So how long before video capture functionality arrives?

[Lax Jought]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just to chime in, I have no problem with an M with video. I just won't use it. Even in a pinch. As long as the annoying button isn't on the top plate, I don't care if it could take X-rays..

 

You sir, are not a purist.  This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You don't use video, and you couldn't care less for it.  But you're not demanding Leica specifically exclude it. 

[IkarusJohn]

Strawman, you are arguing against yoursefl - point out any post where Paul or I, or anyone else, has posted the argument you raise.

We're not writing about the impact of a video capable camera on the other M variants, nor are we pissed off about the thought of an M capable of taking video. The only thing that is tiresome is taking the time to respond to points no one is making, and repeating the same thing in the hope you will read it. 

What we are disagreeing with you on, logically as that is what these discussions are about, is the viability and likelihood of Leica releasing an M10video version. That's all. Leica may well do so. That won't make it good, and it won't arouse any interest in me; not because it will affect the M cameras I have or any M camera I might buy, but because it is a bad idea for all the reasons outlined in the previous 6 pages of this thread and elsewhere.

For me, for a video M to work, it will need to have a built in EVF of at least the quality of the SL, it will need headphone, recording and HDMI connections and all the other things that would make the video implementation as good as the still implementation. Then you basically end up with the functionality of an SL, but without AF. You may have missed the pages and pages of Bill Livingston arguing for an EVF M (note - in addition to the M10), but this has all been done to death already - if you open the door to an EVF based M (why on earth you woould want video through an optical viewfinder is beyond comprehension), then the logical next step is to ditch the outdated M mount. You then end up with an ML. For what purpose? There is already a TL and an SL - what would an ML or QL add? Primarily a smaller, less ergonomic body ...

Simply adding a video version to the M10? While you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "purists", have you bothered reading the informed opinions of others (not me) as to why this may be a bad idea? Everything else aside, by the time you've done everything to make it good video, there's no point in keeping it in an M10 body.

I don't think Leica will make such a camera for a minute, but if they do, I won't buy it as they make better alternatives - I'm very happy with my Monochrom, M-A and SL. An SL in an M body offers no advantage over what I have already.

[IkarusJohn]

... However, the point of this discussion in this thread is - purists can't handle having a separate line of M models that have video, even though Leica will always produce an M that will be pure stills only for the purists.

 

Ah, no it isn't.

[Lax Jought]

Simply adding a video version to the M10? While you dismissing anyone who disagreed with you as "purists", have you bothered reading the informed opinions of others (not me) as to why this may be a bad idea? Everything else aside, by the time you've done everything to make it good video, there's no point in keeping it in an M10 body.

 

I don't think Leica will make such a camera for a minute, but if they do, I won't buy it asthey make better alternatives - I'm very happy with my Monochrom, M-A and SL. An SL in an M body offers no advantage over what I have already.

 

Have you read my posts where I argued the same points you've just raised?

 

[IkarusJohn]

Have you read my posts where I argued the same points you've just raised?

 

What?

 

I've read and quoted a number of your posts in response. All you've done is put words into my mouth, and raised frankly daft strawman arguments. Can you link one single post where anyone seriously has said - I don't want video in any M camera because it will spoil all the other M cameras Leica makes?

 

That is the argument you have ennunciated, and those are the opinions you have ascribed to me - wrongly.

[Lax Jought]

Here's another one:  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268395-so-how-long-before-video-capture-functionality-arrives/?p=3218094

 

And another one:  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268395-so-how-long-before-video-capture-functionality-arrives/?p=3192177
 

Because you missed the point made earlier, I'll say it again here - camera technology is always improving.  It is just plain logic that at some point in the future, the technology will be there for Leica to be able to produce halfway decent video function in an M body and enable it to co-exist seamlessly with the stills function.  Yes, that includes 4K, HDMI, the works. 

 

When that happens, they will be able to produce a full featured M. 

 

And knowing Leica, they will also produce a separate line of M that does pure stills only, for the purists who don't need video.  Just like what they're doing now with the Monochrom that does B&W only, as an example.  Or the M262 that was stills only along with the M240.

But the purists continue to vehemently argue all M models should never have video, irrespective of any technological advances. That is purist talk. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well I am with those that wouldn't mind if Leica pretty much dropped the video capabilities in the M range of cameras. It barely produces decent HD, video needs a good EVF which isn't available at this time and maybe never, the M's also have horrible rolling shutter and frankly it's an awkward form of camera to use to shoot video. All being said I grant that for an "emergency video" use maybe it has some fleeting value, but for anything serious or for my usage for any occasion, no. As many have said here, an iPhone is a far better option and gives better results to boot.

Video capability nowadays should be 4K internal at a minimum, and that's not going to happen with the M's, Panasonic has the truly great GH4 and now the GH5 at nearly a third of a cost of a M, I use a 4 and have the 5 on order and if I would want to I can use my Leica glass with an adapter. Whilst on about the GH's I have to say that their EVFs are every bit as good as the SL's and the camera functions are extremely well thought out too.

So, for me Leica can let the M series video just fade away..........but wouldn't it be nice if the M's video button could, once disabled, be assigned a more useful function?......I know, we've asked for that before!

That post complains about the quality of video in the M(240), which is reasonably well know. I don't read that post as saying "I don't want video, so no one can have it"

[IkarusJohn]

Hopefully never.

Nor does this.

 

The M10 is primaily and intentionally about the optical vf.

 

Neither post by me.

[Lax Jought]

What?

 

I've read and quoted a number of your posts in response. All you've done is put words into my mouth, and raised frankly daft strawman arguments. Can you link one single post where anyone seriously has said - I don't want video in any M camera because it will spoil all the other M cameras Leica makes?

 

That is the argument you have ennunciated, and those are the opinions you have ascribed to me - wrongly.

 

 

Here is where I was already saying this much earlier in this thread.   http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268395-so-how-long-before-video-capture-functionality-arrives/?p=3218045

[Lax Jought]

Nor does this.

 

Ok, I suppose you can interpret that any way you want.

 

So let me ask you this, a simple question with a simple yes/no response:  Would it bother you if Leica produced a full featured M some time in the future when technology has caught up and they're able to do it?  Especially if they also produced a stills only version for the purists?

[IkarusJohn]

Chill - you're not making sense.

Can we park the pointless suggestion that "purists" want to deprive anyone else of having fun that doesn't meet their concept of purity. I think everyone agrees that having variants of M cameras is a good idea. It's only a small minority who threaten to leave the Leica fold forever if They release an M camera they don't like. At least, do me the courtesy of not lumping me in with that group. Even the quotes you've linked to don't support what you say.

Also, you seem to think that using the word "purist" and name calling. You can call me a Liberal too, if you want to. Do you really think anyone cares? Sharing and exchanging ideas is, however, more interesting.

We all get that technically, Leica should be able to improve on the video implementation from the M(240), and that it should be technically possible at some stage to do so in the M10 body. What some of us are discussing is - is it a good idea (on its own) and will Leica do it? Should Leica do it? if you prefer.

Purist? Sure. The M camera, with its manual focus lenses, aperture ring on the lens barrel, shutter dial where it should be, and nothing more is purist. Use whatever adjective you like, it will remain the same thing. In its own way the SL is purist as well.

Should the M10 have video? No, in my view. Not because I want to spoil your fun, but because it's a bad idea, unless Leica deals with the shortcomings inherent in the M camera for video. If they deal with those shortcomings, you ultimately end up with a compact SL - why would Leica do that?

The key to your positoin is to identify the shortcomings in the M(240) video implementation, and to say that "acceptable" video should be achievable technically, dealing with what you' e identified, in an M camera. I disagree with that, because to my mind, for video to be properly implemented, you really need to ditch the optical viewfinder, put in a better processor, bigger battery (this sounding familiar?) and, hey presto, you don't have an M any more.

TECHNICALLY, I'm sure you're right that at some stage, Leica could squeeze video and all you list into an M body. Will they? No. If you haven't taken on board why some of us think so now, there is no point in repeating it. But I will repeat, it isn't for the reasons you say.

Happy purist (and occasional video user)
John

[IkarusJohn]

Ok, I suppose you can interpret that any way you want.

 

So let me ask you this, a simple question with a simple yes/no response: Would it bother you if Leica produced a full featured M some time in the future when technology has caught up and they're able to do it? Especially if they also produced a stills only version for the purists?

Of course not. I've been arguing for that for some time.

 

Do I think Leica will do it? No

 

More critically, should video be added to the M10 as an option? I think it is a terrible idea; not because I'm a "purist" - I am. But because if I want that functionality I would use my SL. To retain the perfection of the M camera (if we assume for a moment the M10 is perfect), video will always be a kludge.

 

Thankfully, I don't need to repeat the reasons why as there are pages and pages of explanation here and throughout the M series threads.

[lct]

[...] The M should not be an amateur and fine art camera. It should be a rugged and versatile tool. [...]

 

Exactly.

[IkarusJohn]

Well, try Dr Paul Wolff, (for instance "Meine Erfahrungen mit der Leica," 1934). One of the major Leica pioneers. He carried a Barnack as his main camera, and lamented the fact that he had to drag a video camera and large format camera along as well. He would have welcomed an M10 with full functionality.

The M should not be an amateur and fine art camera. It should be a rugged and versatile tool.

I suggest you ponder the deliberate marketing of the SL name and compare the shape of the SL and Leicaflex SL. Leica made a clear statement there.

So the M camera should be large format as well?

 

Why "should" the M be categorised as fine art, amateur, professional or anything at all other than what it is? You have pontificated over the years about what M means and how ISO "should" not be a direct control as it is not an exposure parameter, the importance of the ovf etc. Why does any of this matter?

 

The M3 was the most complete integration of focusing, framing and viewfinder at the time. The coupled rangefinder was as good as available SLRs of the time (my father's Bessa from 1952) and arguably had better lenses; it also offered interchangeable lenses which other rtangefinders didn't (the Kodak Retina 2 my father had gave better images than the Bessa). The M3, however, wasn't imbued with labels like purist when released. Messsucher means "rangefinder".

 

In the current environment, however, the M camera occupies a unique space - not only as a rangefinder, but also for its user interface where everything you need to frame, focus and correctly expose an image is to hand, with dials, and nothing else. It isn't about being amateur or professional, fine art or street - it's about what it is, a digital camera with controls pretty much unchanged since the 1960s; the controls you need to make the image you want with direct controls.

 

There's nothing more to it than that, really. Leica just happens to do it to a very high degree of quality - the lenses will still be manual and best from 28-90, and Leica camera equipment will always cost more than the more complex alternatives. Call that "professional" or "amateur", "gentleman amateur" or "luxury bling item" if you prefer, but provided they stick to that gestalt of direct manual control with the very best manual lenses, I don't give a toss and I'm not sure many here do either.

 

What you're actually looking for, in full frame, is covered by the SL; if you don't want full frame, there are many other alternatives, including the TL (which will take your R & M lenses). If you wish to go to another system, then you're giving up or compromising the use of your Leica lenses - that is more of a price than I would pay, even if I really wanted video and was offended by the ISO dial.

[Lord Lucan]

I am not any brand loyalist,but I want to see Leica become a full-fledged manufacturer offering their products for all generations. It will attract lot more new customers.

On the otherhand,if a company is only making goods for a tiny group of buyers,then,it can be very risky.and that risk can make any business paralyzed.

[honcho]

I think I may be on my own here but I love the video on the M240, but even better on the M246 where it produces really atmospheric B&W clips - this is one I shot of avant-garde singer Maggie Nichols (which will not be to everyone's taste - like Video in the M!).  

 

https://vimeo.com/180402965

 

Could be a good subject for an alternative discussion to Egglestone.

 

Can't knock the footage, not so sure about the audio.  Thanks for the link, though.

[jaapv]

Of course not. I've been arguing for that for some time.

 

Do I think Leica will do it? No

 

More critically, should video be added to the M10 as an option? I think it is a terrible idea; not because I'm a "purist" - I am. But because if I want that functionality I would use my SL. To retain the perfection of the M camera (if we assume for a moment the M10 is perfect), video will always be a kludge.

 

Thankfully, I don't need to repeat the reasons why as there are pages and pages of explanation here and throughout the M series threads.

So, at 110º  in the outback you are going to carry an M and lenses to take stills, an SL and lenses to do video, and what else?  Plus spend an additional 15000 $ on a system you would only use for the occasional video clip...

I admire your dedication.

[jaapv]

So the M camera should be large format as well?

 

Why "should" the M be categorised as fine art, amateur, professional or anything at all other than what it is? You have pontificated over the years about what M means and how ISO "should" not be a direct control as it is not an exposure parameter, the importance of the ovf etc. Why does any of this matter?

 

The M3 was the most complete integration of focusing, framing and viewfinder at the time. The coupled rangefinder was as good as available SLRs of the time (my father's Bessa from 1952) and arguably had better lenses; it also offered interchangeable lenses which other rtangefinders didn't (the Kodak Retina 2 my father had gave better images than the Bessa). The M3, however, wasn't imbued with labels like purist when released. Messsucher means "rangefinder".

 

In the current environment, however, the M camera occupies a unique space - not only as a rangefinder, but also for its user interface where everything you need to frame, focus and correctly expose an image is to hand, with dials, and nothing else. It isn't about being amateur or professional, fine art or street - it's about what it is, a digital camera with controls pretty much unchanged since the 1960s; the controls you need to make the image you want with direct controls.

 

There's nothing more to it than that, really. Leica just happens to do it to a very high degree of quality - the lenses will still be manual and best from 28-90, and Leica camera equipment will always cost more than the more complex alternatives. Call that "professional" or "amateur", "gentleman amateur" or "luxury bling item" if you prefer, but provided they stick to that gestalt of direct manual control with the very best manual lenses, I don't give a toss and I'm not sure many here do either.

 

What you're actually looking for, in full frame, is covered by the SL; if you don't want full frame, there are many other alternatives, including the TL (which will take your R & M lenses). If you wish to go to another system, then you're giving up or compromising the use of your Leica lenses - that is more of a price than I would pay, even if I really wanted video and was offended by the ISO dial.

Where did I say offended ? Just questioning the rationale.  As for the opposition to the M3, it was as strong or stronger, forcing Leica to build the iiig in parallel. Don't rewrite history to bolster your argument, there is enough of that around already.

[Lax Jought]

I am not any brand loyalist,but I want to see Leica become a full-fledged manufacturer offering their products for all generations. It will attract lot more new customers.

On the otherhand,if a company is only making goods for a tiny group of buyers,then,it can be very risky.and that risk can make any business paralyzed.

I agree. I was reading an article on the very recent demise of Nikon's latest models and their media statement that talked of huge losses and lay-offs. Canon took the video ball and ran with it while Nikon stayed dormant. And now they're lagging far behind in revenue.

 

But I think Leica's circumstances are slightly different because their demographic is different.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lax Jought]

So, at 110º  in the outback

I'm going to ask you a question, and you may wish to keep all your secrets to yourself, but how did you do that degree symbol?