Leica support for m4/3 ??

[Peter_DL]

I’m interested to buy into Micro Four Thirds equipment
i.e. the Panasonic GF1. Among some other aspects:
/>  there is an adapter for (my) Leica R lenses
/>  there is even a Leica Macro-Elmarit 45 mm

It would be particularly nice to have a leica-rized standard zoom, e.g. 14-70 mm, or any commitment from Leica at all on this m4/3 standard. So perhaps it is just a red dot things (for me), but somehow I need some confirmation that it is worth to invest in such m4/3 gear.

The CF1 is meant as an upgrade of the Canon G10, rather than waiting for the G12.

Your comments are appreciated.

Peter

--

[fredjeang]

Hi,
I remember that the "on-line photographer" did an article about that but with M lenses, not R.
Do not saved the link but it's there, make a search in his site.
The interesting point is that he noticed that there was not an increment in term of IQ with Leica M compared to the mf lenses,
So, by extention, logically there should not be either an IQ increment using the R series, but sometimes logic is not where you expect.

The "logical" reason why there was not a better IQ with top class expensive lenses in because that mfd small sensor is not capable of delivering
the full potential of these lenses. They sort of reached a top where if you want better you need bigger.
They did brillantly, but there are stucked now into a format that soon will be overpassed by new EVILs cameras players with bigger and more powerfull sensors.

I put a thread here called "MFT is a dead end format", and it was not well received by many of their users, fair enough when you have invested in a gear.
But I've been a FT owner and saw what happened to that because of the limitations of the smaller format. Now, it's fair to say that MFT is a mature system and very well acheived.

By the way, I've been claiming for years, sign the petition etc... for a digital R9 successor instead of the extravagant (but excellent) S2...that would have been just the right thing to do for Leica IMHO. That, no doubt I would have purchased one. But what's done is done.

Regards.

[BJL]

... there [MFT] are stucked now into a format that soon will be overpassed by new EVILs cameras players with bigger and more powerfull sensors.

I put a thread here called "MFT is a dead end format" ...

By the way ... sign the petition ... for a digital R9 successor instead of the extravagant (but excellent) S2...that would have been just the right thing to do for Leica IMHO.

There is an irony here.

On one hand you are advocating a smaller format digital R9 over the larger format S2, and so seem to acknowledge that there are worthwhile advantages to a smaller format that can in some cases outweigh the advantages of a larger format. The size and weight advantage of a complete camera with lens are an often stated reason why at least some people, some times, will prefer a smaller format.

On the other hand you repeat your prediction that MFT will be killed of by somewhat larger format alternative by simply pointing to potential sensor performance differences and ignoring all other factors! Please consider that size and weight are often factors in choosing one of the new EVIL camera systems, so that the smaller format advantages might again lead a significant number of photographers to prefer MFT over larger alternatives. Look at the size of the Samsung NX10 with standard zoom attached compared to say an Olympus MFT body and 14-42 zoom to see the total camera size difference issue.

(And please, let us not get into the silly idea that EVIL cameras will mostly be used with pancake primes! At B&H for example, all nine current and announced EVIL models in three brands are offered in kits with a zoom lens, while only one or two are also offered in a kit with a prime lens.)

[DarkPenguin]

I put a thread here called "MFT is a dead end format", and it was not well received by many of their users, fair enough when you have invested in a gear.
But I've been a FT owner and saw what happened to that because of the limitations of the smaller format. Now, it's fair to say that MFT is a mature system and very well acheived.

What did happen to that?

[DavidJ]

I am using a GF1 with the 50mm Summicron R with the Novoflex adapter. This works pretty well. I have found that using the one touch on the function wheel to get focus magnification works very well particularly if I use the viewfinder attachment rather than the back screen. I have also tried the Elmarit 135 R but found it to be too heavy and cumbersome on the small body of the GF1.

I can carry the GF1 the 20mm pancake and the Leitz 50mm plus adapter in a small bag which weighs 2oz more than the body of my 5D!

David

[fredjeang]

What did happen to that?

What did happen to that? Very simple, and Michael predicted it.
The FT is simply not suitable for pro applications, and the last professional camera Oly put on the market was the E3.
The E3 is a greatly built, have good performance if you do not push it too much. A little more delicate situation (low light for example) and IQ falls drastically,
even compared to cheaper gear. The E3 sensor has no room for pushing anything, and there you see that size matters.
If you invest in Nikons, Canons or Sony, and let's say that your needs are growing and want to go FF, you can do it. If you purchase vintage (very good) 35mm Oly lenses in E-bay, you will never be able to use then in FF, simply Oly won't release a FF model.
As a long term investment I don't think that any pro is going to go Oly any more, except MFT for the moment.
Oly future is now in MFT, and they do not even try to hide it. They will concentrate in this format.

[250swb]

Oly future is now in MFT, and they do not even try to hide it. They will concentrate in this format.

I thought it was entirely opposite, Olympus have recently come out to say specifically that the 4/3 format would not die and it would not adopt EVF technology. They have a range of the finest lenses of their type in the world, and for the sake of waiting for the next pro body its probably worth not writing them off just yet. We don't all need to be as impatient for something to buy as an average Canon buyer because the lenses make the camera, not the next short term new body indulgence.

Steve

[BJL]

... the last professional camera Oly put on the market was the E3.

Oly future is now in MFT, and they do not even try to hide it. They will concentrate in this format.

Are you saying that there will be no successor to the E-3? Olympus has indicated otherwise, and the E-3 is less than three years old. By comparison, the E-1 was on the market for four years before the E-3 replaced it, and it was three years from 1DsMkII to 1DsMkIII.

Olympus has by any measure produced more new 4/3 SLR models than m4/3 models in the last year, so I do not see it being "all m4/3", though I am sure m4/3 is the most profitable in its "early adopter" phase.

[Peter_DL]

... a format that soon will be overpassed by new EVILs cameras players with bigger and more powerfull sensors.
I put a thread here called "MFT is a dead end format"...

Not sure.

The comparison of sensor size of course also depends on the aspect ratio,
and how important 3:2 versus 4:3 is for you:
4:3 GF1 = 17.3 x 13.0 mm
3:2 Canon 7D = 22.3 x 14.9 mm

Ignoring the left and right 3:2 border of the 7D, its 4:3 area is 14.9 x 14.9 x 4/3 = 296 mm^2,
compared to 225 mm^2 with the GF1 which makes considerable 76% of the 7D 4:3 area.


Rather than a bigger sensor with the GF1,
I'd still think that it would be worthwhile to have broader choice of "cute", leica-rized prime lenses.
And, maybe, a Leica GF2  

Anyway, many thanks for your comment!

Peter

--

[fredjeang]

Are you saying that there will be no successor to the E-3? Olympus has indicated otherwise, and the E-3 is less than three years old. By comparison, the E-1 was on the market for four years before the E-3 replaced it, and it was three years from 1DsMkII to 1DsMkIII.

Olympus has by any measure produced more new 4/3 SLR models than m4/3 models in the last year, so I do not see it being "all m4/3", though I am sure m4/3 is the most profitable in its "early adopter" phase.

They might release a successor of the E3, why not? I'm not saying they won't, I'm saying that there will be no FF Oly and probably not a "Pro" Oly either. But the real sense is the MFT, and they know it. Remember, when Oly built the FT standard, the idea was that they will be capable of producing much smaller gear, 100% digital from the begining in oposition to what CaNikon where adapting old tech to digital. The reality showed that they were wrong. Gears where not much smaller and IQ suffered in DR and higher iso. The Pros went FF for most and the E3 did not had success. But their philosophy appeared to be much more suitable for MFT, and that is where they won with Pana.

Cheers.

[BJL]

They might release a successor of the E3, why not? I'm not saying they won't, I'm saying that there will be no FF Oly ...

OK, so a new claim about FF, unrelated to what you said before and what I was commenting on, which was about the Four Thirds SLR system.

I agree that Olympus is extremely unlikely to introduce a new system in 36x24mm format, for which it has no modern AF lenses, now that this format is a small high end part of the photographic market, vastly smaller than it was with film: 35mm format accounts for well under 10% of DSLRs, which a smaller share than in the year the 1Ds and 14n were released, with DSLRs in turn less than 10% of digital cameras. There is a market there for sure, but probably only with room for a couple of extensive, well established professional systems like Canon and Nikon.

[fredjeang]

OK, so a new claim about FF, unrelated to what you said before and what I was commenting on, which was about the Four Thirds SLR system.

I agree that Olympus is extremely unlikely to introduce a new system in 36x24mm format, for which it has no modern AF lenses, now that this format is a small high end part of the photographic market, vastly smaller than it was with film: 35mm format accounts for well under 10% of DSLRs, which a smaller share than in the year the 1Ds and 14n were released, with DSLRs in turn less than 10% of digital cameras. There is a market there for sure, but probably only with room for a couple of extensive, well established professional systems like Canon and Nikon.

I tried to answer to a question you directly aimed to me that was: "Are you saying that there will be no successor to the E-3?".

About the E1, I had this camera and it is indeed one of the only camera I missed after I sold it. But it does not mean that I'm not concern by the absence of FF in a legendary camera brand, and the same with Pentax (although they have released a bomb reacently but it is a completly different system).
Another claim for FF ?  yes. But says to the Sony's Apha 900-850 guys on this forum if they do not want to replace their 24MP FF for a cropped model? See the answers. Or the enormous amount of Nikon D700, D3 and Canon 5D, 1D...Are these people all high-end top world wealthy photographers? I think that someone who is involved for many years in photography and wants to upgrade to more serious tools, 35mm FF is not a bizarre option reserved for 2 brands and an exentric fistful of upper class whims.
It should be an accomplishment of the state of art for a brand, in providing all the palette of gear their customers deserve. IMHO.

[BJL]

Another claim for FF ?  yes. But says to the Sony's Apha 900-850 guys on this forum if they do not want to replace their 24MP FF for a cropped model? See the answers. Or the enormous amount of Nikon D700, D3 and Canon 5D, 1D...Are these people all high-end top world wealthy photographers?

No, they are simply in one valid but quite small sector of the photographic market, a sector towards which enthusiast sites like this are for far more heavily skewed than the photographic community at a whole. As I said, that sector is probably capable of supporting a couple of high end systems (two or maybe three), but I see no reason why every maker of good mainstream DSLRs needs to be there ... any more than every maker of mainstream format film SLRs (meaning 35mm in that case) needed to also get into larger formats (meaning medium format in that case). Canon and Nikon did fine without directly competing against Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, Bronica Fujifilm and Pentax by offering the larger more "professional" medium format film formats.

Note that I did not say anything about 35mm format being exclusively for "high end top world wealthy photographers": when straw men distortions like that come out, it is probably time to end the discussion.

[fredjeang]

duplicated post error, please ignore.