Should Leica make a Micro 4/3 Digital CL?

[John Thawley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

could be a quite good solution for many Leica newcomers to try the technology without having to buy an M9 (or "use" the "used" market for their first purchases, which is not entirely Leica interest).

 

I think a robust used market is VERY MUCH in Leica's best interest.

 

Much of the digital market is very disposable and somewhat built on planned obsolescence. Buyers of Canon Pro or Pro-sumer bodies can watch their investment dwindle to scrap prices in less than 36-48 months.

 

If there is a robust market for my current M body, I'm likely to consider selling it and buying a new M body. Likewise if I can sell my current 'cron lens for a good return on investment I'm likely to give a try to the new version.

 

As the whiz bang end of the digital technology settles down many serious photographers, both pro and hobbyist are thinking more wisely about the investment end of things.

 

I've recently purchased an M8.2 knowing full well it is my stepping stone to acquiring an M9. I take additional comfort knowing that Leica is not involved in the "model-of-the-month" business model and that my camera is retaining a fair value of what I paid.

 

So I think it is important. It's value to their customers and helps grow a market where buyers become and STAY Leica users.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[prk60091]

I think a robust used market is VERY MUCH in Leica's best interest.

 

Much of the digital market is very disposable and somewhat built on planned obsolescence. Buyers of Canon Pro or Pro-sumer bodies can watch their investment dwindle to scrap prices in less than 36-48 months.

 

If there is a robust market for my current M body, I'm likely to consider selling it and buying a new M body. Likewise if I can sell my current 'cron lens for a good return on investment I'm likely to give a try to the new version.

 

As the whiz bang end of the digital technology settles down many serious photographers, both pro and hobbyist are thinking more wisely about the investment end of things.

 

I've recently purchased an M8.2 knowing full well it is my stepping stone to acquiring an M9. I take additional comfort knowing that Leica is not involved in the "model-of-the-month" business model and that my camera is retaining a fair value of what I paid.

 

So I think it is important. It's value to their customers and helps grow a market where buyers become and STAY Leica users.

 

i had never thought about the used market in quite this way- my first thought was Leica doesn't or shouldn't care because they have already made their money on the glass or body....but upon further reflection I think you are right-

[Riley]

While everyone may have an opinion on this and is certainly entitled to it, Leica has made it crystal clear from day one that they have no intention of joining the Micro FourThirds effort. Stefan Daniel is on record having said something to this effect in August 2008, i.e. even before the first MFT camera was announced, and Leica has stuck to this position ever since. Quite obviously Leica doesn’t think an MFT camera would fit into their product range.

 

which is weird because mFT or even 4/3rds are good companion systems to FF anything without eating into FF market share. Still their old partner Panasonic seem to be doing well for themselves out of mFT, and have learned a thing or two about lenses along the way

[bill]

i had never thought about the used market in quite this way- my first thought was Leica doesn't or shouldn't care because they have already made their money on the glass or body....but upon further reflection I think you are right-

 

It helps to think of Leica as being part of an ecosystem, comprising the company, the distributor and dealer network, independent and third party dealers, independent and third party maintenance and repair people like CRR and DAG, complimentary product manufacturers, like Luigi, Match Technical, and even CV/Zeiss, and of course us as the consumers. Each impacts and is reliant on the other, to a greater or lesser degree. For example, the longevity of Leica lenses means that there is a "long tail" - you can fit a lens from the 1920s to your brand new camera and get a result. Such high usability keeps secondhand demand up, which in turn keeps new prices relatively inelastic.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Mauribix]

which is weird because mFT or even 4/3rds are good companion systems to FF

 

Really? For what kind of photographer? Just amateur, I suppose.

[jaapv]

which is weird because mFT or even 4/3rds are good companion systems to FF

Not my experience - I returned the G1 within two weeks -no way can the sensors compete...

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not my experience - I returned the G1 within two weeks -no way can the sensors compete...

 

jaap i didnt say compete

I said companion / compliment

[Mauribix]

jaap i didnt say compete

I said companion / compliment

 

Riley, I see that the term "companion" may be ambiguous, but can you please specify what you mean for "compliment"?

[jaapv]

Complement I suppose. No but even a complementary or backup system should - for me- give comparable results to the main system.

[Mauribix]

Complement I suppose.

 

Yep, apologize Riley, I did not want to sound stubborn.

In the end, I'd like to know why some they consider it a complement/compliment to a digital M.

 

IMHO those m4/3 cameras are just like toys, YMMV

[Riley]

Riley, I see that the term "companion" may be ambiguous, but can you please specify what you mean for "compliment"?

 

as serious users, likely each of us have a compact, an APSC, and a FF body by now. I just think that micro is probably a good choice if you have a requirement for a more lightweight camera, and yet have FF to lean on for more serious use, shallow DoF or higher ISO performance. Not everyone wants to haul a D3 around all day

 

if this were not so, non of us would have compacts at all, and the D-Lux wouldnt exist

 

the market in Asia has gone for mirrorless cameras grabbing 40% of the SLR market,

its clear that some people have been looking for smaller lighter cameras than makers offer in the SLR range

I think the spirit of threads like this have these things in consideration

 

micro isnt intended to take over FF, but it fits pretty well between FF and compacts

[Riley]

Yep, apologize Riley, I did not want to sound stubborn.

In the end, I'd like to know why some they consider it a complement/compliment to a digital M.

 

no problem

perhaps APSC is a better complimentary body to Canon Nikon owners, as they can at least share lenses and flash. But Leica M owners are not in that position, what is the lightweight Leica? .........is it X1 or could it have been different

 

 

IMHO those m4/3 cameras are just like toys, YMMV

 

if Leica had been there, there might have been at least one better model yes?

[Mauribix]

I may be redundant...

IMHO the extreme crop factor (1,5x to 2x) is the biggest problem.

 

Some may play with a 35mm on a 2x crop sensor...

I wouldn't personally waste time in shootin' with my summilux 35 as it was a fake summilux 75 (70 to be right).

 

 

I see the point in using a m4/3 or APS-whatever cropped sensor camera when specific optics are paired with them.

But then I wouldn't complain on optical performances, since I knew what I'm payin' for.

[Riley]

I may be redundant...

IMHO the extreme crop factor (1,5x to 2x) is the biggest problem.

 

Some may play with a 35mm on a 2x crop sensor...

I wouldn't personally waste time in shootin' with my summilux 35 as it was a fake summilux 75 (70 to be right).

 

 

I see the point in using a m4/3 or APS-whatever cropped sensor camera when specific optics are paired with them.

But then I wouldn't complain on optical performances, since I knew what I'm payin' for.

 

well you are not wrong there

some people like to experiment with lenses and thats fine, but M lenses on micro havent been very successful IMO, but to better illustrate what I mean take a look at these lens test charts,

 

the first is a 50/1.4 L on 20D

 

and this is a 20/1.7 Panasonic on micro

 

and 14/2.5 Panasonic on micro

[Mauribix]

Riley,

thank you for taking the time to post these... they're interesting but sorry, that's too far from my attention (I don't want to sound rude, apologize).

I recently had a Tech-Geek discussion here on the forum who went down to spec, and accidentally turned out into a bloody war. I don't want to repeat any "experiment" like that.

 

I just second what you mean for "but M lenses on micro havent been very successful".

I do think the same, but not because of IQ or MTF chart that doesn't shine.

I do think that because the whole system of a Manual focus lens + a EVIL camera doesn't work at all. That's it for me.

 

my2cents

[felipe-m]

no problem

perhaps APSC is a better complimentary body to Canon Nikon owners, as they can at least share lenses and flash. But Leica M owners are not in that position, what is the lightweight Leica? .........is it X1 or could it have been different

 

I may be redundant...

IMHO the extreme crop factor (1,5x to 2x) is the biggest problem.

 

I agree with both here, and that's why, IMHO, an APS-C body with interchangeable lenses would nicely fit, preferably able to somehow use M lenses. Either an APS-something version of a smaller M8, or a modified X with IC lenses.

The evolved offspring of papa M8 and mama X1...

[mjh]

A couple of months ago I had done a comparison of the M9 against the Olympus E-PL1, both using the same Summarit lenses (35, 50, and 90 mm), the latter with a Novoflex adapter. In terms of resolution and sharpness the JPEG results were indeed comparable, and if I had to decide I would even prefer the results of the E-PL1. In terms of dynamic range, the M9 has the edge (no surprise here), and comparing raw images tips the scale towards the M9 (again no surprise here). Still it goes to show what a difference the internal image processing makes – this is a particularly strong point of the E-PL1, just as it is a particularly weak point of the M9.

 

My conclusion (published in fotoMAGAZIN 6/2010) was that while an MFT camera quite obviously cannot be a replacement for an M9 as a body for M lenses, an MFT body would nicely complement one’s M gear in that it is perfect for long focal lengths that are notoriously difficult to focus using a rangefinder. 90 mm on an MFT body gives you the viewing angle of a hypothetical and quite impossible 180 mm lens on the M9. Focusing such a lens based on a magnified display image works quite well, even stopped down, and the JPEG results are nothing to be ashamed of.

[regedit]

I guess, no, they should not!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Riley]

what I dont see is, how the rest of you think you can lose by it

 

the only other APSC mirrorless are Samsung and Sony

which of those would you hook up with

 

if they go to APSC (smaller than M8) on their own it means new wides

if they use an M8 body, no saving in size weight, so thats out

 

this is a gravy train opportunity just like D-Lux 5 etc is

?

[mjh]

what I dont see is, how the rest of you think you can lose by it

These are really two different questions: Should a photographer get an MFT body to complement their M system? I think it’s an idea worth considering, for the reasons outlined above. The other question – and the one this thread is properly about – is whether Leica should embrace the MFT system. Leica thinks they should not and I can understand why.