RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
The point was ... a lot of handheld shooting can be done without IBIS ... but, it generally means you will need to raise the ISO, rather than drag the shutter.
I dig on IBIS as much as the next guy for what it can do for you. I mean, really 500/5.6 at 1/10s is stupid nice.
But, my point about the M having IBIS is that where IBIS is ABSENT, the ISO capabilities still afford the shooter a lot of options to still "capture the moment". The ethos of the being creative with IBIS and dragging the shutter is certain viable, and I can / have / will do so past / present / future.
BUT, when it comes to the choice between a BIGGER body vs. IBIS ... there will be some who will accept the smaller body in exchange for the lack of IBIS. The salient point being, I can't make a bigger body with IBIS smaller (i.e. no workaround for size, once you've sized it up). However, I can raise the ISO as an alternative workaround, instead of lowering the SS ... and still retain the smaller form factor that a non-IBIS body allows.
Whether or not the ethos of the M ... which includes its form factor will embrace IBIS, is yet to be seen. This isn't a point about IBIS. This is a point about the decision process > alternatives to the shooter that the designers / engineers of the M will have to undertake, in their decision making.
And, for those who do want a slower shutter speed without IBIS, there is this thing called a tripod. So, that presents a workaround too. Now, I know there'll be folks who jump on the bandwagon of street and say that a tripod is not an option for the way they work. Maybe not. But, if the way they work won't allow for a tripod ... how many of those are honestly shooting at IBIS oriented speeds of 1sec, and have such a critical shot that they can't raise the ISO. Don't get me wrong ... I can totally dig on the convenience of IBIS. The question isn't whether or not I like or don't like, need or don't need IBIS.
The question becomes whether or not Leica feels that the requisite size differential to engineer IBIS, fits into the M ethos. A size increase to the body is a one-way street, of sorts. The shooter has no alternative. The lack of IBIS, the shooter still has ISO / tripod as options. What one can do with IBIS, is indeed meritable. But, in the similar vein of Leica M engineers regarding where they land readout speed for IQ performance and forego a faster readout capability (hence rolling shutter potential) ... what happens when you mix / match IBIS and one second exposures with readout speeds that are slow for moving subjects. So, even when you put IBIS in ... it isn't the panacea to everything, as it is a piece of the puzzle with readout speeds, too.
In the case of the SL2-S, the readout speed is faster. Flash's X2D has a fairly slow readout speed ... and as the seasoned shooter that he is, likely understands when / where / how / why to contend with it. That can be either conservatively, or creatively.
The question the engineer's will be looking at is not only the size vs. IBIS, but also the benefits of IBIS vs. ISO / SS approach as it pertains to readout speeds. Sometimes folks want the manufacturer to bend to their will. Sometimes the manufacturer shapes things so the user will bend the other way. In the case of the M ethos, Leica has always been keen to how they merge their will with the will of the masses. Imo, it's a fair statement to suggest that Leica hasn't always done what folks clamor for. They have their reasons. And, those reasons may / may not align with the desires for use that others have.
Does Leica think that that IBIS is something they want in the M ... I dunno. I'm just saying that the "thinking" behind what Leica is deciding may include a recognition of philosophical use case vs. existing alternatives. And, to a point ... ISO offers an alternative to IBIS ... while shooting in the ethos of Leica's goals for the small form factor, that still provides superior IQ (think, readout speed decisions). More to the puzzle for whether or not Leica will incorporate IBIS than folks might think at first blush.
Eng #1: "Hey, let's put IBIS in the M. People will love it."
Eng #2: "No, the size will be too big."
Eng #1: "They'll get used to it."
Eng #2: "But, that's going the other direction, away from our mission of combining smallest and best."
Eng #1: "But, it's only a little, "less small"."
Eng #2: "If we do that, then folks will incur rolling shutter effects at such slow SS speeds."
Eng #1: "Then we increase readout speed."
Eng #2: "And decrease IQ, I don't think so."
Eng #1: "Then we program the readout to drop down from 14 bit to 12 bit (increasing readout speed), when using IBIS."
Eng #2: "Maybe ... a little bigger AND a part-time reduction in IQ."
Eng #2: "Still not sure. Let's ask Peter, what he thinks."
I don't think we have to look too far away (i.e. Sony, etc.) to see the number of variants of readout speeds / IQ / rolling shutter matrix. Deciding where to land the M as Leica's flagship (yes, they have the SL / Q series, too for options) ... they won't take this lightly. It won't be like there's a Sony A7R, A7S, A7C, A number of variants for the M. They have to land it in ONE place ... not four. So, there will be decisions to be made that look at the intertwining pieces of the puzzle. Much more so than the scope / breadth of the forum, I'd imagine.
Time will tell. 
|
