Video mode on future M

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am quite certain that someone somewhere has had that very thought.

 

I also know that I thought at one time while carrying my M4 with the 90mm Elmarit and the Lunasix 3 - refurbished to use newer 1.5V batteries - that it would be just great to have some pop corn.

 

Does this mean that I wished my M4, the Elmarit or the Lunasix was capable of producing pop corn? As they say, "not really".

 

There really is no point trying to engage someone who responds like this in a serious dialog. Do other people tell you this very often?

[AlanG]

Do you notice any difference between

Any more questions?

 

Any more questions???

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!

[pop]

Alan, you asked:

 

I wonder if anyone here is equally certain that nobody ever carried an M and thought, "too bad I didn't have a video camera with me just then."

 

Since taking a video is not a function of any currently available M camera, and is not something your run-of-the-mill Leica M user would expecting his camera to be capable of, any other function the M camera is not capable of is exactly as reasonable to ask on the spur of the moment as the one function mentioned by you.

 

There really is no point trying to engage someone who responds like this in a serious dialog. Do other people tell you this very often?

 

No. People mostly comment on how stringent my logic is.

 

[swamiji]

I wonder if anyone here is equally certain that nobody ever carried an M and thought, "too bad I didn't have a video camera with me just then."

:

 

We have all thought that from time to time, however at what cost. Do you add the zoom? Autofocus?, Anti-shake? Even just the basic Canon feature set is far more closely related to a video camera by far than the Rangefinder mode of operation. Not even bringing in the CMOS vs CCD discussion. Sorry but your picture only made me feel more reluctant to consider such a concept... it's scary.

[pop]

Any more questions???

 

 

This thread is about M cameras. The camera depicted by you is not an M type camera. It is not even a range finder camera.

 

Which movies of any description have been taken using the lovely device you are showing us?

[Double Negative]

Video on an M? Hell no.

[swamiji]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any more questions???

 

Just a comment... the G2 is not using a Leica Lens... It's appears to be Pani.

[AlanG]

 

This thread is about M cameras. The camera depicted by you is not an M type camera. It is not even a range finder camera.

 

Which movies of any description have been taken using the lovely device you are showing us?

 

 

The point is that the GH2 can shoot videos and is smaller than the M9 so it counters the comparison photos posted between the Canon with accessories and the M9.

 

I guess you really didn't bother to go to the Zacuto shootout and see what Hollywood professionals and others in the industry think of the GH1.

 

If you have 30 minutes to spend, you might learn something from it.

 

The Great Camera Shootout 2010 | Zacuto

 

The small Panasonics fulfill the niche that the Leica Ms used to fill for some photographers that I know. The size, features and price are major reasons. Between the various micro 4/3rds and the DSLRs, going with an M9 is not as attractive an option as it might be if the camera could do more.

[pop]

The point is that the GH2 can shoot videos and is smaller than the M9

 

Is a G2 the same as a GH2?

 

I am sure there are many devices which both can shoot videos and are smaller than the M9. I am also sure that there are tasks where such devices might be superior to regular video cameras. I am also sure that it's possible to construct a scenario where an M9 would be the optimal if not only device to achieve some video takes.

 

None of these, however, offer any strong incentive for the majority of users of the M system as it is currently known to wish for a video mode in their current or yet to be acquired M cameras.

 

We might also suspect that the incentives for Leica from an economic or reputation point of view are not sufficient to add such a function to one of the immediate successors of any of the current M cameras.

 

Lastly, if those DSLRs were so much superior to "regular" video cameras, why are those still being produced and used?

[jaapv]

The only description of that camera that fits is : bloody ugly. Added to the fact that I have tried various 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds cameras and was not impressed to say the least by the image quality - oh - it looks fine on a monitor, but falls through when printed, I really don't see how anybody can take it seriously as an alternative to an M9 ( or a Canon 5DII for that matter).

[AlanG]

The only description of that camera that fits is : bloody ugly. Added to the fact that I have tried various 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds cameras and was not impressed to say the least by the image quality - oh - it looks fine on a monitor, but falls through when printed, I really don't see how anybody can take it seriously as an alternative to an M9 ( or a Canon 5DII for that matter).

 

The reason that DSLRs are exciting to some people as video platforms is that their sensor size allows for use of standard 35mm camera lenses and the image qualities that they provide. (More shallow depth of field is possible, tilt/shift, etc.) And they are affordable and ubiquitous. A lot of pro still shooters are discovering video for the first time because their cameras have it built in and they don't have to buy much else to make it work for them. I don't recall hearing a single photographer wishing for video capability in a DSLR before it became available. But now many are exploring it.

 

A lot of pro shooters have bought the GF1 which is pretty small and can also shoot HD720 video. Th GH1 can do 1080P. I meant to say G2 not GH2 - the GH2 is only speculated about for now - the hope being that it won't have a shutter. The new G2 can do HD720.

 

Good enough is good enough. Not all images have to be M9 or higher quality. It depends on the application. And as the micro 4/3rds cameras get better, they will satisfy more and more of those applications. A lot of photo projects are primarily for web use these days.

 

I have a friend who shoots for National Geo. She went to Burma after the earthquake there in 2008. She only brought a Canon G9 or whatever model was current then. She didn't want to stand out as a pro. So today a GF-1 would give even better results and still be small and not look too professional. I don't know if she shot any video with it.

 

I find for my personal work, that supplementing my stills with video, sound, and music helps to tell the story. And I'm exploring ways to incorporate video with my commercial assignments now that so much of the imagery ends up on the web. Many photographers I know are thinking the same way as we want to enhance our income potential and also need to stay current and competitive. But I really recommend that other commercial photographers should avoid video at all costs.

[jaapv]

I'm not saying these cameras don't have their uses, nor that many users are happy with them - obviously they wouldn't sell if that were the case. It is just that I find it a bit weird to see them as an alternative for a 18Mp ff camera just because there is an adapter that makes the lenses fit.

[AlanG]

I'm not saying these cameras don't have their uses, nor that many users are happy with them - obviously they wouldn't sell if that were the case. It is just that I find it a bit weird to see them as an alternative for a 18Mp ff camera just because there is an adapter that makes the lenses fit.

 

I don't know if their ability to take other lenses is a big deal or not for most users. Although turning a 50 f1.4 into the equivalent of a 100 f1.4 or a 200 2.8 into the equivalent of a 400 2.8 must be attractive to some users.

 

In general I see the problem for Leica is that almost everyone is making "good" cameras these days. And for various reasons, Leica will probably have to be content with a fairly small segment of the camera market for the M. They might be best off by not changing it much if that is what their customers want and Leica can make a profit off of a relatively small market segment. But if they come to the conclusion that the camera has to change in the future in order to meet market demands and sell enough to justify M production, then it will have to change. Nothing stays the same indefinitely. If they don't anticipate these changes and have the technology in place, then implementing the changes in time could be problematic. (E.g. lack of AF for the R system.)

 

If Leica can find the resources, the way for them to go is to keep the M system relatively unchanged and design a new camera system for the future. (That is precisely what Panasonic and Olympus did with the micro 4/3rds.) The M system, with all of its legacy lens issues and other constraints, would probably end up being a real kludge if they try to add very much technology to it.

 

So unless Leica is of the opinion that a version of the M9 with just minor periodic updates can be sell-able long into the future, Leica will need to embrace and incorporate competitive electronic technology sooner or later. My bet is that Leica is designing a totally new modern system. (Besides the S2 system.) Perhaps someone else will be building it for them.

[250swb]

The only description of that camera that fits is : bloody ugly. Added to the fact that I have tried various 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds cameras and was not impressed to say the least by the image quality - oh - it looks fine on a monitor, but falls through when printed, I really don't see how anybody can take it seriously as an alternative to an M9 ( or a Canon 5DII for that matter).

 

Perhaps the answer lies in the idea that photographers may find a 4/3 and/or combined video camera more productive?

 

So does it really need to be said that the best tool for the job is the one that gets the best image, not necessarily the one that makes technically better images?

 

The concept of competition between cameras is the perennial amateur obsession with spec sheets, but the concept of making the best images (using whatever equipment that helps you do it) is a more cerebral thing that photographers do. So you think you wouldn't be taken seriously using anything less than 18mp full frame? Well, how serious you look will depend on why the photographer laughing at you is using their own camera.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

I'm not saying these cameras don't have their uses, nor that many users are happy with them - obviously they wouldn't sell if that were the case. It is just that I find it a bit weird to see them as an alternative for a 18Mp ff camera just because there is an adapter that makes the lenses fit.

 

There is more....

[diogenis]

I don't know if their ability to take other lenses is a big deal or not for most users. Although turning a 50 f1.4 into the equivalent of a 100 f1.4 or a 200 2.8 into the equivalent of a 400 2.8 must be attractive to some users.

 

In general I see the problem for Leica is that almost everyone is making "good" cameras these days. And for various reasons, Leica will probably have to be content with a fairly small segment of the camera market for the M. They might be best off by not changing it much if that is what their customers want and Leica can make a profit off of a relatively small market segment. But if they come to the conclusion that the camera has to change in the future in order to meet market demands and sell enough to justify M production, then it will have to change. Nothing stays the same indefinitely. If they don't anticipate these changes and have the technology in place, then implementing the changes in time could be problematic. (E.g. lack of AF for the R system.)

 

If Leica can find the resources, the way for them to go is to keep the M system relatively unchanged and design a new camera system for the future. (That is precisely what Panasonic and Olympus did with the micro 4/3rds.) The M system, with all of its legacy lens issues and other constraints, would probably end up being a real kludge if they try to add very much technology to it.

 

So unless Leica is of the opinion that a version of the M9 with just minor periodic updates can be sell-able long into the future, Leica will need to embrace and incorporate competitive electronic technology sooner or later. My bet is that Leica is designing a totally new modern system. (Besides the S2 system.) Perhaps someone else will be building it for them.

 

In the mean time the "legacy old M system" as you call it sell like hot cakes...

Instead of asking Leica to include video in their Ms why don't you just ask from Canon or Nikon to try and shrink those FF dSLRS?

As for innovation, how can you say that only Olympus and Panasonic innovate, answer me this: Who manufactured the smallest lightest pro FF camera first, and at the same time the smallest lightest and best compact P&S in the market, while also redefining the MF sector ? Guess who?

 

You are a p&s shooter Alan. Have you got the X1 yet? Or no because it lacks "video'?

 

I am asking again: what is the reason of not using your phone for taking videos? It's there with you, why not use it?

[AlanG]

In the mean time the "legacy old M system" as you call it sell like hot cakes...

Instead of asking Leica to include video in their Ms why don't you just ask from Canon or Nikon to try and shrink those FF dSLRS?

As for innovation, how can you say that only Olympus and Panasonic innovate, answer me this: Who manufactured the smallest lightest pro FF camera first, and at the same time the smallest lightest and best compact P&S in the market, while also redefining the MF sector ? Guess who?

 

You are a p&s shooter Alan. Have you got the X1 yet? Or no because it lacks "video'?

 

I am asking again: what is the reason of not using your phone for taking videos? It's there with you, why not use it?

 

First of all I do use my phone for taking videos and still photos. The essence of most photography (non production work) is knowing where to point the camera and when to take the picture. Without that ability, nothing else matters much.

 

Second, if you read my post I said I didn't think the M should have video or much else added to it. I said I think that Leica at some point will have to make a different system as the legacy issues of the M may make it difficult for Leica to update the system with electronic features that many want now or will want in the near future in a basic camera system. And Leica will need a platform where technology can be easily updated. If they somehow can incorporate this into the M, I'd be surprised as the lack of linkage to the lenses and various other constraints will make it difficult.

 

I think that Canon introduced the first and thus the smallest and lightest pro full frame camera with the 1Ds, followed by a smaller and lighter Kodak, and then a smaller and lighter Canon model 5D. I don't see anything about the M9 that is innovative. It would have been innovative if it came out in 2002-2003.

 

I am not saying that Leica has to innovate or ever introduce a new model if the company finds it can make adequate profits from simply refining the M9 concept and make the other product lines they have. That is up to them to see if they can keep selling Ms "like hotcakes." But in my opinion, the advantages of the unique characteristics of the M are being squeezed by the DSLRs at one end and the micro 4/3rds at the other. The pricing of the M system surely limits its acceptance by those who might otherwise want one. So it is really becoming a toy of the wealthier enthusiasts more than a tool for serious photographers. (Yes I know there are some serious photographers who use them and some wealthy enthusiasts who can take good photos. But most working photographers that I know are not likely to spend $6,000 for a wide angle lens. Especially when you consider the competition.)

 

Again, I am not running Leica so I don't have any facts on their market projections or profit projections for future years. But I wouldn't be surprised if Leica sees this as a problem down the road and is making plans for another system that Leica can use in the future to grow the company. I don't think the S2 or X1 will do this. Although something like the X1 with interchangeable lenses and a clip on EVF could be pretty appealing to many.

 

If you haven't done so already, you really should take a look through the VF2 that clips on to the top of the Olympus EP-2 and EPL-1 cameras. It really is pretty good - much better than the clip-on for the Panasonic GF-1. Both of those Olympus models are quite good but are of course not "perfect." The next generation or so of compact Olympus and Panasonic cameras will be really even better so those and similar small cameras from various manufacturers will give other viable options for photographers.

 

While I work as a commercial photographer where I am quite critical of technical quality and aesthetic aspects of the image, I have found that for my personal pictures, a simple camera will often do. So when I go on vacation, I like working within the limitations of a tiny p&s to see what I can achieve. I think it comes down to where I point the camera and when I press the button (and a little stitching, manipulation and file adjusting.) Recently I started making little videos to share with my traveling companions. At this point I am having a hard time convincing myself I really need anything better as most of these kinds of things end up on the web as a little gallery or video - so having large files is generally unnecessary. At one time I would have been very enthusiastic about carrying an M for this kind of photography. But not today.

 

To see what I'm talking about, here's a video that unfortunately doesn't have any sound or music. And some links to a gallery of images I shot in Venice a few years ago. While these aren't so great... I bet they are better than most people's travel photos. I can't think of much else I would do with a bunch of travel photos and videos, so I don't see much reason to carry an M9 or a separate video camera to try to do better. When I travel, I just want a simple easy method to record still and moving pictures should I feel the need to do so. I like the story telling aspects and don't worry about the technical aspects. I do understand that others get much more pleasure out of using cameras than I do.

 

YouTube - Kanal von Goldsteinphoto

 

Venice

[jpattison]

I bet they are better than most people's travel photos.

 

No they are not.

 

As for the video, what's the point? amateur footage on 8mm film in 1960 is just the same.

 

John

[AlanG]

I bet they are better than most people's travel photos.

 

No they are not.

 

As for the video, what's the point? amateur footage on 8mm film in 1960 is just the same.

 

John

 

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. I don't think an M9 or pro video camera would help me. I shoot to please myself not you. The videos are just part of a "sentimental' record of the trip and if a tiny p&s can do better than 8mm from 1960 plus sound, that is quite an accomplishment.

 

I really can't see putting in the effort to do "serious" photography while I'm on vacation. So if I casually take a few images I like on a trip, I'm happy.

 

I feel a these came out pretty nice or were interesting. That being said, I welcome your criticism and advice on what I should do differently and if a better camera would help.

 

Italy 2010 select

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

Correction - I think Contax made the first full frame 35mm digital camera.