Any chance of adding the video back!?

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

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.

Even if they were to add video back, I don't the Leica would ever become anything other than primarly a stills camera. It's just a useful feature to have, and need not compromise anything else. If you have live view, you've already done most of the work. Nobody batted an eyelid when dSLRs acquired video capability, something they aren't terribly suited to but which turned out to be very useful to a subset of users. But for some reason, when the M240 designers made the logical choice to include it, traditionalists (or neo-tranditionalists) were unhappy, even though it amounted to little more than a discreet button and a couple of extra menu entries. I don't expect many of the objectors were working professionals. If there are still any photojournalists out there like those we (or Wetzlar's marketing department) like to imagine are Leica users, I suspect they wouldn't mind having this option in case they needed to get a quick clip of a developing story.

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, waigx said:

Not sure how would the video work without Auto Focusing.

If aperture is wide-open, reasonable movements would cause the subject out of DoF.

If not, the video probably not that appealing except for some maybe landscape - just use a phone.

Manual focus pulling is the norm in film making as far as I know. I also had no trouble turning the focus ring on my M240.

[Punkrockemo]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

and need not compromise anything else. If you have live view, you've already done most of the work

I am not sure if this is still true, Video has evolved over the years and to implement the quality of video people expect these days may be a bit more complicated requiring additional chips etc. In addition video also requires sound.

Providing poor quality video option on an expensive system like the M wont please anyone and would likley draw more criticism than not implenting it at all.

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, Brancbūth said:

...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...

 

3 hours 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...

[DISCLAIMER] I could care less about video, have no desire for it either on the M or pretty much anywhere else after my phone.

There is a class of people, I count myself among them, who bought into the M for the quality and look generated by the optics, MF and RF be damned.  Price of entry, at least when I joined the fraternity in the pre-SL days. So I can sympathize with any folks out there who gravitate toward the visual style on offer and wish to utilize all sorts of M optics for filming. However, in this case, I find myself agreeing that other than convenience what exactly is the point of video in the context of an M?  I'm skeptical that the performance drop one experiences with some lenses when adapted is much of an issue, if at all, in this context. I therefore would agree that there are a number of better alternatives at and below this level of spend. Resurrecting it, particularly in light of all the complexity it would introduce, would feel at best out of place, at worst, little cheesy. 

In the context of an Mevf OTOH... 😀😀😉

[Anbaric]

2 hours ago, Punkrockemo said:

I am not sure if this is still true, Video has evolved over the years and to implement the quality of video people expect these days may be a bit more complicated requiring additional chips etc. In addition video also requires sound.

Providing poor quality video option on an expensive system like the M wont please anyone and would likley draw more criticism than not implenting it at all.

It's almost as if we expect less from a £7000 camera than we do from a £1000 camera; anyone buying an entry-level mirrorless system these days will expect high quality video as well as stills as a matter of course.

[cirke]

6 hours ago, Anbaric said:

It's almost as if we expect less from a £7000 camera than we do from a £1000 camera; anyone buying an entry-level mirrorless system these days will expect high quality video as well as stills as a matter of course.

anyone do not buy a M

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Anbaric said:

It's almost as if we expect less from a £7000 camera than we do from a £1000 camera;

While I know what you mean, that construction seems a bit inside-out. It is not so much what I expect - but what I desire.

In the phrase of Mies van der Rohe*, "Less is More." And I'm willing and eager to spend More to have Less Clutter in my gear (i.e. More).

https://www.minimalismmadesimple.com/home/17-reasons-why-less-is-more/

________________

*Ok, Ok! - Mies stole it from Robert Browning.

Edited November 9, 2021 by adan

[LocalHero1953]

12 hours ago, Brancbūth said:

I view the "M" system as a professionally viable still photography system, as it always has been

I can hear the same thing being said back at the dawn of time "I view the M system as a professionally viable analogue photography system, as it has always been". 
Tradition is a ball and chain attached to your ankle.

 

9 hours ago, Punkrockemo said:

Video has evolved over the years and to implement the quality of video people expect these days may be a bit more complicated requiring additional chips etc. In addition video also requires sound.

Providing poor quality video option on an expensive system like the M wont please anyone and would likley draw more criticism than not implenting it at all.

