M10? - Sorry, no!

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hope when you are out sight seeing the lighting isn't fluctuating otherwise I am not sure how you would adjust exposure with an M camera.  Without exposure adjustment would it really be all that useful for b-rolls? Do you honestly like the focus throw on M lenses for video? Don't you find it more than a tad bit short to change focus well? For me I just can't see the point even for b-rolls for trying to us the M for videos. If b-rolls were important I would just take another camera. In my case I would take a Sony A7rII and Zeiss Loxia lenses that would let me shoot quality video in which I can adjust exposure and I have a reasonable focus throw, and although I would prefer the M10 for sight seeing I would get by with the Sony at least if getting that video was at all important.

Actually you could shoot fine video with M10, if it had video, just by choosing a UWA and a reasonable stop. At 21mm you don't have to use any VF. But above 35mm you would have a hard time holding it anyway.

 

Any M is very fun to shoot off the cuff UWA.

Mini Travel by unoh7, M9 CV21/4

 

But when was the last time I shot video with my A7? I can't remember

 

So in the end: Leica made the choice, I believe on grounds of cost and deadline, and it is what it is.

 

Nobody who appreciates what the M10 offers will not buy it for lack of video. But it's a nice straw man to rant at Solms

 

I shot over 100 weddings as a videographer, before I gave it up. I never miss video

[Dirk Mandeville]

I just firmly believe that video could have been included without being a burden for anyone, without any extra buttons etc. But nevermind.

I get that. And maybe it is even technically possible to do just as you suggest. But you assume it would end there and everyone would be happy. It wouldn't. Those who truly care about video wouldn't be satisfied with this solution and would be constantly complaining, pushing Leica to improve the video features, add an HDMI port, add back the video button, etc. If video capability is on there at all, there will be a large contingent of video enthusiasts who expect it to be full-featured (and will use the price of the camera as sufficient justification for their demands).

 

This is the rabbit hole that Leica avoids being pulled into by drawing a line in the sand and designating the M for stills photography only. But don't give up on Leica yet. I think Andy has a good point that they very well may bring out a successor to the M240 just for customers who feel like you do.

[digitalfx]

I hope when you are out sight seeing the lighting isn't fluctuating otherwise I am not sure how you would adjust exposure with an M camera.  Without exposure adjustment would it really be all that useful for b-rolls? Do you honestly like the focus throw on M lenses for video? Don't you find it more than a tad bit short to change focus well? For me I just can't see the point even for b-rolls for trying to us the M for videos. If b-rolls were important I would just take another camera. In my case I would take a Sony A7rII and Zeiss Loxia lenses that would let me shoot quality video in which I can adjust exposure and I have a reasonable focus throw, and although I would prefer the M10 for sight seeing I would get by with the Sony at least if getting that video was at all important.

 

 

Although all your points are valid...for the purpose of this discussion and the uses intended, the M could produce exceptional results. Despite its many shortcomings, Ive shot many outstanding pieces with the M and SL and M lenses. The de-clicked iris issue is a problem if you are shooting a movie, but for most limited shooting you would do with an M...it is no big deal. I rarely if ever adjust iris mid shot while shooting video...mostly because I'm controlling the lighting conditions. Honestly I would be more concerned with not being able to use 1/3 stop increments since when you shoot video you are typically shooting at 1/50th of a second and the iris or ISO are your only light controls. Regarding the focus throw...yes this is a problem- but again is very easy to work around when shooting limited shots with an M. When I shoot with M lenses I typically focus the lenses at minimum distance and use my body to focus...moving in and out with the subject.

 

So yes, for long form work, the M is far from ideal...but as a b camera for limited shots or even stylistic shots it can be a great choice. Regarding your line skipping concerns, this isn't as big a deal as you make it. Sure, its not ideal...but if you are shooting with the M as a style choice and you want the shallowest depth of field possible, shooting full frame offers a huge advantage.

 

I shoot with my Noctilux all the time on large cinema cameras...and the results are pretty spectacular. The iris being clicked is not an issue...nor is the focus throw.

BTW- This can be resolved if you choose. (de-clicking the iris)

 

This brings up the biggest shortcoming of the M240...it doesn't shoot 24fps. This IMO is the biggest mistake Leica made when implementing video into the M.

[Steve Spencer]

Actually you could shoot fine video with M10, if it had video, just by choosing a UWA and a reasonable stop. At 21mm you don't have to use any VF. But above 35mm you would have a hard time holding it anyway.

 

Any M is very fun to shoot off the cuff UWA.

Mini Travel by unoh7, M9 CV21/4

 

But when was the last time I shot video with my A7? I can't remember

 

So in the end: Leica made the choice, I believe on grounds of cost and deadline, and it is what it is.

 

Nobody who appreciates what the M10 offers will not buy it for lack of video. But it's a nice straw man to rant at Solms

 

I shot over 100 weddings as a videographer, before I gave it up. I never miss video

 

Actually you can't Charlie, not if the light is changing and you care about proper exposure. You have no mechanism to change exposure as the steps in the aperture ring (or changes in ISO) are too big not to be degrading of the quality of the shot. Shutter speed is of course a constant in video, so if you can't change aperture or ISO you get bad exposure if the light is changing or you make changes that looks like crap. Then you also have the problem of the sensor actually having too much resolution for video. As you condense it you really wreck the quality. So, in my book, no you can't shoot fine (or even good) video even with wide angles on an M camera.

[digitalfx]

Actually you can't Charlie, not if the light is changing and you care about proper exposure. You have no mechanism to change exposure as the steps in the aperture ring (or changes in ISO) are too big not to be degrading of the quality of the shot. Shutter speed is of course a constant in video, so if you can't change aperture or ISO you get bad exposure if the light is changing or you make changes that looks like crap. Then you also have the problem of the sensor actually having too much resolution for video. As you condense it you really wreck the quality. So, in my book, no you can't shoot fine (or even good) video even with wide angles on an M camera.

 

 

This has never prevented me from getting exceptional footage...its a limitation, but isn't a deal breaker.

Is the M the best solution for video? No

Can you produce some great footage? Absolutely.

 

If video can be added without making any sacrifices to the existing M body or design...Im all for it. If compromises have to be made, id rather the M exactly as it is. Its perfect.

[adan]

Nobody who appreciates what the M10 offers will not buy it for lack of video. But it's a nice straw man to rant at Solms

 

Actually, it's now Wetzlar again. New Leica Park, remember?

 

I guess I read between the lines, and a small minority of digital M-users (granted, probably more than the <1% the poll records - self-sampling error) think Leica has taken away their toy (which Leica hasn't, they've just added a new toy), and are also shocked and disappointed at finding out how small a minority they really are.

 

The M3/2/4 can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M7 can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M8/9 can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M262/MD can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M10 doesn't shoot video - what's different?

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although all your points are valid...for the purpose of this discussion and the uses intended, the M could produce exceptional results. Despite its many shortcomings, Ive shot many outstanding pieces with the M and SL and M lenses. The de-clicked iris issue is a problem if you are shooting a movie, but for most limited shooting you would do with an M...it is no big deal. I rarely if ever adjust iris mid shot while shooting video...mostly because I'm controlling the lighting conditions. Honestly I would be more concerned with not being able to use 1/3 stop increments since when you shoot video you are typically shooting at 1/50th of a second and the iris or ISO are your only light controls. Regarding the focus throw...yes this is a problem- but again is very easy to work around when shooting limited shots with an M. When I shoot with M lenses I typically focus the lenses at minimum distance and use my body to focus...moving in and out with the subject.

 

So yes, for long form work, the M is far from ideal...but as a b camera for limited shots or even stylistic shots it can be a great choice. Regarding your line skipping concerns, this isn't as big a deal as you make it. Sure, its not ideal...but if you are shooting with the M as a style choice and you want the shallowest depth of field possible, shooting full frame offers a huge advantage.

 

I shoot with my Noctilux all the time on large cinema cameras...and the results are pretty spectacular. The iris being clicked is not an issue...nor is the focus throw.

 

This brings up the biggest shortcoming of the M240...it doesn't shoot 24fps. This IMO is the biggest mistake Leica made when implementing video into the M.

