Micro Four Thirds & Leica M Mount [Archive]

pizzahut88

08-11-2008, 06:14

My personal feeling is that people are way over-thinking this. If Leica was involved we would have heard about it. At the most they may make some of their zoom SLR lenses that they make for Panasonic.

Olympus and, to a lesser extent, Panasonic make relatively cheap, plastic cameras. I believe this mount is being developed so they can make even smaller and possibly cheaper cameras for people who don't want to carry an SLR system.

The notion that they are developing a body that isn't cheap and plastic is fairly unlikely and I doubt most Leica lovers would be happy with the build of them.

Oh, I am sure these body will be plasticky alright.
Nothing like the Leica M8 craftmanship . . .
but if it's fun to use, what not?

Plastic or brass or magnesium alloy or copper silumin
the most important thing is that we have more options, and affordable ones.

infrequent

08-11-2008, 06:17

still if leica was in anyway involved / interested, they would have been mentioned.

Both of Panasonic DSLR bodies (DMC-L10 & DMC-L1) had a Leica Kit lens. It's highly likely Leica will help out again.

Prosaic

08-11-2008, 06:17

My personal feeling is that people are way over-thinking this. If Leica was involved we would have heard about it. At the most they may make some of their zoom SLR lenses that they make for Panasonic.

Doesnt Leica offer a digital 4/3 camera?

The notion that they are developing a body that isn't cheap and plastic is fairly unlikely and I doubt most Leica lovers would be happy with the build of them.

No matter if plastic or not, this will be a "M-compatible" (adapters) digital camera far cheaper than the M8 or the collectable RD-1. Will make the use of Canon FD or Minolta MD glass possible as well.

Ray Nalley

08-11-2008, 06:30

If adaptable, wouldn't it be a telephoto camera with most existing M mount lenses?

photomoof

08-11-2008, 06:30

infrequent

08-11-2008, 06:42

@photomoof - how is an EVF diff from your standard VF?

photomoof

08-11-2008, 07:10

@photomoof - how is an EVF diff from your standard VF?

EVF has come to mean a small viewfinder of the type currently found in video cameras, and a few still cameras such as the new high speed Casio and the LEICA DIGILUX 2, rather than the more common LCD viewfinders found on the back ofmost all point-n-shoot cameras, which do not allow your eye to be against the back of the camera.

e.g. An EVF emulates an optical viewfinder in its function and use. The issue is the resolution of such a small screen. In a nutshell, a viewfinder that you can put your eye up to.

They do have advantages especially in low light, where an optical VF would become very dark, they are still quite bright. My main complaint with the Digilux was the image was just to garish, and DOF was hard for me to estimate due to the resolution restrictions.

ZeissFan

08-11-2008, 07:22

One thing to remember is that if you want to put a rangefinder lens on a highly automated camera, which covers most digital cameras, then you have to remember that rangefinder lenses don't have auto-aperture mechanisms.

That might meant that you might need some adjustments to the metering system.

The photographer also might want to focus at open aperture and then close down to the working aperture just before taking the photo, unless the photographer is one of those "can only shoot at full aperture all of the time." That in itself could pose problems, because you would need to take the ISO down to a reasonable level, and it seems that the starting ISO for many DSLRs is 200. However, it's premature to discuss that. And you can always use some ND filters, which would make focusing manually a bit more difficult.

ALSO, focusing manually with an electronic viewfinder isn't nearly as good as focusing with a real optical viewfinder (SLR or rangefinder).

mabelsound

08-11-2008, 07:31

ALSO, focusing manually with an electronic viewfinder isn't nearly as good as focusing with a real optical viewfinder (SLR or rangefinder).

A focus confirm beep could go a long way toward remedying that, on such a camera.

Ray Nalley

08-11-2008, 07:33

A focus confirm beep could go a long way toward remedying that, on such a camera.

But at that point it's no longer a manual rangefinder, and who would want that?

aizan

08-11-2008, 07:50

i wouldn't mind a rolleiflex-type hood going over one of those high res nikon lcds...just thinking out loud.

mabelsound

08-11-2008, 07:58

But at that point it's no longer a manual rangefinder, and who would want that?

Hell, I would! It's just another way of getting pictures. I don't think this thing will ever be anything like a manual rangefinder, personally. more like a Sigma DP1 with interchangeable lenses.

What I really want is a digital bessa, to be honest. But I don't know if that's ever going to happen.

jaapv

08-11-2008, 09:29

Hell, I would! It's just another way of getting pictures. I don't think this thing will ever be anything like a manual rangefinder, personally. more like a Sigma DP1 with interchangeable lenses.

What I really want is a digital bessa, to be honest. But I don't know if that's ever going to happen.
Well, what is wrong with an RD1 then? That IS a digital Bessa.....

POINT OF VIEW

08-11-2008, 11:22

I am totally intrigue by this new Micro Four Thirds ("MFT") standard, and no doubt this is in fact the closest thing to a digital RF.

I've a hunch that this could be big . . .
(1) Leica is involved for sure, and we should have some Leica MFT lenses coming,
(2) M-Mount lenses might be usable due to the shorter flange back distance,

Questions I've concern this standard:
(1) this MFT mount will compete directly for existing M users, how will Leica balance the two systems? If one is good and equally small, why buy the other?
(2) the product page is now ready but blank

http://www.four-thirds.org/jp/microft/mft_product.html

And that means something nice should appear soon enough.

Discuss.

Cheeers,
Manfred

Why is this thread in a RF form? Or more to the point what does any of this have to do with the M8?

dazedgonebye

08-11-2008, 11:27

Why is this thread in a RF form? Or more to the point what does any of this have to do with the M8?

We frequently cover cameras in this forum that are not RF because the members find them intersting.
As for the M8 connection, since Leica has, in the past, worked with Panny, it's not unreasonable to speculate on the future of Leica RFs in context of the m3/4rds format.

photomoof

08-11-2008, 11:28

Why is this thread in a RF form? Or more to the point what does any of this have to do with the M8?

it is discussion about what types of bodies could be designed to work with existing Leica lenses?

A discussion about what a modern digital body might look like?

Obviously there is interest.

POINT OF VIEW

08-11-2008, 11:50

We frequently cover cameras in this forum that are not RF because the members find them intersting.
As for the M8 connection, since Leica has, in the past, worked with Panny, it's not unreasonable to speculate on the future of Leica RFs in context of the m3/4rds format.

There are hundreds of automated cameras available in the market place. A RF camera by nature is a manual functioning camera. That is why the majority of RF shooters buy them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody can’ understand that. If you want a camera that has auto this and that , the world is full of them. In short, I don’t see any reason to turn the M8 into a DLSR or a PS.

dazedgonebye

08-11-2008, 11:53

There are hundreds of automated cameras available in the market place. A RF camera by nature is a manual functioning camera. That is why the majority of RF shooters buy them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody can’ understand that. If you want a camera that has auto this and that , the world is full of them. In short, I don’t see any reason to turn the M8 into a DLSR or a PS.

Ok...were you furthering the point that we shouldn't discuss m4/3rds here?
:confused:

I think a majority of RF shooters are not exclusively RF shooters and are open to discussion of all sorts of possibilities.

CameraQuest

08-11-2008, 11:57

There are hundreds of automated cameras available in the market place. A RF camera by nature is a manual functioning camera. That is why the majority of RF shooters buy them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody can’ understand that. If you want a camera that has auto this and that , the world is full of them. In short, I don’t see any reason to turn the M8 into a DLSR or a PS.

the key speculation at RFF on the Micro 4/3 system is whether or not Leica (and possibly others as well) will bring out a digital RF using the new mount. behind the scenes, there does seem a possibility of that.

Stephen

Ray Nalley

08-11-2008, 12:03

Which would demand a new line of lenses. That wouldn't be bad thinking on Leica's part, because everyone would have to buy new lenses.

POINT OF VIEW

08-11-2008, 12:16

Ok...were you furthering the point that we shouldn't discuss m4/3rds here?
:confused:

I think a majority of RF shooters are not exclusively RF shooters and are open to discussion of all sorts of possibilities.

I did not say RF ers are exclusive RF ers. I did ask what does a 4/3rds sys. have to do with a M8?
The 4/3rds glass has nothing to do with world class, M Leica glass. I hope that the M8 will stay a camera that offers a mount for M glass and M glass only. Regarding this subject, in RF forums there is a thread titled
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=27.
In that thread there are all sorts of conversations with folks that would like cheap DRF camera.

photomoof

08-11-2008, 12:18

There are hundreds of automated cameras available in the market place. A RF camera by nature is a manual functioning camera. That is why the majority of RF shooters buy them.

SLR cameras are also "by nature" manual function cameras, but certainly many RF cameras as well as SLRs began to feature auto exposure as part of the system as they evolved. Currently Leica sells both auto exposure and manual exposure cameras, but the auto exposure cameras far outnumber their pure manual ones.

The only auto-focus rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses was the Contax G2, but Leica would have probably built on if they had had the resources.

The line between a manual focus rangefinder and a live view camera may be quite blurred in the future.

Users want control, how they achieve that control over focus and exposure is a personal choice, but among new rangefinder buyers (as opposed to used buyers) the majority happily buy an auto exposure camera.

One thing is for sure, only Nikon has built a totally manual rangefinder camera, with no electronics during the 21st century.

Nikon's 12,000 rangefinder cameras built since 2000, are the only camera offering a total mechanical experience -- without a battery in sight.

georgef

08-11-2008, 12:27

georgef

08-11-2008, 12:34

But at that point it's no longer a manual rangefinder, and who would want that?

who would want what?...a small body with a very good sensor (that is the asumption anyway) that takes the great CV, ZEISS and LEICA glass for a fraction of the price of the M8? Me, me me!:D.
...oh yeah, that also takes full 4/3s lenses including zooms? someone may call it an evolutionary step...hmmm:rolleyes:

Ray Nalley

08-11-2008, 12:50

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If it is 4/3's, wouldn't most of the great Leica glass become telephoto lenses?

POINT OF VIEW

08-11-2008, 12:50

who would want what?...a small body with a very good sensor (that is the asumption anyway) that takes the great CV, ZEISS and LEICA glass for a fraction of the price of the M8? Me, me me!:D.
...oh yeah, that also takes full 4/3s lenses including zooms? someone may call it an evolutionary step...hmmm:rolleyes:

Actually, I would call it a cheap small DLSR Blasto 4000.

photomoof

08-11-2008, 12:56

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If it is 4/3's, wouldn't most of the great Leica glass become telephoto lenses?

Not if it was put into new mounts and reformulated for 4/3rds. Leica would get to sell some new glass, not just build a body for existing glass.

jky

08-11-2008, 12:57

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If it is 4/3's, wouldn't most of the great Leica glass become telephoto lenses?

Ahh my thoughts exactly - it'll still be X2 crop rendering everyone's 35mm to a 70mm FOV wouldn't it? I really like the Oly E420 but what put me off was the crop factor and the tiny VF.

ZeissFan

08-11-2008, 13:00

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If it is 4/3's, wouldn't most of the great Leica glass become telephoto lenses?

Yes, you're correct. Those have a 2x factor. So you would need a superwide 21mm lens just to get a normal field of view.

It's nice to dream, but using existing M-mount lenses on a Micro Four-Thirds system is an idea that doesn't make sense from a number of viewpoints.

However, a new line of Panasonic-made Leica-branded lenses for that format does make sense and could be quite exciting.

dazedgonebye

08-11-2008, 13:02

Yes, you're correct. Those have a 2x factor. So you would need a superwide 21mm lens just to get a normal field of view.

It's nice to dream, but using existing M-mount lenses on a Micro Four-Thirds system is an idea that doesn't make sense from a number of viewpoints.

However, a new line of Panasonic-made Leica-branded lenses for that format does make sense and could be quite exciting.

A fast 35 or 40mm in m-mount might still make an interesting lens in m4/3rds. Mostly though, we'll have to hope Oly comes out with some fast primes to make this a system that serves some of the same functionality as the sort of DRF many of us would like to have.

mabelsound

08-11-2008, 13:05

Well, what is wrong with an RD1 then? That IS a digital Bessa.....

Nothing at all...in fact, I think about buying one pretty much every day. But I think I'm going to wait until after Photokina to see if there will be a new M-mount DRF, with a higher-resolution sensor. If there is, and it's less than $2000, I'll save up for that. If there is, and it's more than $2000, I'll watch the R-D1 market collapse and then buy one for a thousand bucks.

How's that for a plan!

tmfabian

08-11-2008, 13:11

4/3's format is useless to me. I don't want a sensor that crops my EFL even more than it already is.

I thought 4/3's was a half baked attempt to standardize the crop factor back when full frame was something that was hard to produce not this wonderful idea they're claiming it to be.

I vote no thank you.

tomasis

08-11-2008, 13:36

georgef

08-11-2008, 14:16

Actually, I would call it a cheap small DLSR Blasto 4000.

Isn't this assumption that smaller and simpler equals cheaper what makes the M8 seem overpriced to DSLR users?

By the way, the diagram I saw has no mirror, so I guess you mean a "DSL blasto 4000" LOL

jky

08-11-2008, 14:29

If one wants fov 50mm. so one has to buy 24mm 2.8 which are generally expensive. So you cannot have 50 fov at f1.4 :)

Right... and if you're a 35mm FOV user then you'll need roughly a 18mm focal length. Can't isolate a subject with that unless you're within arm's length. Nevertheless, it'll be interesting what comes out of this...

Al Patterson

08-11-2008, 14:38

This is not a MF rangefinder, this is not going to be a camera built to take Leica manual lenses (although you may be able to cobble them on it), and it is not a DSLR. It is a live view camera, perhaps we should begin calling it an LV camera?

Live view is now part of all new DSLRs, and this is a logical extension. If you love it will totally depend on your ability to tolerate an electronic viewfinder.

At best this may end up as what people on DP Review call an "EVIL Camera". That is, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens, not to be confused with "Evil SLRs", which is a forum on this site.

georgef

08-11-2008, 14:51

[quote=tmfabian;873464]4/3's format is useless to me. I don't want a sensor that crops my EFL even more than it already is. [quote]

Thats irelevant unless you are talking about using existing lenses. Whats the difference between a 14mm lens that behaves as a 28mm, compared to a 28mm that behaves as a 28mm? micro4/3 lenses are going to be all new; so you buy the focal lenght you need.

georgef

08-11-2008, 15:01

The argument about FOV I think is a little misplaced here: this is a new system; not like the M8 where your existing glass no longer is what you are used to. Remember, the 35 lenses were designed based on the size of the film, not the other way around. The speculation on whether the new system is better, worse, cheap, "plasticky" etc. almost feels like a knee-jerk reaction to the anouncement, since there is no concrete direction seen yet in terms of the quality of this system. I would not be surprised if OLY-SONIC is gauging photog response at this stage.

We may still be surprised; if a micro 4/3s body comes out that is built like the G9, with small, fast lenses and a good sensor, it may not "mechanically" be similar to rangefinders, but it sure does sound to me in line with the whole idea of using RFs.

Roger Hicks

08-11-2008, 15:29

Focusing would have to be either scale or 'live view' in the absence of a coupled rangefinder. Scale is probably more accurate. Of course an ultra-fast wide lens would work superbly with 4/3 -- but what are the chances of a 21/1.4? And what would it cost if they did make one? Especially if it could cover full frame as well?

Does it make sense to ask for a camera body that needs lenses costing significantly more than the body?

Cheers,

R.

srtiwari

08-11-2008, 15:41

I must be missing something in all this discussion about a focal length "multiple". If the sensor is smaller, and since this is a NEW system altogether, why can't lenses be manufactured so that they would be small enough to NOT require the "21mm F1.4" kind of (apparently difficult) design ? I would have thought smaller lenses would only add to the attractiveness of this whole system.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Subhash :(

Ray Nalley

08-11-2008, 15:47

Well, a lot of folks are talking about being able to use their existing lenses on it. I'm not sure buying a completely new system with new lenses is what they have in mind.

srtiwari

08-11-2008, 16:05

I love and continue to use film , AND will keep on doing so if I can. But, like many others, I also wanted a serious Digital shooter. I could not quite get myself to buy the RD1 or the M8, and so was contemplating a digital camera/system in parallel without giving up film. If the Micro Four-thirds turns out be be really good, it may be a better choice than going to a DSLR.
Thats why I am excited about this, as a possibility.

gnarayan

08-11-2008, 16:29

Focusing would have to be either scale or 'live view' in the absence of a coupled rangefinder. Scale is probably more accurate.

I do not understand your point Roger - why would focusing have to be live view? If a new lens was designed for the mount it would likely support whatever autofocus system the camera had. Or did you mean a 21/1.4 in M mount adapted to micro Four Thirds?

That would be an odd way of going about it but even live view focusing is not all bad. One of the potentaly benefits of an EVF is its ability to display whatever the sensor sees. A small patch, much like the focusing patch on rangefinder but with a cropped and magnified section of the image would allow you to focus with very high accuracy. Panasonic already employs the system on its digital cameras as an aid for manual focus so it is likely that it will find its way onto a micro four thirds body.

Of course an ultra-fast wide lens would work superbly with 4/3 -- but what are the chances of a 21/1.4? And what would it cost if they did make one? Especially if it could cover full frame as well?
As for the lenses - Sigma has a 24/1.8 and Panasonic has a 25/1.4 in 4/3rds mount. The former costs around $400 while the latter is about twice as much. Both are roughly around the price of a 4/3rds body. The former also covers the 35mm image circle. The hope is that these lenses can be made significantly smaller now. I do not see why this should suddenly increase the price. Indeed they ought to be able to use simpler designs and make them considerably cheaper.

Does it make sense to ask for a camera body that needs lenses costing significantly more than the body?
That said, it makes plenty of sense to buy lenses that cost more than the body - indeed I imagine a rather large number of people here use Leica M lenses on Bessas. Every digital SLR manufacturer currently follows this model as well and it seems to work all right for them.

Cheers,
-Gautham

sepiareverb

08-11-2008, 16:54

Whats the difference between a 14mm lens that behaves as a 28mm, compared to a 28mm that behaves as a 28mm? micro4/3 lenses are going to be all new; so you buy the focal lenght you need.

What about depth of field? The problem with my D-Lux 3 is that one can't shoot with shallow depth of field with such short lenses. We'd need a 14/.095 lens to get close to a 28/2.8 right?

Of course an ultra-fast wide lens would work superbly with 4/3 -- but what are the chances of a 21/1.4?

Precisely. About nil.

I must be missing something in all this discussion about a focal length "multiple". If the sensor is smaller, and since this is a NEW system altogether, why can't lenses be manufactured so that they would be small enough to NOT require the "21mm F1.4" kind of (apparently difficult) design ? I would have thought smaller lenses would only add to the attractiveness of this whole system.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Subhash :(

Again, depth of field. Wide is certainly possible, but what use would a 11/2.8 lens be? You'd have near endless depth of field wide open, leading to boring images as everything would always be in focus. Smaller brings with it a sameness of look that I'd tire of pretty quick- even for snapshots.

srtiwari

08-11-2008, 17:14

Again, depth of field. Wide is certainly possible, but what use would a 11/2.8 lens be? You'd have near endless depth of field wide open, leading to boring images as everything would always be in focus. Smaller brings with it a sameness of look that I'd tire of pretty quick- even for snapshots.

I am sorry, but again. Why can't there be the same DOF as the larger systems, if one is , in fact shrinking everything ? Is there something magical about the current systems which makes it the only size where we can have the DOFs that we now have ? I would have thought that nothing would change if the ratios remain the same. After all, we have had smaller RFs that had the DOFs that we want. :(

sol33

08-11-2008, 17:35

I am sorry, but again. Why can't there be the same DOF as the larger systems, if one is , in fact shrinking everything ?

The problem is that you can only shrink the camera, but not the real world. The scale between the camera sensor and a person (for example) does not stay the same. Hence the different depth of field.

There are millions of web pages on the topic. Google is your friend.

Ray Nalley

08-11-2008, 17:35

DOF is inversely proportional to format size. You just can't get around it.

Wiyum

08-12-2008, 02:05

We'd need a 14/.095 lens to get close to a 28/2.8 right?

No, you'd need a 14mm/1.4. The crop factor works on depth of field the same way it does on angle of view. A 50mm 1.4 would be a 25mm 0.7 in the new format. It isn't ideal, but Olympus has certainly done some impressive things with the old standard (have you seen their 14-35 2.0 lens? Impressive optics to be sure). I expect that if the new format really allows for lenses of the same focal length and max aperture at half the size, then there will be plenty of options that offer acceptable depth of field. It'll never be the same, but that's one of the trade-offs with a lower cost system.

I fully expect Leica to be Panasonic's partner in this, but further, I think that if they're smart, they'll jump in with both feet. Every lensmaker in the world seems to have one cash cow or another, and the truly successful companies have lower-cost bodies and lenses galore. If Leica developed a high quality body with Panasonic and a full complement of quality optics, the thing'd sell a ton. More people want "a Leica" than can afford one, and that exculsivity isn't helping them out financially. A thoroughly top-notch Leica body with lenses could offer something to such consumers and inject more revenue into Leica, allowing them to take the risks they need to take in order to get the M-Digital truly off the ground. And I'm not talking about budget-class product here. A $1500 body and $400-$800 primes would sell like mad to a class of consumer that's willing to spend the same or more on Canon and Nikon, but would rather have a Leica, but cannot afford $1500 a lens. The market exists for Leica, and as far as I'm concerned, they stand to gain more than Panasonic or Olympus if they want to.

I say: Digilux 4 (or a new name) with a new set of small 12mm/2.8, 18mm/2.0, 25mm/1.4, 35mm/1.4 could do some great business. Leica needs a product that sells in volume; this could be it.

CLE-RF

08-12-2008, 02:08

Ray Nalley

08-12-2008, 02:11

There is always the danger, though, that when everybody can afford a Leica, nobody will want a Leica. Cheapening the name will destroy the exclusivity that makes so many people want one (that they can't afford). Glad I'm not trying to figure out marketing for Leica.

CLE-RF

08-12-2008, 02:52

Website dpreview.com quotes the Press statement, which states that the Micro FourThirds system will aim for a smaller than 'Regular' FourThirds sensor.

So, it'll be useless for RF photography, with the use of an adapter all your longer-than-35mm lenses would turn to tele lenses, shallow DOF would become completely impossible,
you'd have a manual P&S with Leica glass on it, what a waste.

This lens mount will result in a Live View, P&S system with exchangable lenses. Just to accomodate those Olympus DSLR users that sometimes consider their DSLR too bulky.

I honestly can't see any good come from it. Our best bet is finding someone personally interested in RF photography at the controls of a big company to invest in a digital RF with MF lenses.

Maybe Cosina will take to manufacturing the Panny / Olympus bodies, and Mr. Kobayashi will personally decide to pull another rabbit out of the digital-RF hat.

A digital Bessa with full frame sensor and 1:1 finder would be nice. I'd opt for the fold-away LCD screen and the cocking lever of the R-D1s as well, just to sustain the sensation of true photography.

Please PM me for my receiving address:D

photomoof

08-12-2008, 04:04

A digital Bessa would be nice, but I don't think either it's ever gonna happen either.

Most guys here miss the point: companies do not build cameras to fit existing user's needs, but to constantly unclose NEW markets. Things being NEW is the only way to keep buyers coming.

Only people like mr. Kobayashi and the unnamed Epson executive that instigated the R-D1s and companies like Leica have the photographer in mind. All others think from the stockholders' perspective!

Given the history of Nikon in particular, that statement is very harsh. Nikon has always listened to its users and tried to provide what they are asking for. The full frame sensor is a good example, Nikon had abandoned the idea, but professional users simply kept asking for it, even moving to Canon. So now we even have the cheaper D700!

srtiwari

08-12-2008, 04:30

Website dpreview.com quotes the Press statement, which states that the Micro FourThirds system will aim for a smaller than 'Regular' FourThirds sensor.:D

Johan,
Actually it says ..." The Micro Four Thirds system uses the same sensor size (18 x 13.5 mm) but allows slimmer cameras by removing the mirror box and optical viewfinder..."

Subhash

sepiareverb

08-12-2008, 05:11

No, you'd need a 14mm/1.4. The crop factor works on depth of field the same way it does on angle of view. A 50mm 1.4 would be a 25mm 0.7 in the new format.

Faulty math on my part (never my strong subject). Yet a 25/0.7 lens is not an option, so my argument stands- the qualities depth of field bring to an image are reduced. I'll admit that most people don't care as long as their friend is in focus enough to recognize. This lowest common denominator drives most marketing like it or not.

I expect that if the new format really allows for lenses of the same focal length and max aperture at half the size, then there will be plenty of options that offer acceptable depth of field. It'll never be the same, but that's one of the trade-offs with a lower cost system.

Only if the sensor is smaller still- a larger sensor would mitigate this. Smaller isn't always better, and as 'cameras' become smaller and smaller this seems to be getting clearer and clearer. I can barely hold some of these newest digital cameras, let alone fiddle with the tiny buttons and control wheels the size of a dime. But again, I'm clearly in the crazy minority here.

I fully expect Leica to be Panasonic's partner in this, but further, I think that if they're smart, they'll jump in with both feet. Every lensmaker in the world seems to have one cash cow or another, and the truly successful companies have lower-cost bodies and lenses galore. If Leica developed a high quality body with Panasonic and a full complement of quality optics, the thing'd sell a ton. More people want "a Leica" than can afford one, and that exculsivity isn't helping them out financially. A thoroughly top-notch Leica body with lenses could offer something to such consumers and inject more revenue into Leica, allowing them to take the risks they need to take in order to get the M-Digital truly off the ground. And I'm not talking about budget-class product here. A $1500 body and $400-$800 primes would sell like mad to a class of consumer that's willing to spend the same or more on Canon and Nikon, but would rather have a Leica, but cannot afford $1500 a lens. The market exists for Leica, and as far as I'm concerned, they stand to gain more than Panasonic or Olympus if they want to.

I say: Digilux 4 (or a new name) with a new set of small 12mm/2.8, 18mm/2.0, 25mm/1.4, 35mm/1.4 could do some great business. Leica needs a product that sells in volume; this could be it.

But what makes a Panasonic a Leica? There are loads of Panasonic digicams with Leica lenses, I would suppose that Leica is making some money there. A Panasonic camera with a Leica dot on it is still a Panasonic camera- the D-Lux 3 isn't much different than the Panasonic version, and most or all of those differences are in the shell. All this talk of Leica needing to make cheap sh!t cameras for the masses played out already in the 80's with a line of lousy P&S film cameras, failures in every respect. Ever increasing sales figures for the sake of ever increasing sales figures is a very American way of looking at a company- not necessarily the best way.

Ray Nalley

08-12-2008, 05:37

But what is Leica's option? To make increasingly expensive cameras for the few? I'm not sure that is a very good direction forward, either.

photomoof

08-12-2008, 07:09

But what is Leica's option? To make increasingly expensive cameras for the few? I'm not sure that is a very good direction forward, either.

In the end it will collapse. A Leica rangefinder killer will finally emerge, it just has not, the Japanese just keep resisting.

Nikon seems to have made a decision not to go back (except for commemoratives) when clearly there is a demand for a modern RF. Nikon abandoned RFs mentally in 1959, and they just will not change their mind!

Not a huge demand for RFs, but a constant one, where users are willing to spend big bucks. I am sure Nikon has noticed what is going on with Olympus, and the fact that Leica is able to sell simple cameras for $5000 that Nikon could sell for $1500 or less.

But Leica will persist as a brand name, if not Panasonic, someone will license it from the company. Also Leica binoculars continue to make a nice profit, Leica could simply drop out of the camera manufacturing biz, and just sell Panasonic.

georgef

08-12-2008, 07:46

I think I got comparing the micro 4/3s to the M system previously; bad comparisson, I think.
LEICA, ZEISS and Voigtlander, really, are the only companies that have a vested interest in M mount bodies, given they still produce the lenses.
Maybe what Olympus will do, is to create the micro 4/3s to be the new "small, portable, shoot from the hip alternative" camera system; basically what the RF was to the film SLRs.

Sure it may not have the equivelant of the M lenses, but that IMHO is relevant mostly to people like us, who own and use the M standard. To someone who is looking to get into photography with more control than a P&S but not the bulk of a DSLR, this may be it!
I dont think we are looking at this from the right perspective: besides the size and lack of a mirror, the similarities between IT and an RF end there.

gnarayan

08-12-2008, 07:51

Website dpreview.com quotes the Press statement, which states that the Micro FourThirds system will aim for a smaller than 'Regular' FourThirds sensor.

This would be the press release -
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp

and this would be the quote -
"The Micro Four Thirds system uses the same sensor size (18 x 13.5 mm) but allows slimmer cameras by removing the mirror box and optical viewfinder."

So it isn't smaller than "regular" four thirds at all.

So, it'll be useless for RF photography, with the use of an adapter all your longer-than-35mm lenses would turn to tele lenses, shallow DOF would become completely impossible,
you'd have a manual P&S with Leica glass on it, what a waste.
Yes I quite like the thought of my 40/1.4 becoming a short portrait lens.

I honestly can't see any good come from it. Our best bet is finding someone personally interested in RF photography at the controls of a big company to invest in a digital RF with MF lenses.Why do you think any product with a limited production would be significantly cheaper than the RD1 was at launch?

aizan

08-12-2008, 08:04

i'm not too worried about maximizing how shallow i can get the dof. composition, getting the right relation of subject to ground, is more important than just washing out the background. that's the easy way out. in any case, lenses in the standard range (35-50mm equiv.) won't be so short as to eliminate the ability to blur the background. didn't someone post an example earlier taken with the 25/1.4?

photomoof

08-12-2008, 08:18

Why do you think any product with a limited production would be significantly cheaper than the RD1 was at launch?

Simply because Panasonic and Olympus do not price equipment at high prices no matter what the projected sales are. The L1 is a good example of this policy.

They price for the future, but do not kill sales from the start with high prices, they can easily afford to build market this way.

I would expect the body to be sub $1000. Lenses $300 to $1000, or more for some very wide zooms, all in line with the current production and prices for the E3.

jasperamsterdam

08-12-2008, 10:38

tmfabian, indeed

If one wants fov 50mm. so one has to buy 24mm 2.8 which are generally expensive. So you cannot have 50 fov at f1.4 :)

of course the 4:3 requires own lenses but they are still bulky as hell. Compare that with old Elmar 3.5 :)

I believe some of the whole point of the Micro4/3 is that they can create much smaller lenses..

I am very much looking foreward to further news.. i have been shooting dslr most of the years, just bought a m6 mostly for form / size. My f30 is nice but doesnt cut it for stunning prints.

4/3 sensor is much bigger than all compacts

(this will prbl be cursing in the church but...)
plus i have high hopes for its video! saw some clips of the sigma, too much limited in resolution (i think 320.240) but chipsize does show in video aswell!

Ray Nalley

08-12-2008, 11:39

The "Micro" is about creating smaller bodies. The sensor is either 4/3's or it's not.

jasperamsterdam

08-12-2008, 11:41

see the wonderfull
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

Ray Nalley

08-12-2008, 11:50

Perhaps this technology is going to be used in the new Fuji rangefinder. :)

The Internet is a strange place, indeed.

Al Patterson

08-12-2008, 12:16

Given the history of Nikon in particular, that statement is very harsh. Nikon has always listened to its users and tried to provide what they are asking for. The full frame sensor is a good example, Nikon had abandoned the idea, but professional users simply kept asking for it, even moving to Canon. So now we even have the cheaper D700!

You are correct. However, if what the users ask for can't earn any profit it won't be seen. There seems to be enough users wanting full frame to warrent production of same, but time will tell if we get what we want out of this new format.

I'd like a digital CL, but will take a small interchangable lens camera that doesn't take up a lot of space in my camera bag.

J J Kapsberger

08-12-2008, 12:59

sepiareverb

08-12-2008, 14:00

Yes, lets crop the smaller sensor. Quality is the least of concerns; with 'smaller cameras are better', and 'sales figures are most important' in the minds of companies like Panasonic and Canon. The logic that a company MUST continue to grow is flawed. Improved products and a varied lineup of quality products that keeps customers returning can be enough. I have no doubt that Leica as a company isn't concerned with outselling Canon on digicams. Binoculars? I doubt there are as many people are lining up to buy a new pair of binoculars every other year, as there are those who will buy a new lens or body that often. I could be wrong, but I'm using the same pair of binoculars I got in 1994, and haven't felt the need to upgrade.

My farmers market is one example- I still get my same products there, for slightly more money, and nobody seems to bemoan the fact that there aren't twenty new kinds of lettuce or some new strain of blueberry on offer. The number of booths shrinks a little, grows a little, and all remains well.

Nikon or Canon continues to spit out new products at an ever increasing pace, products that seem intended to last only as long as it takes for the company to spit out the replacement- with plenty of folks ready to slurp up the latest electronic marvel and IS superzoom. Leica appears to be aiming at a different clientele, smaller it would seem than the DSLR crowd. Why is this fundamentally flawed? Smaller client base, smaller factory. Smaller is ok for a camera but not for a camera company?

Ray Nalley

08-12-2008, 14:06

How many small camera companies are there that have survived? That would be interesting to know.

Gabriel M.A.

08-12-2008, 14:09

Nothing like the Leica M8 craftmanship . . .
you're setting yourself up for the wrath of the Nikonites :eek:

Gabriel M.A.

08-12-2008, 14:10

How many small camera companies are there that have survived? That would be interesting to know.

How many large camera companies are there that have collapsed?

Gabriel M.A.

08-12-2008, 14:14

Why is everyone getting excited over a format that offers the same boring width/height ratios as old televisions? Why 4:3? Does everyone miss their old VCR 'Reformatted to fit your screen" vibe? Why not a smaller 3:2 rectangle?

Outside the 1:1 ratio (e.g. "square format"), the 4:3 ratio is regarded as a better maximization of a lens' circle of coverage.

I'll assume we all went to Elementary School and took some basic geometry to figure the rest out.

And I'll assume that there may be some people out there that have the right to get excited about something that others don't, just as much as the right to not contribute anything by bringing up a point that has nothing or barely little to do with the starting post of a thread.

Just saying.

georgef

08-12-2008, 14:17

Smaller is ok, shrinking is not. I don't believe LEICA is aiming for a smaller market; I think that is their market, but I don't think it will transfer into the next generation.

HiredArm

08-12-2008, 14:51

Nikon or Canon continues to spit out new products at an ever increasing pace, products that seem intended to last only as long as it takes for the company to spit out the replacement- with plenty of folks ready to slurp up the latest electronic marvel and IS superzoom. Leica appears to be aiming at a different clientele, smaller it would seem than the DSLR crowd. Why is this fundamentally flawed? Smaller client base, smaller factory. Smaller is ok for a camera but not for a camera company?

I would say this practice is fundamentally flawed because the first order of business is to make enough money to keep the business sustainable. The second order of business is to turn a profit. Continuing to lose money or break even and people will look at you as someone misguided or more fit in the service industry. The next thing you know the board members go and replace the CEO. Other than that there's nothing wrong with that strategy.

I like the ideals and products of Leica but the reality is that most people can't justify spending upwards of $10K+ on a camera system. Most people have real problems which is why Leica SHOULD come up with something on the "lower" end of the market. Inexpensive doesn't have to mean cheap. It's those inexpensive sales that grow the company and bring in future purchases because of "brand loyalty." Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and certainly not Sony do not make the best cameras but they are instantly recognized names because parents WILL buy their kids $200-$400 digicams for their kids birthdays or Christmas. When their kids become of age to buy their own guess who they would look at first (assuming they had a good experience with the equipment?) That's usually where your low end dSLR's and high end P&S cameras are being bought - which later turns into the prosumer purchases and more expensive lenses. I think the main people the Micro 4/3 system will benefit though are those interested in a high-end P&S, a certain few who just want a smaller back up, and those interested in prosumer dSLRs.

If Leica could tap into that prosumer part of the market with a great product (selling a system or kit in the $800-2000 range) it will set them up in a better position to have a customer who may stick around and buy into the M or R systems for the $5K-10K+ required when that time comes. As it stands most people have no idea what a Leica is or why they should have one (much less a rangefinder camera.) If they do they're probably a photographer or a serious hobbyist at the very least.

If they work that strategy it would be wise of them to work out a way to bring rangefinder capabilities (even if it takes an additional year to make it happen) at that price point for two reasons.

1) It would create new rangefinder enthuisiasts
2) It's their bread and butter - and it would ease the learning transition to an all manual M system

Again, it's very important that it incorporates some type of semi-automatic features because most people won't want to learn the manual way just to snap a few pictures for their Myspace or Facebook pages.

Dante_Stella

08-12-2008, 16:00

Roger Hicks

08-13-2008, 00:35

I would say this practice is fundamentally flawed because the first order of business is to make enough money to keep the business sustainable. The second order of business is to turn a profit.

I like the ideals and products of Leica but the reality is that most people can't justify spending upwards of $10K+ on a camera system. Most people have real problems which is why Leica SHOULD come up with something on the "lower" end of the market.

For the first, I agree completely: this is something that people often forget.

For the second, I disagree completely. Not many people can afford a Rolls Royce or a Bristol either. Does this mean that Rolls Royce and Bristol should bring out 'econobox' mini-cars?

Where are you going to save the money on a 'second string' Leica?

If it's built to Leica standards, in Germany, with interchangeable lenses and a coupled rangefinder, it's not going to cost much less than a 'real' Leica.

If it's built more cheaply, it won't feel like a Leica and it probably won't last as long. In other words, what would there be to make someone choose a cheap Leica instead of a ZI or Voigtländer? This would destroy brand loyalty, not build it.

You can forget about building in China or elsewhere. Reworked point-and-shoots are one thing; the M brand is another. In Leica's own words, "If we started building somewhere else because it's cheap, we'd be dead in a year. Part of what people are buying is a tradition of German engineering. This is especially true in India, Russia, China..."

To those who disagree with this analysis, I suggest that you do what Dr. Kaufmann did: buy the company, and try doing it your way instead of Leica's.

Also bear in mind that the USA is currently a rotten market for Leica, because of the extremely feeble dollar. It is in their interest to listen to as many nationalities as possible, not just Americans, in order to spread the market as far as possible.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

08-13-2008, 00:39

Contax/Yashica (Kyocera)
Graflex
Kodak
Konica
Mamiya
Minolta
Voigtlander
Zeiss Ikon/Contax

I believe that all of these were at least the size of Leica and in most cases, orders of magnitude bigger.

Quite a few of these did not collapse, but stopped making cameras because there wasn't enough money in it. Zeiss is the prime example: still a big, profitable company. Of course, by the time they stopped making cameras, they also owned Voigtländer. Kyoto Ceramics is also entirely healthy, I believe. And Kodak stopped making high-end cameras (as distinct from cheap cameras designed to help people use more film) some time before the film market started to decline.

Cheers,

R.

kshapero

08-13-2008, 00:40

Spyderman

08-13-2008, 00:50

Roger Hicks

08-13-2008, 01:28

As far as I remember, the 4/3 system was developed with the intention to
i) make lenses smaller and faster
ii) use only the sweet spot of the lenses near the optical axis
iii) light rays would hit the sensor at 90° or close to it, so there would be no light fall-off

but making the register distance 1/2 (20mm) would completely negate iii)
Dear Ondrej,

i) It is also easier to design and build a lens with really high quality for a smaller format, in addition to the advantages you list.

ii) Not really. This would only apply if you are using lenses designed for larger formats. Scale the lens down to cover the smaller format with the same angle of view, and the 'sweet spot' diminishes proportionately.

iii) Again, not really. A side benefit of leaving space for a reflex mirror is that wide-angles must be more telecentric but once the focal length of the lens is more than about 20mm greater than the flange/film distance, telecentricity is not affected by flange/film distance.

