View Full Version : Why there are no native Leica lenses for the Lumix G1
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:12
While everyone is yammering about the "mock" or not mock surprise of a Panasonic executive to a question about a more rangefinder-like body for G1 successors, I found this remark (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031901panasonicinterview.asp) much more interesting:
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.
First of all, I had no idea that digital corrections were being applied in camera to the G1 lens. Perhaps that is why it is so small and so good. (I now understand that these corrections are even applied in RAW mode.)
Second, what happens with adapted lenses? Is there no digital correction applied to them? I would assume so, but who knows.
Third, if Leica is resistant to making lenses that incorporate digital correction for the m4/3rds body, what is the "plan" referred to above for working with them?
/T
If Leica branded lenses designed for the 2x crop and in-camera digital manipulation that the newer Panasonics do, then they'd be getting out of the optics business, and into the software correction business, competing with the lenses and photoshop corrections that Ken Rockwell touts a lot.
I think Leica wants to stay a leading edge optics designer and maker, even though that value in the consumer market might be dwindling with the acceptability of LX3 and G1 in-camera digital tweaks. However, no one doesn't see the value of the Leica name...
While everyone is yammering about the "mock" or not mock surprise of a Panasonic executive to a question about a more rangefinder-like body for G1 successors, I found this remark (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031901panasonicinterview.asp) much more interesting:
First of all, I had no idea that digital corrections were being applied in camera to the G1 lens. Perhaps that is why it is so small and so good. (I now understand that these corrections are even applied in RAW mode.)
Second, what happens with adapted lenses? Is there no digital correction applied to them? I would assume so, but who knows.
Third, if Leica is resistant to making lenses that incorporate digital correction for the m4/3rds body, what is the "plan" referred to above for working with them?
/T
I have wondered too what happens to adapted lenses and if it is a reason why when I did a lens test of many different M mount lenses from different brands and vintages that the results were exactly the same for each lens and no one could ever tell them apart.
Also if Leica does not allow digital corrections then what about the LX3? The lens on that camera is so corrected to death!
Its funny that these things come out on the day that I decide to sell my G1, will probably make it harder to get rid of :) I decided though for a small carry around camera I would rather have my GRD in pocket.
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:25
If Leica were partnering with Panasonic, why wouldn't they make the optical part of the lens (their expertise) and let Panasonic do the software corrections (their expertise)? Best of both worlds, unless it's just too impractical to separate the design that way.
/T
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:27
I have wondered too what happens to adapted lenses and if it is a reason why when I did a lens test of many different M mount lenses from different brands and vintages that the results were exactly the same for each lens and no one could ever tell them apart.
Also if Leica does not allow digital corrections then what about the LX3? The lens on that camera is so corrected to death!
Its funny that these things come out on the day that I decide to sell my G1, will probably make it harder to get rid of :) I decided though for a small carry around camera I would rather have my GRD in pocket.
Why should these revelations make it hard to sell the G1? I don't care how lens correction is done, optically or digitally. The G1 takes damn fine pictures with its kit lens. If digital correction is part of the equation, so be it. I just care about the results - not the method.
/T
back alley
03-19-2009, 08:29
i don't care.
the panasonic kit lens is great and if software is part of that who cares?
i like the results i get.
Why should these revelations make it hard to sell the G1? I don't care how lens correction is done, optically or digitally. The G1 takes damn fine pictures with its kit lens. If digital correction is part of the equation, so be it. I just care about the results - not the method.
/T
Indeed, part of the problem for me though is that here in China the G1 did not sell well at all, and to make things worse almost all the forum posts (on Chinese forums) are for adapted lenses and many Chinese photographers are extreme purists when it comes to method (which is kind of funny for this camera)
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:37
Any idea why the G1 was such a poor seller in China?
/T
I have wondered too what happens to adapted lenses and if it is a reason why when I did a lens test of many different M mount lenses from different brands and vintages that the results were exactly the same for each lens and no one could ever tell them apart.
This is exactly what I found. I saw no discernable differences in the G1's files using M glass over the cameras own Panasonic lenses. As a matter of fact, I thought the Panasonic's lenses performed better that any M glass prime.
