So how long before video capture functionality arrives?

[Lax Jought]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the M240 was not too bad for a first effort. Some of the criticism loses track of the limited scope intended.

Herein lies the problem with the way they marketed video in the M240 - they were touting it as a high quality filmmaker's tool just before it was released. They clearly underestimated what a filmmaker's tool needed to be. And no, it does not necessarily include zoom lenses.

[Advertisement]

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

[Lax Jought]

BUT. The lack of lens communication with the body is a real limiter on what it can do and will be able to do. So Leica can either work within those limits or accept second best implementation. What do you think they would be better off doing?

Are you talking about fly-by-wire?

[pico]

There was, perhaps still is, a demand upon photojournalists to make video and stills. Doing both with the same camera served many very well at the time. Perhaps Leica was trying to satisfy that need. Given the high-stakes, I would opt for a DSLR.

.

[pico]

Are you talking about fly-by-wire?

 

Fly-by-wire between the lens and body? Absurd. The lens would be huge and very expensive.

[jaapv]

Worked out where Auckland is yet, Jaap?  

Sure; the end of the earth.

[Lax Jought]

Fly-by-wire between the lens and body? Absurd. The lens would be huge and very expensive.

'Expensive'? This is Leica is it not?

 

Besides, that's what I'm trying to find out from pgk, whether he/she means fly-by-wire.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please, everyone, cut down on the use of ad hominems. 

 

 

Sure; the end of the earth.

 

 

To use your favourite patronising emoticon, Jaap - 

[Dirk Mandeville]

Herein lies the problem with the way they marketed video in the M240 - they were touting it as a high quality filmmaker's tool just before it was released. They clearly underestimated what a filmmaker's tool needed to be. And no, it does not necessarily include zoom lenses.

This probably also speaks to why they dropped video completely from the M10. They realized that trying to pursue the vision of high quality video would compromise their goal of improving the M as a high quality stills camera.

 

It's hard enough to redesign the camera to be thinner and more simple and efficient for stills, but to then try to fit in all the things people would want for high end video (mic inputs, monitor outputs, USB, HDMI, etc.) is just too much. Personally, I think they made the correct decision. Most people that buy an M don't buy it for the video.

[Lax Jought]

There was, perhaps still is, a demand upon photojournalists to make video and stills. Doing both with the same camera served many very well at the time. Perhaps Leica was trying to satisfy that need. Given the high-stakes, I would opt for a DSLR.

.

If nothing else - these days, photojournalists and most other photographers in other areas are expected to have stills and video knowledge.

[Stef63]

Herein lies the problem with the way they marketed video in the M240 - they were touting it as a high quality filmmaker's tool just before it was released. They clearly underestimated what a filmmaker's tool needed to be. And no, it does not necessarily include zoom lenses.

Leica Marketing and Management does not and did not always an excellent job and is and was not always on par with Leica engineering. Engineering "invented" too many features they thought interesting to add just because they could, rather than stick to areas they really were excellent in. Marketing en Management thought they could compete by adding these features with the big CaNikoSony boys. And we got cameras that were absolute top in niche areas and mediocre in mainstream areas like video.

[Lax Jought]

This probably also speaks to why they dropped video completely from the M10. They realized that trying to pursue the vision of high quality video would compromise their goal of improving the M as a high quality stills camera.

I already said something along these lines much earlier in this thread.

[Lax Jought]

Leica Marketing and Management does not and did not always an excellent job and is and was not always on par with Leica engineering. Engineering "invented" too many features they thought interesting to add just because they could, rather than stick to areas they really were excellent in. Marketing en Management thought they could compete by adding these features with the big CaNikoSony boys. And we got cameras that were absolute top in niche arras and mediocre in mainstream areas like video.

I recall exactly why Leica went in this direction - the M8 was full of bugs and issues, and while the M9 was a big improvement, its ISO performance was still far behind what other cameras of its time were at. People were complaining about Leica needing to up its game. And with the M240, it was a big step into the present (of its time back in 2013) - including better LV, ISO, that shutter, and most famously dumping CCD for CMOS. While most people embraced it and thought it was a step forward, there others who complained and refused to upgrade from their M9s.

[pico]

Video - think about how absurd it is to make a range finder camera into a professional video camera. If you cannot wrap your head around it, then you don't do pro video. First you have to ignore the rangefinder, and the consequences cascade into failure on every front.

 

End of topic, I hope.

[Lax Jought]

Most people that buy an M don't buy it for the video.

I'm intetested in video, I own an M240, and even I don't use the video function.

 

But that comes down to its design and technological faults. If they had done their research and implemented video that is a joy to use, then it would go a long way to encourage stills photographers to dip their toes in, and experiment/play with it. The way it is now, it's a pain to use and inspires no one.

[pico]

I'm intetested in video, I own an M240, and even I don't use the video function.

 

But that comes down to its design and technological faults. If they had done their research and implemented video that is a joy to use, then it would go a long way to encourage stills photographers to dip their toes in, and experiment/play with it. The way it is now, it's a pain to use and inspires no one.

 

In your dreams. I believe you do not understand that Leica M has meant still photography for many decades. Leica has a separate line in which to evolve video. Why be stuck criticizing the M? It seems the mind is misdirected.

 

Are going to direct your angst of having bought the wrong camera upon the rest of us forever? An alternative is for you to make a good video with the M240. Knowing its limits is a path into knowing how to do video as a professional. There are examples to follow.

.

[pgk]

Are you talking about fly-by-wire?

 

No. The problem with M lenses is that the only information that they give the camera, via 6-bit coding, is the lens being used. This enables some in-camera correction, which is especially useful for wide-angle lenses. But there are no electronic contacts on M lenses so further information exchange such as aperture being used (the camera estimates this) and distance of point of focus (theoretically the rangefinder could provide this if eletronicised, I suppose, but it doesn't yet) are not possible. So any further corrections canot be made.

 

We've discussed this topic ad nauseum already in other threads but the gist is that cameras like the SL and similar (A7s and so on), provide data exchange and allow for significant adjustment correction which the M rangefinder cannot do. Its a limiter overcome, so far, by Leica's lenses' inherent high quality. Shooting video could well be problematic with very wide-angle lenses if there are any colour problems on the images edges as an example. Without building a new generation of electronicised M lenses and compatible cameras this is how things will stay. I can't see that happening when cameras like the SL are being developed with full data exchange electronic lenses, and which can also use existing R and M lenses albeit via adapters. As ever its the extremes which will no doubt be the problem.

[Lax Jought]

Video - think about how absurd it is to make a range finder camera into a professional video camera. If you cannot wrap your head around it, then you don't do pro video.

Yup, I agree. However it does not have to be 'professional'... whatever that means.

 

First you have to ignore the rangefinder, and the consequences cascade into failure on every front.

That's probably very similar to what Canon said when they first dipped their toes in video for their DSLRs. To this day, it's still what Nikon says, and they're not doing too well.

[pop]

...make a range finder camera into a professional video camera....

I think this is exactly why several minds won't be able to meet here. Some users simply wish for the ability to record some footage of video using the camera and some very nice lenses they already own; others are loath to use a camera where not every single function included is "professional".

 

No one seems to remember the time when the LTM system and later the M system enabled the photographer to take photographs within a very wide range of conditions, even if very few of those capabilities could be termed "best", let alone "professional". Adding yet another system to the arsenal just to cover another speciality was not the favorite purchasing strategy of most photographers.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lax Jought]

I wonder - for every one of those people who complained that the CMOS sensor was a mistake and they refused to move from their M9s, are they still complaining about the M10?

[pico]

I think this is exactly why several minds won't be able to meet here. Some users simply wish for the ability to record some footage of video using the camera and some very nice lenses they already own; others are loath to use a camera where not every single function included is "professional".

[...]

 

The M240 can do very good video. Persons who complain might wish the camera to include some magic to make their work wonderful when it is, in fact, poorly considered.

 

Consider all the great cinema made with cameras with far less capabilities than the M240. Nuff said?

.