Anti-shake?

Leica has always been the weapon of choice for low-light photography. But

with the advent of anti-shake technology on digital cameras which can accept

high-speed lenses, the scene has shifted. Wonder if it's being considered for

the M cameras, or, like autofocus, is beyond the technical resources of Leica?

<I>"... like autofocus, is beyond the technical resources of Leica?"</I>

<P>

First, check your assumptions....

Well, this is quite odd. I was going to make a joke about how snipers use drugs to slow down

their heart rates. Well, I searched it in google, and the first result was from another thread

about camera shake in this very forum. So there you go. All you ever wanted to know about

snipers and drugs can be found in the Leica forum. By the way, I searched the phrase:<P>

drugs for snipers to slow heart rate

I don't see much need for it on a camera with no moving mirror. Learn to calm yourself and control your breathing. Auto focus isn't always all that great either. Go over to the wedding forum and see just how many questions deal with the problems of getting the "auto focus" to focus on what the photographer wanted to be the prime focus.

I'm a pretty low-tech guy, but I sure wouldn't mind an automatic stabilizer to help ward off camera shake. I used to think I had the steadiest shutter finger around, but I've been humbled over the years.

 

Is the anti-shake technology mechanical or software based? Is it integral to the lens, the body, the software, or any or all of the above?

No reason to take drugs to help your shooting at the rifle range. Take it from somebody who shoots a replica black powder rifle up to 1000 yards and still drinks a pot of coffee a day, its all about your concentration and focusing when it counts. Anti-shake technology seems like a good idea for a long lens, but with shorter focal lengths does it really matter? The only camera that I have that has this ability is my panasonic digicam and it seems more helpful at the long lens setting, not the shorter ones.

Might look silly dragging a shooting bench to a wedding.

Nah.....

 

Anti-shake is nice for long lenses. It's easy to shoot 1/30 with no worries at all and most

subjects are moving too fast to shoot much slower than that anyway.

 

jmp<div></div>

I made this at some unholly low shutter speed. Would I like IS? Yup. </p>

<p> </p>

<img src="http://cmbrow.people.wm.edu/photography/New/holly0001.jpg" width="850" height="582">

Bill, if you will check the SLR IS offerings, you'll soon find out that there are incredibly limited amount of lenses that offer IS/VR, with a fast aperture. In fact, Canon has NONE, Nikon has ONE, the 200/2 VR. Most IS/VR lenses take it to f/4 and even f/5.6 minimum aperture.

 

Now, 200/2 isn't exactly in rangefinder territory (although Kelly might debate that), but the fact is, that at 50mm, the fastest IS/VR'd lens is f/2.8. Canon/Nikon claim 3-4 "fstop" gain, but this also depends on how close you are to your target (Nikon recommends not getting closer to 1:5 with their newest 100 VR lens), on your own technique, and of course, does not work on moving targets.

 

My take? in RF-land, I'll take a fast lens anyday over IS/VR.

I've often wondered whether a very slight amount of camera shake contributed to the distinctive look of some old Leica photographs.

Also, as an aside: I shoot weekly at targets with a variety of handguns, of large caliber and small, and I *never* equate making an image with pulling a trigger. They are to my mind distinctly separate acts, and I have always been uncomfortable with this easy equation between shooting and making images. When I aim a weapon, it is with the clear understanding that the consequences are potentially lethal to the target and that the squeezing of the trigger is a fundamentally agressive act.

 

When I depress the shutter button, I am doing something very, very different. For me, at least, this is a critical distinction, and because I think words matter, I never refer to "shooting" a camera.

 

Cheers!

 

Chandos

"Is the anti-shake technology mechanical or software based? Is it integral to the lens, the body, the software, or any or all of the above?"

 

The Canon IS system is integral to the lens and requires a special group of lens elements (four or five) that do not contribute to the optical correction but are solely used for image stabilization. Thus, IS lenses will have more lens elements and will usually be larger and heavier than non-IS lenses with the same specs otherwise. Adding IS would require cdomplete optical redesign of the lens. This would not be practical for Leica M, where compactness is required.

M7, 24mm ASPH @ 1/15 sec.<div></div>

>Bill, if you will check the SLR IS offerings, you'll soon find out that there are incredibly limited amount of lenses that offer IS/VR, with a fast aperture. In fact, Canon has NONE, Nikon has ONE

 

You may not believe it, but Canon and Nikon aren't the only SLR makers with the technology. Ever heard of Konica-Minolta and the Sony A100?

Leica could put image stabilization in the sensor, like Sony and Panasonic. Or even in the lens; actually, the Leica lens in the new Panasonic L1 is image stabilized.

 

Personally, I find IS very useful.

I've found image stabilization to be quite useful with wide angle lenses, allowing me to shoot as slow as 1/6 sec.

 

Both Sony and Pentax have in-body stabilization for their DSLRs so you can augment those systems with fast prime lenses as well.

 

larsbc

Fred, I realize that. But it's also been found that in-body stabilization is not as effective as on the lens. You can google tests and the logic behind that.

 

FWIW, I don't own any IS/VR lens. I used to, but I never found the feature important... I very often shoot my 85mm lens at 1/20" with extremely sharp results... but I was also a sniper in the army.

>But it's also been found that in-body stabilization is not as effective as on the lens.

 

Then we should just forget about the technology since a VR/IS lens is still not effective as a good tripod either.

That really is the thing isn't it? If you are shooting at 1/6 of a second you just use a tripod

and a simpler camera.

 

Now if they made an "RS" Lens (Reality Stabilizer) I would get it.

<i>"I don't see much need for it on a camera with no moving mirror."</i>

<p>IS/VR technology is designed to reduce blur from handholding a long lens that magnifies camera motion. Mirror vibration is a non-issue in the modern SLR camera.

 

<p><i>"Auto focus isn't always all that great either. Go over to the wedding forum and see just how many questions deal with the problems of getting the "auto focus" to focus on what the photographer wanted to be the prime focus."</i>

<p>... the vast majority of which cases can be chalked up to user error or incompetence. I prefer manual focus myself but I'm not dumb enough to not use AF if and when I think it will help. It's all about learning how to use the technology to your advantage.

<"I don't see much need for it on a camera with no moving mirror."

 

IS/VR technology is designed to reduce blur from handholding a long lens that magnifies camera motion. Mirror vibration is a non-issue in the modern SLR camera.>

 

True, but vibration isn't the only mirror-related issue. Mirror black-out, too, can affect one's ability to handhold a long lens. The continuous viewing possible through a rangefinder camera helps steady one's aim. This can become significant at the slower shutter speeds that anti-shake technology is intended to allow. So, I think Al's point -- that anti-shake technology is less important in a camera without a mirror -- was a valid one, even if the mirror is well damped.

Anti-shake is certainly not beyond Leica's techical resources; it is a feature of the D-Lux 2. My query is whether there is a trade-off when using it. If not, why not leave it switched on all the time?

ronald hooberman wrote: "<I>My query is whether there is a trade-off when using it. If

not, why not leave it switched on all the time?</I>"

<P>

Optical compromises result from having an optical stabilizer in the lens. The number of

air/glass surfaces and the likelyhood of decentering are much higher in these systems.

Keeping it switched on all the time eats battery power.

<i>"Then we should just forget about the technology since a VR/IS lens is still not effective as a good tripod either."</i><Br><Br>

No need to forget about this. Just spend your money on better tools.