M10? - Sorry, no!

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

But you assume it would end there and everyone would be happy.

I would never assume that. But I would be a little happier that's all.

[cookedart]

Yeah, but the does the M240 shoot in Super 35 format? If it does, I didn't realize that and if it doesn't then there isn't a lot of point in using a PL adapter as almost all lenses in PL mount are Super 35 or smaller format, and even the few that are FF 35mm why would you use such a lens with such limited video on the M240. Seems like a non-starter to me.

PL mount lenses are not the only lenses with declicked apertures. Also, many prefer the VistaVision sized full frame sensor to the S35 sensor for the same reason photographers like Full Frame over cropped. The M240 is not an ideal video camera for so many reasons, but not because it isn't S35.

[digitalfx]

PL mount lenses are not the only lenses with declicked apertures. Also, many prefer the VistaVision sized full frame sensor to the S35 sensor for the same reason photographers like Full Frame over cropped. The M240 is not an ideal video camera for so many reasons, but not because it isn't S35.

 

 

As I posted earlier you can de-click any lens. I have a set of Leica R lenses that are de-clicked...and the M lenses can be de-clicked too.

 

Nobody suggest the M240 was ideal, its actually quite the opposite...but the ideal camera is the camera that is with you....and thats why we are discussing this

And the M has so much potential...the issue is Leica has limited experience with video.

 

RE: Many prefer VV

There is only a handful of VV cinema cameras on the market and the issue is lack of lenses to support this format. 5 years from now maybe...but today its all about S35.

We have a 8K Vista Vision cinema camera coming...but will need all new lenses. 

[Steve Spencer]

PL mount lenses are not the only lenses with declicked apertures. Also, many prefer the VistaVision sized full frame sensor to the S35 sensor for the same reason photographers like Full Frame over cropped. The M240 is not an ideal video camera for so many reasons, but not because it isn't S35.

 

I never said PL mount lenses are the only declicked lenses. I own several declicked lenses that are not PL mount, so I know very well that PL lenses aren't the only one's that are declicked, but there are many quality PL mount lenses that are declicked. Yes, VistaVision is a great format and I see why people prefer it--I do too--but Super 35 is also a very nice format. I shoot both formats. I totally agree that there are many reasons the M240 is not ideal for video, but I do think that one of those reasons is that its sensor does not work well with FF video.

[Steve Spencer]

I want to correct something that i said yesterday that was wrong. Leica has made M-mount lenses that will be very capable for video. They were announced at Photokina in the Fall and you can order them here:

 

http://cw-sonderoptic.com/leica-m-0-8/

 

They are quite capable for video and very fast. Summilux 21,24,28, & 35 are available as well as the 50 Noct. They aren't cheap, but of course none of these lenses are cheap without the Cine housing. The mark up for making then video lenses varies from about $2,000 to $4,000 or so. Which is about typical for Cine lenses. 

 

I think these lenses are significant because they do suggest that the M mount may be used for video more in the future. I think it could be taken as one piece of evidence that we may see a version of the M that is quite capable for video. These lenses might be an excellent option for people using the SL for video as well. 

[digitalfx]

I want to correct something that i said yesterday that was wrong. Leica has made M-mount lenses that will be very capable for video. They were announced at Photokina in the Fall and you can order them here:

 

http://cw-sonderoptic.com/leica-m-0-8/

 

They are quite capable for video and very fast. Summilux 21,24,28, & 35 are available as well as the 50 Noct. They aren't cheap, but of course none of these lenses are cheap without the Cine housing. The mark up for making then video lenses varies from about $2,000 to $4,000 or so. Which is about typical for Cine lenses. 

 

I think these lenses are significant because they do suggest that the M mount may be used for video more in the future. I think it could be taken as one piece of evidence that we may see a version of the M that is quite capable for video. These lenses might be an excellent option for people using the SL for video as well. 

 

Im not sure how these are suddenly "quite capable for video"

 

These are the exact same lenses we use, only they de-clicked them and added focus gears...otherwise they are no different.

Nothing significant here and nothing that makes them quite capable for video...they have the exact same flaws, CA, short focus throws, designed for m sensor, etc.

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FYI-

These are the exact same lenses we use, only they de-clicked them and added focus gears...otherwise they are no different.

Nothing significant here.

 

Well, you and I differ on the importance of those gears and the declicked apertures. I think the changes are significant. I do wish they would have used a common filter thread and a common diameter for the housing, but you could adapt them all easily enough for use with a matte box and I suppose they wanted to keep the size as small as possible. Just as I would much rather use Zeiss CP.2 lenses than Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 lenses, I would rather use these lenses than standard M lenses, but the cost difference is not insignificant. I can understand why people would want these lenses, but also why people would try to use the standard M lenses. Regardless, I think they do say something about Leica's commitment to the M mount for video. 

[digitalfx]

Well, you and I differ on the importance of those gears and the declicked apertures. I think the changes are significant. I do wish they would have used a common filter thread and a common diameter for the housing, but you could adapt them all easily enough for use with a matte box and I suppose they wanted to keep the size as small as possible. Just as I would much rather use Zeiss CP.2 lenses than Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 lenses, I would rather use these lenses than standard M lenses, but the cost difference is not insignificant. I can understand why people would want these lenses, but also why people would try to use the standard M lenses. Regardless, I think they do say something about Leica's commitment to the M mount for video. 

 

 

I have experience using them on several digital cinema cameras.

declicking the iris changes NOTHING in regards to all the other issues using these lenses! The properties of the lens remain, and the fact is M lenses are designed for an M camera....not cinema use.

 

They are cool lens and can offer an interesting look...ive used them extensively for that. Beyond that they are not ideal and declicking the iris does only one thing. It declicks the iris.

 

If Leica added a well executed video mode to the M body, these would be excellent tools...but at over $2k each to de-click the iris is just silly. You can get the same results using a normal M lens if you know what you are doing. 

 

FYI- I de-clicked the iris and changed the mount myself (cost less than $200) on these R lenses and used them for many years. I first began using M and R lenses on cinema cameras nearly 10 years ago. I know a little bit about this topic.

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!

[Steve Spencer]

With all due respect I am a cinematographer and have used every Leica lens on a variety of cinema cameras. I have experience using them.

declicking the iris changes NOTHING in regards to all the other issues using these lenses! The properties of the lens remain, and the fact is M lenses are designed for an M camera....not cinema use.

 

They are cool lens and can offer an interesting look...ive used them extensively for that. Beyond that they are not ideal and declicking the iris does only one thing. It declicks the iris.

 

If Leica added a well executed video mode to the M body, these would be excellent tools...but at over $2k each to de-click the iris is just silly. You can get the same results using a normal M lens if you know what you are doing.

 

With all due respect that is a pretty condescending attitude and totally ignored what I said. I did not argue that the new housings change anything about the optical properties of the lenses. It of course does not. I do think these mechanical changes are more significant for my usage than you do--I do change aperture mid shot from time to time and I like having that flexibility very much. I also like to be able to use a follow focus and this is especially true with a short focus throw like on these lenses. That might not matter to you, but no matter how experienced you are you can't speak to my usage, and to call on such experience as if it trumps my needs and usage is a poor argument. I agree that the price for the housing is high, but it is also in line with what other manufacturers charge for similar housings (see Zeiss). You may call it silly, and I don't doubt it would be for you, but evidently there is a market for it, which suggests that more people than just me agree there is at least some value in having such a housing.

[digitalfx]

 I agree that the price for the housing is high, but it is also in line with what other manufacturers charge for similar housings (see Zeiss). 

 

 

I think you are misinformed...there is no "housing" on these lenses. It is the exact same lens. They have simply de-clicked the iris and added a gear. You could do this yourself for a few hundred dollars and thats my point. Paying $3000 on average per lens to de-click the iris is just absurd.

[BerndReini]

I think you guys got yourselves caught in an internet argument full of misunderstandings that stem from forum communication. If we all sat down and had a cup of coffee together, we would probably all agree on a lot more than we would disagree on. My M lenses will never become my primary cine lenses, which is why I wouldn't de-click or rehouse them, but I can see how people who use more compact camera systems than me would be interested in this.

[digitalfx]

I think you guys got yourselves caught in an internet argument full of misunderstandings that stem from forum communication. If we all sat down and had a cup of coffee together, we would probably all agree on a lot more than we would disagree on. My M lenses will never become my primary cine lenses, which is why I wouldn't de-click or rehouse them, but I can see how people who use more compact camera systems than me would be interested in this.

 

 

LOL...yes I agree...its tough explaining this on a forum, a simple conversation and we would all agree...I think to a certain extent we are both saying the exact same thing.

I love my M lenses and have used them, but they are not ideal on other cameras.

Where they have tremendous value is on an M where they belong. If Leica would hire a team to execute proper video on the M...we could have a seriously bad ass tool.

[Steve Spencer]

LOL...yes I agree...its tough explaining this on a forum, a simple conversation and we would all agree...I think to a certain extent we are both saying the exact same thing.

I love my M lenses and have used them, but they are not ideal on other cameras.

Where they have tremendous value is on an M where they belong. If Leica would hire a team to execute proper video on the M...we could have a seriously bad ass tool.

 

I agree too and especially with the last part about Leica executing proper video on the M. I thought with the M10, that was just not going to happen, but the arguments here by some that Leica may be splitting the M line to a still only model (M10) and a model that does execute video properly, and the fact they have developed these new lenses that are declicked and have focus gears suggests to me video is not dead on the M platform. By the way, it may not be as easy as you think to get regular M lenses declicked. I had an email exchange with Matt Duclos, who I have had modify a number of my lenses, about modifying M lenses with a declicked aperture. He said that because the aperture was at the front of the lens that he wouldn't touch this job. Noting that in order to declick the aperture he would need to take all the elements out of the lens and it would be hard to make sure the lens was reassembled properly. He said with money anything could be done, but that for him to take on this task (which he didn't want to do) he would have to charge well in excess of $1,000. Now you may be able to get someone to do it cheaper, and you might even try to do it yourself, but I think in those instances you get what you pay for, and if you did you might want to factor in a trip to Leica for recalibration and also be certain that they would recalibrate a lens that has been altered in that way.

