Jump to content

New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.


Paulus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'd like to add to my list, toast.  I really like toast.  I'd like Leica to work on something that would provide a way the camera could make toast, I mean, really good toast.  I'm sure everyone would agree that toast is good... never met anybody that didn't like toast, right?

 

Rick

I will raise a toast to that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No functionality comes for free. It might be the case that LV-capable sensors provide a data stream that lends itself to be captured as a video, but that in itself doesn't make a video feature. You still need to develop, test, debug, document the firmware that drives the hardware and manages the video UI as well potentially pay licensing fees for a video codec. Plus, the increased complexity of the firmware means that the development of other non-video features gets more expensive as well. If software development came for free we wouldn't have all the problems with firmware bugs, would we?

 

 

------

 

 

Exactly, maybe also choices of components in order to optimize for both, possible other choices would have been made only for photography.

Then the physical needed for video, mics, holes in the camera, connectors etc...

I would also prefer a M camera optimized for photographers (still with EVF, better sensor, more resolution, contained dimensions) and the SL being the generalist tool good for video and photography that i will not buy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No functionality comes for free. It might be the case that LV-capable sensors provide a data stream that lends itself to be captured as a video, but that in itself doesn't make a video feature. You still need to develop, test, debug, document the firmware that drives the hardware and manages the video UI as well potentially pay licensing fees for a video codec. Plus, the increased complexity of the firmware means that the development of other non-video features gets more expensive as well. If software development came for free we wouldn't have all the problems with firmware bugs, would we?

These are marginal costs. I suspect the box it comes in is more expensive. Hence the use of the word "practically".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, they decided to add video on M240 BEFORE that the SL project was drafted... they eveluated that such a feature, present in almost any digicamera, would have increased the appeal of M240 : now, with SL, thing could be evaluated differently... I mean, that if the future M will have a completely new sensor , maybe they could decide not to invest in the (marginal) cost of video... probably this wouldn't hurt the M sales :huh: ... even if seems to me that many M users consider it an appreciable addon.... I have never used extensively video, so haven't idea if a M240 "film" is someway "better" than one taken with a much more economical camera...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are all missing the point. The M type RF camera is what it is and was when the M3 was originally designed - a stills camera. Video will always be 'tacked on' and as such will never be the prime reason for buying an M type camera. The form of the M type rangefinder isn't really an ideal one for video and I doubt that the aftermarket add ons available for so many other stills/video cameras are worth building for it due to its low volume sales and its fewer video users - actually I wonder just how many users have found the video feature to be something which they use to any significant degree? I'd doubt that its many - there are easier ways to shoot video and with the SL, considerably better even with M lenses. Losing the video functionality on an M would IMO make little difference to sales and leaving it in there makes for a more complex camera - personally I'm happier not to have it since I wouldn't use it. To me the M type rangefinder has too many compromises with video - MF, no close focus, etc. - so why bother with it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because it is very practical - a short clip during travel with a long lens to augment the video taken with a "real" video camera, for PJs to insert a talking head in a corporate photoshoot, seeing the unexpected which screams for video when on a camera walkabout - etc. I would not be without it, even if I never considered it a need when it was not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't need or like video on the M, I never used it and I don't think it suits the cameras philosophy. The M should be reduced to the essential ("Das Wesentliche"), a "pure" camera.

 

"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away" as Antoine de Saint Exupéry has said (but not sure if he was refering to a Leica M, most likely not... :D )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't need or like video on the M, I never used it and I don't think it suits the cameras philosophy. The M should be reduced to the essential ("Das Wesentliche"), a "pure" camera.

 

"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away" as Antoine de Saint Exupéry has said (but not sure if he was refering to a Leica M, most likely not... :D )

Not sure whether we all agree on cameras philosophy or the concept of "pure" camera. I can say that anything with a battery is not a pure camera and anyone who doesn't print his work is not a pure photographer. I am sure I will find many people who agree with this concept... and many who will not agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never shot video on my M240's and never will.  In fact the first, last and only time I shot video was with a Panasonic camcorder that used a full-sized VHS tape.  I'm just not into videography.  Occasionally I have a practical use for it and in that case I've got my iPhone.  That said as long as the video button can be disabled, I have no complaints about it being a feature. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...How many of you would miss video if it was gone fro the M?

It's gone the second one disables it.  

 

There are many settings/features I don't use....probably different from others' choices....fine by me as long as size/balance/ergonomics not adversely affected and nothing intrudes on the desired experience.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are marginal costs. I suspect the box it comes in is more expensive. Hence the use of the word "practically".

 

Well, if Leica's budget for firmware development is less than the cost of the box that would actually explain all the problems with the firmware and their slowness/unwillingness/inability to fix bugs :). But I doubt that that is the case. Product development is all too often a game of tradeoffs. Rest assured that we all somehow have paid for the video feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...