Well we will have to just disagree. There was discussion of presumably outdoor shots in which the point was to not bring equipment, so the thought that you can control the light so that you don't need to make exposure adjustment mid shot to me is unrealistic. Sure if you can control the lighting so that you don't have to make exposure adjustment then M lenses can work spectacularly well, especially if you don't have to adjust focus anything more than minimally. But that was not what was discussed. I am sure in the right setting that a Noctilux on a cinema camera is amazing, but I am sure you would acknowledge that the iris not being ceclicked and the focus throw certainly limit the use of the lens. Other than the Noctilux, however, you can get just as shallow of depth of field with a lens much better suited for video. In fact, if I were going to shoot video on an M I would use R lenses. The can be de-clicked and the version II 50 lux and the 80 lux make very nice video lenses. They get you quite shallow depth of field with a distinctive Leica look and they don't have the drawback of M lenses and you can use them on a camera that won't have the limitations of line skipping (which perhaps bugs me more than you) and in which as you rightly not can shoot at 24 fps.

[digitalfx]

Nobody who appreciates what the M10 offers will not buy it for lack of video. 

 

 

 

 

Agree.

Im a filmmaker, and would love properly implemented video in the M...but it didn't stop me from buying the M10. The M10 is perfect as it is.

[Steve Spencer]

This has never prevented me from getting exceptional footage...its a limitation, but isn't a deal breaker.

Is the M the best solution for video? No

Can you produce some great footage? Absolutely.

 

If video can be added without making any sacrifices to the existing M body or design...Im all for it. If compromises have to be made, id rather the M exactly as it is. Its perfect.

You can get exceptional footage from an M camera and lens when the light is changing? I would like to see that. It is one thing when you made that claim when you specified that you could control the lighting, it is another when you make that claim when I was specifically talking about conditions of changing lighting. If you think such footage would be exceptional, I suspect I would disagree.

[Peter H]

Actually, it's now Wetzlar again. New Leica Park, remember?

 

I guess I read between the lines, and a small minority of digital M-users (granted, probably more than the <1% the poll records - self-sampling error) think Leica has taken away their toy (which Leica hasn't, they've just added a new toy), and are also shocked and disappointed at finding out how small a minority they really are.

 

The M3/2/4 can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M7 can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M8/9 can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M262/MD can't shoot video - does anyone complain?

The M10 doesn't shoot video - what's different?

 

 

I suppose the difference is that of the many people who have been asking for an upgrade to the M240 and like much of what the M10 has to offer, some don't like what it loses.

 

That's different in the sense that it isn't affected by which old cameras don't have video, so their logic is sound.

[adan]

But again that makes the unwarranted assumption that the M10 IS the M240 upgrade. It isn't - any more than the M262, or than the MP or M-A are "M7 upgrades."

[Dirk Mandeville]

This brings up the biggest shortcoming of the M240...it doesn't shoot 24fps. This IMO is the biggest mistake Leica made when implementing video into the M.

Haha. And there it is! Those who truly care about video will ALWAYS want more. This is why Leica eliminated video entirely from the M10. To create a camera for dedicated stills photography and shunt these customers off to a different platform more suited for developing video functionality. Whether that will be the SL or a successor to the M240 remains to be seen.

 

Not ragging on you, digitalfx. Just noticed how your comment drives my point home.

[Peter H]

But again that makes the unwarranted assumption that the M10 IS the M240 upgrade. It isn't - any more than the M262, or than the MP or M-A are "M7 upgrades."

 

 

Why does that matter?

 

At the moment the M10 is the most up-to-date version of the M line. All anyone is saying is that they'd prefer it if it were slightly different in some respects, and included one or two features from the M240 that they liked.

 

I really don't see any failure of logic here.

[digitalfx]

Well we will have to just disagree. There was discussion of presumably outdoor shots in which the point was to not bring equipment, so the thought that you can control the light so that you don't need to make exposure adjustment mid shot to me is unrealistic. Sure if you can control the lighting so that you don't have to make exposure adjustment then M lenses can work spectacularly well, especially if you don't have to adjust focus anything more than minimally. But that was not what was discussed. I am sure in the right setting that a Noctilux on a cinema camera is amazing, but I am sure you would acknowledge that the iris not being ceclicked and the focus throw certainly limit the use of the lens. Other than the Noctilux, however, you can get just as shallow of depth of field with a lens much better suited for video. In fact, if I were going to shoot video on an M I would use R lenses. The can be de-clicked and the version II 50 lux and the 80 lux make very nice video lenses. They get you quite shallow depth of field with a distinctive Leica look and they don't have the drawback of M lenses and you can use them on a camera that won't have the limitations of line skipping (which perhaps bugs me more than you) and in which as you rightly not can shoot at 24 fps.

 

Controlling the light doesn't necessarily mean bringing in lights or grip gear. It could simply mean looking for area to place your subject where the light is more flattering. I rarely if ever shoot in extremely high contrast areas where light is changing even if I have control...its not desirable to adjust your iris mid shot for most situations. And even when shooting with cinema lenses I rarely if ever adjust my iris mid shot.

[digitalfx]

Haha. And there it is! Those who truly care about video will ALWAYS want more. This is why Leica eliminated video entirely from the M10. To create a camera for dedicated stills photography and shunt these customers off to a different platform more suited for developing video functionality. Whether that will be the SL or a successor to the M240 remains to be seen.

 

Not ragging on you, digitalfx. Just noticed how your comment drives my point home.

 

Well I disagree...this isn't about wanting more. This is about understanding a very basic need. 24fps is a basic requirement for video cameras today.

I really have to question if Leica hired a real consultant prior to implementing video.

[Steve Spencer]

Controlling the light doesn't necessarily mean bringing in lights or grip gear. It could simply mean looking for area to place your subject where the light is more flattering. I rarely if ever shoot in extremely high contrast areas where light is changing even if I have control...its not desirable to adjust your iris mid shot for most situations. And even when shooting with cinema lenses I rarely if ever adjust my iris mid shot.

 

That makes perfect sense. I almost never shoot video or even stills in high contrast areas where the light is changing either, but what was being discussed in this thread was combining sight seeing (and presumably scenics) with b-roll shots. It isn't a matter of getting a shot of someone in an area where the light is less variable. Instead what you are intending to shoot has variable lighting and it is exactly that type of scene in which I would want to be able to adjust the iris mid aperture.

[Dirk Mandeville]

Why does that matter?

 

At the moment the M10 is the most up-to-date version of the M line. All anyone is saying is that they'd prefer it if it were slightly different in some respects, and included one or two features from the M240 that they liked.

 

I really don't see any failure of logic here.

Perhaps, but looking at it from another perspective...

Leica released this camera to specifically appeal to photography purists. A few people are complaining that it doesn't include video, even though Leica offers multiple other cameras that do include video, and undoubtedly will offer upgrades to those in the future. The photography purists are looking at this and thinking "what's wrong with us getting the camera we want? You already have the camera you want. Let us have our camera, too."

[-ph-]

I hope when you are out sight seeing the lighting isn't fluctuating otherwise I am not sure how you would adjust exposure with an M camera. 

 

 

Well, of course there is auto-ISO. Unless you are already at the limits of the ISO range, 1-2 stops of ISO change won't make a huge difference. I doubt I would fiddle with the aperture within a take anywhere.

[UliWer]

...

I really don't see any failure of logic here.

 

Well, to look for logic where you can't find it is a failure of logic. 

 

The decisions to include or to omit video or other things are not based on logic, they are just based on deliberation - or even whimscal.

 

Someone might like video with an M. He might find it with some variants of the M, though some others don't have it. His decison will be to shun those variants which have no video. His decision is based on deliberation, not on logic. Others are not interested in video.They may find other things which they call attrative in an M variant, which has no video. No logic involved. 

 

To demand that any variant should please any wishes is not logic but just a whim. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve Spencer]

Well, of course there is auto-ISO. Unless you are already at the limits of the ISO range, 1-2 stops of ISO change won't make a huge difference. I doubt I would fiddle with the aperture within a take anywhere.

 

No, this does not work well at all with video. The camera will decide willy nilly when to change the ISO and those changes will be evident in the video and look like crap. Not a solution at all.