Using Leica M lenses on the Panasonic G1 - some pictures

[carstenw]

In the case of my suggestion, if the user can set it up or tweak it manually, which could be done in ideal conditions, then in most situations the camera would just have to play back the recorded behaviour with the lens mounted. I think that ought to be doable.

[peterb]

Mark,

As far as focus goes, why couldn't the camera merely tell you when focus is achieved at a particular spot projected by the LCD onto the viewfinding area. If the camera employs a contrast detection system that takes full advantage of the live sensor (as in the G1) then by merely rotating the focus ring the camera alerts you when that particular spot is, according to the sensor, at sharpest focus. The focus assist could be anything from a balancing of 'green' diodes (as opposed to the red ones for metering in the M6) or merely a green dot that appears (as in Nikon or Pentax DSLR's that allow manual focus with non-af lenses) alerting the photographer that at the point selected, sharpest possible focus with the lens being used has been achieved. Since focus is manual anyway (and not by some ultra-fast ultra sonic motor, the contrast detection method that seems to work so well on the G1 could work. All with no need for coincident patches or heavily engineered rangefinding optics. Although again if it's possible to project some sort of phasing image that mimics the rangefinder coincident patch like frame lines through some elaborate software that would be VERY cool. I just don't think it's necessary if the camera can tell you you've achieved focus on the spot you're aiming which is what the rangefinder's coincident focusing patch was all about anyway.

As far as extremely low light situations, my guess is you'd look for a highlight anyway and that would be manageable by contrast detection, no? Otherwise I guess some other mehod would have to be employed. And that might make things too complicated to be economically practicable.

Peter

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by peterb

Mark,

As far as focus goes, why couldn't the camera merely tell you when focus is achieved at a particular spot projected by the LCD onto the viewfinding area. If the camera employs a contrast detection system that takes full advantage of the live sensor (as in the G1) then by merely rotating the focus ring the camera alerts you when that particular spot is, according to the sensor, at sharpest focus. The focus assist could be anything from a balancing of 'green' diodes (as opposed to the red ones for metering in the M6) or merely a green dot that appears (as in Nikon or Pentax DSLR's that allow manual focus with non-af lenses) alerting the photographer that at the point selected, sharpest possible focus with the lens being used has been achieved. Since focus is manual anyway (and not by some ultra-fast ultra sonic motor, the contrast detection method that seems to work so well on the G1 could work. All with no need for coincident patches or heavily engineered rangefinding optics. Although again if it's possible to project some sort of phasing image that mimics the rangefinder coincident patch like frame lines through some elaborate software that would be VERY cool. I just don't think it's necessary if the camera can tell you you've achieved focus on the spot you're aiming which is what the rangefinder's coincident focusing patch was all about anyway.

As far as extremely low light situations, my guess is you'd look for a highlight anyway and that would be manageable by contrast detection, no? Otherwise I guess some other mehod would have to be employed. And that might make things too complicated to be economically practicable.

Peter

An indicator light, itself, is a slower method for achieving MF than an RF patch. At a glance, the RF patch tells one how far out of focus the camera is. With a bit of practice, the correction becomes almost intuitive.

Cheers,

Sean

[peterb]

True, Sean. Very true. But I gotta tell you, I've been using the G1 with its new firmware that has made the 'focusing patch' in manual focus HUGE and focusing, while not rangefinder fast, is REALLY fast. A lot faster and, more importantly, more reassuring than I found manually focusing the D2.

But if some middle ground could be achieved where a coincident LCD image of some sort for focusing could be projected onto the view taking advantage of the human eye's ability to align coincident imaging (which is what the RF patch is all about and why it works so well) in the same manner that frame lines are projected depending on which M lens you'd been using as Mark Norton has suggested, allowing one to focus this DRF in the same manner as a traditional RF with full view, more accurate frame lines (that move and adjust to avoid parallax issues) all the while allowing you to see outside the frames which has always been a hallmark of the RF approach to photography, that would be pretty freakin' cool.

Moreover, I think, with the right approach using LED's or LCD's as a focus aid like the M's patch, with time and practice you could also tell how much out of focus things are and intuitively snap things into focus the same way we intuitively knew how to 'balance' the triangular LED's on the M6 (and in particular the original series that didn't 'drift' into equal brightness but did so with a snap I missed in the later versions) and set the right aperture.

Peter.

[jank]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Ah, so that's what you meant! I saw a bit surprised before you cleared it up. Yes, this sounds like exactly what we have discussed earlier, but with more details. Do you really think it is feasible without increasing the cost significantly, and not losing any accuracy? That would be great, especially if combined with some kind of per-lens tuning in firmware.

Carsten,
the real cost is in development. The microprocessor is about $3.50, extra memory if really needed about 50 c, The micromotor is few bucks, surrounding circuitry few bucks.
Hardware cost is 10 -20 USD + the mechanical interface.
The development cost - 100 k- 1Mbuck.Easily.
One can make somethig working for 10-20k, after then it adds up quickly. Esp. If one considers the life of the product.It is Leica, not a one shot deal and goto next one.
Jan

[jank]

Originally Posted by marknorton

Yes, we discussed using an LCD to create adjustable framelines before and I've banged on for a while about the camera needing to sense actual focus instead of the parallel universe of the rangefinder and focussing cam.

I still come back to the question of how well the camera can determine correct focus (and then make the two images coincident) rather than the user but I don't see an easy way of having the user evaluate actual focus within the viewing scheme we're keen to preserve. I can see real issues for example, with the camera trying to determine actual focus in marginal light and marginal subjects.

I am the one to determine the correct focus.
I want to make this decission.
Inspite considering myself an extrovert.
I want perfect means to achieve it in marginal light , the rangefinder like the one in my M5 seems to be quite superior to anything else I ever tried so far.
All one needs is the better technical solution.
Jan

[jklotz]

I've got a G1. Image quality is impressive, and the bells and whistles are fun, but I miss the rangefinder experience and the quality feel of the M8. Sean, I hope this camera you are discussing comes to fruition. Personaly, I'd be willing to pay more for a quality product that takes into acount not only functionality and image quality, but the entire photographic experience.

[terrycioni]

My simple assessment to date;

The G1 is not a Leica M or M digital nor is it a replacement for these cameras near as I tell. How you define the G1 as part of your camera kit or not is really up to you - it is in a category of it's own. I suspect there will other m4/3 to come along, the G1 is first on scene.

A rangefinder is a rangefinder - the G1 is an EVF/Liveview "experience" and if there ever was an apple and orange comparison this might be it.

What I believe is interesting is that there are a number of Leica lens adapters coming from various OEM including Jim Milch who is shipping the LTM to m4/3 (G1) this is what make it an interesting connection to Leica or CV or Zeiss. Sean has reviewed the Milch LTM to m4/3 adapter and the review makes for a good read.

Also Leica does have - branded very good 4/3 lenses which work with the G1 using the MA1 adapter.

Best regards. Terry.

[rosuna]

Mike Johnston sees the G1 as a digital "Barnack Camera":

THEONLINEPHOTOGRAPHER.COM

Erwin Puts said the same when he reviewed the Olympus E-1, but the "Micro 4/3" has much more potential...

[marknorton]

Terry, I don't think any of us are claiming the G1 is a replacement for an M8 but it's certainly a viable alternative platform for M lenses.

Some aspects of the camea - the live view, the articulated LCD display, the better eye comfort, the 90% lower cost, the quieter shutter and the potentially more accurate focussing in many situations make it a compelling camera to try for any M photographer. On the other hand, the crop factor, the ultimate IQ, the missing RF focussing and the lack of durability will be rightly seen by many as an unacceptable compromise.

We might - and I stress, might - get a new M camera from Leica in 2010 but judging by the snail-like progress which the M8.2 represents, we should not expect too much.

I think there's a market for 2 types of Digital M camera - the traditional, more formal implementation of an M camera and a second which dares to be different, digital equivalents of the MP and M7, if you will. Leica could do worse than look at the G1 for some pointers. Like others here, I'm delighted by it.

[stnami]

.............. and the future oly ?

[TEBnewyork]

Originally Posted by marknorton

Terry, I don't think any of us are claiming the G1 is a replacement for an M8 but it's certainly a viable alternative platform for M lenses.

Some aspects of the camea - the live view, the articulated LCD display, the better eye comfort, the 90% lower cost, the quieter shutter and the potentially more accurate focussing in many situations make it a compelling camera to try for any M photographer. On the other hand, the crop factor, the ultimate IQ, the missing RF focussing and the lack of durability will be rightly seen by many as an unacceptable compromise.

We might - and I stress, might - get a new M camera from Leica in 2010 but judging by the snail-like progress which the M8.2 represents, we should not expect too much.

