hoppyman Posted March 8, 2011 Share #321 Posted March 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The NEX reference is a timely reminder (although via adapter). The M mount is available for any company to use for any still or video camera if they think they could sell them successfully at what ever price point market segment aimed for. No-one appears to think that idea makes commercial sense. As with the R10 cancellation rationale, Leica Camera still seems to hold that they do not want to compete directly with the Japanese giants. In this instance by adding the newest extra features that have grown out of the use of CMOS sensors (rather than what Leica currently has available/chooses). They have hinted at a possible different future product. It that comes to market it would be because it is possible to produce and assessed as likely to make a profit. For some portion of their customer base, diluting the current M to get there rather than making an additional product is a very bad idea. Surely no market segment is more sensitive to maintaining the current approach? Don't do it Solms Alienating part of your existing customer base to try to attract some new customers (to this tiny specialised niche) makes no sense to me. Even in this tiny group of existing customers there is no agreement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Hi hoppyman, Take a look here Video mode on future M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted March 8, 2011 Share #322 Posted March 8, 2011 Don't do it Solms Alienating part of your existing customer base to try to attract some new customers (to this tiny specialised niche) makes no sense to me. Even in this tiny group of existing customers there is no agreement. Yes, Leica users are so sensitive that many will become apoplectic if the camera has a couple of extra features. So what will they buy instead? Gee, just look at how many were turned off by the digital M and the S2. It almost ruined the company. Fortunately sales of the film based cameras are saving them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2011 Share #323 Posted March 9, 2011 See. Sometimes it is nice to be able to hold the camera away from your body and not have to shoot blind. (Or lean over a ledge.) It isn't an amazing picture but it helps to tell the story for my client. When I buy a camera, I am looking for solutions, not traditions. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/116739-video-mode-on-future-m/?do=findComment&comment=1610501'>More sharing options...
bill Posted March 9, 2011 Share #324 Posted March 9, 2011 Point of order. Alan can put up a still photo to "make a point", but that just highlights that there is something missing in this debate... Please can those advocating so strongly in favour of a video mode provide some examples that they have shot of video that illustrates what they mean? You know, something that shows just why it is so important to have the feature in an M. Youtube will do, or Vimeo, or Tumblr, or something. Please, I'm not interested in knowing that an episode of Horrible Histories was shot on a Canon whatsit, I'd just like to see something relevant to this discussion - something that, if it had been shot on a Leica M with video capability would have been that much better. I would just like to see what lies behind the motivation. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #325 Posted March 9, 2011 Yes, Leica users are so sensitive that many will become apoplectic if the camera has a couple of extra features. So what will they buy instead? That's exactly the point. Whilst there's plenty of alternatives for all of you wanting new features there are none left for us advocating to keep the digital M as is. Once the digital M is changed, it is forever and we'll have no options but to stick to older cameras that will inevitably fade into obsolescence. Hence the strong resistance to change. Sure, some turned up their nose when the M7 was introduced, but at least there was the M6 available and was later replaced by the MP. Nowadays there are still the MP, the M7 and the M9. But I have serious doubts that an hypothetical M10 filled up with new (unwanted by some) features will be sided by an M9 or an M9.2 "evolution". Once more, given the nature of the new features you want to see implemented, it would make more sense to have an evolved S2, or a revived R-system or a MFT designed from the scratch that can accept either M or R lenses. IMHO, of course. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 9, 2011 Share #326 Posted March 9, 2011 +1, once you let the Gene out of the bottle you can't put it back. Once the M is changed we loose it for ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2011 Share #327 Posted March 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's exactly the point. Whilst there's plenty of alternatives for all of you wanting new features there are none left for us advocating to keep the digital M as is. Once the digital M is changed, it is forever and we'll have no options but to stick to older cameras that will inevitably fade into obsolescence. Hence the strong resistance to change. Yes, change is very stressful for some. I really feel your pain. And you can also use a IIIf if a small slow to use screw mount Leica floats your boat. Maybe the IIIg was the epitome of the Leica design. You don't think the $7000 M9 will hold up and be useful for several decades? If lack of live view and video does not make it obsolete what will make it fade into obsolescence? Is this a photographic tool we are talking about or is there something else going on here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2011 Share #328 Posted March 9, 2011 Yes - it is a photographic tool - that fits a number of people because the design concept incorporates a severe simplification of both interface and features. If you lose that simplicity you alter the concept making it an unattractive photographic tool. If you want to have a photographic tool with a different design concept you should look at tools that offer it, not try and change an existing one that is just fine for its customers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #329 Posted March 9, 2011 Yes, change is very stressful for some. I really feel your pain. Yes it might be stressful, especially when unwelcome. If we're using digital Ms instead of LTMs maybe we are not luddites vowed against change and evolution per se, don't you think? As said ad nauseam, if we were given an alternative we'd stick to it, but what you absolutely want is to wrench a well accomplished project into something which would be bested by already existing competitors without any guarantee that an alternative suitable to us traditionalists remain available. Therefore I completely miss your point not to mention your sarcasm. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2011 Share #330 Posted March 9, 2011 To which I may add, it seems to be hard to grasp that nobody here objects to Leica building a rangefinder camera with any feature and gimmick they think they can sell. If they can pull that off more power to them - as long as they build an utterly stripped digital rangefinder camera in M form as well. I would even advocate leaving off the AE facility. It serves no purpose for me and is an unneccessary complication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #331 Posted March 9, 2011 But in the eyes of some you are far from a traditionalist - you are photographing with a digital camera, no matter it being an M. So who or what is traditional? Nobody's advocating changing the design of the M. Just adding a functionality that one can use or ignore. I nicely propose getting off the high horse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #332 Posted March 9, 2011 Nobody's advocating changing the design of the M. Just adding a functionality that one can use or ignore. I nicely propose getting off the high horse. That functionality may involve major complications and a complete redesign of the project. Besides no one here's pretending to be better than others. Just confronting different opinions. Mind if mine differs from yours and we expose each others' reasons? Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2011 Share #333 Posted March 9, 2011 You simply don't get it. It has nothing to do with traditionalism or a high horse, it has to do with embracing a concept, or philosophy as Leica calls it slightly pretentiously. And as said - no objection to any innovation, just a plea for the continued existence of the camera as it is now - with of course any improvement to sensor etc. needed to keep up with the developments in image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #334 Posted March 9, 2011 Jaap, No, I do get it. And hopefully we trust Leica to get it as well, one way or the other. I would like to see them continue the tradition but also pull their heads out of the old boys club just a little bit. They do know that if something won't work, it won't work, and will leave it at that. I just hope they explore the options instead of writing it off at the get go as some newfangled thing nobody wants (and then giving us something stupid like S mode instead). Hopefully they'll be getting some feedback from Magnum photographers now that they have this "partnership." And yes, it';s a difference of opinion and I apologize for implying anyone is more horsebound than others. . But it won't be the end of the world if the M10, 11 or whatever comes out looking exactly the same as M's have for 50 years and happens to have live view/video mode. Use it or don't use it. I certainly don't go anywhere near A, S, or auto iso on the M9 (or even My Nikon D3) but others use it gladly. I do prefer the CCD sensor over CMOS though some clamor for a CMOS so they can shoot at 50,000 iso. Everyone has their own needs and opinions I guess... Okay, now to editing some M9 photos... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #335 Posted March 9, 2011 Oh, and in my opinion the #1 thing that needs attention on the M10 is the shutter release. It needs to be made electronic or something. Instant wake up is a must - I've lost just too many shots with it not firing. On jobs I'll set the camera to not sleep, though it's serious drain on batteries. Anyway, off the point, but like I said hopefully they'll consult with some of the most serious working photographers out there (ie Magnum) and make the next iteration a much more responsive camera than it already is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2011 Share #336 Posted March 9, 2011 So none of you have ever had the need to hold a camera out at arms length to shoot a picture above your head, down low, or over a ledge? If you did, were you employing guesswork? For those applications can you see the benefit of some kind of framing aid such as live view? I don't accept the idea of a camera or camera company having a restrictive "philosophy." If technology comes along that can make a camera more useful then the manufacturers should adopt it. That is all I want from a camera. I'll look elsewhere for philosophy and have no desire or ability to "relate" to my cameras. That just seems kind of pathetic to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2011 Share #337 Posted March 9, 2011 ANY camera company - in fact any company in general- has a concept of what their cameras/products should look like, do and feature, related to their customer base. For a niche company that is even a matter of survival. Of course that is restrictive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2011 Share #338 Posted March 9, 2011 ANY camera company - in fact any company in general- has a concept of what their cameras/products should look like, do and feature, related to their customer base. For a niche company that is even a matter of survival. Of course that is restrictive. So live view and video is ok in some Leica models but not others? Is this due to philosophy or limitations of Leica technology? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 9, 2011 Share #339 Posted March 9, 2011 Hello... Is this thing working...? Point of order. Alan can put up a still photo to "make a point", but that just highlights that there is something missing in this debate... Please can those advocating so strongly in favour of a video mode provide some examples that they have shot of video that illustrates what they mean? You know, something that shows just why it is so important to have the feature in an M. Youtube will do, or Vimeo, or Tumblr, or something. Please, I'm not interested in knowing that an episode of Horrible Histories was shot on a Canon whatsit, I'd just like to see something relevant to this discussion - something that, if it had been shot on a Leica M with video capability would have been that much better. I would just like to see what lies behind the motivation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #340 Posted March 9, 2011 So none of you have ever had the need to hold a camera out at arms length to shoot a picture above your head, down low, or over a ledge? If you did, were you employing guesswork? For those applications can you see the benefit of some kind of framing aid such as live view? Personally speaking I never did. The genre of pictures I'm into almost never required me doing that and those rare times they did I found guesswork quite effective. I don't accept the idea of a camera or camera company having a restrictive "philosophy." If technology comes along that can make a camera more useful then the manufacturers should adopt it. That is all I want from a camera. I'll look elsewhere for philosophy and have no desire or ability to "relate" to my cameras. That just seems kind of pathetic to me. Not everyone happen to share this point of view. Especially because the meaning of a technology making a camera more useful may vary from person to person. And IMHO "restrictive" is not even the appropriate term as I feel it involving a negative connotation. In the case of Leitz I find "essential" fits better. I like to quote Saint Exupery as he said that perfection is not reached when there's nothing left to add but when there's nothing left to subtract. And if someone isn't happy with M cameras nobody forces him to use one. There's plenty of alternatives providing all the modern features one might want plus one. Instead for the rest of the restrictive us there are no alternatives left. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.