Panasonic GF-1 - Missed opportunity?

[ahituna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just my thought driving this morning.

 

Do you think Leica missed an opportunity by not using the GF-1 as a platform? If they did, they could have a fast AF, 720p movie making, small digicam that can take interchangeable lenses (like the 45mm MACRO they designed for m43 already) plus can use M and R lenses with adapters.

 

[Craftsman]

With out a doubt. I would have even paid that Leica premium. I was looking for something like this from Leica but it would have competed with the M9. It would have out sold the M9 by a huge margin.For me it's better than the M9 at a fraction of the cost. Lenses from 14mm-400mm, a line up of primes and more in the offering.Panasonic is going to do very well with this well thought out quality system.

[UliWer]

Just thought reading this that I really missed those threads since September, where Panasonic looked for opportunities to place some unpaid advertising.

[jsrockit]

I understand why Leica didn't do it. I mean, the use of M lenses on the GF-1 is a bit ridiculous for wide angle use... which is were Leica excels. They are just too expensive for the average consumer to buy for a $800 camera. They are concentrating on the X-1 as their camera in this market (like it or not). For them to make a new line of lenses for the GF-1, which lets face it, is not going to be a long term platform, would be silly. The X-1 was a smart move since the lens is made directly for the sensor. Digital sensors need to get better and more standardized before a company like Leica, who prides themselves in longevity, can make a whole new set of lenses for a compact camera.

[adan]

I just don't see the fascination with the GF-1, or other cameras primarily designed around using the LCD for composing/focusing at arms length. IMHO they are all just cellphone cameras without the phone.

 

(I notice, BTW, that there is now an applet for the iPhone that turns on the camera and projects an image of what's in front of you onto the screen as you walk down the street texting, so you don't stumble over things and walk into traffic while sending "WTF. Where RU?" Pretty much sums up the IQ level of those who see LCD screens as the best way to interact with the world. Again, IMHO)

 

The GH-1, on the other hand, with its huge** built-in OLED eyelevel finder, makes a very nice DSLR and video platform for use with M lenses and will also be my personal "R solution" once I can track down an R-to-M43 adapter (the Panasonic and Novoflex ones don't actually seem to be available, may have to go with CameraQuest's Rayqual version).

 

The GH-1 also has the capability to shoot 9:16 and 2:3 aspect ratios (2:3 having been invented by the god Barnack) using most of the sensor without cropping away pixels and resolution. Something else Panny left out of the GF-1.

 

**"huge" meaning much bigger and brighter than the Olympus optical SLR viewfinders, or in fact most DSLR screens short of the top-end full-frame cameras

[Craftsman]

Cell phone cameras without the phone. The gospel according to Andy. I guess you won't be buying one then.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 x crop factor. Game over as far as I'm concerned. I want my wide-angle M and R lenses to be wide-angle.

 

Pete.

[elansprint72]

I understand why Leica didn't do it. I mean, the use of M lenses on the GF-1 is a bit ridiculous for wide angle use... which is were Leica excels. They are just too expensive for the average consumer to buy for a $800 camera. They are concentrating on the X-1 as their camera in this market (like it or not). For them to make a new line of lenses for the GF-1, which lets face it, is not going to be a long term platform, would be silly. The X-1 was a smart move since the lens is made directly for the sensor. Digital sensors need to get better and more standardized before a company like Leica, who prides themselves in longevity, can make a whole new set of lenses for a compact camera.

 

There is no such thing as a long-term platform in the modern world. That is Leica's problem. If they ever get the S2 into production it will already be behind the opposition, who are, no doubt, working on the next-but-one Big Thing already.

 

The X1 is a niche side-show with no mainstream marketing appeal.

 

The M9 is a brave attempt (after the M8 marketing fiasco) to perpetuate a 1950s platform with its roots 25 years before that. It will only ever sell in penny numbers compared to the mainstream. Most will be bought by folks who have already invested in lenses expensive lenses.

 

The R series is dead, never a mainstream platform due to price (excellent though they were in their day). Auto-focus is demanded by the market- there is no solution.

 

The Digilux 2 was an excellent opportunity to start a series of "different" digi-cams with conventional controls. The Digilux 3 was an abject failure because it moved the goal-posts too far.

 

So; in answer to the question: Yes.

 

You could not make this stuff up.

[jsrockit]

 

The X1 is a niche side-show with no mainstream marketing appeal.

 

 

Leica is a niche side-show with no mainstream marketing appeal. That never mattered much over their history.

[elansprint72]

Leica is a niche side-show with no mainstream marketing appeal. That never mattered much over their history.

 

 

It does now.

[jrethorst]

Do you think Leica missed an opportunity by not using the GF-1 as a platform?

They still have the opportunity, with the next iteration or so of the GF line. Note that the Oly E-Pen 2 has an EVF with twice the resolution of the GF's, so there are advances to be made. Leicasonic appears to want to make m4/3 lenses, and Leica could well adapt (adopt?) an m4/3 body sometime soon. I assume they'd tune the jpeg output the way they did with the D2 as compared with the LC1.

 

I'd really like to see this. But Leica has the X1. Yes, the latter is a different design with a larger sensor and fixed lens. But Leica still might see a Leica-badged m4/3 as competition for the X1. That would raise the question, then, why they are supporting m4/3 with lenses.

[adan]

That would raise the question, then, why (Leica) are supporting m4/3 with lenses.

 

I think you'll find that Leica is not "supporting m4/3 with lenses." They are licensing Panasonic to use the Leica name on one m4/3 lens (so far) designed and built by Panasonic to meet Leica standards. Just as they have licensed Panasonic to use the Leica name and other trademarks on Panasonic-made video-camera & P&S lenses over the past 6-7 years.

--------------------------

I think it was Panasonic that missed an opportunity, at least so far. The micro-4/3rds technology is really interesting as implemented in the G1 and GH1 "SLRs". The GF-1 could have been something really ground-breaking if it had only been more aggresive in providing an optical viewfinder on addition to the LCD.

 

A full-coupled RF might have been too much to expect (cost and bulk), but an accesory-shoe zoom finder (optical, not EVF) covering a decent range of M focal lengths (cropped 18-50 lenses = "36-42-48-56-70-100") with a focus-confirm LED would have moved the goalposts much further than the "C-Lux with interchangable lenses" we got instead.

 

Maybe that's still a possibility, as a GF-2 or GM-1.

[jsrockit]

It does now.

 

I don't agree. If Leica is relying on mainstream mass appeal, then they aren't going about it the right way. Sure, they may not be doing as well as the once were, but they don't need to come out of their niche to be successful at all. I don't understand your eyeroll I guess.

[AlbertoDeRoma]

I just don't see the fascination with the GF-1, or other cameras primarily designed around using the LCD for composing/focusing at arms length. IMHO they are all just cellphone cameras without the phone.

 

After buying and using a Digilux 2, I would have to agree -- at least in my case. As much as I appreciate the portability of the D-Lux 4, there is something strange and awkward about using the LCD to set up and frame shots - especially if there is strong sunlight. I've had to rely on the full-auto mode many times because, frankly, I could not really see well on the LCD.

 

Alberto

[jrethorst]

I think you'll find that Leica is not "supporting m4/3 with lenses." They are licensing Panasonic to use the Leica name on one m4/3 lens (so far) designed and built by Panasonic to meet Leica standards.

Which is support for m4/3.

[dicko101]

Which is support for m4/3.

 

No more than a Lumix FS15 for $149.

[adan]

Which is support for m4/3.

 

perhaps, but your original was "supporting m4/3rds with lenses" - which is not the same thing, and which is not accurate.

 

Sigma supports Nikon by making lenses in Nikon mount. Leica does not make lenses in m4/3rds mount.

[jrethorst]

This is not my point, and I apologize if I wasn’t clear.

 

When you or I put our name on something, we give it support. The Leica name carries a substantial reputation for quality. We know that Leica didn’t actually manufacture the Digilux 3, and doesn’t manufacture any 4/3 products including lenses.

 

But the four-thirds.org web site includes Leica in its list of “Supporting companies”, in their words. This web site is created by these companies who collaborated in the 4/3 standard and continue to do so.

 

There’s a large amount of discussion on many web sites about who designs the Leica-branded lenses on Panasonic-manufactured products. I don’t know anything myself, but I see that most discussion considers that Leica does have input in designs of lenses that carry their name. All that discussion may be wrong. I frankly don’t care where or by whom a lens is designed, but I am interested in whether pictures taken with it have the Leica signature, sometimes called “glow”, that I like so much.

 

Of course, some people argue that there is no Leica glow. Maybe they’re right too. I googled it and got 8600 hits of both points of view. Those of us who think we see it, and like what we think we see, can spend our money on it, I suppose. Maybe it would be better to use the term “distinctive look”, as on the 532-post thread about the Digilux 2 here.

 

That’s just the D2, but this signature seems to extend to other Leica-branded Japanese-manufactured lenses as well as those that are manufactured by Leica in Germany, suggesting a continuity of design theory and practice. I see this “look” in Leica-branded lenses manufactured by Panasonic such as the D3 kit lens and the 25mm Summilux 4/3 lens. I have not seen pix from other Leica 4/3 lenses, so I don’t know there.

 

But my point was a response to the OP’s question as to whether Leica missed an opportunity. My suggestion, in the spirit of the positive discussion that characterizes this forum, was that maybe Leica could see an m4/3 body as too close in form and use factors to their X1, although there are many differences, and so they may, possibly, not re-brand a GF for that reason. If that’s not the case, they still have the possibility to do that in a future iteration of Panasonic’s GF design.

 

In any case, I hope they release more m4/3 lenses, since something like the GF, with a higher-resolution EVF like the Olympus E-P2, and the three or four 4/3 lenses with the Leica name, and so possibly the “look”, re-released as m4/3, would be very interesting.

[mat_mcdermott]

I just don't see the fascination with the GF-1, or other cameras primarily designed around using the LCD for composing/focusing at arms length. IMHO they are all just cellphone cameras without the phone.

...

 

Andy, I don't get LCD-only composition cameras either but you're ignoring the external viewfinder for the GF1, which turns into another beast entirely. It's not ideal, but with it I find it an adequate backup for my M8, while being smaller than the GH1. In fact I shot half of one of the protests at COP15 with it after all my M8 batteries died in the cold -- as well as the whole of a UN train journey from Brussels to Copenhagen.

 

In the end I determined I prefer the rangefinder focusing and speed which I can use the M8 -- GF1 autofocus is great for not complex scenes, but fiddly when there's a lot going on; MF is great for static shots, sub par for moving images (and moving images in dark scenes, forget it).

 

And the GF1 shoots 1:1, 3:2, and 16:9 just fine-- claiming that you are losing sensor resolution by cropping to those aspect ratios is in practice an empty complaint for me. I never print on roll paper, any print publication has fixed proportion pages, and my web outlets have a fixed column width -- all meaning the long dimension on 3:2 & 16:9 is still 4000px on the GF1 = you can print it just as wide as a 4:3 image without uprez while maintaining the aspect ratio.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jsrockit]

I prefer my M8's rangefinder, but I do not mind composing with an LCD. I hold it about 5" from my face and it is relatively accurate. Perhaps, people's eyes suck too much for this method? I wear glasses and it is nice to be able to see the whole frame with the LCD... sort of like how the M8's rangefinder when using a 35mm lens is completely viewable.