I think there's a market for 2 types of Digital M camera - the traditional, more formal implementation of an M camera and a second which dares to be different, digital equivalents of the MP and M7, if you will. Leica could do worse than look at the G1 for some pointers. Like others here, I'm delighted by it.

And so for me my new travel kit will be an M8 body and lenses along with a G1 body and the two lenses and a MFT/M adapter. This kit gives me a bit more versatility than packing two M8s and is still compact to travel with.

[howard_cummer]

I don't think the G1 is a replacement for the M8 by any means - different tactile experiences - but as a backup supplement I can see it having a place in my camera bag. When I went to Photokina this year I carried two Domke 803 bags - one with the M8 and a brace of lenses, the other with a D700 and Nikon fixed focal and zoom lenses. It was TOO much. Next time I would take the G1 plus two zooms and my usual M8 and Leica lenses. Throw in the RayQual adapter and I have a viable back up for the M8. Not perfect but useable. And, of course, the G1 is just the first iteration. Further models from Olympus and Panasonic will undoubtedly improve on what the G1 delivers. I look forward to trying them. I hope Leica gets on the band wagon too, but doubt that they will - seeing the G1 as more of a threat to M8 sales than a compliment.
Cheers
Howard

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

Sean,
I know you want a truly optical view but wouldn't an easy compromise be an electronic view with a sensor that is a little bit larger than what is recorded so that you can see outside the frame of your "live view".

While I also like the live view, and the "freeze" in the G1 viewfinder when you take the shot is a bit startling after using the M8, what I don't like about rangefinders is the ratio of what is in vs. out of the frame on longer lenses. That is partially why I sold my 90mm lens and stop at 75mm.

Hi Terry,

BTW, on the M8 (not M8.2) the 90 mm frame lines are more accurate (at most distances) than the 75 mm lines. The former are set for 1 m vs. .7 m for the latter.

Cheers,

Sean

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by stnami

.............. and the future oly ?

I don't know Stan.

[TEBnewyork]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

Hi Terry,

BTW, on the M8 (not M8.2) the 90 mm frame lines are more accurate (at most distances) than the 75 mm lines. The former are set for 1 m vs. .7 m for the latter.

Cheers,

Sean

Actually, I wasn't really commenting on accuracy but more on framing in general. While I like to see outside the frame when working with the 90 there is more going on out of the frame than in the frame and I don't really like seeing/composing that way. I like having the extra space to see outside the frame but not too much.

[monza]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

While I like to see outside the frame when working with the 90 there is more going on out of the frame than in the frame and I don't really like seeing/composing that way. I like having the extra space to see outside the frame but not too much.

This outlines the challenge of designing a combination optical viewfinder/electronic rangefinder patch/projected framelines. To support longer lenses with reasonably sized frames, it would need to be a zooming optical VF. I suppose the zooming could be manual and variable, so if the user is ok with small frames, it could be left in a reduced view or sized to the user's preference.

Zooming would probably be limited (say 135mm lenses.)

Seems that the ultimate solution could be rather complicated and therefore expensive to produce.

Or perhaps there could be two viewfinders like the Nikon SP: one optical VF at 1:1 mag, no zooming, electronic projected framelines and RF patch, with a selector for the user to choose the framelines depending on the lens. (It would be possible to program any frameline, say 40mm or whatever.)

The second viewfinder would be an EVF.

[terrycioni]

Greetings Mark,

I agree with you.

As Howard points out lugging around a D3 or D700 with two or three zoom lenses is just plain cumbersome.

The G1 brings a lot of interesting if you like innovation to the table that Leica should take a close look at. Indeed I was a bit surprised they didn't re-badge the G1, and promise some af lenses, that would have caused some ripples in the force!

I will keep and use my M8 bodies and lenses (not buying the M8.2 - not enough difference to warrant the expense). I have added the G1 and both zooms and the MA1 adapter and am waiting for an M adapter.

All fun. Terry.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

Actually, I wasn't really commenting on accuracy but more on framing in general. While I like to see outside the frame when working with the 90 there is more going on out of the frame than in the frame and I don't really like seeing/composing that way. I like having the extra space to see outside the frame but not too much.

Ah ha...I see what you mean.

Cheers,

Sean

[rosuna]

Originally Posted by marknorton

We might - and I stress, might - get a new M camera from Leica in 2010 but judging by the snail-like progress which the M8.2 represents, we should not expect too much.

I cannot agree Mark.

A new processor, new sensor, new motherboard... 4 years from the first model... We will see a much improved camera. The M9 will be the third member of the family (S2, R10).