The quality of the video and sound from the M240 was excellent when used in reasonable light etc. What was missing was a lot of the functionality, formats, connectivity that a sophisticated video-capable camera can and does offer - which is not what I look for. The M240 was good for capturing clips, alongside stills, of children playing, talking heads, chance encounters in PJ etc.

Oddly enough, I don't remember that much criticism of the M240 for its inclusion of video until it was superseded by the M10. I think it was mainly accepted as a natural evolution of the M series. 

[pgk]

8 hours ago, Anbaric said:

It's almost as if we expect less from a £7000 camera than we do from a £1000 camera; anyone buying an entry-level mirrorless system these days will expect high quality video as well as stills as a matter of course.

I expect an M camera to fulfil its included functions very well indeed. Not have half-baked add ons 'because it can' have them included. Whilst some will no doubt go to great lengths to show that an M camera with video could be used well, it would remain a peripheral function and as such is unlikely ever  to be as well implemented as in many other cameras.

[ianman]

9 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.

Possibly. I would be suprised it it's "most" though. I was using film, had (and still have) a Nikon FM2 and M4-P. I wanted a digital M, but skipped the 8 because it did not have the features I wanted (full frame). The M9 had all I needed, so I got one and still use it.

9 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?

I'm not allergic to video or evf or ibis, etc. I just don't need it. If they do put all that in an M it's fine... as long as it doesn't get in the way of the primary function of the tool, taking pictures. If I wanted/needed the whole shebang I'd have gone for something else... in fact I did. In some curcumstanes I use my XPro-2 instead of the M as it's more suited.

As far as adding it to future Ms go, it doesn't sound likely. Here's what the M10 product manager (Jesko von Oeyhausen) and Global Director of Business Unit Photo (Stefan Daniel) said on the matter: (source: https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2017/02/the-leica-m10-a-discussion-with-stefan-daniel-and-jesko-von-oeynhausen/) 

Quote

And the decision to eliminate video? What was the thinking here?

Jesko: We talked a lot to our customers to find out what the essential requirements for the new generation were. And when we talked about video we found out that most of the customers said, “I don’t care.” Many costumers said “I do care, but I don’t want it.” And of course, there’s a certain group of costumers that really appreciate video and would miss it, but these are customers that would really want it working perfectly, with HDMI and more advanced features.

So therefore, we have the SL as an option for them. When we developed the M (Typ 240) we didn’t have an SL so we tried to reach a broad customer group, which we still can reach now. But with two different products, which makes sense from a product development standpoint.

 

And with the SL, you can still use M lenses for shooting video, if that’s the goal.

Stefan: Yes, of course.

 

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

it would remain a peripheral function and as such is unlikely ever  to be as well implemented as in many other cameras.

I am happy for it to remain a peripheral function, and for it to be implemented in an incomplete manner by the standards of some other cameras, while capable of producing clips of high quality in many practical circumstances. 

The add-on EVF adopts the same principles. It is a laughable attachment by the standard of the EVF is most other cameras, and spoils the look of the M, but it has a practical value. The rear screen live view is also an incomplete substitute for liveview in an EVF.

Those who don't want the add-on EVF can decline to buy it. Is that really the different from having video built in but ignorable? 

[pgk]

39 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I am happy for it to remain a peripheral function, and for it to be implemented in an incomplete manner by the standards of some other cameras, while capable of producing clips of high quality in many practical circumstances. 

The add-on EVF adopts the same principles. It is a laughable attachment by the standard of the EVF is most other cameras, and spoils the look of the M, but it has a practical value. The rear screen live view is also an incomplete substitute for liveview in an EVF.

Those who don't want the add-on EVF can decline to buy it. Is that really the different from having video built in but ignorable? 

I fully understand your points, but .....

..... does poor implementation really work in Leica's favour when marketing a 'highest quality' camera. By all acounts the add-on EVFs are as messy (not something I would ever use) as the original visoflex, and probably doomed to the same fate eventually. It really all depends on how Leica see marketing and selling the M range. In order to be different, rather than compete (on specification) I would suggest that less implemented really well, is better than more implemented poorly.

My suspicion is that despite current advertising Leica Ms are starting to slip further into the situation of being bought for what they are rather than their ability to fulfil their function as well as they could do. Which is a pity. That said, I am happily using my M cameras and lenses still but have reduced the number of lenses I own (due to lack of use) and I do use other cameras when needed. The Leicas are still, by far, the most enjoyable to use but they are not as versatile as others nor do they produce noticeably better photographs these days despite people's claims.

[LocalHero1953]

43 minutes ago, pgk said:

..... does poor implementation really work in Leica's favour when marketing a 'highest quality' camera

An interesting question. My immediate response is that "poor implementation" is too broad a condemnation: in the M240, I would have said it was implemented well within a limited range of functions An analogy is the pre-digital, pre-EVF situation where the M could only take stills with lenses of focal length between 28 and 135, at best. You would not use it for sports, distant wildlife or birds in flight, but within that range, the images could be as good as any. The M240 could take good video, as long as you did not mix it much with other video clips, colour grade it, or use it for professional applications outside (e.g.) photojournalism (my use was entirely social and occasional amateurish creative endeavours).

But if, as you suggest, people are buying Ms because they are "the highest quality" and have expectations of similar levels of functionality, then I suppose there is an argument for omitting a feature that would only cause disappointment, however ignorant their expectations. If that is the case then it will be me that will remain disappointed - and not part of the M system (beyond my recently acquired M4!)

Edited November 9, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[MikeMyers]

43 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

buying Ms because they are "the highest quality" and have expectations of similar levels of functionality

It's only my opinion, but I expect that if I do my part right, the Leica M will create and equally good result, within limitations.   If Leica were to offer the upcoming M11 as either the standard camera, with the features available in the M10, or the M11V which included video, and both were the same price, I would buy the standard version, no video.  

If I wanted video, I would insist on auto focus, and auto a lot of other things, which is obviously not what the Leica is about.  Getting poor quality video, that I could have done better with my phone, is going to change the way I feel about the camera, and even if I don't use video, the menu screens are going to be a lot more cluttered up.

49 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I suppose there is an argument for omitting a feature that would only cause disappointment,

I agree.  Either do it right, or don't do it at all.

[LocalHero1953]

20 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

If I wanted video, I would insist on auto focus, and auto a lot of other things, which is obviously not what the Leica is about.  Getting poor quality video, that I could have done better with my phone, is going to change the way I feel about the camera, and even if I don't use video, the menu screens are going to be a lot more cluttered up.

Well it's obviously up to you, but auto focus is definitely not something I want for video, and do not use for video on my SL2-S and Sigma fp. My understanding is that most serious video is with MF (though I'm sure AF is used by many).

I find the Sigma fp's menus more intuitive than Leica's. One aspect is that there is a mechanical slider to select video. Leave it on Photo, and you never see menu items to do with video. It can be done - if Leica was willing to look at how others deal with it.

Edited November 9, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[cirke]

3 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

One aspect is that there is a mechanical slider to select video. Leave it on Photo, and you never see menu items to do with video. It can be done - if Leica was willing to look at how others deal with it.

id like to see this on Leica's menu

[Tailwagger]

15 hours ago, Anbaric said:

It's almost as if we expect less from a £7000 camera than we do from a £1000 camera; anyone buying an entry-level mirrorless system these days will expect high quality video as well as stills as a matter of course.

Expectations can not reasonably be dictated by pricing; they are dictated by the stated and implicit design goals of the product in question.  If you pay a few million for a Bugatti Chiron, you don't expect to take your extended family on an off road tour up to your backwood's retreat.  That you could in any number of vehicles that cost 1/100th the price says nothing about whether or not the Chiron successfully accomplishes the purpose it was designed to fulfill.  To reach for the pinnacle of that brief, large swaths of common functionality found elsewhere are ignored as they interfere with achieving the specific performance targets. When those aims are of paramount importance to the buyer, if one's pockets are deep enough one accepts, tacitly or otherwise, the compromises made.  While the divisions might not be quite so extreme, the M's intent is not that of an A7C, just as the Chiron's isn't that of a RAV4. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tailwagger

[MikeMyers]

25 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Expectations can not reasonably be dictated by pricing;

Well, I have no problem with video and my M10, as the M10 wasn't made for video.

I know I don't "count", as I've got my own goofy ideas, but to be honest, comparing metering in the M10 and the metering in my Nikon D750 isn't even a contest.  Now that I've learned from @jaapvhow to make the best use of what the Leica provides, I accept it - but then I pick up my DSLR, with metering in the sensor, and soon to be even the shutter in the sensor, and using my M10 is more and more like metering in my M3 - with the Leicameter up on top.

I was taking high dynamic range photos with my M10 a month ago, processing them in PhotoLab 5, and getting complaints from the senior members of the forum that I was hurting myself by insisting on using the M10.  So, for a test, I switched back to the Nikon, and I was back to any type of metering I wanted, included "highlight weighted spot metering".  If you have time, check it out.  There is no way the M10 is going to compare, when it reflects some light from the shutter curtain onto a sensor, that covers just part of the image.  The Z9 does this even better, with stills, video, burst shooting, and any number of unbelievable ways (to me) that I never dreamed I would have in a camera.

I still want my M10 because it is relatively small, capable of creating excellent images most of the time, is quiet, doesn't scare off my "victims", and because I've been shooting with an M since the 1960's.  As a mechanical device, I'm sure the M11 will be of higher quality than the mass-produced Z9, but "mechanical" is being replace with "electronics" in so many ways.  

There is no way I can focus my M as quickly as the newest Nikons, even my D750, and the ability to "track" focus of things like eyes is flat out amazing to me.

 

My ultimate Leica - I'd like one that looks and feels like a Leica M, with the electronics and metering and lens coupling like the new Nikons, and I realize this means a whole new line of lenses from Leica, but that's what Nikon just did - the lens mount and lenses made for the Z9 are very different from all older Nikon lenses, and without an adapter, they are not interchangeable.  Leica could probably buy the sensor and electronics design from one of the Japanese firms they have worked with in the past.  The sales price would come down, as electronics are less expensive than mechanics.  I also guess a lot of people in this forum would prefer the "old" system to the new, but there are a lot of other people out there who might gobble up the new model, and those people (like me) who love the Fuji X100 series cameras could get a full-frame Leica in a modern body using modern lenses, just as they can with the new Nikon.  

(I love my M3, and my M8.2, and my M10.  For me, in so many ways, my D750 is a better camera for my type of photography.  See image below...)

OK, you can all put out a contract on me, for saying such things, but if it comes to spending $9,000ish for an M11 or $5,500 for a new Z9, or better yet a Z9s (for small) in a smaller body, I know which I would be buying.

 

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!

[jaapv]

Actually, metering is not a matter of the system used by the camera - yes, the likes of Nikon can make life easier by devising a system that can take the decision out of the hands of the photographer in quite a few circumstances with decent results, but in the end exposure is the photographer's domain, not the camera's. If you really want to be precise, you should not rely on any in-camera exposure metering, but use a hand-held spot and incident light meter. And know how to use it . Anyway, in this digital age with high-dynamic range sensors precise exposure has lost some of its importance, to be replaced by a need for post-processing skills.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

36 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

... There is no way the M10 is going to compare, when it reflects some light from the shutter curtain onto a sensor, that covers just part of the image...

You are aware that you have spot, central and multi-field metering modes available in live view? 

Regardless, certain scenes involving high dynamic range require that the photographer understands the nature of how his equipment responds in such scenarios and how to adapt to conditions to get the desired result. The following was a very difficult scene to capture. It was achieved by exposing left, EV set to -1.33 stops with the assumption that the necessary detail could be pull back in post.  The resulting "negative":

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!

After processing:

It's been twenty+ years since last I shot with a Nikon (D100), so I can't comment on whether or not such a scene would be handled more easily or not by a Z what have you. It wouldn't surprise me that an additional stop or two of DR would have make this particular shot easier to accomplish with less work on the back end. But either way and no matter the gear, it is the photographers responsibility to know the equipment and not tacitly accept its decision as his or her own.  And nowhere is this more true than with the M. It demands you stay involved in the decision making as its not going to make any for you. It assumes you are in control, know what you wish to achieve and it dutifully obeys without question. That's exactly what many of us love about it. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tailwagger