M9 - why not a stabilized sensor?

Started Sep 9, 2009 | Discussions
TomasJacko
Regular MemberPosts: 493
Like?
M9 - why not a stabilized sensor?
Sep 9, 2009

Would anybody welcome an in-body stabilization in the M9?

Any particular reasons why not include it in the new camera?
--
http://www.tomasjacko.com

Greg Gebhardt
Forum ProPosts: 25,093Gear list
Like?
It would bother some of the hard line Leica people but
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

it would not surprise me to see it one day.

I am shocked it is included on the X1 and for that reason some Leica people will get their noses bent!

-- hide signature --

Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

 Greg Gebhardt's gear list:Greg Gebhardt's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Leica M9 Nikon D4 Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sclamb
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,127
Like?
Re: M9 - why not a stabilized sensor?
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

TomasJacko wrote:

Would anybody welcome an in-body stabilization in the M9?

Any particular reasons why not include it in the new camera?
--

I have found IS to be most useful when using longer lenses where camera shake is more noticeable. Given that the longest I use on my M8.2 is a 75mm I do't see any particular need for IS.

Simon
--
http://sclamb.zenfolio.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter White
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,701
Like?
Re: M9 - why not a stabilized sensor?
In reply to sclamb, Sep 9, 2009

M lenses are designed to cover 24x36. If you have a moving sensor, the corners of the sensor must move into the vignetted edge of the lens' image circle. So IS would be feasible for a cropped sensor, such as in the M8, but not in a full frame sensor. For a full frame sensor, M lenses would have to be designed with a larger image circle, so the sensor could move, or the IS would have to be built into the lenses, along with the larger image circle.

The whole point to the M8 and M9 is the compatibility with existing M system lenses. So perhaps a future iteration of the M8 could have IS, but not the M9.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TomasJacko
Regular MemberPosts: 493
Like?
Re: M9 - why not a stabilized sensor?
In reply to Peter White, Sep 9, 2009

Peter White wrote:

M lenses are designed to cover 24x36. If you have a moving sensor, the corners of the sensor must move into the vignetted edge of the lens' image circle. So IS would be feasible for a cropped sensor, such as in the M8, but not in a full frame sensor. For a full frame sensor, M lenses would have to be designed with a larger image circle, so the sensor could move, or the IS would have to be built into the lenses, along with the larger image circle.

This sounds logical. Right.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Per PN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,263
Like?
Thanks, Peter White. Good explanation.
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

Never thought of it that way...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg Gebhardt
Forum ProPosts: 25,093Gear list
Like?
Not so sure that would be the reason.
In reply to Peter White, Sep 9, 2009

The sensor moves VERY little with IS and if Leica is that tight on space, there will be some light fall off for sure, even with out IS
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

 Greg Gebhardt's gear list:Greg Gebhardt's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Leica M9 Nikon D4 Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,558
Like?
Somebody forgot to tell Sony this
In reply to Peter White, Sep 9, 2009

Peter White wrote:

M lenses are designed to cover 24x36. If you have a moving sensor, the corners of the sensor must move into the vignetted edge of the lens' image circle. So IS would be feasible for a cropped sensor, such as in the M8, but not in a full frame sensor.

Somebody forgot to tell Sony this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
milano22
Regular MemberPosts: 213
Like?
This is simply incorrect
In reply to Peter White, Sep 9, 2009

This is simply uninformed and totally incorrect explanation. There are other brands offering IS and full frame sensor, and the system works perfectly well with older, even pre-digital era lenses. The amount of sensor shift required for IS is minimal, and the image circle does not cut off from full to zero immediately.

Peter White wrote:

M lenses are designed to cover 24x36. If you have a moving sensor, the corners of the sensor must move into the vignetted edge of the lens' image circle. So IS would be feasible for a cropped sensor, such as in the M8, but not in a full frame sensor. For a full frame sensor, M lenses would have to be designed with a larger image circle, so the sensor could move, or the IS would have to be built into the lenses, along with the larger image circle.

The whole point to the M8 and M9 is the compatibility with existing M system lenses. So perhaps a future iteration of the M8 could have IS, but not the M9.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MGrayson
Regular MemberPosts: 499
Like?
Standard reply
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

To any question about why Leica does not include (insert useful feature here):

Because the photographer takes the picture, not the (insert useful feature here).

Extra points for including pre-1940 photo showing how early masters managed to take better pictures than you ever will without (insert useful feature here).

Matt

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AdamT
Forum ProPosts: 55,626Gear list
Like?
Its hard enough to get ------>
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

Its hard enough to get Digital rangefinders to not Vignette or have weird colour casts to begin with - Kodak went to great lengths to make angled Microlenses to get a sensor larger than APS-C to work and even then there are IR issues so adding a sensor which waves all over the place into the mix looks like Pure Hell to me !!!!!!!!

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Sigma DP1 Canon PowerShot SX210 IS Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon Coolpix P330 Samsung NX20
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
apoc
Regular MemberPosts: 426
Like?
Re: Its hard enough to get ------>
In reply to AdamT, Sep 9, 2009

AdamT wrote:

Its hard enough to get Digital rangefinders to not Vignette or have weird colour casts to begin with - Kodak went to great lengths to make angled Microlenses to get a sensor larger than APS-C to work and even then there are IR issues so adding a sensor which waves all over the place into the mix looks like Pure Hell to me !!!!!!!!

It's not.

Not adding a stabilized sensor is just unacceptable.
--
Sorry about my english, it's not my first language.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Franka T.L.
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,380Gear list
Like?
it is indeed solely missed ...
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

I am sorry that Leica take that long to made and yet unable to further the M platform. Inbody IS is not only desirable, its very much inline with the M concept , also the lack of Liveview, the Low res LCD. all of which is not that hard to implement in todays knowhow ...

In fact, after examining the X1 vs the M9, one can see that the X1 got a better one on the controls

There is nothing wrong about keeping all the good things old M RF are, but its also IMHO a big mistake not to advance and incorporate up to date technical knowhow and implement them ..

-- hide signature --

  • Franka -

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yana36
Contributing MemberPosts: 973
Like?
Re: M9 - why not a stabilized sensor?
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

TomasJacko wrote:

Would anybody welcome an in-body stabilization in the M9?

Any particular reasons why not include it in the new camera?
--
http://www.tomasjacko.com

Use fast lenses. Stabilisation in camera needs the room to place. M9 could be bigger. And I think Leica has no stabilisation technology.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fazal Majid
Contributing MemberPosts: 845Gear list
Like?
Re: It would bother some of the hard line Leica people but
In reply to Greg Gebhardt, Sep 9, 2009

Greg Gebhardt wrote:

I am shocked it is included on the X1 and for that reason some Leica people will get their noses bent!

Where did you see that the X1 has image stabilization? I couldn't find any mention of it in the spec sheet.

The reason why Leica did not introduce IS is simply that it doesn't have the technology. They are an optics and mechanical company foremost, not a diversified conglomerate like the Japanese firms. Most of the electronics work on the M9 seems to have been done by Jenoptik.
--
Fazal Majid ( http://www.majid.info )

 Fazal Majid's gear list:Fazal Majid's gear list
Sony RX1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Leica M Typ 240 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gregm61
Forum ProPosts: 13,394Gear list
Like?
Re: Its hard enough to get ------>
In reply to apoc, Sep 9, 2009

apoc wrote:

AdamT wrote:

Its hard enough to get Digital rangefinders to not Vignette or have weird colour casts to begin with - Kodak went to great lengths to make angled Microlenses to get a sensor larger than APS-C to work and even then there are IR issues so adding a sensor which waves all over the place into the mix looks like Pure Hell to me !!!!!!!!

It's not.

Not adding a stabilized sensor is just unacceptable.

If you were going to be using f4-5.6 zooms IS is really needed, but if you're going to be using f2 or faster primes and the higher ISO settings produce nice results, stabilizing the sensor to me is just not needed, and is simply one more thing that could go wrong mechanically. Damn, I wish I could get one, and I wouldn't give a flip if it had IS or not.

 Gregm61's gear list:Gregm61's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-300 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shaocaholica
Contributing MemberPosts: 839
Like?
Re: Its hard enough to get ------>
In reply to Gregm61, Sep 9, 2009

IS is not about absolutes. Take whatever fast lens you have and whatever high ISO you can live with and add a few stops to it. Thats what IS is about. Its not a substitute for other factors, its an enhancement of what you have so if what you have is really good then it will make it all that much better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D W
D W
Senior MemberPosts: 1,969
Like?
Lens coverage.
In reply to TomasJacko, Sep 9, 2009

Maybe the coverage circle of the lens and the accurate alignment of sensor's correction microlenses have something to do with not being able to implement sensor base SR.

-- hide signature --

Retired commercial photog - enjoying shooting for myself again.
Hoping to see/shoot as much as I can before the eyes and legs gives way

WOW you were able to do that without photoshop!!!!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jkrumm
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,945
Like?
Re: Lens coverage.
In reply to D W, Sep 9, 2009

It took Oly quite a while to come up with an IS mechanism small enough for the 620 and the E-P1. I suspect not only would it be difficult to make, but the camera itself would have to be thicker.

-- hide signature --

John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ayt
ayt
Contributing MemberPosts: 698Gear list
Like?
Re: It would bother some of the hard line Leica people but
In reply to Fazal Majid, Sep 9, 2009

Fazal Majid wrote:

Greg Gebhardt wrote:

I am shocked it is included on the X1 and for that reason some Leica people will get their noses bent!

Where did you see that the X1 has image stabilization? I couldn't find any mention of it in the spec sheet.
--
Fazal Majid ( http://www.majid.info )

if not said directly, it was definitely hinted at during the webcasted unveiling. I think the phrasing was something like "and this has stabilization [to make getting the shot easier]." recall wondering for a moment whether they meant sensor stabilization, lens stabilization, or some other implementation.

they definitely could have worked on the presentation scripts a bit more... too much general consumer, not enough technophile.

 ayt's gear list:ayt's gear list
Sigma DP2 Canon PowerShot S95 Olympus E-1 Olympus E-500 Olympus E-620 +37 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads