as a professional, and with changing media...

[troyfreund]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...do you feel that it's really hard, working with Leica products? I'm not questioning image quality or product quality. I am though, watching media change to the more interactive, and the more frequent presence of video in websites. I can stand here and say, "I've got the sharpest lenses," but if the clients are looking for video and still images, my sharp lenses don't matter. It's real frustrating, as an attempting-to-work professional, but I'm feeling a little constrained by my gear. I sure the heck don't want to use a different manufacturer's product, but I'm feeling more and more that I will have to, in order to stay competitive.

 

OK, done complaining for now.

Here's my request for Leica: get VIDEO on a digital R-solution. I can't afford an M9; I sure can't afford an S2 and besides, neither one does video. I have my R-lenses and DMR kits. I need to add video to my "bag" and would sure like it to be Leica. My only current course is to sell my gear to finance a system that does allow for some amount of video capture.

 

(as an aside, are there any reasonable video cameras that use Leica glass?)

 

sigh,

Troy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fingerprinz]

You can use the Canon 5D M2 with your Leica glas.

[Overgaard]

I've used a very small and economical Canon video to do YouTube content for clients where I was also shooting stills. But there the style was YouTube (continious uncut low-tech content as if they had made it them self).

 

I've tried to stay away from video because the editing phase is so time-consuming. But with the Canon 5D II the possibilities are so interesting it's hard to keep ones fingers away. And as said, the R glasses goes onto the 5D II with an adapter. And then fit a follow-focus thingie of some sort to a 80/1.4 or something and you got game. In that sense your DMR kit with R lenses goes hand in glove with Canon 5D II.

 

Else I would look at Panasonic video cameras that all have Leica glass, and even the very small ones have 3CCD. Depending on what one will do. Short film, corporate videos, celebrity web television or YouTube.

[budrichard]

I would not be emotionally attached to any one photography system. If my M system did not do what I needed for weddings and field shoots, than I would switch in a heart beat to a system that did what I needed or that customers wanted. I am following the MX Digital Format quite closely and despite interviews with Nikon managers, I really think that Nikon will be forced to enter the area as more and more pros switch to MX formats.The S2 and the new H system are too pricey for me also.-Dick

[harryzet]

only one in maybe 10.000 pros is using leica. all others have canon eos-1d, nikon d3 or hasselblads H. more lensxes, more reliable, less cost, less hassle

[adan]

IMHO one is better off with separate tools for video and still work.

 

So skip the "one camera that does both - sort of" idea. You can easily find stand-alone video cameras that will produce very good results for less than you're likely to lose selling your Leicas to buy something else - and will fit in your bag.

 

Decent consumer HDTV videocams cost under $1000 and are as baggable as a Leica 180 lens. If you don't need HD format, regular videocams are around $500.

 

I previously had a JVC Everio (around $1000) alongside my M8 that was beautiful, but had a screwy file format that most video-editing suites had trouble with. Now, I use a Panasonic GH-1 for video - takes Leica M and R lenses very nicely (as well as countless other brands). So does the GF-1. GH-1 also has a flip-out LCD panel for low/high-angle shots (unlike the GF-1 and most SLRs)

 

Video doesn't require super-wide coverage (in fact it can give viewers a headache!), so the 2x crop factor is neglible (a 15mm c/v on the GH-1 is wider than the wide end of most video zoom lenses - and if you still need wider yet, the kit lenses from Panasonic go down to 14mm, and they make a 7-14mm once you get the bucks - if you need it).

 

Video at its best (1080i) is going to be around 2-Mpixel images, so don't worry too much about resolution - but other characteristics of the Leica lenses still show through (contrast, color, bokeh). And I love the ability to make AF go away and just set focus manually and have it stay where I put it - the way Hollywood does it.

 

Look into a GH-1 and a R-to-micro4/rds adapter: http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm and http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43_fd.htm

[dave_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a great post and a question I have been pondering lately. I feel limited with my Leica R9/DMR not because of the lack of video but because of the equipment costs and because of Leica's lack of support for R users. I have a lot of money tied up in Leica R gear and I love the camera and lenses but clients don't notice the difference. Part of me is frustrated that I could have bought two D700 bodies for less than I paid for my DMR and the other part of me gets so turned on by the Leica image quality. If my DMR died tomorrow I am afraid I would have to switch back to Nikon with Zeiss lenses. Using a lens adapter is not solution in my book.

 

As far as video, I agree with others to use a seperate video camera but you don't state how you would use it. The SLR with video capabilty I believe is intended more for photojournalists who have the need to capture video as well as stills in their reporting while traveling light. If you are commercial photographer, shooting commercial video is a whole different ball game that requires some different skill sets. If you want to add video to your business you might be better served to use your photography skills to produce and direct while hiring the camera man, sound man, and video editors.

[dave_d]

Troy, you might want to check out this seminar if you ar thinking about video: ASMP Seminars | American Society of Media Photographers

[troyfreund]

While I haven't been asked to do any video for a client yet, I don't want to be behind the eight-ball when it comes up. And again, I can only see moving pictures playing a larger part in a commercial photographers needed skill-set as media keeps moving forward...tablet computers, interactive websites/web-ads. I don't think clients are gonna stay satisfied with still pics for long. I do like the idea of just buying a standard video camera. Get the tool for the job, I figure. Just gotta keep my eyes on things, I guess. Thanks for all the responses and suggestions, folks. You're a good bunch.

Troy

[stunsworth]

I would have thought you need a totally different skill set to be a video photographer compared to a stills one unless you're just doing talking head shots.

 

Do the top of the range Canon and Nikon bodies have video capabilities.

[adan]

I would have thought you need a totally different skill set to be a video photographer compared to a stills one unless you're just doing talking head shots.

 

Oh, I don't know about that....

 

http://www.rmindependent.com/2009/08/ramblin-wrecks-from-mines-repaint-m-and-themselves/

 

The tailgating alternative: Small college football - Rocky Mountain Independent

 

Refuge responds to cry of abandoned wolves - Rocky Mountain Independent

 

(note still picture galleries at the bottom as well as the videos - and writing)

 

Good framing is good framing. Catching the moment is catching the moment.

 

It is true that one needs to learn some additional technical stuff (mostly audio, but also file formats and compression settings, the details of the editing programs and the like).

 

And it involves expanding one's creativity and "sensibilities" in new dimensions - thinking about movement, the live audio the camera is capturing, additional soundtrack possibilities, layering of sound with images (music, voiceovers), the difference between jump cuts and dissolves and when each is most effective, and pacing in general.

 

This last link is to a video I shot and edited three (3) days after buying my first video camera. Not exactly Steven Spielberg or James Cameron, but for a newbie with "only" a photographer's eye - and perhaps a journalist's sense of story telling...

 

Car racers and gas prices on Vimeo

[stunsworth]

In which case I must be a moron, because when ever I've tried recording video it's looked like crap <grin>.

[giordano]

I think one of the issues is that just about everyone here is used to aiming for high technical and aesthetic standards in whatever field of photography or photojournalism.

 

Achieving the equivalent in ciné or video requires not only other skills but also a lot more people and/or time. Conversely, the sort of thing that people do with a $500 camcorder and a $100 microphone corresponds to photography with a $200 P&S.

[ho_co]

... Do the top of the range Canon and Nikon bodies have video capabilities.

At least their 'semipro' bodies do. D300s, 5Dwhatever. So does the Panasonic GH1. Video capability is becoming de rigueur.

 

FWIW, Michael Reichmann is a proponent of this "convergence." (See his May 2008 essay The Convergence of Still Photography & Video.)

[pgk]

Well, I used a 5D2 to shoot a tv program last year - almost certainly the first 1 hour program in which the majority of footage was shot in HD on a dSLR - and it looked fine when broadcast (if anyone wants to view - UK only - its here at lower res. S4/Clic Tir Cymru - O dan y mor - you need english subtitles unless you speak Welsh). However I used the camera because of very specific attributes - underwater with a 15mm fisheye lens. I tried it with other lenses but the base problem is focus which has to be preset using either the viewfinder prior to moving into liveview and then video, or on the lcd on the back. Neither is a particularly user-friendly experience in my view and whilst high quality material is very possible, its nowhere near as simple as using a video camera. I certainly don't see the 5D2 as a replacement for video cameras but it does have specialist video capabilities - if using ultra fast lenses, for underwater, extreme macro, and so on.

 

I shoot on my M8 when the work suits it, otherwise I use Canons and without wanting to attract flak, I tried the R glass route and whilst there is no doubt about image quality of R glass and 5D2 combined, the combination's operational constraints mean that it simply isn't suitable for a lot of my work and I doubt that I'm unusual in this. So I'm back to using L primes which are far from being optically poor even if not up to Leica standards in terms of build quality.

[tobey bilek]

I read and agree with at least two other posts above to keep the cameras separate.

 

Buy or rent a small digicam or an HD one depending on what you need. Editing is a serious problem. You really need to investigate before moving forward with anything as it is time consuming and requires a decent computer, probably a pro level computer like a Mac tower to keep the thing deliverable before next Christmas.

 

To keep things simple, use the Canon dslr but I think you will be happier with a video camera.

[bill]

Personally, I have taken to video like a duck takes to lava...

 

I don't like it as a medium, either to work in or to watch, unless it is to a professional standard, which I most certainly am not. To produce professional standard results you not only need professional standard capture technology but also the time, inclination and skill to edit to produce a decent end product. Look at YouTube - no, on second thoughts, don't - but you know what I mean.

 

I also vote for the continued separation of still and video (disimagecapturearianism?) partly because I will never use it, and partly because I don't want to pay for it as a "feature" in my still cameras.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[iShutterbug]

This is a great thread and has given me lots of food for thought. Fifty-two years ago I had a Harley and [my dad's] IIIf. I still shoot that IIIf and I've never even thought about shooting video on my 5D2. The original poster is right about assumptions and expecations of the public at large today. The media has expanded. I just say "I'm a still photographer" and have been happy with that. For you pros I can only imagine your predicament. Yes, most of us here want the best, to do the best. I thought the idea of a movie camera in a still camera was wild. I thought the idea of a camera in a cell phone was wild. When I want to make a call I use my cell phone. When I want to take a picture I use my camera. And I suppose when I want to make a movie I'll use a movie camera. OK, a video camera. Yes, I'd keep them separate, Yes, I hate paying the extra for the video in my still camera. Am I a closet Luddite or just cheap? Probably both; the latter being the reason for the former. I don't feel I can afford the money or the time it takes to become professionally proficient in that [for me] new media. But I may stumble into it. Stepping back, I think I can see the day when the still frame resolution of video cameras is 15-20 mp and then I'll get motivated. I'll give you a call from it when I do.

Don

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear