So how long before video capture functionality arrives?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is disingenuous. As pointed out in my second paragraph, video is a rabbit hole that brings a lot more consequences than just an extra button that you can choose not to push. To pretend it doesn't affect other aspects of camera design and firmware development resources is highly misleading. The fact that so many in the pro-video crowd keep repeating it makes me realize that they don't even truly understand what they are asking for, in terms of the future development of the M system.

 

And no, I don't feel threatened. But I didn't purchase the M240 and will be purchasing an M10. Maybe it was Leica that felt threatened. They themselves said that their research showed a large majority of M users either didn't care about video or did care and absolutely didn't want video in the camera.

And I purchased an M240 as soon as it came out and won't be purchasing an M10 (at least not until the used prices come down considerably) so that proves absolutely nothing.  I think it diminishes the camera system if it retreats into an ever shrinking niche.

The thing I am talking about is Leica's strategy. Do they want to develop the M system into the future or do they want to make it into a narrow-base luxury product? With the M10 they have chosen for the latter, and I for one regret it.

[Dirk Mandeville]

The thing I am talking about is Leica's strategy. Do they want to develop the M system into the future or do they want to make it into a narrow-base luxury product? With the M10 they have chosen for the latter, and I for one regret it.

The M has always been a narrow-base luxury product. Your average Sony/Fuji/Canikon user isn't going to lay down $10,000 or more for a rangefinder camera and one manual focus lens. Putting video in the M240 didn't change that and neither will removing video. Leica's strategy seems to be to focus on the primary purpose and essence of the M system, which has always been still photography. It was a mistake to include video on the M240 and they obviously realized that. There are plenty of ways to "develop the M system into the future" while still limiting the camera to still photography.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue as we are on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding the necessity and desirability of video in an M camera.

[lct]

The M has always been a narrow-base luxury product. [...]

 

Narrow base for sure but the M has not always been a luxury camera. It was supposed to be "versatile" in the first place. "Versatile? You do just about everything your friends can with a variety of specialized cameras, and better too" Leica used to say then. Those were the good old days…

 

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!

[tsleica]

Bottom line is..Leica is in the luxury camera biz...pure and simple..make $$$..lots of em..from richies..

And..most M's..just don't get used all that much...they are nice lookin shelf queens...or weekend warriors..

Or... film door stops..I have a few of these..lol..

So L thinks..why bother to make the camera competitive..and useful..we don't have to do that to make lots of bux...as most people don't use them in much current capacity..if much at all...so no need to develop video...as that is a gonna ..cost way too much..and too much trouble too..as in... why bother..we need to make good profit here..luxury..profits..that is...

And I can say that this is probably the best way for them..to keep makin those bux...oh yeah!

By not spending bux..lol...

As to me..I want video in an M..but I understand why they omitted it..esp in lieu of the downsizing of the body now..making it a heat trap..and quite possibly..totally unusable for a usable video interface..

How convenient..

[Dirk Mandeville]

Bottom line is..Leica is in the luxury camera biz...pure and simple..make $$$..lots of em..from richies..And..most M's..just don't get used all that much...they are nice lookin shelf queens...or weekend warriors..Or... film door stops..I have a few of these..lol..So L thinks..why bother to make the camera competitive..and useful..we don't have to do that to make lots of bux...as most people don't use them in much current capacity..if much at all...so no need to develop video...as that is a gonna ..cost way too much..and too much trouble too..as in... why bother..we need to make good profit here..luxury..profits..that is...And I can say that this is probably the best way for them..to keep makin those bux...oh yeah!By not spending bux..lol...As to me..I want video in an M..but I understand why they omitted it..esp in lieu of the downsizing of the body now..making it a heat trap..and quite possibly..totally unusable for a usable video interface..How convenient..

Methinks you have forgotten about the SL. It's called product differentiation. Attracting a larger customer base through versatility of varied product lines. Each line specialized to attract a particular niche. Leica wants to make money. But they aren't so ham-handed as you imagine. It's not that people are unhappy that Leica is dropping video entirely. It's that they are unhappy Leica decided video has no place in an M camera and is relegated to the SL (which is a naturally better platform for developing video moving forward). Leica was bound to ruffle a few feathers with this decision, but I imagine the core of their user base is fine with it if not downright happy. As far as the M not being competitive or useful, that's just a joke. It is both.

