So how long before video capture functionality arrives?

[Lax Jought]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, let's implement video in every M camera....

From one extreme to another. Only the Sith talk in absolutes.

[Advertisement]

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

[tsleica]

I'm not buying the M10..why..because it has wifi..and that insults..my purist...sensibilities...lol..

[jaapv]

Maybe bad luck for you as YOUR roots might not the be same as the roots of Leica and other's.

I think with the M10 they listend to their customers an removed the crappy toystuff which is no longer needed, sind the SL is available.

 

And: SL has nothing to do with a Leica R! Except yuo can tell me, how you connect M-Lenses to R-Mount with fill use...

So Leica has an option for M-Lens users AND video freaks = SL

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.

[pgk]

Yes, let's implement video in every M camera....

Then, we are one step away from a bi-directional tilting screen, and a dozen other features when the next wave of complaints come online.

Movie mode in a rangefinder will always be nothing more than a compromised functionality...Exactly like an expensive 4-wheel drive Audi, but with low racing tires 

and a ground clearance of under 6 inches.

 

Personally, for the SL and its lens assortment, video just makes more sense to me

 

The 'M' is meant, at least in my view, to be the best kind of (still) camera in its class/type.

A lean, mean photographic machine is much more interesting to me in this age of 'Swiss knife' flexibility.

 

(P.S. If Leica ever were to make a high quality video camera for 'regular' users, I think it could become very popular.)

 

Absolutely. Implementing video in an M is in my view pandering to the most amateurish of users(sorry making to apology for this statement - it would be like Hasselblad making a 126 back to complement their 220 back) and consigning the camera to being a compromised bodge. Its not about purism, its all about what you define the M camera as being viable to use for. A multi-use rangefinder will have all the attributes which will frustrate 'purists' though - complex and very detailed menus with options which require further controls/sockets, potential bloat and so on. It baffles me as to why an M ever had to go down this route - a bad move on Leica's part if you ask me. Trying to add video and 'compete' is a hiding to nothing, simply making a rod for your own back in that once started you have to keep up for little good reason. The M10 should set the path forward IMO and if you want video capability as sumolux say, suggest a multi lens system video camera to Leica - purpose built and small - attributes which Leica are more than capable of implementing excellently.

[IkarusJohn]

I see "purist" is becoming a term of abuse in this thread. Leica markets the M as having the "Essentials" - it has always had a purity of conception - that's the point.

 

The fact is the camera is a stills camera, and with one relatively brief exception, always has been. The core of the camera is the optical coupled range finder with fixed (and very limited) optical patch. For video to work adequately, Leica needs to make a series of compromises to what is otherwise a very mature and well conceived stills camera, effective in the 28-90 range.

 

By definition, that makes its strength "purist", if that's the way you wish to phrase it; I would prefer limited. It's never going to be large format, medium format, or anything but 35mm. For the camera to provide video of the quality of its stills functionality, or of the SL, I can't see how that would work while retaining the rangefinder (and Jaap has told us many times if it isn't a rangefinder, it isn't an M) and M mount.

 

I see the M10 as playing to the M camera strengths. Call it purist if you like, regret the fact that video will never really work with the M concept (to a standard that warrants the Leica name and price tag), or that it doesn't do everything possible. That, I'm afraid, is the point.

[Lax Jought]

Which purists are you referring to, specifically?

Will you look at that, two of them popped up and answered your question right there. Now watch this:

 

Let me ask the question to you both - technological innovation is a natural progression in camera development, and hypothetically speaking Leica could potentially implement video seamlessly into a future M. Properly this time, unlike the mess that is the current M240.

 

None of you would have a problem with this, would you? Leica offering a fully featured M240 MkII with video, alongside an M11 that only does stills? Much the same way as they're doing now with its variations on the M like the Monochrom that offers only B&W, or the M-D that offers no LV at all. They can all co-exist, right?

 

Or for example an M11 that retains improved features of the current M10 for stills as well as including seamless, proper video. And then like the current M262, Leica could offer a pure stills version of the fully featured M11 that strips the video out leaving only the stills components. That would be fine, wouldn't it? Everyone still gets exactly what they need out of the appropriate M model, like how it works now with the monochrom, M-D, M262, M-P, etc, variations to the M240.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Will you look at that, two of them popped up and answered your question right there..

 

You are confusing 'purists' and those of us who are trying to bring a bit of logic into the discussion. If you really can't see that adding video into a rangefinder body is a complete compromise and bodge then so be it.

[Lax Jought]

You are confusing 'purists' and those of us who are trying to bring a bit of logic into the discussion. If you really can't see that adding video into a rangefinder body is a complete compromise and bodge then so be it.

