I suspect it would be.
 
ampguy said:
I would guess shutter lag time would increase when it's on, and the M9 already has more lag than the M8.

Do dslrs with in-body IS give the option to enable it only when shooting, and not when viewing to conserve battery usage?
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think it would cause more shutter lag. If it did, then by the time it had shiffted the sensor then the camera motion could have changed. I think you will find its pretty much instantaneous otherwise its useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom