Anti shake in body

N

Nikon Bob

Guest
Just curious to see if any users of the M8 would consider this a useful feature to have had in the M8. I can see where it could be very helpful.

Bob
 
If I'm not mistaken, existing antishake systems work by examining the autofocus point and attempting to keep it steady. I'm sure "antishake" is right under "autofocus" on Leica's list of features to add.
 
AF is not needed for Anti-Shake - if you are refering to the Konica Minolta technology. AS can be used with manual focus.

I would imaging Leica had enough on ther plate with designing a digital rangefinder without having to work in AS. Certainly it would have added to the size of the body and I am sure they wanted to keep it as thin as possible.

The other problem is patents. They would either need to licence the technology and that licence has gone to Sony. Or they would have had to develop something entirely unique. Hard to do.
 
Thanks guys for your replies, although I did not ask if it was possible to do or not or that it in anyway implied auto focus was involved. I only wondered if M8, or any other RF users for that matter, would find such a feature useful.

Bob
 
Wouldn't interest me. An RF offers lower vibration due to no mirror slap; add to that more compact high speed lenses, and you have 1-2 more stops anyway. More electronics is more expense and more chance for screw-ups.
 
Trius said:
Wouldn't interest me. An RF offers lower vibration due to no mirror slap; add to that more compact high speed lenses, and you have 1-2 more stops anyway. More electronics is more expense and more chance for screw-ups.
Click to expand...

Being an M and SM user I fully appreciate the first part of your comment re the 1-2 stop gain simply by the RF virtue of no reflex mirror. The advantage of an anti shake feature in the body would increase that already existing advantage and allow you to use slower lenses and/or lower iso settings. Seems like a win/win situation to me. The last part of your statement I can also agree with as being the down side.

Bob
 
I am paying Leica to put as FEW automated gizmos into the camera as possible. Give me a shutter dial, shutter button, aperture ring, focus tab, and I can shoot pictures. Anything else is excess baggage.

I'd pay car makers extra to put in manual transmissions instead of automatic ones - fortunately, they haven't discovered that yet

8^)
 
Anti-shake in my body can be quite helpful in low light, but I prefer a traditional technology: alcohol. :D No patent restriction, and usable with any mechanical camera.
 
Anti shake is perfect for non-moving subjects; architecture and landscape, but most will use a tripod for that anyway.
In body anti shake in my opinion is just another thing which can break easily, unless you treat your body with the greatest care. I go for the in-lens anti shake. But then I'm use the VR lenses.
 
Leica already is making OS 4/3rds lenses

Of course this is stretching... but they could always make an OS prime for their M mount
 
Anti-shake works very well at controlling the chief cause of blurry, low-shutter speed pics, and that's hand shaking. No mirror slap is a moot point if you can't keep your hand perfectly still at 1/8th.

I'm not spending 5k on any digital camera, even if it works perfectly. The upcoming Pentax K10D looks appealing as it has their version of anti-shake and 10MP for under a grand. Plus Pentax offers a range of compact, almost pancake lenses including a 21 and a 45mm.
 
Nikon's VR is excellent in the Telephoto setting

with the 24-120 I can hand hold shutter speeds at about 1/10th and even if I am lucky decently sharp at 1/8th (though that is rare)

but 1/20th is not problem for the VR lenses as long as your subject is staying still
 
I went from a very sophisticated professional DSLR system (back) to the M system because with the DSLR, I no longer felt like I was taking pictures. Any craft or skill for the resulting images was mediated by 80-billion-point autofocus, computer-controlled exposure, the ability to take over 8 frames per second by just holding down the shutter, etc. I no longer felt like a photographer, I felt like someone holding up a photography machine.

Whether or not this is actually different with a Leica M is of course debatable, but I once again feel like I'm participating in the photographic process instead of just facilitating it. I'm not a pro, so perhaps I have the luxury of being able to say that the process of creating an image is just as important to me as the actual image. In some cases, perhaps even more important.

If you want the camera to shake less, learn to hold it steady, get a tripod, get creative with your camera bracing, buy a faster lens, etc. Like a previous response, I paid the M8 premium precisely to _not_ have these sort of features--I already have them on my other camera.

Also, having those features and turning them off is not as appealing to me as not having them available in the first place.
 
If you want the camera to shake less, learn to hold it steady, get a tripod, get creative with your camera bracing, buy a faster lens, etc...
Click to expand...

While I agree with you about the appeal of a simple camera, I disagree with the workarounds you list here. Using a tripod is simply silly for most fast-paced work, fast lenses means an unusably shallow depth of field and if holding my camera steady means I have to give up caffeine, then the world's going to be a much grumpier place. :D
 
Rico said:
Anti-shake in my body can be quite helpful in low light, but I prefer a traditional technology: alcohol. :D No patent restriction, and usable with any mechanical camera.
Click to expand...
Ah. I had been wondering about your avatar; quite clear now! :angel:
 
As a KM 5D user I am used to anti shake and find it a great asset. I regularly use long lenses (upto 840mm equiv) in poor light with only beanbag support for wildlife shots and it extends what is possible. For rangefinder use with more moderate length lenses it is perhaps less usefull but for natural light it will make shots practial that were impossible, and ones that were acceptable, potentially excellent. The technology is developed and robust within the digital world timescale and I can only recommend it.
 
For many of the reasons stated already, I don't think I would want it. More stuff to break down etc.

I use a couple of VR lenses on my Nikons and find them very effective in the right circumstances.

But on a rangefinder, no.
 
I guess Leica users are a pretty staid group in general and Leica knows their client base well.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom