Jump to content

Prosophos: final verdict on the M240

photomeme

By photomeme
in Leica M (Type 240 / 262)

 Share

Recommended Posts

MarkP

MarkP

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

why would I want to shoot video or use live view on a Leica M (which is a superb camera).

 

You may not, but as an amateur photographer not buying the M primarily for it's video function, I have no doubt that it will be very useful at times.

 

I love still photography and have been fairly indifferent to video (but have some basic level of video competence) and have a now almost-never-used Video camera. However, as an amateur photographer there are times, particularly with family & kids and on holidays, when the ability to shoot video without having the bring along a video camera or use an iPhone will be incredibly convenient. Kids love seeing video. I don't want to carry around a video camera or a Canikon DSLR system as well as the Leica.

 

I also think a bit of video experimentation with decent lenses might be quite fun and creative.

Edited by MarkP
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

kidigital
kidigital

These grand pronouncements and sermons from the top of the mountain crack me up. A CMOS look from a CMOS sensor ... stop the presses. Curious that the author hasn't even tried the new camera yet, thou

satureyes
satureyes

Sorry- disagree. I shoot video and stills and I am a broadcast professional who moved into stills 4 years ago. If - and if the sensor on the M240 is robust and the codec is good for video then there

algrove
algrove

FINAL VERDICT? Someone who professes to know everything looking at jpeg images. How can some guy even point us there. It is a fact that every digital image needs tweaking in PP, no matter the camera o

Posted Images

MarkP

MarkP

Posted
Posted

I may take some time to write an intro to video shooting at some point but it would be nice to at least have my points acknowledged as coming from some experience rather than trying to argue the case against the camera and video constantly.

.

 

Please do so. I for one would be very interested in reading this :)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptZoom

CaptZoom

Posted
Posted

Seems most commentators here didn't read the blog post, in which the blogger concludes with:

"Now, in the end, does it really matter? This film image I posted a few days ago demonstrates that such technical considerations ultimately sub-serve content/emotion so…

 

No. None of the above really matters."

Link to post
Share on other sites
douglasf13

douglasf13

Posted
Posted (edited)
Sorry- disagree. I shoot video and stills and I am a broadcast professional who moved into stills 4 years ago.

If - and if the sensor on the M240 is robust and the codec is good for video then there is EVERY reason the camera could be a film making tool and not for family videos.

 

Ok- some will take issue there is no 'clean' hdmi output from the camera.

 

My point is that if you are shooting video on a DSLR then IS is almost an irrelevant feature. Regardless of run and gun. The settings still have to be made manually. There is no real time AF. There is real time AF on domestic small compact cameras and some MFT bodies but not in the main.

 

Its a myth that shooting video on a non dedicated video camera is easy. It's not. It requires a lot of thought and knowledge which is sometimes quite different to shooting stills.

 

The M video mode is not there for filming your kids birthday. You'll be disappointed if you try. Buy a 200 quid handycam.

 

I may take some time to write an intro to video shooting at some point but it would be nice to at least have my points acknowledged as coming from some experience rather than trying to argue the case against the camera and video constantly.

 

30% of my revenue from shoots comes from video. I shoot stills too. Video is another revenue stream.

 

I work in TV, too, and I understand what you're saying. Maybe I'm not doing a good job of getting my point across. The advantage of using the M system for video over a DSLR, size, is thrown out the window when you have to start employing rigging, and I'm not sure why someone would chose a camera that can't go over 25fps in HD, doesn't have a clean HDMI out, and doesn't have a wide variety of accessory options (at least not yet,) when there are better options out there. Like you mentioned, we'll see about the codec. Even something like the little GH2 is likely a better video option.

 

My point is simply that the video feature seems to be more of a convenience on the M, rather than a robust, professional video option, and that's why I said it would still be handy for the occasional family video or whatnot, since I'd be using the camera primarily as a still camera. I mean, apparently the camera doesn't even have the processing power to move the liveview magnification box around the screen, which doesn't exactly give me confidence in the video feature.

Edited by douglasf13
Link to post
Share on other sites
algrove

algrove

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess from all this talk, there are actually very few of us who ordered the M after having some time with it. Jono and Chris had all the time in the world compared to most of us.

 

The question is, did these two gentlemen order their own M copies?

 

Many have ordered their copies of the M sight unseen. Those are the brave ones who have given Leica their "Verdict".

 

I mentioned elsewhere that I found out today that the dealer nearest me has had so much interest in the M and with people fighting for their perceived position from months ago, that to pare the list down from BS buyers to real buyers and given the fact that the M is shipping, all be it in small numbers, the only people on their list are now those who have paid in full for the camera. As of tonight they have 6 paid in full orders (including one from Australia). They hope by June they will be able to fill all 6 of those orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
diogenis

diogenis

Posted
Posted

And why does the author assumes that the ...marshmallowish feel is due to the sensor?

If there is a difference (now that the camera is out, it will be found) I would like a better and more scientific approach to someone that eats a lot of marshmallows.

And I thought that the pseudo 3D effect was happening because of the Lenses... Now it seems it also happens due to the sensor :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh

mjh

Posted
Posted
Why the pro video cameras have three CCDs? (RGB)

Do they really? I thought that professional cameras like the Arri Alexa, Red One etc. all had a single CMOS sensor with a Bayer filter array.

 

Why the medium format photo camera have CCD?

Because CMOS sensors of the required size are not available yet.

 

Why the CCD is more expensive than CMOS?

Is it really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
billo101

billo101

Posted
Posted
Do they really? I thought that professional cameras like the Arri Alexa, Red One etc. all had a single CMOS sensor with a Bayer filter array.

 

 

Because CMOS sensors of the required size are not available yet.

 

 

Is it really?

Yes, Monochrom is more expensive that M, why?

Is it only a policy of Leica selling? I do not think

Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh

mjh

Posted
Posted
Yes, Monochrom is more expensive that M, why?

Is it only a policy of Leica selling? I do not think

The M Monochrom is also more expensive then the M9 was, and it costs a whopping 2000 Euro more than the M-E. All of these models have a CCD sensor (and actually it is nearly the same CCD, just with RGB filters replaced by transparent ones in the case of the M Monochrom).

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
Yes, Monochrom is more expensive that M, why?

Is it only a policy of Leica selling? I do not think

Indeed it is not - it results from the production costs and writeoff of R&D on a smaller number of cameras. Both for Leica and the component suppliers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
billo101

billo101

Posted
Posted
The M Monochrom is also more expensive then the M9 was, and it costs a whopping 2000 Euro more than the M-E. All of these models have a CCD sensor (and actually it is nearly the same CCD, just with RGB filters replaced by transparent ones in the case of the M Monochrom).

 

The price of the M-E instead is a clear sales policy.

 

b

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not really. The ME is a simplified M9, so there is hardly any R&D and the sensor profits from the advantage of being an older, often supplied type.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites
FTI

FTI

Posted
Posted

OMG... all this because of someone's opinion? Seriously, people are hung up about the word "verdict"? Talk about semantics. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Peter expressing his opinion and coming to the final decision whether or not he would purchase the M.

 

One would think you'd have to be a lawyer in order to post something such as expressing an opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...