Movie Mode and the M10

[adrianw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Then keep your 5DII Rick, I did. There are things it can do that I would not even attempt on the M9. I don't use it for movies either. If I wanted a movie camera I would buy one.

Adrian

[Advertisement]

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

[kdriceman]

That is a good point. The M9 barely has the processing power to produce a decent JPG because of size constraints. What leads you to think that the hypothetical M10 electronics will have the capability to handle video data volumes?

 

 

And, apparently, has trouble simply recording DNG and JPEG files on to certain SD cards. I would not look forward to the additional stress on Leica customer service to respond to issues triggered by adding video to an M10.

[denoir]

The M9 is THE perfect digital M. We are told that so very often here it must be true. We don't want better high ISO performance (get a Noctilux), we don't want an external ISO dial (real men leave it at 400), we don't want a better rear LCD (it would "bloat" the size and real men "know" the exposure)... the list goes on.

 

Hehe, precisely.

 

I think however that a lot of the traditionalists are not seeing the forest for the trees. I'm going to lob another grenade into this discussion by saying that the M8 & M9 are in fact are examples of Leica betraying the fundamentals of the M design.

 

Leica's adaptation of the M line to digital is a lousy one. The only reason why it is nice to use is the fundamentally good design that was made 50 years ago. Almost all the additions have been detrimental. Rather than following the design principles of the original M (form follows function) they've violated it by making a digital camera by changes to a fundamentally different design - a film camera. Ultimately that's what the M9 remains - a film camera with a digital back where the very limited digital functionality is implemented haphazardly. And it's not as good a film camera as for instance the M6 is. It's the equivalent of taking a good horse drawn carriage and putting a combustion engine in it. It won't be a car and it won't any more be a good horse drawn carriage.

 

I urge anyone that has an M3, M6, or MP to take a really close look at it. It's a design wonder. There isn't one superfluous bit, everything has a function and is brilliantly designed. It's down to the smallest detail. They've completely missed that on the M9 and just cloned earlier M:s without thinking what they were doing. Just recklessly removing the film advance lever which served a very important ergonomic function without replacing it with something that would serve a similar function (while being a functional element of the camera) is just one example.

 

Here is another very simple example of their fundamentally incorrect approach:

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!

 

You see that recess on the film M? It's there because it serves a function - to protect the rewind switch. They've removed the switch on the M9, but the recess is still there without any function whatsoever. What made the M system so good and why it survived for over 50 years is because it was a carefully thought out design with all parts being functional and necessary. Instead of following the "form follows function" principle when building a digital camera, Leica just cloned the film camera, violating the fundamental design principles that made that design great.

 

So what does this have to do with movie mode? Simple: adding things like video capabilities is trivial compared to the really fundamentally design flaws that make the digital Ms violate the fundamental principles of their film predecessors. Those that think movie mode or live view is going to ruin things, forget about it - that ship has sailed long ago. A digital M is always going to be a bastard camera adding functions at the expense of the overall design.

 

If Leica was really true to its origins, it would design a whole new camera, a digital camera. Not a flawed carbon copy of an M but something that would be designed the same way the M line was. And in that case movie mode, live view and other similar digital functions would have to be incorporated with the same elegance as changing shutter speed was on the original M.

 

It may seem a bit harsh to criticize Leica like this when every other camera manufacturer is guilty of producing crap designs as well, but Leica should know better! How can one not look at a film Leica M and not appreciate the brilliant functional design of it?

[jaapv]

Nonsense. An M2 with a rewind unlocking button has the same ridge. The ridge is ther to compensate for the thickness discrepancy by the placement of the rangefinder optics. The protection of levers etc. was no part of the M3 design. Even the lens release button was unprotected.

[Sp12]

Careful what you wish for. I get so frustrated with my 5DMk2 because every firmware update brings lots of new video feature improvements, but it still can't autoexposure bracket more than three shots in a row. For a $3000 camera, you might expect to be able to bracket say, five or seven or more shots. But no, you would be wrong. However, I hear it takes very nice video. Unfortunately, I bought it to take still pictures. Of course, I haven't taken a shot with it since I bought the M9. I would be very disappointed to see video added to the M10. There are lots of point and shoot cameras that shoot video. The M series was never designed for that. It has a singularity of purpose and functional design that make it unique in the camera world. I would hate to see Leica ruin that in an effort to chase all the copycats out there.

