!Nomad64 Posted March 8, 2011 Share #301 Posted March 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depending on the situation, one either accepts some shakiness, uses a simple tripod/monopod, or uses a device like a Glidecam. So where's the point in using Leica glass at all cost when shakiness will level any difference with the competitors? Or should we wear exoskeletons just for the sake of not using the most appropriate tool? I'm sorry, I don't want to troll nor flame around but to me this just seems pure nonsense. Cheers, Bruno 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=1609949'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Hi !Nomad64, Take a look here Video mode on future M . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 8, 2011 Share #302 Posted March 8, 2011 Image stabilization would not be needed -- its noise would be picked up by the microphone. Depending on the situation, one either accepts some shakiness, uses a simple tripod/monopod, or uses a device like a Glidecam.Movable sensors, external sound recording, Glidecams, dollies and rails, a focussing flapper... I am impressed with the sense of history on this forum. We have turned full circle to Barnack's original idea of an exposure metering accessory for a movie camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 8, 2011 Share #303 Posted March 8, 2011 ...and the only technical barriers in Ferrari's way are their access to technology and design and fabrication abilities. They don't have to invent anything... ...but they still won't produce a car that can plough a field. This has become a philosophical debate not a technological one. I can carve the Sunday roast with a penknife, but I, like many others, believe it is better to use a specialised carving knife for the purpose. Have a body that will take Leica glass and make movies. Don't foist the functionality on an M. Can we all agree to differ now? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 8, 2011 Share #304 Posted March 8, 2011 Movable sensors, external sound recording, Glidecams, dollies and rails, a focussing flapper... I am impressed with the sense of history on this forum. We have turned full circle to Barnack's original idea of an exposure metering accessory for a movie camera... In an odd historical period in which the germans do the trading and the jewish make the war we might expect something similar... Cheers Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 8, 2011 Share #305 Posted March 8, 2011 This is just a hypothetical discussion to me. I don't care if Leica adds video to the M as I don't shoot video with anything but my p&s and cell phone. But I think that live view would be very handy. Well, excuuuuse me for caring what goes in my camera! To me such a Beast would be an adequate R replacement, but would not be an upgrade for my M's. In this case Leica's design issues for adding these features, is Leica's creation. They chose a path of most resistance for this technology. Whether they decide to change direction is up to them. You are right it's really not a matter of can they... it's more of a matter of will they. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 8, 2011 Share #306 Posted March 8, 2011 Noise, I thought all the Enhancements are electronic, noise implies mechanical. We must keep up with the canikon's, so IS and AF, done at the sensor level is a must! Ar you misreading my prior post? I wrote, "Image stabilization would not be needed". The key word is "not". Yes, real image stabilization is mechanical, not electronic (although there is a software version). I am writing that a video-capable M would not need mechanical image stabilization. For video, the noise would be unwanted. Likewise, AF would not be needed. Why do anti-video forum members keep setting up the same straw men? We are not talking about a Sony Handycam. We're talking about a potential video M. Such a camera would not need image stabilization or autofocus -- two components that videographers often don't want because of the associated noise. So where's the point in using Leica glass at all cost when shakiness will level any difference with the competitors?Or should we wear exoskeletons just for the sake of not using the most appropriate tool? I'm sorry, I don't want to troll nor flame around but to me this just seems pure nonsense. Ok, this straw man keeps getting set up. On the one hand, we hear that any worthwhile video can't be accomplished without a heavy burden of extra equipment (-- which is untrue). On the other hand, we are scornful of people who actually need and use all of the extra equipment for their work, because it is so anti-M. Isn't it clear that not all video is professional, commercial, heavy duty and geared up? Isn't it clear that people do meaningful small scale personal and family video without all of that stuff? Depending on the task, a simple tripod or monopod may suffice, or nothing at all. Isn't it clear that even some professional and journalistic video is better done with small, discrete equipment? It's not always about getting ultra-sharp Imax-quality shake-free landscapes with Leica glass, but rather about telling stories and capturing moments with the camera you have, which may be a full-frame rangefinder made by Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 8, 2011 Share #307 Posted March 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I did not miss read your post, I simply disagree. Since when is your voice the only allowed speak on the subject. If your going down this rabbit hole, then you must fully commit to it, otherwise you end up with an unusable product. Especially in the $10k range. The pro-video members keep choosing selected features for there own needs, and minimizing the reality of the situation to feed there own fantasy. If you you can ignore the R Shutter that is in the camera, I can ignore the noise from IS. Especially if this is going to be used by pros who use external microphones anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 8, 2011 Share #308 Posted March 8, 2011 Since when is your voice the only allowed speak on the subject. If your going down this rabbit hole, then you must fully commit to it, otherwise you end up with an unusable product. Especially in the $10k range. I don't understand that comment at all. There are many voices in this discussion, as there should be. Why does "commitment" require image stabilization in order to end up with a usable product? If that's so, then a Canon 5D2 with a nice lens by Canon or Zeiss and no image stabilization is an "unusable product". Please tell that to all of the people who are using it to make great stuff. The pro-video members keep choosing selected features for there own needs, and minimizing the reality of the situation to feed there own fantasy. If you you can ignore the R Shutter that is in the camera, I can ignore the noise from IS. Especially if this is going to be used by pros who use external microphones anyway. The M, whether with or without video, is not strictly a pro product. Many users have medical, legal and technical backgrounds, and don't use it professionally. The same goes for a potential video feature -- it may well be used by people who don't use external microphones. It can be viable and useful without necessarily competing with Red and others for the pro market. I'm pretty sure that wedding videographers who shoot the 5D2 and use external microphones turn the IS off if they are using an IS lens. IS just isn't the necessity that you make it out to be, whether for pro video or for amateur video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 8, 2011 Share #309 Posted March 8, 2011 Isn't it clear that not all video is professional, commercial, heavy duty and geared up? Isn't it clear that people do meaningful small scale personal and family video without all of that stuff? Depending on the task, a simple tripod or monopod may suffice, or nothing at all. Isn't it clear that even some professional and journalistic video is better done with small, discrete equipment? It's not always about getting ultra-sharp Imax-quality shake-free landscapes with Leica glass, but rather about telling stories and capturing moments with the camera you have, which may be a full-frame rangefinder made by Leica. This is a very interesting point and, I think, cuts to the heart of why some of us hold such widely differing views. I actually agree with much of what you have said here, but there is a dichotomy that sits uneasily with me. "Meaningful small scale personal and family video" is, to me, best done with a £200, stick-it-in-your-pocket, hand-it-to-a-waiter, replace-it-in-a-year, compact camera. Similarly "professional and journalistic video" is best done with one of the plethora of small pro-spec video cameras that are designed for the purpose. Knowing Leica (in as much as anyone can "know" Leica ) they will not go off half-cocked. If and when they offer a video mode in a professionally-orientated body (M or S) I suspect they will only do so when they believe they can do it in line with the Leica ethos - ie it won't be a half-baked implementation of the concept. Look at the M8 - it came to market in a terrible state and they took considerable stick for that. Personally, I would rather they continued to do still images well than still'n'video not so well, and I suspect that they think in a similar manner. Finally, I absolutely agree with you - it's not all about always about getting ultra-sharp Imax-quality shake-free landscapes with Leica glass, but therein lies the rub. Do you make the most of the Leica glass by tethering your camera to a tripod, always shooting at optimum aperture or do you wing it? if the latter, you are not making the most of the glass, so therefore why not just use a cheap digicam? My head hurts now... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 8, 2011 Share #310 Posted March 8, 2011 You miss the point. Ok, I will spell it out for you. If we do not provide all the features that is in the same function in a Canikon, then we will get threads like this one whining why don't we have feature XYZ that even point and shoot cameras have. So either we provide those basic features or we stay old school. Remember all of this is just fantasy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 8, 2011 Share #311 Posted March 8, 2011 ...and the only technical barriers in Ferrari's way are their access to technology and design and fabrication abilities. They don't have to invent anything... ...but they still won't produce a car that can plough a field. Regards, Bill Porsche can.... Foto: Ermindo Armino 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=1610027'>More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 8, 2011 Share #312 Posted March 8, 2011 "Meaningful small scale personal and family video" is, to me, best done with a £200, stick-it-in-your-pocket, hand-it-to-a-waiter, replace-it-in-a-year, compact camera. But the same could be said for still photography, not just video. Why not use a £200, stick-it-in-your-pocket, hand-it-to-a-waiter, replace-it-in-a-year, compact camera for all of your stills? Probably everyone in this forum would agree that an M will have some advantage or appeal even for small scale personal and family stills. So why can't it have a similar advantage or appeal for video? Do you make the most of the Leica glass by tethering your camera to a tripod, always shooting at optimum aperture or do you wing it? if the latter, you are not making the most of the glass, so therefore why not just use a cheap digicam? Bill, if I follow that argument, then many of the famous Leica photographers failed to "make the most of the glass" and could have just used a cheap digicam (or filmcam in their time). HCB, Winogrand, Salgado, etc., may or may not have shot at the optimum aperture, but typically did not work tethered to a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 8, 2011 Share #313 Posted March 8, 2011 And for some applications, there can't be less between the act of seeing and taking a picture than using live view, where you can see if you have the exact correct framing, focus, and exposure at the time of exposure. Have you ever used live-view with a manual focus, manual aperture lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 8, 2011 Share #314 Posted March 8, 2011 But the same could be said for still photography, not just video. Why not use a £200, stick-it-in-your-pocket, hand-it-to-a-waiter, replace-it-in-a-year, compact camera for all of your stills? Probably everyone in this forum would agree that an M will have some advantage or appeal even for small scale personal and family stills. So why can't it have a similar advantage or appeal for video? Quite. But it then comes down to personal preference and to tools for the job. Few of us just have an M alone. If I'm going to a family event - a barbeque, say - I'd stick my TZ-6 in a pocket. If, as I did at the weekend, I went to Wisley, I would take something with a halfway decent macro mode - in that case my D-Lux 4. If I was going out for the day in London I'd probably take an M and a brace of lenses, with one of the aforementioned stuck in a pocket as a backup. None of the video-capable cameras I have (and to my surprise if you count a couple of phones I have five) ever get used for video. Never. I use my Ms not just because they are fine tools that deliver fine results but also because they are a pleasure to use. Bill, if I follow that argument, then many of the famous Leica photographers failed to "make the most of the glass" and could have just used a cheap digicam (or filmcam in their time). HCB, Winogrand, Salgado, etc., may or may not have shot at the optimum aperture, but typically did not work tethered to a tripod. Yes, and that is why I said my head hurts. You see, I regard a tripod as the three-legged spawn of the devil and would never use one if I could help it. But that is my point. It is not just about making the most of the glass by bolting your camera to the ground - which is one extreme - any more than it is dancing around in the streets like a demented ninja pretending to be HCB and shooting blurry but atmospheric "masterpieces". The M concept (I'm using that term to encompass all M bodies) has a clearly understood set of advantages and USPs. Equally, the market as a whole has a whole set of requirements, some of which the M maps on to very well, some it can be used for, and some it makes more sense to use something else for. The M concept is not all things to all men. It cannot be. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 8, 2011 Share #315 Posted March 8, 2011 Wait a minute! You want us to use a an iPhone or D-Lux 5? You have no idea how good FF sensors are. They beat the heck out of those you mention. They even rival the small sensors found in most if not all video gear - they can't compete with FF. You have to spend over 100k to get anything close. And, right now the Canon 5DII is outputting video indistinguishable from the $250,000 Sony Cine Alta F35. Those guys you see at the Oscars using those HD camera's you see have each spent 100k for their cameras and they don't even have lenses that are as good as the Leica glass. They can't create DOF like the Leica glass because of the small sensor size. Now, you suggest people go get a Panasonic AG-F100 video camera. Come on, that wouldn't even be in the ballpark with the FF sensor and good glass... not even a prayer of coming close. I'm not sure if you guys get how good FF sensors are for cine. Once the 5DII gets RAW video output, it is going to be a game over deal. Why wouldn't you want that? I know exactly what I'm talking about, because those cameras that you are talking about in the $100, 000 dollar range are what I use. Have you ever pulled focus on a 5D II on a serious shoot or adjusted anything in post with that compressed image? Sure, Raw capturing would be great. That's what these expensive cameras like the Red and Alexa give you, and they are made for shooting video. And you are very mistaken to discard the Panasonic AG-F100. Have you shot with it? I'm about to pick mine up this week. It fixes a lot of the problems the 5DII BECAUSE it is made for shooting video. It is dedicated for down-sampling to a 1280 image, it has a real viewfinder with peaking function, it is balanced well, and the 4/3 sensor is plenty big to give you nice shallow field but still lets you be able to pull focus on a moving subject. I know most of the guys that shot the Oscars and we have this discussion on a weekly basis. One of my colleagues actually bought a set of the Leica cine lenses for $200,000. They are made for shooting moving pictures and he gets a nice rental from them, while most of the guys that shoot with their 5DIIs get a pittance for their gear and are certainly not in the league of some of the people that shoot with real cameras. After this rant, I will admit that what the 5DII can do is amazing for the price, but I don't think that a small company like Leica should put their emphasis on competing with this kind of product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted March 8, 2011 Share #316 Posted March 8, 2011 If you want video, with leitz glass, and a small M like form factor, you can have it today, albeit with a 1.5x crop. $700, and an adapter. Get a good one for $200. I got what I paid for with my $30 ebay cheap-o. I'm still not interested in shooting video. I just got it and am planning on using it for the it for the 14 megapixel stills. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted March 8, 2011 Share #317 Posted March 8, 2011 To me, M photography is about stills, rangefinder, image quality, simplicity and possible resulting quality of print output. I am not looking for anything else. I'm not interested in any additional functionality. I think Leica did a great job on the M9 as well as the film Ms. As a matter of course, you all are quite welcome to have a different view. I would not be interested in any functionally different from what is currently is included. I would be dissappointed by adding a feature not meeting my interests. But that is just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 8, 2011 Share #318 Posted March 8, 2011 Lamborghini started out making tractors... And Leica was a microscope company. Nothing is carved in stone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 8, 2011 Share #319 Posted March 8, 2011 I know. That's why I said Ferrari, and not Aston Martin either... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 8, 2011 Share #320 Posted March 8, 2011 Have you ever used live-view with a manual focus, manual aperture lens? I don't believe a Canon 5DII will give an accurate exposure preview in live view display with manual aperture lenses. At least I haven't gotten it to do it. (Maybe if I had a chipped adapter.) I have Nikkor 28PC and 35mm PC as well as several other manual aperture lenses. It works fine with my manual focusing auto aperture TSE lenses. The 10x magnification lets me do more precise focusing than using any other method. I even use AF lenses in MF mode this way. And I shoot hand held very often using a Zacuto finder. Bill - I own at least a dozen tripods and try to use one whenever I can if it won't slow me down too much. I've even shot lively nightlife on the street with tripod mounted cameras. For those of you who don't see the value in live view, today I climbed two different construction cranes. At various points on the way, I held the camera out at arms length from the crane using a 15mm fisheye and other lenses, framing via live view. Other shots today required me to hold the camera up high and were also facilitated by live view. This was very handy and I can't see any reason to try to "get by" without it. So if Leica wants to sell me an M10, it better have live view. (I really don't care if it has or doesn't have video. But I can't see them adding live view and not including video too.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.