Leica will figure it out within a generation or two of M models. When they do, you wouldn't have a problem with the scenarios described above where there are multiple variations of M models that cater to various needs, do you?

[pgk]

I've shot on dSLR for tv because at the time they worked for a particular application. Fine. Would I do it again? No. There's much better equipment available for the application - fortunately - and the dSLR was a compromise which worked then but is no longer the best solution. Would I use a rangefinder shaped body to shoot video for anything serious? Ummm, let me think - no. Whilst it is/will be perfectly possible to get a rangefinder body to shoot video. That's not the problem. The problem is that you want an M rangefinder to shoot video and its just not the right shape/ergonomics/whatever to do so - using an M rangefinder as a video camera is a compromise, and so its a bodge. Its not about 'purity' of the M rangefinder; its about viability of a video camera. Just because you can get it to shoot video doesn't mean to say that it will do so well due to its form factor. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Lax Jought]

I see you're a DSLR purist too, where any video function must present under perfect circumstances before it's workable. Have you seen the Red camera? It's literally a box. And there are a ton of DSLR photographers and DSLR filmmakers who produce amazing work, it's very convenient for them because it's an all-in-one package that does a pretty decent job.

 

Regarding shape/ergonomics - purists complained that the M240 is a couple of micro-meters thicker than the M9, and therefore it's a travesty to the old film days when the M was a couple of micro-meters thinner.

 

Which brings me back to the same question - Leica will figure it out within a generation or two. Are the purists happy about having a line of M that has video, along with the monochrom and M-D, and M262 lines? Doesn't seem like it. Even though it wouldn't affect them one bit if they can have their 'pure' stills M262 equivalent.

[IkarusJohn]

Will you look at that, two of them popped up and answered your question right there. Now watch this:

Let me ask the question to you both - technological innovation is a natural progression in camera development, and hypothetically speaking Leica could potentially implement video seamlessly into a future M. Properly this time, unlike the mess that is the current M240.

None of you would have a problem with this, would you? Leica offering a fully featured M240 MkII with video, alongside an M11 that only does stills? Much the same way as they're doing now with its variations on the M like the Monochrom that offers only B&W, or the M-D that offers no LV at all. They can all co-exist, right?

Or for example an M11 that retains improved features of the current M10 for stills as well as including seamless, proper video. And then like the current M262, Leica could offer a pure stills version of the fully featured M11 that strips the video out leaving only the stills components. That would be fine, wouldn't it? Everyone still gets exactly what they need out of the appropriate M model, like how it works now with the monochrom, M-D, M262, M-P, etc, variations to the M240.

No, I see zero purpose in answering your hypothetical questions, as you're driving a point, without really listening to what others are saying. You're also making huge assumptions.

 

As you're stigmatising me as a "purist" (as if it's something bad), and adding a bit of mockery, can I point out that for years I have been boring this forum witless by suggesting that a logical M variant would be one with an excellent EVF, which would allow us to make the most of M lenses, and yes provide video, if that's what you want. I also made myself even more unpopular by having the nerve to say that the M(240) was "half-baked", a "kludge" and "hopelessly compromised", because it had a crappy clip on EVF that was obsolete almost as soon as it was released and it had rubblish video, while the focus point was still rigidly fixed centre frame. To me, the M(240) had a good sensor, good optical viewfinder, but was spoiled by adding what could be done, rather than what was necessary.

 

I then compounded that by buying an M60, and supporting the release of the M-D. I'm still amazed that Leica had the courage to release that camera, and the Monochrom.

 

I loathe the clip on bits, and I feel strongly that cameras like the M should be fully thought through - resolved, if you prefer. I will never buy a camera which needs two viewfinders, and if I was looking for a video camera, it wouldn't have an optical viewfinder, and would probably have very little in common with an M camera. I might consider an EVF based M, but then I already have an SL, with which I can make excellent video with M lenses.

 

As Paul says, don't let a bit of logic spoil your posting. Now, think about this, if you have the space:

 

(1) the M system is, and has always been about the optical coupled rangefinder, with manual lenses, limiting the camera to effectively 28-90 through the built in viewfinder

 

(2) the focal point will always be fixed middle frame

 

(3) to escape these limitations, you need to add an EVF

 

Of course, Leica could address these things, but not effectively till the EVF is built in. It's a bit like trying to turn a small house into a big one - it never works. Yet, the SL does work. Why would Leica try to make an M version of a camera they already make? Or, if that is too oblique, what would you gain from an SL in an M body ...

 

Many of us came to the M cameras because of their purity of purpose. Why would we want that to become an A7 or similar in an M body?

[pico]

[... snip poster's attempt to be a time traveling prophet ...]