Well if no one cared about methods, optical precision, purple fringing, etc., whey are we here, and not using camera phones, with heavy photoshop, and praising Ken Rockwell?? ;)
A bit unrelated, but Leica cares very much about firmware. You might pay double for a DLUX4 over an LX3, but get different software. Software that exposes in such a way as to get a better image out of pretty much the same camera and lens: http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/panasonic-lx3-vs-leica-d-lux-4.html
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:48
This is exactly what I found. I saw no discernable differences in the G1's files using M glass over the cameras own Panasonic lenses. As a matter of fact, I thought the Panasonic's lenses performed better that any M glass prime.
If so, wouldn't the results from adapted lenses just look distorted, and not all the same as the kit lens?
/T
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 08:48
Well if no one cared about methods, optical precision, purple fringing, etc., whey are we here, and not using camera phones, with heavy photoshop, and praising Ken Rockwell?? ;)
A bit unrelated, but Leica cares very much about firmware. You might pay double for a DLUX4 over an LX3, but get different software. Software that exposes in such a way as to get a better image out of pretty much the same camera and lens: http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/panasonic-lx3-vs-leica-d-lux-4.html
I care. And none of those are present in a G1 kit lens. Have you used one?
/T
than this one:
http://lemon.soju.co.uk/g1/review/purple-fringing/
I care. And none of those are present in a G1 kit lens. Have you used one?
/T
I care. And none of those are present in a G1 kit lens. Have you used one?
/T
Just about the worst lens tests I've seen for modern lenses. Obviously, there is more to good lens performance at short registration distances than electronic fixes. Explains why Leica M lenses cost so much.
This is exactly what I found. I saw no discernable differences in the G1's files using M glass over the cameras own Panasonic lenses. As a matter of fact, I thought the Panasonic's lenses performed better that any M glass prime.
Forced to guess, I'd say that all of the M glass looks the same and loses its character because the camera is only taking the center of the image circle, where the sort of imperfections that define that character will be minimized.
And the Kit lens, benefiting from software correction, looks better for that correction. It's a sign that whatever it is that they do, it works reasonably well. If a cheap kit lens can compete with M glass, someone's doing something right, and I'm not going to complain about what gets us there.
Wow you G1 fans would be in Hog Heaven with a DSLR and the kit lens ;)
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 20:28
than this one:
http://lemon.soju.co.uk/g1/review/purple-fringing/
I found a similar shot of my own. 100% crop. I guess I do see some purple fringing here, but it just doesn't seem that bad.
/T
Tuolumne
03-19-2009, 20:30
You might pay double for a DLUX4 over an LX3, but get different software. Software that exposes in such a way as to get a better image out of pretty much the same camera and lens: http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/panasonic-lx3-vs-leica-d-lux-4.html
Hasn't this been debunked as a Leica marketing myth?
/T
Wow you G1 fans would be in Hog Heaven with a DSLR and the kit lens ;)
I don't think there's anything wholly remarkable about the camera. It is an entry level "DSLR and the kit lens." Nothing more or less, apart from being rather small and pretty fun to play with.
But compared to the entry+kit of other makes, the performance is well above what I'm used to seeing from Rebels and low-end Nikons using their respective kit lenses. Again, nothing remarkable, but as a function of cost, I think the performance is rather good. I don't begrudge anyone having such a low-cost entry-level kit, and in the G1 I applaud that they're able to offer something that yields such results.
Hasn't this been debunked as a Leica marketing myth?
/T
Beyond that, there was nothing in that comparison that convinced me that there's a bit of difference between the two. A little sample variation, perhaps? Nothing that made me lean in, take a closer look, and come to the conclusion that the cameras are different in the slightest.
I found a similar shot of my own. 100% crop. I guess I do see some purple fringing here, but it just doesn't seem that bad.
