Any chance of adding the video back!?

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

I really don't see why.

then the question is : how many M users want it ?

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I expect that Leica's next film camera will incorporate a 'Super 8' feature. Surely by now they must have realised how remiss it has been of them to have made stills cameras for nearly a century without any having any movie functionality? When they first introduced the M series they missed such an opportunity. It rather beggars belief that a film based stills camera won't shoot movies too ........

Surprising really - since Barnack used cinematography film. But I guess the operator's thumb couldn't take the stress of winding on at 24fps.

🙂

Edited November 8, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

Might have been slightly tricky to shove 400 feet of film into a stills camera without making it any bigger or more complex. Today, all of Leica's competitors can do the digital equivalent of this. But maybe M minimalism hasn't gone far enough, even with the M10-D. Why not limit the number of shots per media card to 36? It's what Oskar Barnack would have wanted!

Leica has only just got over the existential strain of ditching film for digital. We mustn't expect too much. Baby steps - ditch the base plate first.

[LocalHero1953]

17 minutes ago, cirke said:

then the question is : how many M users want it ?

Good question. And how many ex-users. Or potential future users.

[cirke]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Good question. And how many ex-users. Or potential future users.

Do you think video option is a feature that may attract new M users ? me not but I may be wrong

[fenykepesz]

more features, more complex, more big, more expensive, more error-prone...

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, fenykepesz said:

more features, more complex, more big, more expensive, more error-prone...

and more like any other brand

[LocalHero1953]

19 minutes ago, cirke said:

Do you think video option is a feature that may attract new M users ? me not but I may be wrong

I can only speak for myself. It is one feature I would look for to move back to an M. The other one is a silent shutter (i.e. electronic).

[Anbaric]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Surprising really - since Barnack used cinematography film. But I guess the operator's thumb couldn't take the stress of winding on at 24fps.

🙂

It's amazing what you can do with 8fps (and 200 rolls of film), if I dare post this in a Leica forum:

 

[pgk]

3 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Might have been slightly tricky to shove 400 feet of film into a stills camera without making it any bigger or more complex. Today, all of Leica's competitors can do the digital equivalent of this. But maybe M minimalism hasn't gone far enough, even with the M10-D. Why not limit the number of shots per media card to 36? It's what Oskar Barnack would have wanted!

Technology will overcome is the modern matra isn't it? And the 'competitors' don't compete with a rangefinder camera, so why try to get a rangefinder camera to compete with their offerings. 😁

[waigx]

10 minutes ago, Steven said:

I use video all the time with manual focus and M lenses on my SL2S, following kids running that are half my size or less. Why would it be more difficult on an M? 

Very cool if that works.

I was saying because I cannot even 100% focus accurately on a still subject photo, let alone videos.

Now talking about SL2S just reminds me M also misses image stabilization.

Edited November 8, 2021 by waigx

[Brancbūth]

I personally don't see how a video-capable "M" camera makes sense. I'm sure this point has been made before, and more eloquently, but it just doesn't seem to fit in with the "M" ethos, which is historically photography-centered. Leica offers other, more "comprehensive" systems with both phenomenal still and video capabilities. I'm definitely over-generalizing here, but it seems as though most who yearn for a video-proficient "M" camera simply want a camera-- just-- then decide on the M system due to aesthetics, but are dismayed that the system isn't feature-packed and video-capable. Its a system with heritage which is deeply rooted in still photography. I understand that this may come across as gate-keeping, purist, or elitist-- that is not where I'm coming from (or maybe is. I have my own unconscious biases), but it would be like going to culturally-authentic restaurant and being disappoint when a faithfully-executed dish doesn't adhere to personal preference. Maybe you'd prefer the addition cumin or fennel seed or whatever, but it doesn't belong in the dish. Maybe a bad analogy, but that's my view.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Brancbūth

[Anbaric]

7 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

Maybe you'd prefer the addition cumin or fennel seed or whatever, but it doesn't belong in the dish. Maybe a bad analogy, but that's my view.

This looks delicious:

 

[ianman]

22 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

I'm definitely over-generalizing here, but it seems as though most who yearn for a video-proficient "M" camera simply want a camera-- just-- then decide on the M system due to aesthetics, but are dismayed that the system isn't feature-packed and video-capable.

Due to aesthetics? Mmmmm. I wonder if everyone reads the specs before buying. I don’t know about “most” but there does seem to be a large proportion of users who continuously “upgrade” and then are unhappy with the body they have just bought and start the next thread “What I want from the next M”. The eternal cycle of the perpetually unsatisfied. And yet their dream camera exists, it’s just not an M.

[Brancbūth]

35 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

This looks delicious:

 

😂 And this is a fair point: can the addition of a "non-traditional" ingredient, or a total restructure, or a melding of cultural components elevate a dish? Absolutely. ; however, it becomes something removed from tradition, and should be designated something else entirely. It's not an M-- it's a Q, or an SL, or something else. I'm completely eluded by the logistics and technical requirements involved in adding video to the "M" system, but it makes more sense-- at least to me--  for Leica to focus on improvements to existing capabilities which adhere to "M" tradition (using fresher, higher-quality ingredients-- not different ingredients altogether) rather than run the risk of compromising the ethos.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Brancbūth

[Anbaric]

14 minutes ago, ianman said:

Due to aesthetics? Mmmmm. I wonder if everyone reads the specs before buying. I don’t know about “most” but there does seem to be a large proportion of users who continuously “upgrade” and then are unhappy with the body they have just bought and start the next thread “What I want from the next M”. The eternal cycle of the perpetually unsatisfied. And yet their dream camera exists, it’s just not an M.

I suspect that, even after 15 years of digital Ms, most users started out with film Leicas. They already have a set of lenses, and don't want any old camera, they want a Leica so they can carry on much as before but with the convenience of digital. An interesting question is whether those most allergic to video are traditional film users who are set in their ways and want nothing to do with the cinematograph, or are they perhaps younger digital natives (I hesitate to use the term 'hipsters') seeking out the rangefinder for its Purity of Essence?

[pgk]

52 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

I personally don't see how a video-capable "M" camera makes sense.

I think it depends on what you consider the M camera actually is. If you consider it to be a 'profesionally' viable system camera which is very highly capable if used within its operating envelope, then I can only see video being viable if it too meets this criteria. This does mean offering as many video features/control as are required by professional film makers. Anything less consigns the M to just being an amateurish, do-it-all but not overly proficiently, camera. I'm firmly in the camp that believes that lfor the M ess is more. Make the M work as well as possible as a high quality still camera - retain its iconic status without diluting it by over adding features. 

[LocalHero1953]

If the point of an M, its USP, the thing that would be most missed, and would kill it if it wasn't present, is its tradition, then I will wave it goodbye as the M sails away without me and the others who would prefer it to be both the embodiment of Das Wesentliche and a modern, evolving, technically advanced* device for taking photographs (which for me includes the ability to take video clips in parallel). The lessons learned from a long tradition of design make a camera that helps you take better photographs; tradition for its own sake does not - that's just for marketing.

 

* Technically advanced does not have to mean complicated, or headline specs like megapixels - it just means that the designer has used all technology they need (and no more) to make it deliver the best photographs the photographer is talented enough to take. Leica knows how to do that - IMO most other brands fall short.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

6 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

An interesting question is whether those most allergic to video are traditional film users who are set in their ways and want nothing to do with the cinematograph, or are they perhaps younger digital natives (I hesitate to use the term 'hipsters') seeking out the rangefinder for its Purity of Essence?

Personally speaking, I've used digital stlls cameras for video and am well aware of their capabilities and drawbacks. There are highly effective video shooting stills cameras and there are also very good video cameras. Many have a large number of after-market accessories for video use enhancement. I don't see the M 'competing' against either myself so I question why it should feature video at all.

[Brancbūth]

 

6 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

I suspect that, even after 15 years of digital Ms, most users started out with film Leicas. They already have a set of lenses, and don't want any old camera, they want a Leica so they can carry on much as before but with the convenience of digital. An interesting question is whether those most allergic to video are traditional film users who are set in their ways and want nothing to do with the cinematograph, or are they perhaps younger digital natives (I hesitate to use the term 'hipsters') seeking out the rangefinder for its Purity of Essence?

I think it's a bit of both, but I don't think that most stringent "''M' purists" are "allergic to video." I'm certainly not. The "M" is a still camera. I can't think of any distinguishing feature inherent in the "M" system that would be advantageous in video work. The rangefinder? Not really. Maybe I'm personally concerned that, were Leica to solidify video as a permanent feature in the M system-- and do it right-- they would have to compromise on some of the things that make the M such phenomenal still-camera system. And why, when there already exists a great video-capable system in their lineup? I don't necessarily believe that things should be done just because they can be done, and adding a video-capable "M" is an example.

1 minute ago, pgk said:

I think it depends on what you consider the M camera actually is. If you consider it to be a 'profesionally' viable system camera which is very highly capable if used within its operating envelope, then I can only see video being viable if it too meets this criteria. This does mean offering as many video features/control as are required by professional film makers. Anything less consigns the M to just being an amateurish, do-it-all but not overly proficiently, camera. I'm firmly in the camp that believes that lfor the M ess is more. Make the M work as well as possible as a high quality still camera - retain its iconic status without diluting it by over adding features. 

Absolutely. Speaking for myself (offering anecdotes probably isn't very productive), I view the "M" system as a professionally viable still photography system, as it always has been. Alternatively, I view the SL system, for example, as a professionally viable "swiss army knife" for a variety of commercial work, including video. I'm an agreement that "'less is more" with the M system, and I believe that's why so many professional photographers have gravitated toward it. Leica offers great alternatives for those who want more.