rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #3 · Visoflex 3 Release Date and EV1 Ramifications? | |
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have been thinking about this. As MP counts keep climbing, and they probably won't stop at 60MP, the need for IBIS starts to matter more. Not because subjects are suddenly more likely to blur from shaky hands, but because any blur becomes far more obvious. Blur is blur, the amount does not change, but on a 60-100MP sensor it's much easier to see than it ever was on film or even on early 10-18MP digital bodies.
That's likely why this was never really an issue in the past. Film shooters lived with it, and early digital shooters barely noticed it. A small amount of blur from slower shutter speeds, combined with real organic grain rather than noise, often added a cool aesthetic. Today everything is much cleaner and sharper, so blur stands out more. At some point, with these megapixel monsters, it does start to matter. 
The solutions are pretty simple. Either lower MP bodies are perfectly fine, and 24-45MP seems like a good compromise, or IBIS becomes essential to keep up with that level of resolution.....Show more →
My first digital camera was the 4MP Canon 1D. I distinctly recall an early session I did with it at night in NYC where I was often in the 1/8-1/15 shutter range, hand held with non-IS lenses. And the results were sharp. I was amazed at first, but yes, in hindsight, it became clear the images were sharp because the low resolution sensor was hiding the 'micro-blur' that was actually present but not 'seen' by it.
Knut. wrote:
Thus the issue of IBIS will be really important for the EV2 😉. Ricoh was able to put IBIS into the smaller GR III and IV, so I‘m not sure why Leica isn’t able to do it. It would probably require a major redesign of the EV1 and the two M lines will most likely move further apart concerning their inner components. But it should be feasable.
Ricoh was able to design a lens and sensor package to accommodate IBIS. Leica is 'hamstrung' by the legacy ~28mm flange distance of the M mount. Given that IBIS systems currently sit behind the sensor, that means there needs to be sufficient space behind the sensor to accommodate it. Given that the digital M form factor is strongly tied to that of the legacy film M cameras, there's really only the depth of film, pressure plate and body housing. That doesn't leave Leica with much to work with.
The body could be made thicker, and I would be OK with that. But it's been abundantly clear that many, many, many M users don't want a thicker body. Already the M240 series was 'too fat' and resulted in the marginally slimmer M10 and later bodies.
In my mind, I can envision how I would create a 2-axis IBIS system that would be mostly in front of the sensor, but it would consume space around or to the side of the sensor, which might cause other problems within an M body.
If I was to design my own 'dream' M camera, my priorities would be as follows:
- fast stacked sensor, if not global sensor, and elimination of mechanical shutter
- IBIS
- on-sensor phase detect-based focus confirmation in the OVF
- no return to removable baseplate design
- hybrid OVF/EVF
- compatibility with legacy external EVF simply for tilt capability
|