/T
Its true that the G1 will have some of that purple stuff going on but really the camera is very good at getting rid of it! In comparison my Canon 20D with a 17-40 on it, so horrible, I found fringing in some images to be as wide as 4-5 pixles....that is very visible in small and large prints and the worst part of it is that they fringing is in different colors, it might be purple on one side of the image and green on the other, which makes it near impossible to get afterwords. On the topic of fringing, the G1 is sure making it easier for us who have to actually work on the images afterwords.
Take a look at this typical fringing from my Canon, and this is a 100% crop from the left lower center of the frame.
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=68445&stc=1&d=1237526351
The main things these "software tricks" do are pretty simple...
1) Vignetting correction... Leica (and Canon and others) already do this
2) Chromatic Aberration correction... again, newer Nikon DSLRs (D3, etc.) do this
3) Distortion correction... the LX-3 does this (as do many compact cameras (probably) but not any interchangeable lens cameras (that I know of).
I don't think any of the above three are objectionable at all when used within reason. If a lens is excellent in every way other than easily correctable (in camera raw) CAs... let the camera fix it for me so I don't have to do it myself.
Getting rid of purple fringing is a bit more complicated (it's not the same as regular lateral CAs).
By the way, that guy desperately trying to find differences between the LX3 and DLux4 seems a little crazy to me.
digitalintrigue
03-19-2009, 22:58
Forced to guess, I'd say that all of the M glass looks the same and loses its character because the camera is only taking the center of the image circle, where the sort of imperfections that define that character will be minimized.
This supposition is a continuation of RFF urban legend.
The M glass doesn't lose it's character at all, and no, it doesn't look the same! Where does this stuff come from? There are literally thousands of G1 images going back to December of last year, taken with M glass, all over the web. This one is quite easily debunked; it doesn't even make logical sense.
The lens will render light the way it renders light...whether it's film, or an M8, or a G1. A Summarit image will look like a Summarit image. A Nokton will have Nokton bokeh. A Planar will look like a Planar.
Think about it: if you put a Summicron on an M6, shoot a photo and crop the image, does it turn into a completely different rendering and bokeh and character, and look like a Summilux ASPH or some completely different lens?
Back to the original question: because of price!
The G1 (Gx) concept can't afford Leica's prices.
And doesn't need it.:p
I think that the short distance between the mount and sensor brought up an absolutely not planned possibility to use (almost) any kind of glass.
Fortunately if a G1 owner has Leica glass, easily can use it. But I suspect that very few G1 owner will run to buy WATE:bang:
That answer from the company about digital correction is a simple but polite bla-bla
nemjo
Regarding the negative review of the kit lens, that was done without the G1 body; they were reviewing the lens stand-alone, without the system of software correction that IT WAS DESIGNED TO OPERATE WITH.
This is a new paradigm, the lens and body as an integral system; the G1 complicates this paradigm because it's interchangable, permitting non-u4/3 lenses to be used, thus breaking the system's original intent.
I believe the electrical contacts between lens and body, among other functions, inform the body as to which lens and how much correction is needed. Similar, but not identical, to the M8.;)
So I believe a legacy manual lens (or pinhole in the body cap, or any other optical image-forming device) won't have correction applied -- no electrical contacts. But that's merely a guess, since I haven't tested it.
The thing that makes the G1 such a good camera are the ergonomics of the body, the EVF, the folding LCD and the image quality at the price point using the kit lens. It really is a great little photographic tool, the first all-electronic camera that I can actually like and appreciate in the way that I appreciate legacy manual cameras; it does what it was designed to do very well.
I think it will become known as a great little candid/street photography camera, also. But it does much more than that, too.
~Joe
Tuolumne
03-20-2009, 09:54
The thing that makes the G1 such a good camera are the ergonomics of the body, the EVF, the folding LCD and the image quality at the price point using the kit lens. It really is a great little photographic tool, the first all-electronic camera that I can actually like and appreciate in the way that I appreciate legacy manual cameras; it does what it was designed to do very well.
I think it will become known as a great little candid/street photography camera, also. But it does much more than that, too.
~Joe
This is the best thumbnail summary I have seen of what is great about the G1. You should license it to e-commerce sites for their product blurb!! :D:cool::D
/T
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.