[patashnik]

Well, I have tried to sell my Canon 1Ds III.  But then I have to accept a much lower price than much cheaper Canon with video capability.  Because the buyers ' want video'...

 

​As such, Leica M (240) is a pretty unique camera...    I should keep it!

How old is the 1Ds III by now? Ten years? Hardly scientific proof. Price it properly and it should sell, video or not. 

[Olsen]

I didn't say video was bad on the M240 I said it was poor but I am comparing the M240 video to that of the Sony A7RMKII I bought recently and I am sorry but the M240 is poor in comparison.

 

Leica glass is the best. I can't comprehend paying £5500 for a camera body and then using inferior glass does this not defeat the object of what the Leica M package can do.

 

Leica glas is best.  Just as long as Leica provides their cameras with software corrections - designed to make only the Leica lenses perform good.

[adli]

 I would love to have a slimmer M-body.  It confirms that Leica listens to customers having this fixed.  I haven't quite caught up with what Leica calls a 'better sensor'.  But it sounds good.   Better quality of high ISO settings is great.

 

​But still I don't find the improvements worth the cost of up-grading.  Due to:

 

​- Video is a must on today's cameras.  A camera without it belong to the past.  I use video 'a little' when on holiday and as a tourist.  The video and the still camera is then 'in the same box'.  Compact and convenient.  When buying a Leica we always have to prepare ourselves for selling it again.  It's the young people buying 2.hand Leicas today.  They will insist on having video included.  No way I am going to buy a camera I will have problems selling to young people of today.

 

​- Battery capacity is marginal on the M(240) and really 'bad' compared to competition.  Reducing it is going to create problems.  This must be solved!  What about having a big battery as an 'block add-on' at the bottom of the camera?  As the motors were attached on the analogue M's?

 

​- How good is a 'much better sensor'?  So good that no software created lens adjustments have to be made?  Can we use other brand lenses, like Zeiss and Voigtländer, without having purple egdes?

 

Thought you were banned from this forum for trolling?

[IkarusJohn]

@ Peter H: I guess I did.

 

Two Ms, one with a full feature set, the other without. Eventually the underlying technology (sensor, processor, buffer) will be the same in both, so you just pays your money and takes your choice.

 

...

 

 

That, Andy, is the $64k question.

 

What's different here is that Leica generally releases its flagship camera, then variants (okay, over recent history).  Fir the M9, then the Titanium version, the M9P and the Monochrom.  M(240), then in random order the Monochrom, the simplified M(262), the M-P, the M60, the M-D ... apart from removing the red dot, sapphire glass and a better processor, none of these cameras improved on the technology in the original release.

 

You may be right, but I have a strong suspicion that the M10 is Leica's idea of where they want the M series to go.  There may be an M10P (just to piss everyone off), there will almost certainly be an M10M, M10-D? Not so sure.  M10(video/USB tethered)?  I'd be very surprised.  That is what the SL is for.

 

An M10E (for electronic), unconstrained by the purity of the M10?  Who knows.  Frankly, I think it is a good idea, provided they retain the M mount and M lenses and they ensure that what they deliver is the best quality within those constraints.  While there are Leica devotees who will accept whatever they are offered with a red dot, that red dot carries a huge premium for second rate rebadged EVFs and crappy video.  If they release such a camera, it's going to have to be at least as good as the SL, as Peter has observed on a number of occasions.

[IkarusJohn]

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.

 

 

Peter, surely the argument swirling around you about lighting, aperture stops, focus thrown, 24fps and all the other technical detail is the clearest example of why Leica backed out of video on the M camera?  They started to develop the SL in 2012, and I'm pretty sure they learnt a lot more about video over those years than they did in the years 2009-2012 when they developed the M(240).

 

Sure, this is the first time Leica seems to have included a new feature (video) in an M model and then dropped it in the next model.  Yes, I think we can all understand those who are disappointed at something being removed; but every time I think to myself that I must explore video on my SL (which is far more video capable), I find it daunting.  The M is suppose to be the pinnacle of stills photography - the very best lenses, the best coupled rangefinder (ignore the oxymoron), the best sensor (no, Leica doesn't think 50MP is a good idea in an M body under current technology), all expressed in the essence of photography.

 

Video was a rabbit hole.

[adan]

Sure, this is the first time Leica seems to have included a new feature (video) in an M model and then dropped it in the next model.

 

Hmmm - they included built-in ttl ambient-light metering with the M5 and CL in 1971/73, and then dropped it in the "next model" - the M4-2. And the model after that, the M4-P.

 

Took 11 years to reintroduce it in the M6.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

Hmmm - they included built-in ttl ambient-light metering with the M5 and CL in 1971/73, and then dropped it in the "next model" - the M4-2. And the model after that, the M4-P.

 

Took 11 years to reintroduce it in the M6.

 

As soon as I typed that, this occurred to me.

 

Do you think it is apposite?  Metering, particularly with colour transparencies, had become critical.  Yep, dropped with the M-A.  Video?  I'm not so sure it is the same thing, but I take your point.