IkarusJohn Posted February 27, 2017 Share #241 Posted February 27, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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". This is only part of the picture, surely. Yes, some want occasional video, but the alternative is not "professional" quality. Issues like this are not assisted, in my view, by resorting to zero sum analysis. The more critical point is that, apparently, video on the M(240) was sub-par. By adopting a larger mount (the L Mount) and adding a full electronic connection between the lens and the camera, video on the SL is a much better proposition. Remember that development of the SL started almost immediately after the M(240) was released in 2012. After developing the SL, and including video which seems to meet the minimum requirements for passable video, how attractive would the M(240) video have looked, and what would need to be done to the M to get it to the same standard? I'm not surprised Leica closed the door on this level of further development of the M camera and removed video. This enabled them to make it thinner, improve the sensor, the shutter and the processor. Quite why people here assume that the M is the only camera Leica makes, and why they have a problem with the M being a stills only camera is beyond me. Turning the M into a me-too video camera would do the M system no favours if Leica did it properly. PS - just to rub in the point, Leica makes a medium format system (the S); two 35mm systems (SL & M), and the Q; and an APS-C system (TL), along with the X versions. The future direction of the M system is pretty clear in that context, isn't it? When (if) my remaining M cameras die, I will probably buy another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here So how long before video capture functionality arrives?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Lax Jought Posted February 27, 2017 Share #242 Posted February 27, 2017 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? . So if M240's video is good enough, you wouldn't mind it being reintroduced into a future M then, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 27, 2017 Share #243 Posted February 27, 2017 ... The more critical point is that, apparently, video on the M(240) was sub-par. .... It might be more critical to your eyes. To the person who just wants tools which are good enough for the job at hand, the capability to record some footage without carrying yet another apparatus with all the associated accessories might be immensely valuable, even if the video recorded was indeed subpar. Chances are, the video would be subpar even if taken with the best video equipment there is, as photographers are often less than competent video operators, and taking the video would be a subordinate business to taking the stills in most cases. Some here do indeed act as if they were engaged in zero win game; I don't think they act all that rationally. No one loses if I win a capability in a device I buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 27, 2017 Share #244 Posted February 27, 2017 So if M240's video is good enough, you wouldn't mind it being reintroduced into a future M then, right? Absolutely not. If I shoot video I go for a real video oriented camera, not some identity-crisis wannabe cross-dressing disaster. "So, what are those windows on the front of your camera?" "I don't use 'em. They came with the body. Some kinda range-finder shit of antiquity." "So why use it?" ... no rational response possible ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 27, 2017 Share #245 Posted February 27, 2017 It might be more critical to your eyes. To the person who just wants tools which are good enough for the job at hand, the capability to record some footage without carrying yet another apparatus with all the associated accessories might be immensely valuable, even if the video recorded was indeed subpar. Chances are, the video would be subpar even if taken with the best video equipment there is, as photographers are often less than competent video operators, and taking the video would be a subordinate business to taking the stills in most cases. Some here do indeed act as if they were engaged in zero win game; I don't think they act all that rationally. No one loses if I win a capability in a device I buy. Perhaps, but for the moment, Leica seems to have come to the same conclusion. We are not discussing whether or not the M10 SHOULD have video, but whether or not a future M will have video. I'm not sure why you also suggest that those who think video won't be coming in an M camera think they will "win" if others don't get what they want. That's your idea, not mine or anyone else that I have seen. Pervious links don't support that view to my reading either. What would be the point? It's almost like the people who said they would sell all their Leica gear if an EVF version of the M was released - or did they really say that ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 27, 2017 Share #246 Posted February 27, 2017 Absolutely not. If I shoot video I go for a real video oriented camera, not some identity-crisis wannabe cross-dressing disaster. "So, what are those windows on the front of your camera?" "I don't use 'em. They came with the body. Some kinda range-finder shit of antiquity." "So why use it?" ... no rational response possible ... You do realise that on the M240, the only tiny thing that had anything to do with video was a tiny little button off to the side which most people wouldn't even notice.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 27, 2017 Share #247 Posted February 27, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) You do realise that on the M240, the only tiny thing that had anything to do with video was a tiny little button off to the side which most people wouldn't even notice.... Of course. What is your point? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 28, 2017 Share #248 Posted February 28, 2017 Of course. What is your point? . How much does that tiny little button prevent you indulging in your stills photography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 28, 2017 Share #249 Posted February 28, 2017 How much does that tiny little button prevent you indulging in your stills photography? Funny how they were able to shave three millimeters off the width of the camera when they removed that little button. Not to mention the firmware development team not wasting resources improving video features and squashing bugs related to video. That's more resources to dedicate to actual photography functions. Don't pretend still photographers are completely unaffected by the inclusion of video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 1, 2017 Share #250 Posted March 1, 2017 It is rather the other way around. Compressing the internals of the camera into the smaller body created heat management problems with video. Also the smaller battery lacks sufficient capacity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted March 1, 2017 Share #251 Posted March 1, 2017 It is rather the other way around. Compressing the internals of the camera into the smaller body created heat management problems with video. Also the smaller battery lacks sufficient capacity. Hello Jaap, That's interesting. Since the beginning of computers: 1 of the major the "brick wall's" in terms of development has been the dissipation of heat. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 1, 2017 Share #252 Posted March 1, 2017 It is rather the other way around. Compressing the internals of the camera into the smaller body created heat management problems with video. Also the smaller battery lacks sufficient capacity. That's actually my point. He's trying to imply that the inclusion of video has no impact other than an extra button. When in fact, without video (and its associated heat management issues and need for a larger battery) they were able to make the camera more compact and closer in size to the classic film M's, which most photographers were pretty happy about. The point is that including video has effects that amount to more than just having an extra button. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAK Posted March 1, 2017 Share #253 Posted March 1, 2017 Still, I have been analyzing my sense of disappointment with the M 10. It is not the camera, which clearly is a superior product which surely will find many enthusiastic buyers. It is the direction in which Leica is steering the M system. I was hoping for a further development for it to be the best tool to take into the Kalahari, on an Amazon expedition, to the top of the Himalayas or into a war zone. Instead they decided to build the best retro camera in the world. Honestly, if I was going into the Kalahari or Amazon, or the top of Himalayas (no war zones for me!) I would be taking my M-A and film, not batteries, or a battery charger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 1, 2017 Share #254 Posted March 1, 2017 I guess you have never been in wild isolated spots, carrying a hundred films in lead canisters, worrying about losing yor shots without backup, being spoilt by heat or antique X-Ray scanners, etc. the advent of digital was a liberation for travel and wildlife photographers. As for batteries, take enough to keep you going to the next generator or vehicle. So use a system with high-capacity batteries and a step backwards when it is reduced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 1, 2017 Share #255 Posted March 1, 2017 That's actually my point. He's trying to imply that the inclusion of video has no impact other than an extra button. When in fact, without video (and its associated heat management issues and need for a larger battery) they were able to make the camera more compact and closer in size to the classic film M's, which most photographers were pretty happy about. The point is that including video has effects that amount to more than just having an extra button.Which is why the marketing: We dropped the feature because it does not fit into "das Wesentliche" and "our customers want it this way" never fails to irritate me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted March 1, 2017 Share #256 Posted March 1, 2017 Funny how they were able to shave three millimeters off the width of the camera when they removed that little button. Not to mention the firmware development team not wasting resources improving video features and squashing bugs related to video. That's more resources to dedicate to actual photography functions. Don't pretend still photographers are completely unaffected by the inclusion of video. Yeah, 3mm. And a tiny little button. Again, in case you've forgotten, I don't use M240's video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 1, 2017 Share #257 Posted March 1, 2017 I guess you have never been in wild isolated spots, carrying a hundred films in lead canisters, worrying about losing yor shots without backup, being spoilt by heat or antique X-Ray scanners, etc. the advent of digital was a liberation for travel and wildlife photographers. As for batteries, take enough to keep you going to the next generator or vehicle. So use a system with high-capacity batteries and a step backwards when it is reduced. That's the only sort of wilderness travel I've done. Worked perfectly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted March 1, 2017 Share #258 Posted March 1, 2017 That's the only sort of wilderness travel I've done. Worked perfectly. Therefore, Leica should cater specifically to you, and you only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 1, 2017 Share #259 Posted March 1, 2017 Honestly, if I was going into the Kalahari or Amazon, or the top of Himalayas (no war zones for me!) I would be taking my M-A and film, not batteries, or a battery charger. My guess is you would do that once only. https://www.voltaicsystems.com/solar-camera-charger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 1, 2017 Share #260 Posted March 1, 2017 Which is why the marketing: We dropped the feature because it does not fit into "das Wesentliche" and "our customers want it this way" never fails to irritate me. You don't think both of those things played a key role when they were making this decision? The former seems logical, and the latter, judging by the demand for the camera, seems to hold water as well. I think they were determined to make the camera thinner, closer to the film M's, and found they couldn't do so and keep video. They probably received a fair amount of customer feedback that video wasn't considered essential by most. So they simplified and tried to make the best digital rangefinder for stills photography they could produce. And I would say they succeeded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.