Bear in mind that telecentricity is not an absolute, i.e. that lenses can be more or less telecentric, and that colour correction is harder with telecentric lenses.

The only way a 'four thirds' M-mount would be of interest to me is with a dedicated studio camera, i.e. a tripod-mounted box with manually controllable shutter speeds and (preferably) a socket so it can be tethered to a laptop via USB. Focus confirmation might be nice, too. You then have a useful portrait/still life/pack shot camera at modest cost, and double mileage out of your M lenses.

Cheers,

R.

Wiyum

08-13-2008, 03:04

HiredArm said much of what I wanted to say, but better. As for Roger's point, I offer the rest of what I was going to say:

Most people that shoot with a Leica offer a variety of reasons for shooting with a Leica. Most, I imagine, use Leicas for many of these reasons, but the reasons often given are: small camera size, small lens size, outstanding optics, beautiful design, cameras that look discreet (at least until you encounter a person that recognizes the camera but has never held a Leica), mirrorless thus essentially noiseless operation, rangefinder focusing, and in some cases entirely mechanical, electronics-free operation. Obviously, because all pre-M8 Leicas were 35mm film bodies, and because those outstanding optics have a reputation for performing well wide-open, many Leica users love what they get when shooting wide open and that narrow depth of field.

The micro4/3 system offers an opportunity to recreate almost all of these features: small camera size, small lens size, outstanding optics, beautiful design, cameras that look discreet, and mirrorless thus essentially noiseless operation. A micro4/3 camera would cease to be a rangefinder and would not deliver the same depth of field. It seems to me that this format (and Leica's partnership with Panasonic) offers Leica the ability to make a camera system that is still very much a Leica but which doesn't suffer from the same cost burden that the M system demands. All of Leica's co-developed products with Panasonic have felt at odds with Leica's reputation in some way or another. The pocket digicams all suffered from terribly small chips and the noise problems that those have, and the Digilux-3 is an SLR that can't support the sort of small lenses that Leica would probably rather be making, features a mirror, and in no way resembles an M- Leica. Their whopping two lenses for the system are evidence of their lack of enthusiasm.

Leica could easily design an impressive micro4/3 camera that would feel like an M system camera in the hand. It would only feature the LCD and would have no viewfinder, so that would be a difference, I'll admit. They could design a series of top-notch small lenses for said camera. The camera would not have a mirror and it would be small and with Leica's design team on the job would be just as discreet as an M. They could sell such a camera for less than $2000 and could sell said lenses for less than $1000. Such a product would in no way tarnish the value of the Leica name, would not come across as cheap, but would suddenly be within reach of many consumers that would buy a Leica if not for the cost. I can see why some might feel like the product would betray the essence of "a Leica," but in reality, this could be very near to what a Leica already is, and at the very least has the opportunity to be alot more like an actual Leica than their current non-M8 digital offerings and also be vastly more successful in the marketplace. The target market for this new system is very close to the target market for Leica's current cameras, at least as far as camera design and usability is concerned. It feels like a good fit, and an enormous opportunity for the company.

Will

Ray Nalley

08-13-2008, 03:26

Wiyum

08-13-2008, 04:00

I'm not sure it would be the same "Leica" experience for me. If shooting Leica, I want the feel of a small, dense, all metal camera body. And the solid feel of real brass and metal lenses. It's why I'm willing to pay the prices Leica demands, even if buying used. And an autofocus, live view camera, is the last thing I would want to buy with the Leica name on it. From the posts, I guess I'm in the minority. Most would seem to embrace a totally different Leica. Which is kind of surprising.

You're mixing your message here, and I just want to clarify that. I'm saying that I don't see why such a camera couldn't be small, dense, and all-metal. I don't see why the lenses couldn't be metal lenses. Pentax's DA Limiteds are a great example of autofocus DSLR primes with very nice all-metal construction, for example.

At the same time, yes, this would be an autofocus live-view camera, with a smaller sensor to boot. I recognize those sacrifices, but I believe that those are the only sacrifices, and seem to me to be sacrifices that Leica can make without selling out the brand.

But if Leica is to flourish, they are going to have to get into this kind of product.

And that's the real point to be made. They need to do something, and they need it to have some success and they need for it to not "sell out the brand" as I said this needn't do. This seems like a great candidate for that and, I'll repeat, a far better attempt at offering a prosumer digital product than they've been doing.

sepiareverb

08-13-2008, 05:13

Once again you've made the point eloquently Roger. I certainly don't dispute profit is a requirement of business, but rather that ever upward spiraling profits need not be a requirement. A modest profit might certainly be an acceptable means of approaching a small market where sales volume will never be huge.

That a second-tier Leica is needed seems to be the consensus of many here, but I agree that such a product will only lessen the opinion and destroy brand loyalty. That is exactly what happened with the lousy P&S 35mm's of the eighties.

The D-Lux 3 is a metal bodied camera, made in Japan, that certainly feels like an electronic device rather than an M- size & weight aside, and longevity is uncertain- although as a digital camera longevity does seem to be unimportant.

A digital CM would be another thing altogether- and in the $1000-2000 price range(?). It could have a hybrid AF/MF lens, an aperture ring with AUTO detent, and a shutter speed dial. A simple electronic 'in focus' indicator as in many AF cameras. But, as I readily admit I'm not anyone's idea of a 'normal' customer...:rolleyes:

Wiyum

08-13-2008, 05:38

Contax/Yashica (Kyocera)
Graflex
Kodak
Konica
Mamiya
Minolta
Voigtlander
Zeiss Ikon/Contax

I believe that all of these were at least the size of Leica and in most cases, orders of magnitude bigger.

Just catching up here, but Mamiya is neither out of business nor have they stopped making cameras. With a new model just introduced, along with at least one new lens, and their new partnership with PhaseOne, their future is brighter now than it has been in at least five years. And given that they are the top alternative to the increasingly-closed Hasselblad system, I don't see them going anywhere too soon.

HiredArm

08-13-2008, 05:48

For the first, I agree completely: this is something that people often forget.

For the second, I disagree completely. Not many people can afford a Rolls Royce or a Bristol either. Does this mean that Rolls Royce and Bristol should bring out 'econobox' mini-cars?

Where are you going to save the money on a 'second string' Leica?

If it's built to Leica standards, in Germany, with interchangeable lenses and a coupled rangefinder, it's not going to cost much less than a 'real' Leica.

If it's built more cheaply, it won't feel like a Leica and it probably won't last as long. In other words, what would there be to make someone choose a cheap Leica instead of a ZI or Voigtländer? This would destroy brand loyalty, not build it.

You can forget about building in China or elsewhere. Reworked point-and-shoots are one thing; the M brand is another. In Leica's own words, "If we started building somewhere else because it's cheap, we'd be dead in a year. Part of what people are buying is a tradition of German engineering. This is especially true in India, Russia, China..."

To those who disagree with this analysis, I suggest that you do what Dr. Kaufmann did: buy the company, and try doing it your way instead of Leica's.

Also bear in mind that the USA is currently a rotten market for Leica, because of the extremely feeble dollar. It is in their interest to listen to as many nationalities as possible, not just Americans, in order to spread the market as far as possible.

Cheers,

R.

While I respect your opinion I will have to respectfully disagree with some of it. I think the main barrier that people are overlooking is that less expensive doesn't have to mean cheap. I suggested that Leica stay in the $800-$2000 price range for the body or a kit of one or two decent lenses for a starter pack. That's hardly cheap when you consider most people purchase digicams for a small fraction of that price($200-400.) For instance although it's not up to M standards, the D-Lux 3, is very capable of taking great images for around $600. There is plenty of evidence of this all around the internet on people's personal galleries. No one really expects it to beat a M at 1/10 of the cost but if that smaller sensor is capable of that, imagine a slightly larger sensor with much better optics. I guess the main point is that introducing a "lower end" product will not kill the "halo" of the company - the M system. If anything it will push the M and make it a more recognized system in a world of dSLR's.

Canon and Nikon both make their bread and butter off of the lower end of the prosumer market when it comes to dSLR systems. The D300/700, D3, 5D and 1D series remain as the "halo" of those respective companies although they are certainly attainable by many. The Digital Rebels and Dx0's serve as gateways to the higher systems. They are a necessary evil if you will from the business side of things. I'm not suggesting Leica has to follow exactly in those footsteps but brand recognition is certainly very important for a business.

To use your car analogy, Rolls Royce will probably never offer a $50,000 car for many reasons (alot has to do with them being owned by BMW) but if they did it certainly wouldn't be cheap. Would it be as nice as a Phantom? Of course not but no one would expect it to be at 1/10 of the cost. Consequently though Rolls Royce are designing a "lower end" product (that'll sell for 150K- 225K) to compete with the Bentley Continental GT/ Flying Spur and AMG products that'll slot between the BMW 7 series and the Phantom. This is mostly to continue to grow the brand and expand the "near exotic" portfolio. The Phantom will still be the "halo" but it drives enthusiasm more when people can see a tangible object versus just hearing, reading, and seeing it in a store, print, or the internet. It's my opinion is that it would do Leica well to drive the brand with a prosumer model that is done right. If nothing else M users (and DSLR users who want something smaller without a huge hit in optics) may buy into it as a backup when the M isn't needed or as a second camera.

Ray Nalley

08-13-2008, 08:03

Well, since Kaufman has said that a full-frame M is not in the cards and the M8 is likely not the camera that will allow a sensor upgrade anyway, perhaps this 4/3's thing is their next direction. Photokina will be interesting.

georgef

08-13-2008, 10:07

Wiyum

08-14-2008, 01:11

I don't mean to be obtuse (honest!), but I still haven't heard anyone make even a hollow argument explaining why:

a.) A Leica Micro4/3 camera would need to be "cheap" and why it couldn't be small, dense, all-metal, feature manual controls and feel good in the hand like an M-Leica does; why lenses couldn't be optically superb, feature all-metal construction, and be reasonably fast; why said body couldn't cost $2000 and said lenses couldn't cost $400-$800.

b.) Granting the premise that (a.) is possible, why would such a product be damaging for Leica, a company in need of a revenue source, with a fair amount of products (C-Lux, D-Lux, Digilux) that currently tarnish the Leica name more than the proposed product would, both in terms of the quality they deliver and in their qualitative resemblance to the top-tier Leica products?

I'm of the opinion that everyone participating in this debate is reasonable and intelligent, so I'm genuinely curious to hear either of these points disputed beyond the "that product would tarnish the hallowed Leica name and suddenly render the legendary M bodies and lenses valueless by virtue of association with it." I just don't see how that could be the case, especially in light of most of Leica's current digital lineup.

infrequent

08-14-2008, 01:35

@wiyum - you see common sense like that often is not obvious. leica continues to be defined by its past and nothing kaufmann has said and done suggests otherwise. apparently the fanboys like it so as well.

so in short, leica could do it, but they won't. thats why they are conspicuous in their absence from the announcement. panasonic is prolly just interested in POS P&S. olympus is the only hope for a serious camera system using this tech.

Ray Nalley

08-14-2008, 01:36

sepiareverb

08-14-2008, 04:57

A new factory to make them could be part of the reason this won't happen. Rebadging Panasonics doesn't make cameras of the same quality as a Leica- regardless of how much one believes otherwise Leicas as we know them are expensive to make. They are made in a small shop much by hand not a robotic assembly line factory. To come up with the factory & tools and software to churn out a camera that could cost $1500 would likely require a pretty big investment that they'd not see returned quickly. Designing a line of high quality lenses can't be so simple, and manufacturing them at low enough cost to sell at $800 would require more investment in automated machinery.

My 2¢

photomoof

08-14-2008, 05:28

Leica isn't in a rush to add manufacturing capacity or new employees, so it doesn't look like they are planning on making any such camera themselves. Which leads to the conclusion that they would rely on a partner to make it. And while I suppose Panasonic could make a $2,000 camera that meets this criteria for Leica, it wouldn't be a Leica. And it would still sell in limited numbers. I just don't see what Leica can do beyond continuing to rebadge Panasonic P&S cameras that allows it to compete in the current market place.

Leica does have a long history however of selling Japanese products that are NOT simply re-badges, but are original products built in Japan, the CL being the first. But all those Minolta SLRs and Minolta lenses also exist, as well as a number of famous lenses like the 21 and hologon (not japanese obviously).

Leica is much more than a manufacturer, they are a camera designers. I continue to believe the M8 would have been a better camera, if it was built by Panasonic, to their specs, and in the L1 style.

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 06:11

BRISTOL is only there because of its eccentric ownership (certainly not the sub-par, circa 1940's technology cars)

Dear George,

Have you ever driven one?

And are you aware of the current Bristol Fighter?

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/BristolFighter.htm

Not many road cars in the 1940s could top 200 mph...

No, I've not driven a Fighter, but I have driven (and been driven in) others. 'Sub-par' is NOT an accurate description.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 06:26

While I respect your opinion I will have to respectfully disagree with some of it. I think the main barrier that people are overlooking is that less expensive doesn't have to mean cheap. I suggested that Leica stay in the $800-$2000 price range for the body or a kit of one or two decent lenses for a starter pack. That's hardly cheap when you consider most people purchase digicams for a small fraction of that price($200-400.) .

No need to be respectful!

$800-$2000 (GBP 400-1000) IS unrealistically low for a luxury marque like Leica. In fact, the lower end is less than a Zeiss Ikon. Are you really saying that's realistic?

Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

But I don't suggest that Bollinger should make cheap fizz under the Bollinger label to hook me on the stuff. Good champagne is hellish expensive, about 10x the price of the everyday sparkling wine I drink, BUT, when I drink good champagne I can see where the money goes. Likewise, when I use a Leica, I can see where the money goes. What I don't need -- in fact, what nobody needs -- is a Bollinger label on a drinkable Saumur, or a Leica label on a usable Voigtländer.

Fortunately, second-hand Leicas are a lot more attractive than second-hand champagne. Those who can't afford new can therefore buy second-hand AND find out what a real Leica feels like.

Cheers,

R.

bottley1

08-14-2008, 06:41

Roger, when you are pissed, can you tell the difference between a leica and a bessa?:D and do you care? :)

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 07:03

Roger, when you are pissed, can you tell the difference between a leica and a bessa?:D and do you care? :)

If I'm sober enough to hold a camera, yes I can tell the difference, and yes I care. I'd rather have an MP than a Bessa, the same way I'd rather have Bollinger than Saumur; but equally, I'd rather have what I can afford.

But I seldom get particularly drunk any more. As Dr. Johnson said, "A man who exposes himself when intoxicated hath not the art of getting drunk."

Cheers,

R.

HiredArm

08-14-2008, 07:37

No need to be respectful!

$800-$2000 (GBP 400-1000) IS unrealistically low for a luxury marque like Leica. In fact, the lower end is less than a Zeiss Ikon. Are you really saying that's realistic?

Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

But I don't suggest that Bollinger should make cheap fizz under the Bollinger label to hook me on the stuff. Good champagne is hellish expensive, about 10x the price of the everyday sparkling wine I drink, BUT, when I drink good champagne I can see where the money goes. Likewise, when I use a Leica, I can see where the money goes. What I don't need -- in fact, what nobody needs -- is a Bollinger label on a drinkable Saumur, or a Leica label on a usable Voigtländer.

Fortunately, second-hand Leicas are a lot more attractive than second-hand champagne. Those who can't afford new can therefore buy second-hand AND find out what a real Leica feels like.

Cheers,

R.

To each his own opinion but I would fear if Leica DID NOT make obvious business decisions in the interest of the company. If they don't eventually the shareholders will. I mean most of them would like to see greater returns for sure. Just because something is made in Asia doesn't mean it has to be made of plastic or other flimsy materials. It could be made of magnesium or aircraft grade aluminum. The labor there is cheaper and while it would cost a bit more I think people will still pay more for perceived additional quality. They could also build it (or contract it to be built under strict parameters) in the USA since the Euro is stronger than the dollar and still make out okay.

Of course the other possibility is that they can, or will be, absorbed by a larger company ironically "for business reasons." I guess we would be back at square one in my suggestions though - the M remains the "halo" and a lower end (or prosumer) system designed to hook people on the brand will be introduced. Someone else will just capitalize on the Leica name and the Leica afficionados will still be upset about what is and isn't a real Leica.

dazedgonebye

08-14-2008, 08:10

No need to be respectful!
Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

I feel for you buddy.
My bannana this morning was overripe and I didn't have time to stop for coffee. :rolleyes:

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 08:14

(1) If they don't eventually the shareholders will. I mean most of them would like to see greater returns for sure.

(2) Just because something is made in Asia doesn't mean it has to be made of plastic or other flimsy materials. It could be made of magnesium or aircraft grade aluminum. The labor there is cheaper and while it would cost a bit more I think people will still pay more for perceived additional quality. They could also build it (or contract it to be built under strict parameters) in the USA since the Euro is stronger than the dollar and still make out okay.

(Numbers added for ease of reply)

1: Most of the shares are held by Dr. Kaufmann, and he's the man who makes the decisions. If other shareholders wanted to sell out so that he controlled ALL the shares, I think he'd be even happier.

2: As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yours is very different from mine. Mine, on the other hand, is very close to the prevailing view inside Leica.

I know at least one company in the USA that could make cameras to Leica standards. But I also believe (as do most of the people at Leica) that it would be commercial suicide.

Of course, we'll see who's right in the long run. But as a guide to what is actually going to happen, I place more credence in what I hear at Leica (especially from Dr. Kaufmann) than in what I read on the forums.

Cheers,

R.

HiredArm

08-14-2008, 08:37

(Numbers added for ease of reply)

1: Most of the shares are held by Dr. Kaufmann, and he's the man who makes the decisions. If other shareholders wanted to sell out so that he controlled ALL the shares, I think he'd be even happier.

2: As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yours is very different from mine. Mine, on the other hand, is very close to the prevailing view inside Leica.

I know at least one company in the USA that could make cameras to Leica standards. But I also believe (as do most of the people at Leica) that it would be commercial suicide.

Of course, we'll see who's right in the long run. But as a guide to what is actually going to happen, I place more credence in what I hear at Leica (especially from Dr. Kaufmann) than in what I read on the forums.

Cheers,

R.

Well for me it's not about who is right or wrong so much as it is I would HATE to see a business who begrudgingly holds its sole values over survivability fold. It's great to have the core values and direction but to survive you have to balance between doing what it takes to remain relevant (read: profit margins) and catering to developing wants of consumers. I guess this comes from my business nature though.

I personally only own Leica binoculars (which are outstanding.) For cameras I began looking at the D-Lux 3 (and other upmarket P&S) as I needed something that was more portable than my Canon dSLR's for when I travel and for my website. Image quality doesn't have to be overly great for website pictures but I would like to have the option for personal photos. I did look at M8's and was a bit enamored by the rangefinder as it's the first one I've ever tried. It was a bit larger than I wanted (for my purposes) and more than I really wanted to spend for essentially a "travel camera." It's something I would potentially trade all my Canon gear towards later (once they get all facets of the electronics side right) but a high end camera isn't my main priority right now. I personally would like to have a compact digital rangefinder with interchangeable optics at a reasonable price (read: prosumer price.) Maybe that's too much to ask from anyone right now who isn't rolling in profits.

That said I wish Leica the best either way and I certainly hope they are around as an independent company in the future. I fear they probably won't be if they continue in the current niche market only attitude.

Double Negative

08-14-2008, 08:46

Gabriel M.A.

08-14-2008, 10:04

Roger, when you are pissed, can you tell the difference between a leica and a bessa?:D and do you care? :)

I don't think alcohol will make a Bessa "a hot babe". If anything looks "hotter" when you are drunk, I'd like to know the brand (of alcohol)!

Last time I ever got drunk was almost two decades ago...so who knows if I want to try that brand anyway :D

Gabriel M.A.

