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
Roger Hicks said:
Remember the old hippy dictum: "Any is sufficient. Enough is too much."
Click to expand...

If those keepers had been sharper, today we wouldn't know the difference.

If they had been softer, they might not have been keepers and today we wouldn't know the difference - to our detriment.
 
japro said:
Whats a "cumulative direction"? You can integrate the acceleration of the camera once to get the velocity up to a unknown constant velocity and then again to get the location up to an again unknown "offset". Those two unknowns depend on the inertial frame you want to use, which is usually the one the subject is in. But there is no way the camera can know that. The camera would have to guess (possibly by averaging its location) the desired inertial frame...

So you say there is no tilting of the camera going on during exposure and the main source of blur is the linear displacement?
Click to expand...

I'm saying the accelerometer gives 3 vectors and from that it can calculate what the final direction and acceleration is. It's not perfect but then if it were could fix all camera movement and not just upto 4 stops.
I don't see why you need the actual speed and direction of the camera. You just acceleration to offset the sensor by that amount. The combinations of the three vectors allows calculation of tilt.
 
Last edited:
Ben Z said:
Weighing in late on this thread, but IMO I'd just as soon Leica didn't put IS in the next M10. IS would be one more new trick for Leica to learn (slowly, as they tend to) and one more thing to boost the cost of an already hideously expensive body. It works well in my Canons, but it's only there with lenses that need it (physically long, and somewhat slow f-stop). And it's essential in my DLux3, which because it doesn't have a normal viewfinder requires being held away from the body. I've never had a problem bracing an M camera steady, particularly since available focal lengths are at a conservative limit.
Click to expand...

+1. Agree fully. Feature bloat is an unnecesary thing on this type of camera.
 
well it looks like we have a steady 55% to 45% percentage NO vote on this one. Interesting that it has been fairly controversial and generated a lot of posts. Time will tell but I wouldn't hold your breath if you are waiting.
 
tlitody said:
I'm saying the accelerometer gives 3 vectors and from that it can calculate what the final direction and acceleration is. It's not perfect but then if it were could fix all camera movement and not just upto 4 stops.

There would be two readings immediately prior to the shutter tripping. The first is the reference the second allows the shake to be calculated. i.e. the difference bewteen the two readings. I don't see why you need the actual speed and direction of the camera. You just the relative difference to offset the sensor by that amount. The combinations of the three vectors allows calculation of tilt.
Click to expand...
I cannot follow you, you want to displace the sensor by exactly the amount that the camera moves during exposure? If you did that, you would end up amplifying the camera shake, a lot. For that to work, you'd have to shift the whole lens as well. Also you can't really calculate the tilt of the camera with a single linear accelerometer. Ok, in principle you can but then you assume that the only force acting on the camera is gravity which is obviously not the case because then there wouldn't be any reason to stabilize in the first place.

The errors introduced by linear displacement of the camera outside of closeup photography are negligible compared to angular changes. With focus at 5m and a 50mm lens the blur produced by 1mm displacement (which is a lot considering the exposure only takes a fraction of a second) is about 10 micrometer or about one pixel. The farther away the subject is the smaller this error gets. If you take pictures of say landscape with focus at infinity the blur would be completely gone.
On the other hand displacing only one side of the camera by 1 mm would result in a blur of about 0.4 mm or 50 pixel (!) regardless of subject distance.Therefore Cameras measure the angular velocity, subtract any sustained panning motion and shift the sensor with a velocity of (simplified): focal lengt X sin(angular velocity).
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Now I wonder what is wrong with Fujitsu electronics, which are inside the S2, as is a Kodak sensor.
Software is possibly by Jenoptik, who are a preferred supplier in the high-end miltary and commercial field. Leica has made some smart choices there, I think.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Still cant see it taking on 'blad. Time will tell

Richard
 
I think it is possible to include features in the future M body and still maintain all the aspects that make it a "Leica". I believe weather sealing and in-body image stabilization are among those features. Much like the inclusion of "Auto" aperture when we progressed from the M6 to the M7... Having an additional mode on the dial only adds and does not detract from the overall goal. No different from some of the more "modern" features commonly found today. To say, "go to a DSLR" or "another camera" for such features is short sighted because neither of those provide the same handling and quality of an M9. I think the M-body can only improve the whole experience assuming Leica carefully considers the overall design ("protect" button on my M8 comes to mind)


Somewhere there is a thread of the dissection of the M8. In that thread, it is obvious that Leica didn't have the opportunity/means to take advantage of what technology has to offer in terms of miniaturization. Much of the internal parts made the most use of off-the-shelve components. I think with necessary R&D, room can be made. I am also the owner of an Olympus digital Pen.... its smaller than the M-body AND has in body IS plus a bag full additional features/functions (most of which I wouldn't want to see in a leica M)

To resist simply for the sake of simplicity is ignoring the fact you've already stepped away from "simplicity".... when you decided to pickup a digital camera.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
You're right. It needs a way to upload photos to Facebook and Twitter. Resistance is futile.
Click to expand...

Uploading capability wouldn't help the whole experience. It's the end result of a workflow (short one at that) and doesn't help in the actual creation of a photograph. The same goes for radio, MP3..

A more usable tethering capability in the M-body might be useful to some but I would surmise mostly in a studio environment which doesn't seem to be the popular use for the M-digital.

Pentaprism isn't necessary in a camera based on rangefinder..

Autofocus.. some would argue for. The design differences would be so great that you might as well start with a new system (Leica S2.?). The Pentax ME-F was a failure because AF was tacked on and not designed into the system.

Pop up flash.. not popular among Leica users. Heck.. even DSLR users hate them because of their weak output. I wouldn't mind a better designed SF-24D..

Keep beating up the straw-man... he doesn't complain.
 
It might be convenient for very low light shots, while keeping iso not that high, although the whole RF concept is way better than DSLR to avoid handshake in such events.
 
funny thing is that this low light concept really didn't seem to rear its head until it became a marketing ploy for digital cameras. My camera is better than your camera when there is no light. I mean what speed film did you all use before ISO 3200 digital?
 
tlitody said:
funny thing is that this low light concept really didn't seem to rear its head until it became a marketing ploy for digital cameras. My camera is better than your camera when there is no light. I mean what speed film did you all use before ISO 3200 digital?
Click to expand...

Tri-X rated at ISO 6400.
 
tlitody said:
funny thing is that this low light concept really didn't seem to rear its head until it became a marketing ploy for digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said it reared its head as soon as it became technically possible to shoot high ISO in colour without getting grain the size of pancakes. With film it was very difficult, so most photographers didn't do that.

In the 1900s, you would probably have said "funny thing is that this hand-held camera concept really didn't seem to rear its head until it became a marketing ploy for Kodak" with the same kind of righteous disdain.
 
Nah. that's what steady hands are for.

First this, and now somebody elsewhere is suggesting an EVF. Keep this up, and you won't have an M--just another DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom