jaapv Posted March 9, 2011 Share #341 Posted March 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) So live view and video is ok in some Leica models but not others? Is this due to philosophy or limitations of Leica technology?Yes. Leica can cater to more than one group of customers if they wish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Video mode on future M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
zlatkob Posted March 9, 2011 Share #342 Posted March 9, 2011 Hello... Is this thing working...? See the video linked in my post # 230 ... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/120654-video-mode-future-m-12.html#post1632655 Videos like that one and his more recent videos on the my day with blog could be done with a video-capable M. But would they be that much better if done with a video M? I don't think that's the right question for video ... or for stills. Compare street photography done by a Leica M photographer and by a Nikon/Canon DSLR photographer and by a Rollei TLR photographer, and is the M always that much better? No, it depends more on the photographer than the camera, right? The same goes for video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #343 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. Alan, I understand that in your case the live view might have saved you from exposing to a major peril (I like the pic btw). Instead in my case it would have been useless unless the camera had a hinged LCD screen. But I feel that it would have somehow affected the effectiveness of my stealth mode (as if the clunky shutter of my M8 weren't enough...) The pic was shot with the camera on my lap and was totally guesswork, either framing and exposure (sunny 16). Not a memorable shot at all but useful for the sake of training. 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=1611349'>More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2011 Share #344 Posted March 10, 2011 Yes. Leica can cater to more than one group of customers if they wish. So even if Leica has the technology to put live view and video into an M they won't do it because they are catering to different group of customers with that camera? It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that as of now, Leica hasn't been able to add that technology to the digital M? I don't think so. Hasn't Leica said that they are exploring the idea of adding live view to the M where besides being useful will also serve as a "solution" for R lens owners? So now Leica has a model that uses live view, an optional clip on optical finder and an optional clip on EVF. Another model that has live view and an optional clip on optical finder. Then there's the M which has no live view and can use optional optical finders along with the built in optical viewfinder and the S2 that is an SLR with no live view. And these cameras are all meant to appeal to different customers? I bet there is a lot of overlap and many M owners are also using Leicas that have live view. I'm taking my information second hand from this post: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1478498-post151.html ___________________________________ At the LHSA meeting in Wetzlar Stefan Daniel said that they were working on a live view-CMOS camera when asked about the 'solution' for R lenses. When asked whether that would be for R lenses only, he said that would make no sense, as the installed base is too small. It would be an M mount camera with an adapter for R lenses. When I asked whether it would have auto diaphragm and speculated that that would be required for R lens owners to prefer Leica's solution to Nikon or Canon adaptation, he said that they would look into it. Further questions resulted in indications that this camera would likely be announced in 2012, and would essentially be the next M. Clearly they are in the early stages of design, and are probably talking with CMOS producers about the chip and their requirements. Some people spoke up about 'no anti-alias filter' and he indicated agreement. Where this will ultimately lead is open, but Leica is definitely thinking about an EVF M. The Titanium M9 has LED projected framelines, and Leica seems to think this is a good idea at present, and from handling the camera I agree. If a traditional RF is maintained, I'm all for these projected framelines. If an EVF camera is to be the future of the M line, I'd like to wait to see what develops. I hope that the concept can improve, as right now I'm not in favour of replacing the M range/viewfinder with the current state of EVF's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted March 10, 2011 Share #345 Posted March 10, 2011 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. I hear you, but have a different perspective. I shoot a fair bit of landscape, and want detailed output (only provided by a combination of sensor and lenses), a light and compact kit, and enough resolution to do a fairly large print. My most-used lenses are 35mm, 28mm, 21mm, 50mm. There isn't a digital R, there isn't a Nikon FM or Olympus OM-1 digital. I don't see where I have any more choices than you. I'd like more accurate framelines in the optical finder, live view for critical framing/close up/occasional moderate telephoto, and a larger higher resolution LCD to make the live view more useful. I think these items will appear in a future M camera, and that it will happen long before Nikon makes a compact full-frame DSLR and lens line. I think Leica knows its customer base pretty well, and that these few new features will be implemented cleanly and simply, without screwing up the M experience for people who don't need or want them. I don't know of any Leica M user that cares about movie mode, so don't expect that any time soon. Still, if they do it and the only difference I see is a "Movie" item I scroll past in the main menu, I also can't see why I'd object. 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. The R is gone, the S2's price is stratospheric, and MFT is lousy for my needs. I understand your trepidation regarding change. Leica has already managed a far larger change taking the M from film to digital, and done it masterfully in my opinion. I trust they'll be able to add some new features without screwing the camera up. If the new camera has to be too different, I trust that they'll continue developing a "traditional" digital M alongside a new one. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2011 Share #346 Posted March 10, 2011 So now Leica has a model that uses live view, an optional clip on optical finder and an optional clip on EVF. Another model that has live view and an optional clip on optical finder. Then there's the M which has no live view and can use optional optical finders along with the built in optical viewfinder and the S2 that is an SLR with no live view. And these cameras are all meant to appeal to different customers? I bet there is a lot of overlap and many M owners are also using Leicas that have live view. Man, do you think in absolutes! Yes of course these are meant for different groups. Of course they overlap. So what is new? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 10, 2011 Share #347 Posted March 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) So even if Leica has the technology to put live view and video into an M they won't do it because they are catering to different group of customers with that camera? It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that as of now, Leica hasn't been able to add that technology to the digital M? I don't think so. Hasn't Leica said that they are exploring the idea of adding live view to the M where besides being useful will also serve as a "solution" for R lens owners? So now Leica has a model that uses live view, an optional clip on optical finder and an optional clip on EVF. Another model that has live view and an optional clip on optical finder. Then there's the M which has no live view and can use optional optical finders along with the built in optical viewfinder and the S2 that is an SLR with no live view. And these cameras are all meant to appeal to different customers? I bet there is a lot of overlap and many M owners are also using Leicas that have live view. And why not? Just consider the offering of a not-so-long-ago niche company, Apple. One of the first steps taken after the comeback of Steve Jobs was to differentiate and rationalize the product lines. That approach is still standing and nowadays we have the MacBooks in three variants, iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac and MacPro. Obviously there's a certain degree of overlapping, after all they're all computers, but they're targeted at different users with different needs. And that approach seems to be a valid one. Why it couldn't be the same for Leica? Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 11, 2011 Share #348 Posted March 11, 2011 I believe that if they could they would. Leica would have put live view in the M8 and M9 if they had the ability to do so. Besides making the M more versatile and opening up the possibility for it to use more lenses (that Leica could make and sell) they are looking for a solution for R users too. They aren't holding back on this useful feature in order to differentiate products for some mysterious purpose that totally eludes me. I am not aware of other companies looking at live view as some sort of differentiation. MF back makers would love to put in live view if they could. (Some MF backs have a slow refresh version of live view.) And I am not aware of photographers who look at it that way either where some cameras with live view are perceived differently than models that don't have live view. Was there some kind of revolt among Canon, Nikon, and Minolta users when live view or video was added in new models? Some may use live view or video more than others if the feature is in their camera. And maybe some don't use it at all. But I didn't hear any complaints for the features being there. I feel that this whole criticism of the possibility of the M having live view and/or video is just a lot of hot air from people who are hung up on personal views of Leica equipment that have nothing to do with simply using a camera for photography. There really is nothing to be scared of. Honest. Live view and video may not be important to you until that moment when you wish you had them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 11, 2011 Share #349 Posted March 11, 2011 And why not? Just consider the offering of a not-so-long-ago niche company, Apple. One of the first steps taken after the comeback of Steve Jobs was to differentiate and rationalize the product lines. That approach is still standing and nowadays we have the MacBooks in three variants, iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac and MacPro. Obviously there's a certain degree of overlapping, after all they're all computers, but they're targeted at different users with different needs. And that approach seems to be a valid one. Why it couldn't be the same for Leica? Cheers, Bruno Geez...... and Mercedes makes a lot of different models too. How dumb do you think I am? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted March 11, 2011 Share #350 Posted March 11, 2011 Live view on an M Leica could be useful, but I'd rather it be left off. My M9 is not intended to be an all-purpose camera either by me or, obviously, by Leica. If the line is to be split into two with one descendant of the M9 remaining the M with the simplest feature set reflecting the M tradition and another, say the E with bells and whistles including an EVF, live view and video capability and possibly easy R adaptability, then fine if the company can handle it gracefully. On the other hand, since there are a number of other cameras that do video well and have a wide ranging lens assortment, let them do the all-dancing and all-singing bit and let Leica do what it does well and produce a relatively small, intuitive camera with minimal buttons and menus that produces superb image quality within a more limited focal length range. You may guess which camera I'm more interested in and which one I feel Leica should direct their somewhat limited R&D towards. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 11, 2011 Share #351 Posted March 11, 2011 Geez...... and Mercedes makes a lot of different models too. How dumb do you think I am? Relax please. No one here meant anything offensive towards you. Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 11, 2011 Share #352 Posted March 11, 2011 that produces superb image quality within a more limited focal length range. How limited in choice of lenses should it be? Why is that a good idea? So if I want to stand on a crane and shoot a fisheye picture, that is not something I should want to do with a Leica? There used to be a 16mm fisheye (Rokkor) for the SL. Consider that people have no choice but to buy other brands if the lenses and features are not available for the Leica. As for it being intended as an "all purpose camera," that was what the Leica stood for over decades. Just look at the Leica Manual to see this - micro, macro, underwater, medical, telephoto, repro, etc. It only changed when they were unable to keep the technology of the Leica practical for wider purposes as the Visoflex and other direct view methods never worked as conveniently as SLRs. So they made an SLR system to cover those needs. But now they have dropped the R system and may have an opportunity to easily make the M into a useful "all purpose" camera system again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 11, 2011 Share #353 Posted March 11, 2011 Relax please. No one here meant anything offensive towards you. Bruno It was an expression. I didn't take it personally. But we all know that companies make a range of products for a variety of reasons. That is pretty obvious. The point is that there is no "philosophy" at Leica that says live view or video is a bad thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 11, 2011 Share #354 Posted March 11, 2011 It was an expression. I didn't take it personally. But we all know that companies make a range of products for a variety of reasons. That is pretty obvious. The point is that there is no "philosophy" at Leica that says live view or video is a bad thing. Alan, many thanks for the clarification. I'd have felt very sorry and embarrassed if I'd lacked respect to you. I wish to make it clear that I'm not against live view, video capability etc. in absolute terms, but I'd rather advocate for them being implemented on a camera designed from the scratch to take advantage of them rather then altering the M-concept as is. As long as I and other dinosaurs have the M in the shape we know and appreciate I would never stand against the making of another model meeting the expectancies of more modern-oriented users. But I'd prefer that they'd be kept separated and not melted into one. Hence my reference to a diversified range of products. I took Apple as an instance since in their case the differences in their offering range are quite clear and well defined. To keep on with the analogy I'd see these similarities: iPhones/iPods: Digilux, V-Lux iPad: a not yet existing MFT MacBook & MacBook Air: MP, M7, M9 iMac: the not yet existing digital camera with live view, video capability, accepting either R and M lenses and whatever feature one might wish MacPro: S2 I hope I made my point clear whilst meaning no offense towards anyone. After all we're just confronting opinions about something that doesn't yet exist. That should never be grounds for quarreling. Peace, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 11, 2011 Share #355 Posted March 11, 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. Jaap, Hear hear! I agree absolutely. But without changing the concept I do wish Leica would do something about the battery and the camera's reliability in general. Those things have nothing to do with the concept, and Nikon and Canon seem to have some solutions to those problems from which Leica might learn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 12, 2011 Share #356 Posted March 12, 2011 I wish to make it clear that I'm not against live view, video capability etc. in absolute terms, but I'd rather advocate for them being implemented on a camera designed from the scratch to take advantage of them rather then altering the M-concept as is. I don't see two digital Ms happening simultaneously, one with live view and video. And I don't see Leica starting up a new full frame system now. (Maybe join M4/3rds.) But you never know. If they do make two otherwise identical cameras, I bet the sales numbers for the one with live view and video will cream the sales numbers for the one that lacks those two features. (Assuming the price is the same or close.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 12, 2011 Share #357 Posted March 12, 2011 Day of Rage. Chicago, 1970. No problem when you know your way. 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?. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted December 4, 2011 Share #358 Posted December 4, 2011 I don't see two digital Ms happening simultaneously, one with live view and video. And I don't see Leica starting up a new full frame system now. (Maybe join M4/3rds.) But you never know. If they do make two otherwise identical cameras, I bet the sales numbers for the one with live view and video will cream the sales numbers for the one that lacks those two features. (Assuming the price is the same or close.) It has already been said by Alfred Schopf that they are woking on a parallel system camera with a "M" mount. Using at least a APS-C sized sensor, priced somewhere between a X1 and a M. I would never begrudge Leica from selling more cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted December 5, 2011 Share #359 Posted December 5, 2011 Would I use a screwdriver to drive a nail? No. Would I use an M to shoot video? Also no. There are tools that do particular jobs well and other jobs - not so well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 5, 2011 Share #360 Posted December 5, 2011 It has already been said by Alfred Schopf that they are woking on a parallel system camera with a "M" mount. Except that there was no mention of the M mount in this context. I don’t think the new system will use the M mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.