[edw]

Narrow base for sure but the M has not always been a luxury camera. It was supposed to be "versatile" in the first place. "Versatile? You do just about everything your friends can with a variety of specialized cameras, and better too" Leica used to say then. Those were the good old days…

 

m3_pub2.jpg

There was never a film Leica with an integrated can-opener or pocket calculator or astrolabe. To expect an M to be useful for taking video is about as reasonable as expecting it should open a can of tuna or calculate a square root or determine your longitude. That a past model M did take video doesn't mean it was a good idea; there have been many intelligent posts regarding why video on the M was and continues to be a quite bad idea.

 

I can get any still photo on my M10 that anyone using any other camera can get—within certain constraints. Those constraints revolve mostly around manual focus and fixed focal length lenses. Why are you not griping about these constraints? They are far more fundamental to the raison d'être of a still camera than this persistent fascination with video.

 

Just get an SL already and let us still photography people enjoy this beautiful tool that is an M10.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lax Jought]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are you feeling threatened somehow? Nobody is forcing you to push that red button.

 

(Angry Pants)

[jaapv]

There was never a film Leica with an integrated can-opener or pocket calculator or astrolabe. To expect an M to be useful for taking video is about as reasonable as expecting it should open a can of tuna or calculate a square root or determine your longitude. That a past model M did take video doesn't mean it was a good idea; there have been many intelligent posts regarding why video on the M was and continues to be a quite bad idea.

 

I can get any still photo on my M10 that anyone using any other camera can get—within certain constraints. Those constraints revolve mostly around manual focus and fixed focal length lenses. Why are you not griping about these constraints? They are far more fundamental to the raison d'être of a still camera than this persistent fascination with video.

 

Just get an SL already and let us still photography people enjoy this beautiful tool that is an M10.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a straw man argument. Can openers and calculators have nothing to do with image making. There are many areas in photography that make the presence of a video facilities practical if not mandatory in present-day photography. And last time I looked the SL was not a compact rangefinder camera.

If you find manual focus and fixed focal lengths constraints - I don't. But I am not clamoring to deny them to others. The point is that video and some other present-day features like WiFi, which to me flies into the face of "das Wesentliche" even more, can be added without taking anything away from the camera at all.

Leaving them off and rejoicing about it is putting  retro over function.

To me the M was the best tool for my photography - a compact, high quality travel camera.  Not any more, Leica has let themselves been  overtaken by the likes of Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. It happened once before, back when the M was even temporarily discontinued because it could not compete with the Japanese SLR innovation, and basically it was only saved  long term by the incorporation of efficient exposure metering in the M6 (horror-shock! What are these red triangles doing in my viewfinder, it kills the experience of rangefinder focusing!!!), despite struggling on by the M4 morphs.

It happened again at the turn of the century with digital...

[lct]

[...] The point is that video and some other present-day features like WiFi, which to me flies into the face of "das Wesentliche" even more, can be added without taking anything away from the camera at all.

Leaving them off and rejoicing about it is putting  retro over function. [...]

 

Exactly. And the video button could have been made an assignable button allowing the trigger of other actions like image magnification. Too far from "Das Wesentliche" though. Niche conservatism vs evolution. Old story. 

[cp995]

...Too far from "Das Wesentliche" though. Niche conservatism vs evolution. Old story. 

 

Exactly!

Actually Leica has the SL1 and there is no reason to implement a half-hearted video funktion in the M10.

So to focus on "Das Wesentliche" for me is a better strategy (really like it) than offering video in a RF camera.

 

I hope Leica will stay on this road ...

[lct]

[...] I hope Leica will stay on this road ...

 

I'm sure it will. Digital rangefinders will be shunted into the sidings the same way as film Ms have been. So much the better for you, oh well for me...

[Dirk Mandeville]

The point is that video and some other present-day features like WiFi, which to me flies into the face of "das Wesentliche" even more, can be added without taking anything away from the camera at all.

Leaving them off and rejoicing about it is putting  retro over function.

Wow. So still photography is "retro" now. I'm pretty sure it has been the primary function of every M camera ever produced. The mistake was trying to add video in the first place. And your argument that video "doesn't take anything away from the camera at all" has been debunked many times throughout this thread and others. I suspect you continue to ignore those arguments because the false idea that video has no ill effects on the camera design is one of the few justifications you can use to support keeping video in the M.

 

The M is still a high quality compact travel (stills) camera. Video function is unnecessary to this purpose. And Leica doesn't have to compete with Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic because those manufacturers don't produce a camera comparable to the M. Leica has carved out a niche with a dedicated fan base. This is another false argument. The idea that Leica has to be like everyone else in order to compete with them. Leica is forging an innovative path, creating a camera dedicated to stills photography. While the other lemmings are producing cameras that are trying to be a jack of all trades, and master of none.

[edw]

If you find manual focus and fixed focal lengths constraints - I don't. But I am not clamoring to deny them to others.

 

The inclusion of your astrolabe on my camera would indeed take something away from me and every person who wants the best stills camera possible. As was just said—by me and another person here—the manifold reasons for the unsuitability of video to the M cameras and lenses has been discussed here at length, and renders *your* argument the strawman one.

 

The only thing video was good for on the M (242) was providing a button which could be re-purposed as an unlock button for the exposure comp thumb wheel on my M-D. I really miss that.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jmahto]

I am tired of the arguments that very few M240 users ever shot video (which could be true) that's why it is irrelevant. 

 

Ask SL (or any other camera) users how many of them shoot video routinely. I bet the number will be quite small. 

[Cliff S]

IMHO there is nothing wrong with adding video if it can be implemented within the current body - provided it can resolve possible heat issues. While I agree the camera is built for stills, if a soft key option in the menu, where we choose single, continuous, timer etc would be placed to include video, it would get used. I would be very happy knowing if the situation arose where a video would be warranted, that I can simply go into video, keep my phone in my pocket, shoot a short video, and continue with stills. With barely moving the camera from my eye. I am glad however that the red button is gone as I would accidentally press it and take a 20 minute video of my left foot.

 

Having it is NOT a concession to the fundamental strengths of the M. It can be a welcome option. In fact, I used the SL several times for video. The AFC option while holding the shutter half pressed was an exercise in futility. The amount of times it hunted was ridiculous. The 24-90 SL lens in manual was better but the the focus throw was too much to keep up with moving objects. So I used an M lens which worked the best. Ironic that a camera with capable video worked best with MF and M lenses. I would've preferred using my M for video

 

I understand the concern Dirk has with software engineers focussing away from making the M a better stills camera while waddling in video functionality but, my daughter, who is a software engineer, said to me when I suggested the effort would take too much time away from enhancing stills was 'seriously? It's not that complicated once you already have the algorithm from the SL or M240.'

 

Simply put, you don't want it? Don't use it. But if it can be done, with a hot shoe device with microphones and ports, then if you do want it, you can get it. Otherwise, it's as if it's not there.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I am tired of the arguments that very few M240 users ever shot video (which could be true) that's why it is irrelevant. 

 

Your being tired of hearing of the argument doesn't make it any less valid. Think about the inverse of this argument: a few M users like to shoot video on occasion; therefore it is relevant and should be included (even though most don't care about it and it takes time, effort, and resources to develop it and it will likely negatively impact the future design of the camera for still photography). This argument makes no logical sense in relation to the M camera system, a system that, prior to the M240, has always focused on still photography.

[Dirk Mandeville]

IMHO there is nothing wrong with adding video if it can be implemented within the current body - provided it can resolve possible heat issues. While I agree the camera is built for stills, if a soft key option in the menu, where we choose single, continuous, timer etc would be placed to include video, it would get used.

...

 

Having it is NOT a concession to the fundamental strengths of the M.

...

 

Simply put, you don't want it? Don't use it. But if it can be done, with a hot shoe device with microphones and ports, then if you do want it, you can get it. Otherwise, it's as if it's not there.

If only all this was true and it really was that simple, straightforward and unobtrusive, I honestly wouldn't mind. But I really don't think it is as simple and straightforward as you hope, and I suspect that is why Leica took the path that they did. The SL is hands down a better platform for developing video moving forward and it makes perfect sense to cut video entirely from the M rather than try to keep limited video functionality that will likely negatively impact design decisions moving forward. It just presents some unnecessary limitations on the camera design and there will always be a contingent complaining about the limitations in video functionality and pushing for further development. I can hear the arguments now. "The SL has HDMI and video/audio ports. When are we going to get that on the M?" "The SL has great battery life. When are we going to get a bigger battery on the M?" And on and on.

[Cliff S]

If only all this was true and it really was that simple, straightforward and unobtrusive, I honestly wouldn't mind. But I really don't think it is as simple and straightforward as you hope, and I suspect that is why Leica took the path that they did. The SL is hands down a better platform for developing video moving forward and it makes perfect sense to cut video entirely from the M rather than try to keep limited video functionality that will likely negatively impact design decisions moving forward. It just presents some unnecessary limitations on the camera design and there will always be a contingent complaining about the limitations in video functionality and pushing for further development. I can hear the arguments now. "The SL has HDMI and video/audio ports. When are we going to get that on the M?" "The SL has great battery life. When are we going to get a bigger battery on the M?" And on and on.

All valid points. But the algorithms for the SL can be transferred to the M. Any SL video function enhancements don't need to be redesigned for the M. Just adapted. So anyone complaining about M video will also complain about SL video. Who cares. Complain all they want.

 

Any M shooter who wants to have video included without buying another camera, or using another camera they have, will easily fork over some money for other a hot shoe solution with the necessary basic ports, mic and speaker, or a new base plate that plugs into the mystery port underneath.

 

And the rest will be happy they don't need an add-on for video and will have a Das W....

 

In fact, if heat is really the stumbling block, the baseplate option could even incorporate a tiny silent fan.

[Bill Livingston]

. And your argument that video "doesn't take anything away from the camera at all" has been debunked many times throughout this thread and others. I suspect you continue to ignore those arguments because the false idea that video has no ill effects on the camera design is one of the few justifications you can use to support keeping video in the M.

 

 

Actually Dirk, this isn't true at all.

 

Many people have voiced that opinion, but it is actually just their opinion. It has no basis in fact at all... and simply repeating the same thing over and over again does NOT make that opinion any more true than it was when someone first made that assertion.

 

So I would strongly disagree that it has been 'debunked many times'. It quite simply hasn't.

 

But then again, we are living in an age where 'false facts' gain acceptance as truth when repeated often enough. More often than not because these false facts are simply reinforcing existing prejudices and preaching to the converted.

 

A REAL fact that goes against the received wisdom would change that received wisdom. That has not happened.

 

What IS true seems to be that very few people with an M actually use video, so withdrawing it from an M will not be major problem for the vast majority of users. But it IS a problem for some.

 

It also appears to be true that in order to reduce the size of the M to M10 dimensions, the battery size (and capacity) had to be reduced. That also means that battery life when running video would be considerable less in an M10 sized body and, from observations, it appears that heat dissipation is also a problem when running the sensor continuously and that further supports removing video from the M10.

 

Now, many M users wanted a smaller body. Many users also admitted to hardly, if ever, using video (I am one of them... I have never used video on my M-P).

 

So given those two points, it is not a very great surprise that Leica removed video from the M10.

 

It is also not a great surprise the who used the video functionality were not happy about it. It essentially means that they cannot upgrade to the M10 when they may well have liked to have had the option. I suspect Jaap was one of those users. I fully sympathise with him.

 

So, we now have a smaller M camera. Perfectly suited to still photography only. The price we had to pay for making our wishes come true was a loss of the video functionality and smaller battery capacity.

 

And what was the actual advantage? 3.5mm. Those are the facts. 

 

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!

 

If you want to voice your opinion on the relative merit of video or not... or if you want to claim that the M10 is a more pure iteration of the M concept, I wouldn't argue with you. 

 

But to make incorrect assertions and claim that the position adopted by others regarding video has been 'debunked' simply isn't true.

 

Despite owning an M240P, the M10 is a better match for my needs. I also think there are better options for video if that is a prime use. But I don't think anyone ever thought of the 240 series as a video camera, it was just a nice addition that some users found useful.

 

Maybe more so than reducing the depth by a small margin and reducing battery capacity.

 

So although I don't always agree with Jaap, in this particular case he has my support and sympathy - and I fully understand why he has taken the view he has.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dirk Mandeville]

Who cares. Complain all they want.

HaHa. Funny you should put it like that. Seems like this is the attitude Leica is currently taking toward those lamenting removal of video from the M.

 

I get your points, and it's always possible Leica could come up with some sort of compromise that would be acceptable to everyone. Who knows? Maybe they will add video back to the M10P, just as another carrot to purchase the upgraded model. Anything is possible, but I wouldn't guess that it's highly probable.