08-14-2008, 10:06

Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

Could you spell that in cheeseburger terms? A lot of people don't care what they chew, as long as it's a super-sized $2.99 combo!

georgef

08-14-2008, 10:08

Dear George,

Have you ever driven one?

And are you aware of the current Bristol Fighter?

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/BristolFighter.htm

Not many road cars in the 1940s could top 200 mph...

No, I've not driven a Fighter, but I have driven (and been driven in) others. 'Sub-par' is NOT an accurate description.

Cheers,

R.

Agreed Roger, I have not. As a car enthousiast (to a limited degree) I can only listen to other people's comments and numbers on certain unobtainable ones; as a matter of fact, the BRISTOL company has more in common with LEICA than I thought: It is exclusively made for the luxury market, it has sourced an engine made by a mainstream company, it costs more than most other as-well-performing supercars (including the offerings from ferrari, porsche, lamborghini) and it relies on the wealth of a niche market.
The fighter is a nice car, albeit a matter of personal taste on whether it is a good looking one. "Sub-par" was reffering only to what else is available for the price -again, in context with the thread.

My main point was, however, whether or not the idea of LEICA not venturing into a newer market is viable for its future, compared to what else is out there...like ROLLS ROYCE per se.

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 11:45

Well for me it's not about who is right or wrong so much as it is I would HATE to see a business who begrudgingly holds its sole values over survivability fold.
We are of one mind on this -- but perhaps (in the Californian idiom) we are coming from different directions. And perhaps (I wist not) there are European and American directions.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 11:58

Agreed Roger, I have not. As a car enthusiast (to a limited degree) I can only listen to other people's comments and numbers on certain unobtainable ones; as a matter of fact, the BRISTOL company has more in common with LEICA than I thought: It is exclusively made for the luxury market, it has sourced an engine made by a mainstream company, it costs more than most other as-well-performing supercars . . .

I do not think we differ much here. The nub is that more people can afford a $3000-$5000 camera than can afford a $400,000+ supercar, and cameras are quicker, cheaper and easier to build, so Leica sells about 200-500 times as many cameras per year as Bristol sells cars. Leica also has a great deal more 'support' business with lenses than Bristol has with maintenance and uodates. Both can however stay in business, without too much compromise, without cheapening the product.

Inevitably, I've known many more Ferrari and Rolls-Royce owners than Bristol owners: Ferrari and Rolls-Royce are quite common next to Bristol. But most of the Bristol owners I've known are like Leica owners: they keep their cars/cameras for quite a long time. A durable supercar is worth quite a premium in some buyers' eyes. Enough buyers, in fact, to keep Bristol in business, with modest profits.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 14:40

Could you spell that in cheeseburger terms? A lot of people don't care what they chew, as long as it's a super-sized $2.99 combo!

Actually, I think I can -- for several recent breakfasts.

First (for two):

1/2 Royal de Canard (magret stuffed with foie gras) = 2.25 euro
1 bottle Saumur = 4 euro
1 tomato, home-grown = 0
1/10 (maximum) lettuce as garnish @ 1.5 euro = 15 centimes
Nasturtium flowers & leaves from garden = 0.

Sum: 6.40 euo = roughly $9.60 or $4.80 each

Second (for me):

1/2 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 2 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50g. butter = 20 centimes
1/10 bottle Polish vodka = 1 euro

Sum: 3.30 euro = $5 (cheaper for my wife as she drinks iced tea)

Third (for my wife):

1/3 pack Aquitanian smoked trout = 1.33 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50 g. butter - = 20 centimes
iced tea = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.93 euro = under $3.

Fourth (for two)

1/3 can foie gras = 2 euro
1/6 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 75 centimes
2 eggs = 50 centimes
10g butter = 5 centimes
1/2 bottle sparkling Saumur = 2 euros

Sum: 5.30 euros, or 2.65 each = $4.

Fifth (for me):

Feuille de brik (thin pastry like Won Ton skin) = 9 centimes
Egg = 25 centimes
Extra virgin olive oil, 50 ml @ 4 euros/l = 20 centimes
1/3 bottle Chilean Chardonnay/Sauvignon = 75 centimes
1/20 bottle crème de cassis = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.69 euros, or $2.70.

In all five cases, I have neglected the cost of cooking and washing up; but equally, a $2.99 cheeseburger combo neglects the cost of fuel needed to get to the burger joint.

Cheers,

R.

Double Negative

08-14-2008, 14:43

^ Dinner at Roger's tonight! ;)

Roger Hicks

08-14-2008, 14:59

^ Dinner at Roger's tonight! ;)

Believe it or not, it was pizza!

The café-bar across the square has recently introduced pizzas, and we invited a couple of friends over with their 9-year-old grandson (he was the real 'target audience') to see what they were like.

Pretty good, was the answer: good average by American standards, so very good indeed by most provincial non-Italian standards.

Tomorrow: spit-roasted ox at the local donkey races.

Saturday: grilled magret de canard (duck breast) with roast potatoes, roast qara baghli (courgettes, zucchini) and roast garlic. And home-grown baby carrots. We could possibly accommodate one other couple... (The wine will be a very ordinary sparkling Limousin).

Cheers,

R.

ferider

08-14-2008, 15:14

Actually, I think I can -- for several recent breakfasts.

First (for two):

1/2 Royal de Canard (magret stuffed with foie gras) = 2.25 euro
1 bottle Saumur = 4 euro
1 tomato, home-grown = 0
1/10 (maximum) lettuce as garnish @ 1.5 euro = 15 centimes
Nasturtium flowers & leaves from garden = 0.

Sum: 6.40 euo = roughly $9.60 or $4.80 each

Second (for me):

1/2 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 2 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50g. butter = 20 centimes
1/10 bottle Polish vodka = 1 euro

Sum: 3.30 euro = $5 (cheaper for my wife as she drinks iced tea)

Third (for my wife):

1/3 pack Aquitanian smoked trout = 1.33 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50 g. butter - = 20 centimes
iced tea = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.93 euro = under $3.

Fourth (for two)

1/3 can foie gras = 2 euro
1/6 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 75 centimes
2 eggs = 50 centimes
10g butter = 5 centimes
1/2 bottle sparkling Saumur = 2 euros

Sum: 5.30 euros, or 2.65 each = $4.

Fifth (for me):

Feuille de brik (thin pastry like Won Ton skin) = 9 centimes
Egg = 25 centimes
Extra virgin olive oil, 50 ml @ 4 euros/l = 20 centimes
1/3 bottle Chilean Chardonnay/Sauvignon = 75 centimes
1/20 bottle crème de cassis = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.69 euros, or $2.70.

In all five cases, I have neglected the cost of cooking and washing up; but equally, a $2.99 cheeseburger combo neglects the cost of fuel needed to get to the burger joint.

Cheers,

R.

..... and .... a new Leica ........

..... price-less !!! :D

Roland.

Wiyum

08-14-2008, 19:18

Thanks everyone (Ray, Roger, etc) for your points; they are valid and sensible. While I don't reach entirely the same conclusions, I now understand where you're coming from.

A new prosumer-grade camera designed by Leica and manufactured under Leica's supervision in Asia *is* entirely possible, and if they oversee it could be a product that they could be proud of, much more so than the rebadged Panasonics they currently offer. Would it be the same as an M-Leica? No, but I don't think anyone here is saying that it would. Would such a move require them to change the way they're always made the M products? No. Because of this, I don't see why such a move would be suicide for Leica or their reputation, but that's just my opinion on the matter.

Look at Zeiss' relaunched Ikon. The camera and most lenses are made in Japan, but under pretty stringent supervision from Zeiss. The end result is a product that I haven't heard anyone call "cheap," and it certainly doesn't seem to have hurt Zeiss' reputation or the reputation of their products that were in production prior to the Ikon relaunch. I still believe that Leica could do the same thing with this new mount and make some money without devaluing their hallowed M line, which would still be made in exactly the same way it always has.

That's my conclusion.

Will

PS: Anyone here know where the two Leica lenses for the four-thirds mount are currently made, and what the performance and build quality are like?

gnarayan

08-14-2008, 21:47

PS: Anyone here know where the two Leica lenses for the four-thirds mount are currently made, and what the performance and build quality are like?

There are four, three zooms and one prime. None of them are Leica strictly - they are all Lumix lenses i.e. Panasonic, designed by Leica and subject to their QC. They do have a little Leica name on them but I'm not sure this is actually licensed from Leica Camera AG. I think the license for the name comes from Leica Microsystems. While it will make many here retch, a lot of us call them Leicasonics affectionately. They are all made in Japan.

The prime, the 25/1.4, is absurdly sharp wide open, does vignette slightly wide open but not a lot, suffers a little lateral CA, quite resistant to flare, has bokeh that some like and some do not but this is very dependent on relative distances, is generally considered big for a prime but balances well on the bodies and has a ridiculously large lens hood that I wager most owners never use. In actual use it is brilliant.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2213979762_b8cbd121c7.jpg?v=0http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2213979660_4ae24ab206.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2671327533_5f8db209ed.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2167/2107177541_fac6fb6164.jpg
The other three zooms are
14-50/2.8-3.5
14-50/3.5-5.6
14-150/-3.5-5.6

They all have optical image stabilization. The first two are the "kit lens" that comes with the Leica and Panasonic 4/3rds DSLRs. The first is very well regarded, generally thought to be sharper than the Zuiko 14-54/2.8-3.5 but significantly higher priced. As it was only available as part of a kit with the L1 and dlux-3 it is hard to find and it usually goes for about $700-800 which is about the price that the entire kit would cost. Quite common to see people buy the kit and keep the lens and sell the body for a few hundred dollars. It isn't weather sealed (indeed none of them are in contrast to anything above the entry level Zuikos) and is apparently something of a vacuum cleaner with regards to dust. The newer slower version is the only one nobody seems to care about and I do not recall reading anything about it.

The last is considered one of the best, if not the best "superzoom" out there. It is quickly becoming a very popular option with the smaller 4/3rds bodies like the 420 as a light versatile single lens camera and is quite highly regarded. The optical image stabilization it has seems particularly effective and I've routinely seen shots at shutter speeds that are 4-5 stops under what would be possible without IS.

Availability of all of the four is an issue. The 25 in particular seems to be made in batches and sells out within a day or two of anyone getting any stock.

A search on dpreview or flickr will pull up plenty of lovely results with both lenses.

Cheers,
-Gautham

photomoof

08-14-2008, 22:14

The problem with 4/3rds is the 2x crop factor... 1.6x is about all I can take (on the Canon side; Nikon has 1.5x) as an extreme. I'm currently using a 1.3x body (1D Mark IIn) and it's a lot better. FF would be nice, but I can live with 1.3x. Now, to jump to 2x? Where fast wides will probably never exist? I don't think so.

Well sort of. The Olympus 7~14 is an f4. Now on the wide end that compares favorably with any offerings from Leica, but clearly a 28 equivilant at f4 is slow.

The fastest 28 equivilant is f2 the 14~35.

I do wish there were more 1.4s, currently the only one is the 30 Sigma (see current avatar). There is a 25, but impossible to find, they must have made about 10 of them.

The good side of that crop is only the center of these lenses are used so they work well stopped down even to f22.

I use 4/3rds as my primary system, and just keep getting in deeper (just bought a 10~20) and I admit I wish it was different in many ways, but still for the money it has really served me well.

I do admit if I was starting over again, I would give the D700 a very close look, but I am not.

dazedgonebye

08-15-2008, 07:25

infrequent

08-15-2008, 09:11

@dazedgonebye - that would perfect if it happens...the mythical digital hexar af!

dazedgonebye

08-15-2008, 09:29

@dazedgonebye - that would perfect if it happens...the mythical digital hexar af!

Unfortunately, it would take a 17mm f1.0 to match the Hexar AF's dof control.
Still, I'll be interested if they even make it to f2.

shadowfox

08-15-2008, 10:16

I've seen enough 4/3rds goodness to know I'd be happy with the IQ.
The limitations I worry about involve availability of fast primes...what are the odds we'd see a 17mm <f2?...and contrast detection AF.

Steve, I assume you've seen this new lens they came out with:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051302olympus9-18.asp

Is there really a lens (any make) that is 17mm with <f2? That would make the lens huge wouldn't it?

noci

08-15-2008, 10:25

hurm... digital 4/3rds crap-o-noise sensor or not, "plasticky" body or not, crop issues galore.. but in the end, isn't there an obvious argument that is exciting? :

THIS MIGHT BE a reasonably cheap way to use vintage M-Lenses (and their unique optical signatures) on a digital "back".

Considering that the only other way to currently do this is the M8/RD1 route, which is unaffordable to many, I believe the possibility to adapt M-Lenses to the MicroMount (or whatever it's called) would be super-marvellous. And ironically, those MicroBodies would probably cost less than the vintage lenses one would use on it. Personally, I'd love to have the chance to use a 50 1.2 Canon or 1.4 Nikkor or 1.5 Summarit on a digital body; sure, they'd be "tele" all of a sudden, but hey! pretty fast tele!
.. and focusing accuracy wide open a problem? hell... just put in a 4 gig card, put the thing on burst and pull the focus while snapping away at the subject. it's digital, after all- so who cares about wasted frames?

So let's hope this will happen, so niche applications like what I said above would become possible. I couldn't care less about the modern slowpoke lenses they'll design for this system, really...

cheers,

M

dazedgonebye

08-15-2008, 10:38

Steve, I assume you've seen this new lens they came out with:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051302olympus9-18.asp

Is there really a lens (any make) that is 17mm with <f2? That would make the lens huge wouldn't it?

I'd not seen that particular lens...but I don't find it interesting for any m4/3rds system I'd like to have.

I don't know a great deal about the specifics of lens design, but I do think I understand the concept of design compromise. Looking at the lens you linked to, and thinking of M4/3rds, I think I can assume a few things.
Mainly, an equivalent lens would be much smaller for M4/3rds due to the 20mm flange distance. Also, primes can be made smaller than zooms. Also, Also...I'm not interested in the wider end of that zoom and it's the wide that makes things so large.
So, we get smaller for m4/3rds, smaller for prime, smaller for the longer FL and then larger again for speed. What do we end up with in size? I don't know. Maybe it's do-able, maybe not.

Maybe the 25mm f1.4 is a better place to start in a discussion of size for the lens I want. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030703leica50mmsumm.asp
Considering the move to M4/3rds, could a wider lens be made at f1.4 at about the same size as this lens? Just guessing wild here, but that doesn't seem out of line to me. Will they build what I want? I think that is a better question.

gnarayan

08-15-2008, 11:32

Unfortunately, it would take a 17mm f1.0 to match the Hexar AF's dof control.
Still, I'll be interested if they even make it to f2.

f2 they have. Except it is a zoom. 14-35/f2. Quite big. Costs a lot of money too. Like a whole $500 less than a 35 Summicron ASPH.

Really hope they come out with smaller primes to go with the mFT bodies - with a register distance of 20mm they should in principle be able to make a 17mm quite fast and small but whether they do is another question.

dazedgonebye

08-15-2008, 11:51

f2 they have. Except it is a zoom. 14-35/f2. Quite big. Costs a lot of money too. Like a whole $500 less than a 35 Summicron ASPH.

Really hope they come out with smaller primes to go with the mFT bodies - with a register distance of 20mm they should in principle be able to make a 17mm quite fast and small but whether they do is another question.

Yea, if they can build that, they certainly can build 17mm <f2.

I did a little looking. 14mm at f2 has decently narrow dof. Perhaps something 17-20mm at f2 would do the trick. Faster would be better.

shadowfox

08-15-2008, 15:19

Yea, if they can build that, they certainly can build 17mm <f2.

I did a little looking. 14mm at f2 has decently narrow dof. Perhaps something 17-20mm at f2 would do the trick. Faster would be better.

Steve, 5 years using an E-300. Never have I wished for a shallower DOF. Granted I "cheated" by using my f1.4 - f2 OM Zuikos.

Maybe this is one of those "when you use it, it works just fine" sort of thing? :)

ferider

08-15-2008, 15:37

Olympus built a 35mm 21/2 > 20 years ago. They (or somebody else) sure can built a 14mm 1.7 (maybe less?) prime for 4/3rs now. If there is demand. It still will give you more DOF than a FF 28/2.8 though.

Roland.

Trius

08-15-2008, 18:21

Which would demand a new line of lenses. That wouldn't be bad thinking on Leica's part, because everyone would have to buy new lenses.
Well, not quite. Current 4/3s lenses are compatible with m4/3, but are by nature larger and there are fewer WA choices (and no WA primes) than would be possible with new m4/3 lenses.

There were a lot of silly (to me) comments in the initial posts on this thread. I think it really boils down to this:

* m4/3s reduces flange mount distance; much shorter distance is a fundamental characteristic of RF cameras
* m4/3s gets rid (by necessity of the mount distance) of the mirror box in favour of ...

well, it would either by Live View (this is why Olympus was developing Live View all along), or it could be mechanical RF focusing.

The latter would be a niche product (just as the R-D1 and the M8 are) but at a lower cost (probably), and opens up the choices for all of us.

I think Olympus would have little interest in developing a RF m4/3 camera as they are no longer interested in speciality items, they are more interested in high quality (in the DSLR marketplace) with reduced size and reasonable price.

I see Cosina or maybe even Nikon having a potential interest in an m4/3 RF, but not so much Zeiss. Zeiss has pretty much committed to "full frame". But hey, you never know.

dazedgonebye

08-15-2008, 20:47

Well, if this guy is right, Leica is out of the 4/3rds business.

http://www.fourthirds-user.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2341

alien8

08-15-2008, 21:14

Well, he states this:

"Apparently Stephan Daniels of Leica, in a news conference on Aug. 14th said that Leica will no longer have 4/3rds products,.. "

But no link to the news conference.

How do you link to a news conference?

Ray Nalley

08-15-2008, 23:31

Now, if true, that's interesting. Kaufman said in another interview that there will be no full frame sensor for the M nor a sensor upgrade for the M8, and now they abandon 4/3. It isn't clear to me what other options there are, except staying the course with the current M8.

JoeV

08-22-2008, 16:59

I wanted to address this issue of 'live view only'. This last weekend I had the opportunity to photograph an indoor birthday party at one of those indoor-inflatable-jumping-kids-go-wild places, using my old Sony DSC-90 point and shoot. I started shooting using the live-view mode (that is, using the LCD screen to compose and shoot.) Invariably I would miss an action shot, plus I had to deal with the other nuisances of that camera, like it refusing to fire the shutter and flash unless it has focus lock, etc.

Anyway, about halfway through the party I switched to using the optical viewfinder instead, which does have parallax issues, but the immediately noticable difference was that I could get those fast-moving shots first time. I finally realized, after only owning this camera for several years, that there's a significant time delay between the live action and the live view on the LCD screen, due to processing time I figure.

So now this has me reconsidering the purchase of any new camera that has live view only. There's a chance that the processing circuitry in a newer camera may have a faster response time, but it's something you need to consider - and demo live - before purchasing.

~Joe

photomoof

08-22-2008, 17:18

I finally realized, after only owning this camera for several years, that there's a significant time delay between the live action and the live view on the LCD screen, due to processing time I figure.

So now this has me reconsidering the purchase of any new camera that has live view only. There's a chance that the processing circuitry in a newer camera may have a faster response time, but it's something you need to consider - and demo live - before purchasing.

~Joe

Hard to say what is wrong with your SONY, but all cameras with auto-focus set on individual shots are going to have a delay between pushing the shutter and focus lock-up. With your SONY it is still going to focus lock even if you are not looking at the LCD, if there is a delay in the LCD I would be surprised, but you could see it if there is (movement would be delayed between what you see in the room and the LCD image).

All 4/3rds cameras can be set to manual focus, so there is no delay.

None of these focus issues have anything to do with Live View. Live view on a DSLR is always going to be slow, since the mirror locks up first.

Focus delay is always there, manual or not, unless you pre-focus your camera.