Video will have to be implemented in an M10 camera sooner or later..which is precisely why I wont pony up 6.5K for this cam..w/o a good video function..which I need daily..

 

You need video daily? Buy the correct model. Professional video is a large effort. I cannot imagine a platform less adaptable to pro video than a Leica M. It is proposterous.

.

 

.

[IkarusJohn]

We cross posted - Red? Fabulous! The guy who owns Red can apparently be a bit challenging, but the video I've seen shot with Red cameras (mostly sports like kitesurfing and paragliding) have been astonishingly good; and you can use M lenses with an adapter.

 

What were you saying about video on an M?

 

If I was serious about video (as I am about stills), I would certainly consider a Red system - expensive, though.

[Lax Jought]

Many of us came to the M cameras because of their purity of purpose. Why would we want that to become an A7 or similar in an M body?

 

Purist words again.  You can have a pure stills M body, nobody's stopping you from having an M262 or future equivalent. 

 

Let me say that again - nobody is stopping you purists from having a pure, stripped down M body that does only stills and nothing else. 

 

Let me say it again for good measure- NOBODY is stopping the future existence of a stripped down, pure stills M.

 

However, the mere thought that Leica might try something with video in a future M line is totally pissing you guys off already.  That's a purist if I ever saw one.  It's not going to affect your M10 or M262 equivalent in any way.  You can have your pure stills camera, nobody is stopping you from have your pure M.  But you're so vehemently against any M model having any video function, even though you can still have your stripped down version.

[pico]

[...] the mere thought that Leica might try something with video in a future M line is totally pissing you guys off already.  That's a purist if I ever saw one.  It's not going to affect your M10 or M262 equivalent in any way.  You can have your pure stills camera, nobody is stopping you from have your pure M.  But you're so vehemently against any M model having any video function, even though you can still have your stripped down version.

 

Yes, purist stills camera is a good thing. I cannot imagine why anyone would want a rangefinder camera to do pro video. Pro! Get it! P R O F F E S I O N A L.

[Lax Jought]

We cross posted - Red? Fabulous! The guy who owns Red can apparently be a bit challenging, but the video I've seen shot with Red cameras (mostly sports like kitesurfing and paragliding) have been astonishingly good; and you can use M lenses with an adapter.

 

What were you saying about video on an M?

 

If I was serious about video (as I am about stills), I would certainly consider a Red system - expensive, though.

 

Jim Jannard - he was criticised for being an arrogant billionaire and he pissed off a lot of people in the industry and also turned off a lot of potential customers when he was buildng up the Red brand.  I suppose it worked, more or less, but surely there are better methods than to piss off the industry.  But then again, he's the billionaire and I'm not, so being arrogant has clearly worked towards his financial success.

 

You can use only some lenses with the adapter on a Red, certainly not the wide angle ones.  In fact they developed the adapter specifically for the Noctilux, that was the whole raison d'etre for that adapter.

 

Here's the thing, I own a Red camera.  But it would still be amazing to have a halfway decent video function in an M because I don't want to carry a Red everywhere with me.  I don't need hyper-professional video with me at all times.  That is the point with having video function in a DSLR or an M, it's not meant to be Hollywood-quality or ergonomically 'perfect'. 

 

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. 

[Lax Jought]

Yes, purist stills camera is a good thing. I cannot imagine why anyone would want a rangefinder camera to do pro video. Pro! Get it! P R O F F E S I O N A L.

 

I never said I wanted pro video in an M .... and as I was saying above, there will always be an M that is pure stills only, so it doesn't affect your choice as a purist for a pure stills M.  What makes you a purist though, is that you can't handle the idea of a separate M line that does have video, much in the same way as it is now with the M10 and M262, and the co-existing M240.

[Lax Jought]

Which purists are you referring to, specifically? I haven't noticed any posts opposed to Leica making an M variant that includes video.

 

Has anyone actually suggested, as you imply, that Leica shouldn't make a M variant with video?

 

This answer your question yet? 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268395-so-how-long-before-video-capture-functionality-arrives/?p=3221771

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Cliff S]

You spelled Professional wrong. Not very professional.

 

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.

 

I came to Leica from a Nikon D3H which required 15 minutes to remember which wheels did what every time I turned it in. When I held a Leica M240, it reminded me of my old manual Nikon FM where it was always ME in control.

 

I think the concept of a pure modern camera, un-encumbered with more buttons, wheels and menu items, gives me back the zen of photography which I sadly lost for the last 20 years shooting with feature packed digital cameras.

[lct]

All my digital cameras do basic video and it's OK for me. I just want an RF allowing the same. Leica did it once with the M240. Why not twice? The video button can perfectly be used for other purposes eg to bring up image magnification.