View Full Version : Panasonic "shocked, shocked" at idea of m4/3 rangefinder
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 04:57
Check out DP Review's interview of Mr Ichiro Kitao, General Manager of Panasonic's DSC Product Planning Group. I like his coy response to the m 4/3 rangefinder query.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031901panasonicinterview.asp
You have to scroll down to about 3/4 through the interview.
Claude Raines, anyone? Anyone?
Ben Marks
chris00nj
03-19-2009, 05:13
Coy or honest? It depends on which marketing people he's listening to.
SteveM(PA)
03-19-2009, 05:19
Claude Raines, anyone? Anyone?
Yeah someone hands him a big stack of letters..."Your 4/3 system rangefinder requests, sir..." :)
Roger Hicks
03-19-2009, 05:20
My own suspicion, indeed, is that he hasn't had any such pleas. A niche of a niche of a niche of...
Tashi delek,
Roger
It sounds like this guy is high enough up the totem pole that he may actually not have heard anything - or he's trying to be coy - personally.. I think it's the former and not the latter. How much time does someone in that position have to browse internet forums to listen to the proletariat ? :D
Cheers
Dave
digitalintrigue
03-19-2009, 05:31
Some definite coyness with regards to the GH1 sensor. :)
noimmunity
03-19-2009, 06:27
Leica is still involved in the MFT "roadmap", at kleast as far as lenses are concerned.
In my reading, the GM obviously is aware of the demand for incorporating rangefinder elements into the MFT design, but the tough market is forcing a conservative approach.
Maybe now that someone mentioned it to him, he can have one of his subordinates do some research.
bmattock
03-19-2009, 07:09
Get a group of people together on the internet, who all like the same basic thing(s), and they will quickly decide that they are some kind of market force or majority, and act accordingly.
For the deluded: rangefinders are a tiny little niche of a relatively small segment of cameras users, known as 'enthusiasts'. We ain't the market - enthusiasts barely get noticed, and most of them don't know a rangefinder from a load of coal. Get over it.
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 07:23
That was quite an interesting interview. The most interesting part for Leica users was not the supposedly coy response to the RF question it was this: But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap.
Why don't you guys go crazy speculating on that one? ;)
/T
back alley
03-19-2009, 07:24
thanks for that positive and supportive comment bill!
from the great unwashed
bmattock
03-19-2009, 07:37
thanks for that positive and supportive comment bill!
from the great unwashed
I'm reality-based. I like rangefinders, I like film. I don't delude myself that my preferences matter much to manufacturers outside of the very small niche that cater to our guys.
I would have to agree with Bill - it's a small(er) market now than it may have been say, 50 or 60 years ago when the RF was "the" thing.
I think that's one of the reasons you don't see "a lot" (which I realize is a relative non-quantitative term) of money from the likes of Nikon and Canon being placed into the current RF market - it's just too small to warrant the costs involved - (oh, and before anyone gets medieval on my behind; the fact that I said "I think" suggests that this is my opinion and not based on any factual evidence like statistics or knowing some guy who's sister's cousin's husband's father-in-law works at Nikon or Canon... :D)
Cheers,
Dave
thanks for that positive and supportive comment bill!
Well I don't agree with Bill all that often and his wording is a bit confrontative as usual, but as far as the naked facts are concerned he's spot on.
Then it must have been real surprise, but badly done
Dammed shoddy journalism
:rolleyes:
FA Limited
03-19-2009, 08:05
First up; there's a lot of demand for a smaller Micro Four Thirds body - more 'rangefinder' style than faux DSLR. It's not really a question, it's more just telling you what they want. But do you have any comment?
(mock surprise) I didn't hear anything about such a request? This is news to me!
how many of you actually read the exact quote?
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:07
how many of you actually read the exact quote?
I read it. It's hard to know what to make of it. May not have been "mock" at all.
/T
I don't blame Leica for not wanting their name on a cheezy purple fringing lens that is in-camera tweaked to appear to have less distortion than it really does that Panasonic uses these days.
Gone are the days of the fixed 2.8 Leica designed lenses for Panasonic.
But I've always thought Panasonic would be a great potential partner with Leica, for Panasonic to brand their higher end products with.
That was quite an interesting interview. The most interesting part for Leica users was not the supposedly coy response to the RF question it was this:
Why don't you guys go crazy speculating on that one? ;)
/T
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:14
What purple fringing? There is none on the Panasonic G1 lenses.
/T
back alley
03-19-2009, 08:33
I'm reality-based. I like rangefinders, I like film. I don't delude myself that my preferences matter much to manufacturers outside of the very small niche that cater to our guys.
i'm not disagreeing with you...just your presentation.
back alley
03-19-2009, 08:34
I don't blame Leica for not wanting their name on a cheezy purple fringing lens that is in-camera tweaked to appear to have less distortion than it really does that Panasonic uses these days.
Gone are the days of the fixed 2.8 Leica designed lenses for Panasonic.
But I've always thought Panasonic would be a great potential partner with Leica, for Panasonic to brand their higher end products with.
you put way too much stock in leica and ignore the reality of a very nice panasonic image maker.
"Moving on, we've been looking at the feedback since the G1 was announced, and we've got a lot of questions from our community, some of which we'd like to cover here.
First up; there's a lot of demand for a smaller Micro Four Thirds body - more 'rangefinder' style than faux DSLR. It's not really a question, it's more just telling you what they want. But do you have any comment?
(mock surprise) I didn't hear anything about such a request? This is news to me!"
awesome. sounds like we have some goodies on the way.
There is to my eyes, and that's with web based images.
What purple fringing? There is none on the Panasonic G1 lenses.
/T
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:49
There is to my eyes, and that's with web based images.
Show me the examples you are referring to.
/T
I've never said the G1 wasn't a nice image maker (I do stand by that the kit lens purple fringes), I'm saying that many people care about the process. I'm aware that most of my lower end cameras do noise reduction and who knows what else, but I wouldn't want that in my film cameras, DSLRs, or a $700 4/3 camera, without an ability to override it.
you put way too much stock in leica and ignore the reality of a very nice panasonic image maker.
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 08:59
awesome. sounds like we have some goodies on the way.
Yeah, that was my assumption. I don't disagree with Bill, but I think these guys will sell anything that sells. DPReview's own take on the G1 was sort of interesting. Their main criticism was that the G1 wasn't radical enough. Why have a "prism" bulge, with no prism? Why have a camera that looks like a DSLR, that isn't actually? I do think it will take some time for the design potential of something like this to be fulfilled. But, for the sake of argument, why not have an M9 without an RF mechanism? I know, I know, traditionalists would hate it. But goodbye front- or rear-focus problems and hello cross-brand lens platform with great IQ. Panasonic's G1 did not have to be Leica compatible, but it is, in a gross sense. I will be interested to see where this niche of a niche goes.
Ben
Ben Marks
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 09:01
I admit that I am sometimes very tolerant of and do not notice aberrations that others see quite readily. Can you see any purple fringing in the attached? (100% crop)
/T
thanks for that positive and supportive comment bill!
from the great unwashed
The total number of those requesting a rangefinder style, let alone a real range finder focus system do not constitute anything near a market force.
Furthermore, the "faux hump" on the G1 is a market force decision absolutely.
Both Olympus and Panasonic found out the hard way that "it isn't a serious camera" according to the market when they intro'd the E-300 and the L-1. Successor camera's in both camps had prism tops, and it wasn't because of any failing of the side mounted mirror system. Camera's without humps don't sell to buyers enthusiastic for interchangable lenses. No Hump-No Buy.
Leica and Epson already demonstrated the high cost and limitations of using a rangefinder mechanism in a digital camera. Size, space needed for electronics, sensor size must be crop and price... body alone $2000 to $6000.
i don't think this is a niche of a niche. it's just going to be a p&s with a normally sized sensor. how many people bought those back in the film days? like...everyone?
Joe Brugger
03-19-2009, 09:35
I'm reality-based. I like rangefinders, I like film. I don't delude myself that my preferences matter much to manufacturers outside of the very small niche that cater to our guys.
I'm with Bill. Can't see a company devoted to mass-market electronics choosing an expensive mechanical system for focusing. The Kobayashis (or is it Koyabashi -- the Voigtlander guy) of the industrial world are few and far between.
There are images on this site as well, but it's such a known issue, I'm not going to go searching for examples.
Show me the examples you are referring to.
/T
I admit that I am sometimes very tolerant of and do not notice aberrations that others see quite readily. Can you see any purple fringing in the attached? (100% crop)
/T
Barely..(but not really.. I don't see any and even if I did.. I don't view photos in that way)
But then again....like people who claim a lens "flares horribly".. Chromatic aberrations are sort of easy to avoid if you just don't point the lens in the direction of the sun :D or you use a flash powerful enough to override the sunshine...
Dave
purple fringing isn't a lens aberration...or is it? i thought it was when photosites are overexposed. *shrug*
Roger Hicks
03-19-2009, 10:14
i don't think this is a niche of a niche. it's just going to be a p&s with a normally sized sensor. . . ?
. . . and an expensive, complicated, mechanical coupled rangefinder?
Yeah, right. Joe has the truth of it. Oh: and it's Kobayashi.
Tashi delek,
Roger
purple fringing isn't a lens aberration...or is it? i thought it was when photosites are overexposed. *shrug*
Although I really cringe at referring to Wikipedia for some information (after all, ANYONE can update the damn thing!!) they do provide some good insight into the phenomena:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
Just google that term and you'll find a ton of sites that want to discuss the purple fringing aka chromatic aberration....
Cheers,
Dave
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 10:41
Furthermore, the "faux hump" on the G1 is a market force decision absolutely. Both Olympus and Panasonic found out the hard way that "it isn't a serious camera" according to the market when they intro'd the E-300 and the L-1. Successor camera's in both camps had prism tops, and it wasn't because of any failing of the side mounted mirror system. Camera's without humps don't sell to buyers enthusiastic for interchangable lenses. No Hump-No Buy.
Here's the funny part. I looked at an E-300 and the reason I couldn't buy one was the awful, awful, awful viewfinder (at least for manual focus -- hump or no hump). Ditto the Pentax K100 (or whatever it was called) and the Canon Digi-Rebel. Perhaps I should say that it was my aging eyes that couldn't focus with the durn things. M8/5D/D3? Tasty.
Ben
bmattock
03-19-2009, 10:47
Here's the funny part. I looked at an E-300 and the reason I couldn't buy one was the awful, awful, awful viewfinder (at least for manual focus -- hump or no hump). Ditto the Pentax K100 (or whatever it was called) and the Canon Digi-Rebel. Perhaps I should say that it was my aging eyes that couldn't focus with the durn things. M8/5D/D3? Tasty.
Ben
All M42 manual focus - all of it. All taken with a Pentax *ist DS. Subjects all moving quickly, demanding work to find and keep focus. It was challenging but not impossible.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3281753962_b623c62317.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/3281753962/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157613838182964/
I have a third-party split-image viewfinder installed. One of the cheap Chinese ones they sell on eBay. I have not had a problem, and I'm 48, with terrible eyes - bad nearsightedness, astigmatism in both eyes, and color-blind, and now I wear bifocals too. Still not a problem. But to each their own.
I don't blame Leica for not wanting their name on a cheezy purple fringing lens that is in-camera tweaked to appear to have less distortion than it really does that Panasonic uses these days.
But they did that exactly with the Panasonic LX3. And they liked it enough to market their own version, the Leica D-Lux4. And people seem to love both cameras. Is "interchangable lens" the sticking point, do you think?
Wonder when the thought that a rangefinder mechanism is expensive came around? Seems I remember hundreds of film rangefinder models were made and they were all not that expensive and even had a lens that came with the body. Maybe they just forgot or it is too much trouble to remake.
That said I don't think we will see any kind of new rangefinder focusing camera until the M9 whenever that will be.
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 11:47
All M42 manual focus - all of it. All taken with a Pentax *ist DS. Subjects all moving quickly, demanding work to find and keep focus. It was challenging but not impossible.
Bill, my hat's off to you. I like the picture. I did own a digi-Rebel for a little bit and while I did occasionally get an image in focus with my Nikon primes plus adapter, it was the unpredictability of it that drove me bananas (the "challenging but not impossible" part of your post). I can use a Pentax screw-mount 50/1.4 wide open on a Nikon D3 and nail focus every time (no infinity focus, but that's another story). For my part, I just couldn't hack it with the smaller focusing screens. My point was that you can have a focusing "hump" and still have a product that not everyone will want.
Ben
bmattock
03-19-2009, 12:05
With regard to the EVF cameras, I read a news story that the manufacturers have done market studies with and without the traditional SLR hump, and they've found that focus groups tend to prefer the cameras that resemble an SLR camera. It's just a marketing thing. Many people have a fixed idea of what a 'camera' should look like, and they tend to prefer those when buying.
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 12:15
Well, hump or humpless, if a camera came to market with a chip the size of the M8's but TTL focusing with Leica glass, and a bright EVF I'd be a-slobbering and a-drooling all over it. Time will tell.
Ben
bmattock
03-19-2009, 12:29
Well, hump or humpless, if a camera came to market with a chip the size of the M8's but TTL focusing with Leica glass, and a bright EVF I'd be a-slobbering and a-drooling all over it. Time will tell.
Ben
I'm looking forward to eventual high-quality OLED EVF's that can be manually focused easily without engaging some sort of magnifying device. I'm sure it will happen in time.
IMHO you guys missed the most shocking part:
The lens part glass part software
Our visual system is part optics part software.
But a camera like this, with the lens that can only work on that body that knows how to alter the projected image!
I am yet 100% film, but this really make me willing to remain film forever
emraphoto
03-19-2009, 12:36
why is that?
And notice: the lens is part software IN RAW!!
Whatever their justification I would not buy a camera like that for free.
I think the industry is really doing NOTHING. Sillyzation gadgetization coolization (colors of bodies etc.) and now pulling our legs with the hard software (may be tomorrow 90% software) lens.
Panasonic has a technology that recognize a number of specific persons. Now expect a war not on IQ, but to be the first to produce a camera that recognizes everybody on this planet
EDIT: ..half software...
Leica has many excellent reason to divorce from panasonic
emraphoto
03-19-2009, 13:33
sure, as far as the rff niche is concerned. i am not sure if the mp is going to carry them into the future... which is already a few paces ahead.
DougFord
03-19-2009, 13:37
The ‘cult of the mechanical rangefinder’ meets the market driven ‘homogenous dslr’ design.
Millions of opinionated, young, affluent consumers can’t be wrong. So a dSLR hump it is then.
‘faux dSLR’ is now an official, bleeding edge design concept, both m4/3 and Samsungs aps-c hybrid as examples.
If your technology deviates from current market offerings, just encase it in a SLR-esque exterior, Viola!
What’s the market for a faux rangefinder design anywayz?
Very surprised that the interviewer didn’t broach the compact APS-C hybrid subject. Just for a reaction at least.
How fast these formats change; seems standard 4/3 is already teetering on the edge. (As far as Pani is concerned)
For the m4/3 crowd, it’s get the product to market ASAP, before the next format (aps-c hybrid) has market influence.
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 13:47
IMHO you guys missed the most shocking part:
The lens part glass part software
Our visual system is part optics part software.
But a camera like this, with the lens that can only work on that body that knows how to alter the projected image!
I am yet 100% film, but this really make me willing to remain film forever
Pistach: I haven't made up my mind about this yet. Not sure I am shocked. I have a Panasonic LX-3, which performs this manipulation. But I think all cameras do to some extent, albeit with different parameters. My D3 or M8, for instance can use a custom WB and apply that to their RAW files. So a RAW file really isn't a sensor dump, regardless of what the camera co's have said. But suppose they could (and it seems that they can) "pre-correct" the barrel distortion that typically comes with cheap wide zooms. Why do you think that's a bad thing? It might put "lenses" of higher quality into the hands of more people. After all, no one "sees" with barrel distortion; and if your eyes did produce that sort of image "in camera" as it were, your brain would fix it up in a jiff as you "know" that straight edges don't bow as they recede in your field of vision. It isn't as shocking as a "slimming" feature or a camera that won't take a picture unless it "thinks" it sees smiles.
BTW, I didn't miss it. This news has been outraging photo-netizens for the past several weeks, so I didn't think it was new. What was new in the interview was the insight that Leica said "no thanks" to this sort of image manipulation (for reasons which have been the subject of intelligent speculation on another of today's RFF threads).
Quizzically,
Ben
back alley
03-19-2009, 13:48
IMHO you guys missed the most shocking part:
The lens part glass part software
Our visual system is part optics part software.
But a camera like this, with the lens that can only work on that body that knows how to alter the projected image!
I am yet 100% film, but this really make me willing to remain film forever
isn't this how human vision works, part optics part software?
;)
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 13:50
isn't this how human vision works, part optics part software?
;)
good point. My "wetware" is tired. I'm going home.
Ben
digitalintrigue
03-19-2009, 13:53
I'm not sure what the big deal is about lens corrections. It's all about hitting a price point in the market segment, and if software corrections help them get there, what is the problem?
If a customer wants top quality glass, designed without compromise, the option is there to spend more money if the buyer wants that...but the vast majority of the market that this camera is aimed at isn't going to care.
digitalintrigue
03-19-2009, 13:55
isn't this how human vision works, part optics part software?
;)
Good point, by all rights, everything should be upside down, but the brain seems to be correcting for that. :)
. . . and an expensive, complicated, mechanical coupled rangefinder?
Yeah, right. Joe has the truth of it. Oh: and it's Kobayashi.
Tashi delek,
Roger
no, with autofocus like a p&s. manual focusing with a mechanical rangefinder will be leica and cosina's domain.
the feature i'd like most is a built in viewfinder with LED framelines that compensate for field shrinkage and parallax. maybe ricoh or sigma will come through for us on this point.
Bill, Roger, kuzano and maybe some others are arguing from a false premise. Yes, we are a niche market, but a niche market need not be "a market force" (a term someone else used, not one I am introducing) to be addressed. Epson/Cosina addressed the niche, and the fact that Epson has not committed to the dRF long-term is immaterial.
Zeiss has stated their interest, perhaps even intention, to make a dRF when certain technological objectives can be met.
Would this grow the niche into a market force? I think not. Actually I am dead certain it would not.
Bill, you may be "reality based", but how is that different from anyone else's self-assessment? Implicit in your statement is that you consider anyone who differs with you to be living in some sort of fantasy world, disconnected from reality. That does not mean that I don't value you as a person and forum member. We all live in our own reality. Perhaps a bit different approach and choice of words can keep our worlds from colliding; especially when the OP was an innocent reference to one part of an article where an executive from the (reputed) #5 camera producer feigns shock.
I know many LX3 users would love the camera more if they had an option to get the raw data without any corrections.
I wonder if Leica learned from this. With their M8 and 6-bit coding, they're certainly not opposed to doing some correction in selectable non-raw modes, so maybe it is with interchangeable lens systems that they draw the line.
But they did that exactly with the Panasonic LX3. And they liked it enough to market their own version, the Leica D-Lux4. And people seem to love both cameras. Is "interchangable lens" the sticking point, do you think?
digitalintrigue
03-19-2009, 16:22
It's not hard to get raw files without lens corrections. Although since I never use the kit lens... ;)
I'd be amazed if Panasonic has not considered an RF or RF-like design. Which isn't to say they'd actually make one, of course.
I know many LX3 users would love the camera more if they had an option to get the raw data without any corrections.
Isn't that already possible with some third-party RAW converters? See here (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5102) for example. I usually use ACR now (which does apply correction) but I recall that RawTherapee did not. I used PTLens to do it after the fact.
back alley
03-19-2009, 16:43
Bill, Roger, kuzano and maybe some others are arguing from a false premise. Yes, we are a niche market, but a niche market need not be "a market force" (a term someone else used, not one I am introducing) to be addressed. Epson/Cosina addressed the niche, and the fact that Epson has not committed to the dRF long-term is immaterial.
Zeiss has stated their interest, perhaps even intention, to make a dRF when certain technological objectives can be met.
Would this grow the niche into a market force? I think not. Actually I am dead certain it would not.
Bill, you may be "reality based", but how is that different from anyone else's self-assessment? Implicit in your statement is that you consider anyone who differs with you to be living in some sort of fantasy world, disconnected from reality. That does not mean that I don't value you as a person and forum member. We all live in our own reality. Perhaps a bit different approach and choice of words can keep our worlds from colliding; especially when the OP was an innocent reference to one part of an article where an executive from the (reputed) #5 camera producer feigns shock.
who knew my brother was so smart?!!!
joe
sojournerphoto
03-19-2009, 16:44
Bill, my hat's off to you. I like the picture. I did own a digi-Rebel for a little bit and while I did occasionally get an image in focus with my Nikon primes plus adapter, it was the unpredictability of it that drove me bananas (the "challenging but not impossible" part of your post). I can use a Pentax screw-mount 50/1.4 wide open on a Nikon D3 and nail focus every time (no infinity focus, but that's another story). For my part, I just couldn't hack it with the smaller focusing screens. My point was that you can have a focusing "hump" and still have a product that not everyone will want.
Ben
Basically are all awfull for focusing and pretty poor for composing in my view. Yes, I;ve been spoiled, but when I tried some out for my brotehr I couldn't any of the 'entry level' dslrs. The 'mid-range' (50D etc) were a bit better, but it's not until you get to full 35mm frame that they become acceptable.
I can focus my distagon 35 f2 reliably on a 1Ds3 and mostly reliably on a 5D. the Distagon 28 2.8 is a bit more difficult unless the light is good and I don't want to react quickly. The Canon 50 1.4 is fairly easy to focus, but the focus ring feels like it's full of sand.
Mike
sojournerphoto
03-19-2009, 16:49
Pistach: I haven't made up my mind about this yet. Not sure I am shocked. I have a Panasonic LX-3, which performs this manipulation. But I think all cameras do to some extent, albeit with different parameters. My D3 or M8, for instance can use a custom WB and apply that to their RAW files. So a RAW file really isn't a sensor dump, regardless of what the camera co's have said. But suppose they could (and it seems that they can) "pre-correct" the barrel distortion that typically comes with cheap wide zooms. Why do you think that's a bad thing? It might put "lenses" of higher quality into the hands of more people. After all, no one "sees" with barrel distortion; and if your eyes did produce that sort of image "in camera" as it were, your brain would fix it up in a jiff as you "know" that straight edges don't bow as they recede in your field of vision. It isn't as shocking as a "slimming" feature or a camera that won't take a picture unless it "thinks" it sees smiles.
BTW, I didn't miss it. This news has been outraging photo-netizens for the past several weeks, so I didn't think it was new. What was new in the interview was the insight that Leica said "no thanks" to this sort of image manipulation (for reasons which have been the subject of intelligent speculation on another of today's RFF threads).
Quizzically,
Ben
It's become apparent that raw files vary in their 'rawness'. It seems to be accepted that the Nikon D3 does quite a lot to it's raw files, including noise reduction and geometry/chromatic aberration correction with some Nikon wides (pretty impressive at 10+ frames a second). Chuck Westfall at Canon went on record as saying that Canon doesn't do this to CR2 (i.e. all recent) raw files, though I don't know if this changed with the 5D.
I'm not intrinsically opposed to using software correction alongside optial design. it sems that it could be used to allow higher performance systems than are achievable purely optically as well as improving the performance of chaeper systems. What you may lose thogh is some of the character of lenses that arise from specific aberrations - though of course someone would suggest that you put them back in:).
Ultimately it depends what you want. For some people that may be about the image and others about teh ethos/experience of shooting. It may even be a mixture.
Mike
Benjamin Marks
03-19-2009, 16:59
Basically are all awfull for focusing and pretty poor for composing in my view. Yes, I;ve been spoiled, but when I tried some out for my brotehr I couldn't any of the 'entry level' dslrs. The 'mid-range' (50D etc) were a bit better, but it's not until you get to full 35mm frame that they become acceptable.
I'm with you 100% on this. When I looked through a 5D for the first time, it was like coming home. All my manual SLRs have this >pop< when the image comes into focus (F3, SL2, F4 and so on). I just don't think that the major camera makers had extra money to "spend" on a viewfinder after tricking out the entry level machines with 54 point-super-duper auto focus. So yes: spoiled, but this used to be pretty standard on SLR equipment.
Ben
bmattock
03-19-2009, 19:09
Bill, you may be "reality based", but how is that different from anyone else's self-assessment?
The part where I'm actually correct about mine.
Implicit in your statement is that you consider anyone who differs with you to be living in some sort of fantasy world, disconnected from reality.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. Don't worry, it's not just the rangefinder folk. You find it wherever like-minded people band together to discuss the object of their desire. Once they realize there are others like them, they move in fairly short order from astonishment to find they are actually not the only ones to a deep-seated belief that everyone thinks the way they do.
It is a relatively new phenomenon. People once had to live in their own neighborhoods, seldom discovering others who shared similar tastes or interests, and even when they did, they were acutely aware of the physical distances between them and all the 'ordinary' people in between. With the advent of the interwebs, the distance vanishes, some spend a big chunk of their lives online, and they build communities that they eventually decide are representative of the majority. I understand it, it's perfectly natural and even predicable. I just don't seem to have the ability to lose the perspective necessary to make that last leap.
That does not mean that I don't value you as a person and forum member.
Yeah, you guys are OK too.
We all live in our own reality. Perhaps a bit different approach and choice of words can keep our worlds from colliding.
Gee, I haven't called anyone a congenital moron or a blithering idiot in a long time. I thought I was being all warm and fuzzy already. Dial it down yet another notch, you're saying? Geez. How much fun that will be.
If we're talking about an actual rangefinder design then I don't think anyone should be surprised that one isn't forthcoming. I've noted before that if the electronic contacts communicate focus information, then an electronically-controlled rangefinder could be possible. With zooming viewfinder/LED framelines/something else? Not important because such a thing is a pure fantasy, even if it were possible.
If we're talking small, pocketable, hump-free camera, then it is no surprise to me that Panasonic is working on something. Olympus has only demonstrated something in that vein in terms of forthcoming m4/3 products. Given that one of the aims of the format is to make things smaller, this seems natural. And given the 20mm prime on their roadmap, I get the sense that Panasonic realizes this.
To me, the most promising thing about the new format (formats I suppose, adding in Samsung's short-flange "hybrid format") is that cameras can be small. The next most promising thing is that with such an open format (in the case of m4/3, specifying merely the image circle and flange depth, not even the aspect ratio) and without any hardware restrictions to speak of, like a need for a mirror, there's really no form factor that isn't available. Sure, the first cameras looklike DSLRs and have a prism hump where the EVF is. Another may be smaller and more rangefinder-like. Some may find a way to ditch the EVF altogether. One might look like a waistlevel 6x6 camera, with a top-viewing LCD tucked into a hood. A video-centric model may take ergonomic cues from an actual camcorder. Work lots of different ways? Buy one set of lenses and have a body for each methodology. It sounds pie-in-the-sky, and is, but it isn't impossible, and an enterprising company could do this with the format. For the record, sign me up for a waistlevel, 1:1 aspect camera that uses the primes that I hope olympus makes for their Pen F - inspired model.
As for the corrections applied, for some it is about the journey, and for some it is about the destination (and to be fair, for many it is a mix of the two). If results are all you care about, then these products might appeal to you. If you value the knowledge that your optics are first-rate, then you'll avoid these cameras. Personally, if the camera is easy to use, easy to carry with me at almost all times, and I like the results, I don't care what your digital voodoo is. I love what I get from my D700, but it isn't a camera I can keep with me at all times. I'm willing to compromise the journey if that's what it takes.
Finally, I'm with everyone that wonders what Panasonic's Leica-inclusive plans might be...
The first example (I think he is saying he used C1) showing the uncorrected building is all I really need to know - and that is that the camera on a Motorola Razr has less distortion than the LX3 lens. Unbelievable.
I'd be amazed if Panasonic has not considered an RF or RF-like design. Which isn't to say they'd actually make one, of course.
Isn't that already possible with some third-party RAW converters? See here (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5102) for example. I usually use ACR now (which does apply correction) but I recall that RawTherapee did not. I used PTLens to do it after the fact.
The first example (I think he is saying he used C1) showing the uncorrected building is all I really need to know - and that is that the camera on a Motorola Razr has less distortion than the LX3 lens. Unbelievable.
Panasonic gave up distortion correction in the lens in favour of speed and resolution. That's a trade-off I can live with for software correction. Or would you prefer the LX3 cost significantly more and be larger to incorporate the extra elements necessary to get optical distortion correction along with the otherwise excellent performance of the LX3's lens.
That the idea of correcting distortion in-camera is a cost savings measure, but even assuming the output is the same as an crop DSLR with FF lens and no correction, you're still paying hundreds more for the small form factor ($450 or so for Panasonic version, few hundred more for Dlux4 version), and giving up a lens option with less native distortion.
DOF wise, I don't see the f2 samples having any more DOF than my Fuji F30 which has about the same size sensor (1/1.6"), even though the F30 is 2.8+.
F2 DOF can be very semi-narrow on an RF up close, or DSLR with crop, and very narrow on a FF 35mm or FF DSLR which focuses closer.
But on a tiny sensor, like 4/3, 1/1.6" etc., F2 and F2.8, get pretty close, you basically have tons of DOF until in macro mode, just inches or cm from subject.
Check my photo blog for narrow focus, but up-close flower images with the F30. I haven't seen anything close with an LX3 yet.
Panasonic gave up distortion correction in the lens in favour of speed and resolution. That's a trade-off I can live with for software correction. Or would you prefer the LX3 cost significantly more and be larger to incorporate the extra elements necessary to get optical distortion correction along with the otherwise excellent performance of the LX3's lens.
It's not the DoF I'm interested in with the LX3, it's the light. If I want to shoot shallow DoF stuff I'll use a larger format but the LX3's combination of a large (for a P&S) sensor and f2 lens makes low-light shooting surprisingly viable for a P&S.
That the idea of correcting distortion in-camera is a cost savings measure, but even assuming the output is the same as an crop DSLR with FF lens and no correction, you're still paying hundreds more for the small form factor ($450 or so for Panasonic version, few hundred more for Dlux4 version), and giving up a lens option with less native distortion.
DOF wise, I don't see the f2 samples having any more DOF than my Fuji F30 which has about the same size sensor (1/1.6"), even though the F30 is 2.8+.
F2 DOF can be very semi-narrow on an RF up close, or DSLR with crop, and very narrow on a FF 35mm or FF DSLR which focuses closer.
But on a tiny sensor, like 4/3, 1/1.6" etc., F2 and F2.8, get pretty close, you basically have tons of DOF until in macro mode, just inches or cm from subject.
Check my photo blog for narrow focus, but up-close flower images with the F30. I haven't seen anything close with an LX3 yet.
Bill, bless you. :D
I still maintain that no one here --well, in this thread, at least-- has their head up their arse about the imminent release of a Panasonic or other m4/3 true RF. I think MOST on RFF are agreed we're a niche of a niche, or a niche at best. So I felt your initial comments were coming out of left field.
My personal, internal focus right now is on discourse that is "more civil", more inclusive rather than confrontational. That's me ... call me a budding Buddhist (I am) or detached from reality (I'M NOT, YOU BA$TARD, I'M NOT!!!), just as long as you call me for the wine tasting.
Earl
It's not the DoF I'm interested in with the LX3, it's the light. If I want to shoot shallow DoF stuff I'll use a larger format but the LX3's combination of a large (for a P&S) sensor and f2 lens makes low-light shooting surprisingly viable for a P&S.
As much as I HATE the LX3's ergonomics, I agree with Adam here regarding DOF - ISO800 is excellent with the LX3
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/3026208437_29d605eca2.jpg
(Full size here: On Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_nexus/3026208437/sizes/o/in/set-72157608994874935/))
Dave
buzzardkid
03-21-2009, 10:42
Panasonic will probably not be too interested as long as customers do not inquire through their corporate web site. It's no use debating at forums since they will only consider if requested directly.
I read the Olympus interview on DPReview.com as well and this is at least the way Olympus approached it.
So, if you wanna make a difference, get to your coutries Panasonic site and leave a question!
digitalintrigue
03-22-2009, 07:20
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/panasonic_we_may_launch_compactstyle_micro_four_th irds_camera_update_news_278224.html
back alley
03-22-2009, 08:14
it seems all is possible...
"Once they realize there are others like them, they move in fairly short order from astonishment to find they are actually not the only ones to a deep-seated belief that everyone thinks the way they do."
Bill, all the photographers I know personally are obsessive hobbyists, but we are under no delusions about having a collective viewpoint, especially when discussing what we want (desires). Hell, look at all the disagreements fomented on these forums. We might have other delusions, but I don't think possessing a herd mentality is one of them. There are exceptions that prove the rule.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.