Jump to content

Who wants the M9 with movie capability?


rolu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Actually with a rangefinder there would be the advantage that focusing would be still possible contrary to a DSLR. If this function would replace the S mode I would not mind to find it on an M9 even though I prefer as little gimmicks as possible.

 

Regards

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

(T)rol(l)u?

 

Naw - just kidding! Actually I already have an M-to-micro-4/3rds adapter to use with a Panny GH-1 (once they become generally available and I upgrade my computer to handle AVCHD editing and the massive files sizes) for video, as well as compact SLR-type shooting (135 Tele-Elmar becomes a "270", 90 cron becomes a "180 f/2").

 

I like the idea of being able to shoot video with manual prime Leica-mount lenses - but would probably prefer the ttl viewing of the GH1 to an RF window or an external LCD. Plus, to do video right, you need mike jacks (and likely built-in stereo mikes as well), headphone jacks, accesory mounting capability, extra battery life/size. I think it would be hard to put GOOD video capability into the M without garbaging it up.

 

Maybe if they put all the "video-related" stuff into an add-on baseplate box, with pro XLR mike jacks, big battery(ies), and a direct connection for video feed from the camera (with output to a good EVF in the hot shoe). That would make it transparent to still shooters who don't want it.

 

Someone noted somewhere on this forum that Leica had trademarked the term "Leica-cine" earlier this year. Does that mean they are planning to eventually include video capability in their still cameras, or do separate cine-cameras, or just start a line of Leica lenses for use on Reds, Scarlets, Arriflexes, etc.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been in a holding pattern with my MP until the arrival of a fullframe digital M, so I will likely get an M9 if it materializes according to rumor. The addition of video capture would be nice, but for me it is not essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No interest. Do a M9 and do it well with "version 1" such that it a quality product, and retains or increases market share.

 

I bought my daughter a Flip that shoots in HD for US $200, and is simple to sync to a Windows or Mac computer. I personally feel it would be difficult for Leica to compete in this space (consumers) at a reasonable price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me it's the following:

 

1. Full-frame chip (36mm x 24mm)

2. 16-bit RAW computer files

3. Works without having to use IR-Cut filters for colour photography

 

If the new digital-m doesn't have these three things, then I'm passing (again).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest joewehry

I'd prefer that M does not stand for "Movie"

 

Most people I know who would buy a Leica-quality movie camera are professionals who want a dedicated device specific to their needs (audio, capture rate, etc.) in a design that could support hand-held movie capture.

 

If they bring out a Movie camera that could use M or R lenses (technically I don't know?) it would be a great bridge for the current customers, plus extend (return) the brand to the moving image market.

 

Leica excels at keeping designs simple and geared towards an outstanding result. Let's not have the M be ein Hansdampf in allen Gassen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO! If I want to do video I'll get a serious video camera. When I want to do serious still frame digital or film, I'll reach for my Leicas.

 

Leica once tried to make film movie cameras and wasn't very good at so why should they bother with video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I like the idea of being able to shoot video with manual prime Leica-mount lenses - but would probably prefer the ttl viewing of the GH1 to an RF window or an external LCD. Plus, to do video right, you need mike jacks (and likely built-in stereo mikes as well), headphone jacks, accesory mounting capability, extra battery life/size. I think it would be hard to put GOOD video capability into the M without garbaging it up.

...

 

I'm not sure, if this would garbage it up. I just bought a tiny C-Lux-3 for my companion and the video is astoundingly good. Why should this be worse with a 24 MP (if I derive it from the S2-sensor) M9? Canon claims to have full HD with the 5d2, which might be not too high a claim. (?)

 

I am definitely with you - and Steve -

Actually with a rangefinder there would be the advantage that focusing would be still possible contrary to a DSLR. ...

liking the idea of shooting video with manual (!!!) prime Leica lenses. So even with this feature the M will always be special.

I don't like the GH1 and don't want to carry another body as I want to shoot video only occasionally.

 

Does anyone have a clue, if video shooting is technically viable with the M. How do these tiny cameras work? Does it require autom. aperture control or is auto-iso sufficient?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, movie is nothing I would look for in an M. If I want to shoot high-quality movies with all it´s functionality which has to come with it (video making is quite different from photography), I would definitely go for a high quality video cam.

Why not build in a little lighter for the smokers?

No, no extravagancies of that sort in an M -sorry!

 

Regards

 

Patty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid Mode, Life View, Autofocus, and now Movie Mode. What next?

 

Sorry, but if you want an M9 for 5.000 € or more likely 6.000 € that can do do what any Point & Shoot for 300 € can do, the question arises why would want to pay that kind of money for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid Mode, Life View, Autofocus, and now Movie Mode. What next?

 

Sorry, but if you want an M9 for 5.000 € or more likely 6.000 € that can do do what any Point & Shoot for 300 € can do, the question arises why would want to pay that kind of money for it?

 

Maybe I don't get you:

 

Do you mean it is better to pay more and get less?

Explain this to the Leica-dealer - or the liquidator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but if you want an M9 for 5.000 € or more likely 6.000 € that can do do what any Point & Shoot for 300 € can do, the question arises why would want to pay that kind of money for it?
If the M9 had live view and movie mode in addition to the standard rangefinder mode of operation it would be more versatile.

 

1 - you could use it on a microscope/telescope etc.

2 - you could take macro shots using a simple extension ring

3 - you could make movies using a large sensor & prime optics

 

The optics would distinguish it from a $300 P&S, the rangefinder would still be there if we want the classic M ergonomics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like the simple extension tube for macro too. As far as video capability, I agree that I'd prefer an adapter that let me put Leica lenses on a Red Scarlet.

 

But this would be a few kilos more in weight and currency - isn't it 10 K USD for the Scarlet FF35 brain only? - w/out monitor, handle, battery, mount, ... Why not an Epic FF35 brain for only 33K ?

 

But apart from the price tag: The M stands for compactness:

 

" ... It was very compact and could be used always and at every location. Its handiness made possible pictures from every angle and so could find strange angles of view with interesting and arresting images. The camera was fast and could be used for the rapid recording of moving scenes. ..." (Erwin Puts, Des Pudels Kern)

Des Pudels Kern

 

Isn't this true also for video capture? - So why not have it in there?

 

You don't have to use it and can well use your RED. But I think many others would like to shoot some video from time to time.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...