tlitody
Well-known
And I guess they are built into the IS unit. Olympus EP-2 and the like have them already so I really don't think there is much of a space issue. But I still don't think Leica will do it any time soon.
Do you want image stabilisation in camera?
- Thread starter tlitody
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 281
- Views 6K
And I guess they are built into the IS unit. Olympus EP-2 and the like have them already so I really don't think there is much of a space issue. But I still don't think Leica will do it any time soon.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks. I really had no idea. But it must have been someone else who mentioned gyroscopes, not I. As you say: get real.
I was however told at the factory that there was no room for a flash sync socket on an M8...
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Are you sure the EP-2 has IS based on just an acceleromter? All the in-body stabilizers I know (Olympus E-3, Sony 900, Pentax) work with a moving sensor. You need more space for a solution with a moving sensor, I suppose.
tlitody
Well-known
I'm saying the accelerometer is used to instruct the sensor moving motor. It has to know which direction, how far and how fast to move.
I suspect it is all built into the unit which the sensor sits on. I'm not saying they all use the same one in the Iphone but a similar technology.
ramosa
B&W
no! i want to keep it simple. i don't want IS or auto focus or anything like that. keep it simple and dependable.
user237428934
User deletion pending
AF? The Thread title is "Do you want image stabilisation in camera?"
JPSuisse
Well-known
Hi all,
if it is only software, it wouldn't bother me to have IS. Then, it's a function that can be just turned off and woudn't add additional mechanical complexity.
Personally, IS does not figure into my requirements for buying equipment. So, Leica could not sell an additional camera too me, just because they would add such a feature. So, I voted no.
All things being equal, I would prefer better low ISO performance than IS. Here my M8, and it seems the M9 is still lacking.
Cheers,
JP
if it is only software, it wouldn't bother me to have IS. Then, it's a function that can be just turned off and woudn't add additional mechanical complexity.
Personally, IS does not figure into my requirements for buying equipment. So, Leica could not sell an additional camera too me, just because they would add such a feature. So, I voted no.
All things being equal, I would prefer better low ISO performance than IS. Here my M8, and it seems the M9 is still lacking.
Cheers,
JP
tlitody
Well-known
The problem with software IS is that it is heavy on processor usage and therefore battery usage. If that wasn't the case, then they wouldn't need the motor driven method.
And I guess canon developed their system the way they did for the benefit of film users.
And I guess canon developed their system the way they did for the benefit of film users.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Richard Marks
Rexel
The reason things are digital and otherwise just like a film m is because this is the preceived market of leica M users. Leica are almost trapped and dare not make radical changes. Always quoted is the M5 sarga but things were different then.
I personally think the real value of leica is the rangefinder lenses. Personally I would be in favour of a total ground up re design to make something contemporary. If i wanted to go on a HCB nostalgia trip then i would get an old film M. Once one is past this, then image stabilisation , live view, spot metering, weather proofing and other mod cons are a logical progression. I think its time to let go of the constraints of the classic m style. Perhaps production costs could also be substantially reduced.
Best wishes
Richard
I personally think the real value of leica is the rangefinder lenses. Personally I would be in favour of a total ground up re design to make something contemporary. If i wanted to go on a HCB nostalgia trip then i would get an old film M. Once one is past this, then image stabilisation , live view, spot metering, weather proofing and other mod cons are a logical progression. I think its time to let go of the constraints of the classic m style. Perhaps production costs could also be substantially reduced.
Best wishes
Richard
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Richard,
In much the same way as bicycle makers are 'trapped' by having only two wheels...
Despite its many faults, and despite the fact that the current model is somew way from the optimum, the principal advantage of capitalism is that it is a balance between buyers/users and manufacturers/providers. If there were a big enough market for the camera you describe, it might exist. The market for Leicas is far from huge, but it's big enough to keep them in business.
Of course the naysayers always counter with 'How long for?' Personally, I have more faith in Leica's management and designers than I do in internet pontifcators, including myself. In the 1980s manufactured (or more accurately, 'had made for me') LF cameras, up to 11x14 inch. The business was not a great success, though I didn't actually lose money on it: I sold maybe a dozen in all. But at least I have run a (very small) camera manufacturing business, as have several of my friends, most (though not all) with more success and greater sales than I. It's not as easy as it looks.
Cheers,
R.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dearest Roger
I agree the market dictates what companies make. Its just a shame the leica faithfull can not imagine anything other than an M body. It is this sentiment that traps Leica and the dreaded fear of a M5 rerun not the specification of the body itslef. As such I do not think it is directly analagous to the number of wheels on a bicycle. I have just bought a bike with electric assist, 350 watt motor good for 30 miles . The L ion battery weighs less than 4 kilos. The bike micro processor measures torque from the gear train and matches this with a pre determined amount of assist. The motor is completely sealed and water proof. Down hill it recharges the battery. It has come quite a way from the penny farthing in both function and appearence.
Leica are trying to pack digital technology into a 1950's body. They dare not alter size or shape or construction materials by any amount without risking outrage. Hasselblad bit the bullet and redesigned completely to make a contemporary digital platform. They changed the format and the lens manufacturer and went autofocus. It is nothing like a v series yet they have got away with it. There was a lot of noise at the time but professionals did see the logic. The v series is still in use (and long may it live) but it could never have been modified enough to have the functionality of an H series.
Best wishes
Richard
I agree the market dictates what companies make. Its just a shame the leica faithfull can not imagine anything other than an M body. It is this sentiment that traps Leica and the dreaded fear of a M5 rerun not the specification of the body itslef. As such I do not think it is directly analagous to the number of wheels on a bicycle. I have just bought a bike with electric assist, 350 watt motor good for 30 miles . The L ion battery weighs less than 4 kilos. The bike micro processor measures torque from the gear train and matches this with a pre determined amount of assist. The motor is completely sealed and water proof. Down hill it recharges the battery. It has come quite a way from the penny farthing in both function and appearence.
Leica are trying to pack digital technology into a 1950's body. They dare not alter size or shape or construction materials by any amount without risking outrage. Hasselblad bit the bullet and redesigned completely to make a contemporary digital platform. They changed the format and the lens manufacturer and went autofocus. It is nothing like a v series yet they have got away with it. There was a lot of noise at the time but professionals did see the logic. The v series is still in use (and long may it live) but it could never have been modified enough to have the functionality of an H series.
Best wishes
Richard
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think the key word here is "professional". Professionals who use the digital Ms exist, but they are maybe not that many. From a professional you get opinions such as Roger's, which, as I understood it, basically seems to be "as long as I still get the compact reliable rangefinder I use for my work, it's fine whatever they put in there".
However, from the non-professionals you get opinions such as "Image stabilization? I might just as well buy an SLR". Here you find people who buy a Leica not for what it gives them, but for what it isn't. For those people, digital developments pretty much end with the M9. What can Leica do for the M10 that competes with tomorrow's cameras, so as not to spoil it for this segment of their target demographic? Put another different sensor in it and that's it. Of course, innovation and engineering end here, but then again, for people averse to progress this means heaven.
If that works as a business model, by all means go ahead, but we have examples of camera companies where it didn't.
I think Leica is seeing the world pretty much as you describe it, or else they wouldn't have developed the S line. That is mainly geared towards professionals who see the logic, while not "different" and 1950's-style lacquered-brass-authentic enough to be interesting for "advanced amateurs" (or, to put it polemically, bobos and affluent pentagenarians+). I think it's a good idea for Leica to have a second leg to stand on camera-wise. Some engineering and development has to go on, otherwise it's just stagnation. And then you end up like Rollei, with a name slapped on dime-a-dozen Chinese compact cameras, ballpoint pens and lighters, and an assembly hall somewhere where people put together 1950s-style TLRs from leftover spare parts to sell under a different name.
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
So much as a digital M Leica :- a triumph of false hope over substance. A collection of ageing parts to make a dog, an aggrogant assertion that they are the best at a price way beyond their actual worth and a commercial whinging "were'e only being paid 5,000 pounds a game ".
:bang:
jarski
Veteran
I agree with rxmd's comments, but don't believe it would work for Leica in a longer run.
how about adding "M3 retro mode" to M9.2/10, that turns off all the new bells and whistles and dumb the camera back to -50's ? would it be easier to accept then ? 🙄
tlitody
Well-known
Most of the people here are enthusiasts or photojournalists which only represents a part of leicas customer base. A big part of their customer base are the rich and famous. A leica to them is a simple point and shoot which takes nice family shots. Leica means different things to different people but don't assume your own ideas of what a leica is, represents the wider view of what a leica is. It is the rich and wealthy and those wanting the leica designer label that keep leica in busines and probably not you.
Ask yourself this: If you wanted an up market carry around camera that reflected your wealth and status in society, which camera would you buy?
Forget about your knowledge of resolution, pixel counts, image quality, lens MTF or any other photographic knowledge and just concentrate on which camera has a reputation for being the best quality.
A Sony, a Canon, a nikon, an Olympus or a Leica?
Now that is an argument why Leica may decide to implement IS
Won't help this clapped out old geezer😀
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article250998.ece
Ask yourself this: If you wanted an up market carry around camera that reflected your wealth and status in society, which camera would you buy?
Forget about your knowledge of resolution, pixel counts, image quality, lens MTF or any other photographic knowledge and just concentrate on which camera has a reputation for being the best quality.
A Sony, a Canon, a nikon, an Olympus or a Leica?
Now that is an argument why Leica may decide to implement IS
Won't help this clapped out old geezer😀
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article250998.ece
Davidschumaker
Member
As I get older - yes
As I get older - yes
I have been a longtime Leica user. I used to be able to hold my camera down to a 15th of a sec. I am 70 now and in the past 8 - 10 years I have developed a slight tremor in my hands. At slow speeds, I love night sidewalk shooting, I have to use a monopod with my Leica M9 at those times which makes me more visible. I have less problems with my N90 with stabilization. So my answer is YES. And soon, I ain't gettin younger. 🙂
As I get older - yes
I have been a longtime Leica user. I used to be able to hold my camera down to a 15th of a sec. I am 70 now and in the past 8 - 10 years I have developed a slight tremor in my hands. At slow speeds, I love night sidewalk shooting, I have to use a monopod with my Leica M9 at those times which makes me more visible. I have less problems with my N90 with stabilization. So my answer is YES. And soon, I ain't gettin younger. 🙂
parsec1
parsec1
Good Bye and I wish you all well
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Try using the Leica minitripod as a chest tripod. Works wonders with problems like this.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An analogy might be with shoes. Cheap shoes cost very little, but generally don't wear well; good shoes are likely to cost $100-$500; and after that, you can waste money on designer labels or spend money wisely (if you've got it) on made-to-measure top-quality shoes from Lobb and the like. 'Designer label' and 'quality' are VERY far from being the same thing.
Now, I can't afford Lobbs, but if I had the money, I'd buy 'em without thinking. Now translate that to photography. Assume I'm mildly interested, and want something a bit better than a point-and-shoot. Most of us might agonize over whether to buy an MP, M9 or whatever. If you're seriously rich, there's no agonizing involved.
So yes, the rich are a very important market, and it's quite probable that their fathers and grandfathers also had Leicas, but to dismiss them as wanting a point-and-shoot is probably not accurate. Why, after all, should a rich man not be interested in (and indeed good at) photography?
On a separate but related topic, I completely agree that Leica needs to make more than just the M-series (as of course they do). On the other hand, it strkes me as completey wrong-headed to say that they should stop making M-series and make something else, or redesign the M-series so that it ceases to bear much resemblance to an M-series.
Cheers,
R
Last edited: