Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #61 Posted February 22, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) For every major change, there's going to be people happy with it and people who are upset by it. Leica sold plenty of M240's despite the people unhappy with the change to CMOS. The demand for the M10 is a good sign that all this talk of the end of Leica with every change to the camera is silly and absurd. The change to CMOS didn't spell the end of Leica, and neither will removal of video from the M platform. A few people will vehemently refuse to buy the camera (and I suspect many of them wouldn't have bought it regardless), but the vast majority of the devoted user base will recognize the benefits of the latest design and upgrade to the newer model, either now or down the road. My point exactly. Whether the M10 or any future M has video imcluded, the usual suspects are going to raise a fuss about things either way. If it's not about video, it'd be about the CMOS. If it's not about the CMOS, it would be about a sliver of extra thickness or weight. If not about that, it'd be about any other tiny, tiny change. And as I was pointing out earlier in this thread, if Leica hypothetically continued its M240 and M10 lines to provide video and non-video options why would it matter to those who are vehemently against video if they're already getting a non-video M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 Hi Lax Jought, Take a look here So how long before video capture functionality arrives? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted February 22, 2017 Share #62 Posted February 22, 2017 It doesn't matter to me ... I like choice. In my "perfect" lineup, there would always be a basic model with only the essentials and a deluxe model with additional features at a higher price point. What's difficult is when only the feature laden, deluxe model is offered—as it is with so many manufacturers' products these days—to the exclusion of a simple, basic model. I like having all the features in the world now and then, which is why I have my SL. It's an amazingly versatile and convenient device to do still photography, motion picture photography, macro, long lens, ultra wide, photomicroscopy, etc. I am not so inclined to want all that additional complexity in my 'by its very nature' limited versatility rangefinder camera. There they become second-class hacks since the basic design and layout of the camera was never created with such things in mind and is not fundamentally well suited to them. As long as that basic camera essence is available to me, I'm happy with it ... if others want a deluxe model with a bunch of other stuff hacked into it for their convenience, that's fine too as long as it doesn't obliterate the basic model that does what the camera was conceived of to do in the first place. The M is a very old concept but one that has stayed viable through all these years and changes. I'd like to see it stay that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #63 Posted February 22, 2017 It doesn't matter to me ... I like choice. I agree with this because it's basic common sense. The people who don't make sense are those who insist that Leica drops the M240 because it's not 'pure'. If you're getting your pure M in the M10 and its future line, why would it matter to them if there is also an M240 line with video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 22, 2017 Share #64 Posted February 22, 2017 I also wonder what innovation really improves on that paradigm. Adding features is not innovation; it's generally more convenience as we've heard in this thread: "I want video so that it's all in the one small package." Etc. More to the point, what would you add to an M7 film camera? I'm content with my M being simple, basic, "the essentials." That's why I'm sticking with the M4-2 and the M-D. Monochrom & M-A here. For the moment, I see no point in a colour M for me - the SL does all that rather nicely. The fact that there are currently 3 film M cameras and 6 digital M cameras, all of different flavours, suggests that Leica understands the desire for varying functionality. No other manufacturer offers monochrom, video-less and LCD-less versions of their full frame digital cameras. Whether or not Leica releases an M with the SL EVF shoe-horned into it and all the "benefits" that brings remains to be seen. That rather crosses the Rubicon of an M mount camera without an optical rangefinder - a step too far for many here. I already have an SL, so I won't be a buyer - I like the rangefinder, for all its constraints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 22, 2017 Share #65 Posted February 22, 2017 Monochrom & M-A here. For the moment, I see no point in a colour M for me - the SL does all that rather nicely. The fact that there are currently 3 film M cameras and 6 digital M cameras, all of different flavours, suggests that Leica understands the desire for varying functionality. No other manufacturer offers monochrom, video-less and LCD-less versions of their full frame digital cameras. Whether or not Leica releases an M with the SL EVF shoe-horned into it and all the "benefits" that brings remains to be seen. That rather crosses the Rubicon of an M mount camera without an optical rangefinder - a step too far for many here. I already have an SL, so I won't be a buyer - I like the rangefinder, for all its constraints. I once had the MM246 on order so I understand the thinking there. And I produce a lot of monochrome work. But I tend to prefer the RGB sensor for doing it because I can do the black and white filtering required in software rather than having to carry orange, green, etc filters. The MM246 advantage is really fairly narrow: exists mostly at the upper range of ISO capabilities where it out-paces any of the RGB sensors for clean imaging and broad tonal scale. It's a choice. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 22, 2017 Share #66 Posted February 22, 2017 The decision to remove the video feature from the Leica M10 was not based on customers asking to drop it. Instead, it was hard enough to fit the existing functionality into the slimmer body. There simply is no room for video. After all, video isn't just software, as some seem to believe. Video requires additional hardware for encoding, audio, and all kinds of physical connectors. It simply is impossible with current technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 22, 2017 Share #67 Posted February 22, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) No it's not impossible. A choice had to be made and was made for a specific reason. Body size had little to do with capability. The choice was made for one reason. Heat. Video is available in smaller bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #68 Posted February 22, 2017 The decision to remove the video feature from the Leica M10 was not based on customers asking to drop it. Instead, it was hard enough to fit the existing functionality into the slimmer body. It was a fairly large number of people complaining how much thicker and heavier the M240 is, along with a poorly executed and poorly planned video function that made its use and purpose amateurish at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #69 Posted February 22, 2017 Video is available in smaller bodies. They're not full frame. The Sony A7 cameras are probably the smallest full frame cameras with fully developed video function for the moment but Leica does not have the resources to play catch up with Sony, especially when they have to fit rangefinder technology/mechanics into the M as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 22, 2017 Share #70 Posted February 22, 2017 Sony RX1RII. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 22, 2017 Share #71 Posted February 22, 2017 They're not full frame. The Sony A7 cameras are probably the smallest full frame cameras with fully developed video function for the moment but Leica does not have the resources to play catch up with Sony, especially when they have to fit rangefinder technology/mechanics into the M as well. Almost. The Leica folks, I imagine, made a decision to not breach a threshold with image quality, noise and heat as in the past. I salute them for this choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #72 Posted February 22, 2017 Sony RX1RII. The M would need to have extra space to fit in rangefinder mechanism as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #73 Posted February 22, 2017 Almost. The Leica folks, I imagine, made a decision to not breach a threshold with image quality, noise and heat as in the past. I salute them for this choice. They already breached all that with M240's video function, they admitted in the recent interview that they underestimated what was required for good video and they knew its development wasn't something they could do or wanted to invest in. At least for now anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 22, 2017 Share #74 Posted February 22, 2017 ... The choice was made for one reason. Heat... I'm sure you're right that heat was a factor, but do we know it was the only reason as you assert? Leica was unlikely to offer toy video in the M cameras, having done a reasonable job of it in the SL. It's not simply a case of reading off the sensor - there's processing load and writing to the card and also built in microphones, speakers for playback, jacks for external recorders, mikes and headphones, HDMI plugs ... Making the camera smaller seems to have been a driver, along with weatherproofing. Yes, I'm sure that heat was an issue, but all the other stuff that goes with video will also have been a factor, in a camera with an optical viewfinder and clip-on EVF that is, at best, as good as the competition and significantly worse than Leica's own offering in the SL. If Leica does go down the video route with the M, I would expect them to release a specific model without the optical coupled rangefinder - they will find a way of getting that high resolution EVF into an M body, then all the electronic wizardry people want can be put in there. Or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 22, 2017 Share #75 Posted February 22, 2017 If Leica does go down the video route with the M, I would expect them to release a specific model without the optical coupled rangefinder - they will find a way of getting that high resolution EVF into an M body, then all the electronic wizardry people want can be put in there. Or not. That's why I just can't see it happening since they've already poured their resources into developing it for the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2017 Share #76 Posted February 22, 2017 I once had the MM246 on order so I understand the thinking there. And I produce a lot of monochrome work. But I tend to prefer the RGB sensor for doing it because I can do the black and white filtering required in software rather than having to carry orange, green, etc filters. The MM246 advantage is really fairly narrow: exists mostly at the upper range of ISO capabilities where it out-paces any of the RGB sensors for clean imaging and broad tonal scale. It's a choice. :-) Not quite correct. there is a significant difference in pixel acuity and tonal range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 23, 2017 Share #77 Posted February 23, 2017 The M would need to have extra space to fit in rangefinder mechanism as well. Yes it would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 23, 2017 Share #78 Posted February 23, 2017 I honestly don't think you will see any of this on an M camera ever. This is why Leica has produced the SL. That will be the camera that gets advanced video functionality moving forward. It just doesn't make any sense to try to cram all of this stuff into an M camera when the majority of M users don't shoot video and the majority of serious video shooters don't need a compact rangefinder camera. Dirk, I really wasn't arguing to cram a lot of stuff into an M240 successor. I was arguing to add ports--just three (mic in, headphones for monitor, and a mini HDMI). I was also arguing for very modest in camera recording. Just HD with a range of fps options and one log to aid processing. I see that as an incremental upgrade from what the M240 had. The M240, however, was crippled, IMO, by not having ports to allow decent audio, and not having options to allow smooth video. The HDMI, would let the camera directly output 4K video right off the sensor, which would require very little overhead from the camera. You would be letting the recorder do all the heavy lifting, so this external video capability really would not require much from the camera. This M240 upgrade would still have considerably less in camera capability than the SL, which can do in camera recording of 4K at quite decent quality, and I see the sort of video capability I am advocating as very much an incremental upgrade over the M240. Whether Leica should produce this camera to me is totally about the market. If enough people would buy it to make it profitable, then they should do it, but if the market is too small then it is hard to fight that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 23, 2017 Share #79 Posted February 23, 2017 Whether Leica should produce this camera to me is totally about the market. If enough people would buy it to make it profitable, then they should do it, but if the market is too small then it is hard to fight that.Not likely to happen. Leica's demographic is an older age group (in which I belong), who are not likely to be tuned in to quality video filmmaking (on this point I am differentiated from my demographic). This point was driven home when I saw the promo video for the new SL to demonstrate its video capabilities, and they gave it to a young sports/action filmmaker who filmed skateboarders. With the very vocal voices from a number of Leica purists angry that Leica would even consider including video in a future M, Leica would have to wait for this generation of purists to wither away before a new generation influences change. Current purists aren't even happy to have a separate line of video-enabled M cameras, it's an exclusionary and protectionist attitude over what they feel is 'their' M that no one else can touch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 23, 2017 Share #80 Posted February 23, 2017 Not quite correct. there is a significant difference in pixel acuity and tonal range. I don't disagree. But in practical terms from the exposures I've inspected, where the MM246 outstrips the M240 sensor for B&W imaging at between ISO 1600-3200 and above. Below that the differences are so small as to be a nuance visible only on the largest sized prints or in measurements at 1:1 pixel magnification. And the M262 sensor is a slightly better performer than the M240 in my experience. After examining many many exposures, I was mostly interested in the MM246 for its abilities working with pinholes at ISO 12500 and above for hand-held work. Again, these were my evaluations and my choice. Others feel differently ... and I'd still love an MM246, but I have other priorities in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.