 

Canon wants you to buy a pro camera to bracket that many shots. I really do not understand the arguments of movie mode soiling some holiness of the M as a stills camera.

 

Someone please explain to me how movie mode would ruin the M.

 

Also, this:

 

The M series was never designed for that

is moderately funny. The M series was never designed to be digital. The M8 and M9 have comparatively terrible ergonomics because it was digital designed to fit a classic body and not a digital body made with the ideas and aesthetics of an M.

 

Though, I understand the desire to keep the M9 exactly the same. Many people have spent 7K+ on it, and the rate at which digital cameras suffer price rot makes a new model threatening on at least a value-justification level. I for one would love an M10 with live view, movie mode, 36+ MP, an AA filter, external ISO dial, much larger screen, microphone, and more FPS. If Sony can shove 24MP into a NEX-7, get it to have 10FPS and better DR/color than an M9 or D3x, have an optional near-optical quality EVF, movie mode and live view, and have near perfect ergonomics (for digital) for ~1100$ I don't see why Leica can't two-up that for 7K.

[jaapv]

Hmm...why do most reviews praise the ergonomics:confused:

[-ph-]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a M9. I love it. Why should I get a M10 at all?

Well, if it significantly improves on the M9. How can it do that?

If Leica stays with CCD, then there are only very small improvements to be made on the sensor - not counting in that the Kodak sensor business is in new hands.

So, CMOS it is. This brings better ISO, and the ability to do live view/video. A better and faster onboard processor would be beneficial for any aspect of photography. Just imagine an M to take and process way more frames per second than the current one. They even could keep the rangefinder as it is and use either the back screen or an external viewfinder (as for example Olympus does) for the live view/video functionality. The only hardware changes visible for that would be two tiny holes in the front for sound (check out the E-P1 for that) and perhaps one more position of the power switch to enable the video mode.

Given a sound implementation of sensor+processing, this really is mostly a minimal addition.

 

Peter

[JimGoshorn]

I for one would love an M10 with live view, movie mode, 36+ MP, an AA filter, external ISO dial, much larger screen, microphone, and more FPS. If Sony can shove 24MP into a NEX-7, get it to have 10FPS and better DR/color than an M9 or D3x, have an optional near-optical quality EVF, movie mode and live view, and have near perfect ergonomics (for digital) for ~1100$ I don't see why Leica can't two-up that for 7K.

 

Leica dropped the R10 because it didn't want to directly compete with Nikon and Canon. So now those requests would have them competing with Sony as well (especially by adding movie functionality). Leica seems to like being a niche product that can be as unique as possible.

 

Leica would be making the same mistake as Canon did with the 5D2 vs 1Ds3 if they raise the M to 36+MP because it would basically have the same resolution as the S2 and cannibalize it's sales.

 

10fps why? Is anyone seriously going to do sports or wildlife which would require those frame rates?

 

People have M's for the simplicity and traditional design. I can see Leica improving ISO, color quality, dynamic range, adding focus confirmation, LED frame lines and even live view. It's conservative, improves the functionality and quality of the M line without changing the essence of the M.

 

Jim

[Dirk Mandeville]

Not chase all the copycats, lead the market. I had a 5DII as well and it took wonderful pictures. It had great video as well. Leica can do it even better.

How so, exactly? How do you expect Leica to implement video in a camera the size of the M9 and do a better job than Canikon has already done? Honestly, if they wanted to do that, they should just incorporate video into the S2. It would be a much better platform for video than the M9.

 

By that argument, then, you must expect a whole lot more from a $7000+ M9

 

You are correct. The M9 has several glaring deficiencies given its price, none the least of which is the cheap LCD screen on the back of it. If they are going to do a digital rangefinder, at that price, then they should do it right. I expect the M10 to be a much better camera than the M9, just as the M9 is much better than the M8.

 

Canon wants you to buy a pro camera to bracket that many shots. I really do not understand the arguments of movie mode soiling some holiness of the M as a stills camera.

 

Seems kind of silly to require a pro body just to autoexposure bracket more than three frames in a row. All it would take is a simple firmware update. Yet firmware update after firmware update comes and goes bringing new goodies for the videographers, with little or no improvement in the camera's still picture functionality. That is why I say be careful what you wish for. Once video is introduced, there will be a lot of development resources put toward improving that functionality. If you don't think improvements on the still picture functionality will be delayed/compromised by that additional burden, then I think you are fooling yourselves.

[Dirk Mandeville]

People have M's for the simplicity and traditional design. I can see Leica improving ISO, color quality, dynamic range, adding focus confirmation, LED frame lines and even live view. It's conservative, improves the functionality and quality of the M line without changing the essence of the M.

Totally agree with this statement.

[charlesphoto99]

For me the number one thing that would make an M10 better than an M9 would be instant start up from standby mode. That would probably entail using an electronic release. Probably not enough on it's own to warrant the cost of upgrading, but Leica do need to bring the next iteration more into the 21st century.

 

Video mode is something that would be nice, but how actually useable it would be is up for discussion. Without AF then it would be quite difficult to replace the p&s video mode for casual shooting of the kids etc. Follow focus is hard work. Anyway, If the M10 is just an incremental upgrade to the M9 I think it will be a small seller for Leica. It needs to be a real rethink so that it compliments the M9 vs merely replacing it. (sorry too much food over the past couple of days and not sure if I'm making sense)

[luigi bertolotti]

Never used a videocam, apart quick trials-by-phone... so in my point of view it can be or not on next M, no matters; I'd simply dislike the (uneven, I think) possibility they will sacrifice processing power and memory for this feature; my vague impression is that without motorized zoom + focus you have anyway a limited videocamera (but, impression based only on my past, old, brief experience with Super8... )

 

.

[denoir]

Nonsense. An M2 with a rewind unlocking button has the same ridge. The ridge is ther to compensate for the thickness discrepancy by the placement of the rangefinder optics. The protection of levers etc. was no part of the M3 design. Even the lens release button was unprotected.

 

I really wish people should stop making shit up to cover their ignorance.

 

I did not pick that example at random - it's an example brought up by Walter de Silva (in CAP & Design, march issue 2011). He turned into an ergonomic feature on the M9 Titanium so that it would have a function again. The original ridge on the M3 was placed there after a long hesitation by one of the main designers, Willi Stein as the rewind was very easy to flip if you were cleaning the optics.

 

As for the M2 (which came after the M3).. the early models had a push button, but they rather quickly reversed it back to the lever. The M8/M9 are by no means the first design mistakes that Leica has made - they've done quite a few of them over the years.

[jaapv]

It still is nonsense, no matter who says so. It sounds extremely apocryphal to me. As soon as Leica had another option they reverted to a flat front - Digilux2 and 3. Not with marked styling success I might add. And why make an expensive full crease when a little round ridge would have sufficed, as they did on the release button later? And design with safety redundancy more than a decade ahead of their time? Appliances, cars, even airplanes didn't have it in the late forties when the M3 was designed, based on a pre-war prototype, the Leica IV, quite usual in that time.

In the late fifties/early sixties, maybe, as Philips, Braun,Volvo, Borgward, Triumph started designing with human frailty and foibles in mind and blowing away the pre-war cobwebs..

 

Even if you were right, it is a bit rich to call a carry-over from an earlier design, if it were redundant now, a mistake. From a marketing point of view it was essential to stay as close as possible to the look of the M7. If that ridge would not have been there the M8 might not have sold well enough to their existing customer base as it did, making the M9, indeed Leica as an existing firm, wholly hypothetical.

[Rick]

Ok, guys, we are getting a little off topic here. I believe you are all going to love Movie Mode so, I'm putting all the naysayers down as "maybe" and it sounds like most everyone else can't wait.

[likalar]

It's a decades-old tradition for M to be behind the times when it comes to cramming in modern features. Another time-honored tradition is suggesting what Leica should be doing. Carry on, not a bad way to kill time on a lazy Saturday, and fun to read. Thanks.

 

Larry in SF, CA

[denoir]

It still is nonsense, no matter who says so. It sounds extremely apocryphal to me. As soon as Leica had another option they reverted to a flat front - Digilux2 and 3. Not with marked styling success I might add. And why make an expensive full crease when a little round ridge would have sufficed, as they did on the release button later? And design with safety redundancy more than a decade ahead of their time? Appliances, cars, even airplanes didn't have it in the late forties when the M3 was designed, based on a pre-war prototype, the Leica IV, quite usual in that time.

In the late fifties/early sixties, maybe, as Philips, Braun,Volvo, Borgward, Triumph started designing with human frailty and foibles in mind and blowing away the pre-war cobwebs.

 

Sigh. The M3 was not ahead of its time, it was a very late example of Bauhaus industrial design that evolved in the 1920s. You'll find the same design principles in buildings, furniture, machine tools, appliances etc that belong to the same design movement.

 

Even if you were right, it is a bit rich to call a carry-over from an earlier design, if it were redundant now, a mistake. From a marketing point of view it was essential to stay as close as possible to the look of the M7. If that ridge would not have been there the M8 might not have sold well enough to their existing customer base as it did, making the M9, indeed Leica as an existing firm, wholly hypothetical.

 

If their customer base is like you - i.e don't understand the principles that made the original product great in the first place, then yes. And from Leica's output I'm pretty sure that is the case. They did not design a great digital camera but made a half assed adaptation of a great film camera. It's like one of those early horseless carriages designed to look like a horse drawn carriage sans the horse or like a modern steel and concrete building that features ionic columns, pilasters and pediments. It's fake and dishonest and as such the exact opposite of the design principles of the original M.

 

Had Leica been the company they once were they would have designed a brand new digital camera, from scratch, making it as good as the original M is for film - and as honest. The digital M's are very nice to use not because of but despite the violations of the original design philosophy.

[Rick]

I agree with a lot of what Denoir is writing about; the idea that Leica needs to design with digital in mind. This seems to be pretty obvious. But, when Leica was barely breathing, financially, they had to keep some of the film design elements. They couldn't start fresh. Some of this digital design you talk about couldn't take place anew from the difital-ground up if Leica wanted to have a chance of survival. The M-line had to stay the same in some basic ways.

 

When they designed the M8, for example, they had to keep the M-mount or there wouldn't be a large M-lens user base for them to build on. They had to provide a way to focus the manual M-lenses, hence the RF. Body design might as well stay the same... box with M-mount on front and RF sitting on top. The best electronics Leica could muster up at the time (6 years ago!) had to sit behind the shutter. I'm not sure given these design elements that Leica had to work with that they didn't do a good job of holding to the axiom of form follows function. Sure, there was a nod to their lineage of older M-cameras in the superficial design like the anachronistic bottom plate, that I think is cool, but I'm so ready for it to go. But, hey, every car company is guilty of the same in their new models.

 

The M9 came about as what Leica could do with a small advance in sensor technology from Kodak and upgraded electronics by Jenoptik. It wasn't meant to be the end all or the leader in digital technology. It was just their version of finally being able to pick themselves up off the floor and it provided a pretty nice FF camera for it's M-lens owners while they made some cash and played catch-up. It is not perfect. It is behind the times and not technologically advanced... but, rather nice for us that had M-lenses. And, certainly much better than what R-lens owners got.

 

The M9 has given Leica the financial ability to now make something more advanced. I hope they take advantage of the CMOS technology - Movie Mode. I'm sure processing power and display technology will advance as well. I hope they take a page from Apple and design their own battery that is much larger capacity but doesn't use round cells and therefore can fit in much the same volume with higher capacity. And, I agree with you, I'm now ready for them to change the form factor of the M to more closely follow digital function and get rid of the anachronisms in the design. And, while their at it, I'd sure like a body design that I can actually hold on to. Leica, please put Thumbie and Thumbs-up and all the other rubber baby buggy bumper makers out of their misery.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dwbell]

I agree with a lot of what Denoir is writing about

 

Anyone else who's been active here in the last year spit out coffee at that one too?

 

[Alnitak]

That is a good point. The M9 barely has the processing power to produce a decent JPG because of size constraints. What leads you to think that the hypothetical M10 electronics will have the capability to handle video data volumes?

 

This isn't a size constraint issue; its a matter of poor choice in processor. They could easily have plenty of processing power in a tight space if they had made better design choices.

 

Jeff