Is an investment in Leica D-system + lenses futureproof?

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the minor participants in 4/3, they really move into this area 'because' they are not required to add to lens manufacture. Leica D is a minor, but important component of the system. Clearly if they were on their own, they would either need to generate their own entire lens supply, or be dependent on an existing supply. Fuji is in this position with Nikon glass. Where Nikon is also dependent on one of its competitors, Sony, for sensors.

 

Strategically these are weaknesses hinged on the success on Nikon, who is at the mercy of Sony for up-to-date technology in sensors. Perhaps Nikon in a pinch, could shift to another sensor provider for sensors, but this pretty much would mean scrapping the devices all told, and move to new designs. This is in fact what Olympus have just committed too. If you wanted to launch another dSLR tomorrow, your choices for lenses are really between Canon, Nikon, and 4/3. You would need to ask yourself to whom you would rather be beholding.

 

As to noise, much is made of the noise signature of smaller sensor cameras, and perhaps rightly so. But much of this is based on configurations which offer the safety of lower noise in higher end models. Comparing Canon's XTi with other 4/3 cameras there is a good deal less advantage to the Canon. Clearly the FF pro body Canons are in some other world to this. The XTi is no pillar of virtue when it comes to noise, chase any Canon fora for that insight and it will hold true.

 

At this point, 4/3 is one stop behind 'its' competition, this without any knowledge of what is in store for us with E-410/510. But it is claimed that these cameras make up that ground as they improve on E-400. It seems to me that while E-400 was better than previous Olympus cameras it was defeated by Panasonic's nMOS sensor which comes in L1 and D3. I think the future looks promising with the nMOS and the new image engine to advance on this position. Dont forget that Kodak had less incentive to improve the noise signature of its sensor offerings.

 

Yes noise needs improvement, but 1 stop isn't out of range of the refreshed partnership with Panasonic, and anecdotal reports support this view.

[karman]

Do you think that within a year or so a new 4/3 sensor/body wil be introduced that improves the noise level by 1-2 stops, thus effectively closes the gap between 4/3 and M8 ?

 

For people who have not yet invested in a series of lenses (Canon, M, R, or 4/3), what would be the key reason to buy either Canon, M8 or 4/3 ?

 

I would say:

M8: when you insist on low light photography (lots of <f2 lenses; but noise level sensor is not really smaller than 4/3), rangefinder concept, and can live with the IR workaround and absence of telelenses;

4/3: when you can live with the more limited low light photography performance and like the idea of a compact DSLR (both compared to full frame DSLRs).

Canon: if you insist on full frame and lower sensor noise.

 

Or am I now missing crucial pro's/cons?

[jaapv]

To start off with, I don't think the word investment goes very well in any context that involves digital camera's. Having said that, if the 4/3 system were only Olympus, I would not feel very secure about the future. After all, that is the company that designed the brilliant OM system, and then dropped it like a hot potato less than two decades later. But with other players on board - I would say it is future-proof. With new sensor developments it may well come very close to pro-level equipment.

[dist]

To start off with, I don't think the word investment goes very well in any context that involves digital cameras.

 

Too right. Obsolescence built right in. I guess it all boils down to the camera body being the ephemeral part and the glass being the part that hopefully lasts for a while.

Just take a look at the zoo of four thirds to anything adapters... people seem to go to great lengths to "protect their investment" which, in a way, is beyond me. Matter of fact, using manual focus, manual aperture, manual everything lenses on a FT body seems, um, kind of awkward. That glass simply can't be that much better than lenses specifically designed for FT (or whatever sensor size), or so I believe. Anybody care to comment?

Cheers,

[Riley]

Gerwin I think your assumptions are good but for M8, which to me is about resolution. At least that is why I would desire one, for some others here the size/weight of the package is important too.

 

And for those seeking Canon, may be in it with a view to 'progress' into FF. This irrespective of whether that is by judgement a desirable, a practical, or even affordable notion.

 

But to add for the case for 4/3; if I can equip myself with the highest quality lenses, and the fastest AF, covering a range from 24mm to 400mm (35mm EFL) with just 2 lenses, would I feel justly compensated? I think my answer is yes.

 

But on noise, I expect 4/3 will always trail Canon APS C, but that will be closed to within a half stop this year. Canon OTOH, need to differentiate their pro offerings with other features and benefits, this by de-featured low end bodies like XTi with poorer performance. But if they dont do this well, they will see new entrants to dSLRs move to other brands like 4/3, where the features and benefits exceed that of the Canon baseline offering.

 

In these circumstances, you could assume that Canon will inevitably lose market share, for sales must be displaced from somewhere. The remainder being displaced by Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Sigma and 4/3. Within this there are to my mind too many players, and something will have to give, I think I know who will fall first, and I also think I would rather be in the niche of 4/3 than outside it where the knives will truly be out.

 

hoi jaap

yes I think that is true too, but remember Oly really wasnt up to the likes of Nikon and a lesser Canon back then. And the move to 4/3 has been their biggest gamble ever. This is the year that we will see it either stand or fall performance/sales wise. You do make an investment of sorts when you go with a particular camera. Back in the film days, you might switch from kodachrome to fujifilm with any roll, now of course the camera 'is' the film.

 

That said, if they stuffed all that digi stuff in an OM4Ti body Im not sure I could contain myself

[karman]

But for this interesting decision, the foveon sensor in the new DP1 is 20.7 x 13.8mm , in difference to the 4/3 sensor at 18 x13.5, 'interestingly' close,.

 

Riley,

 

You think Leica or Panasonic will come up with a foveon sensored 4/3 camera this year?

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Riley,

You think Leica or Panasonic will come up with a foveon sensored 4/3 camera this year?

 

in all honesty i dont know the answer to that, I have my doubts but...

i have been pursuing that question over the net though

the only clue this swings on is what was said in Luminous Landscape

 

Foveon technology may end up in some non-Sigma high-end cameras that'll knock the socks off of a lot of people. (Hold onto your socks for about 6 more months though).

 

given that the sensor in DP1 is 20.7 x 13.8mm, less than APS C

 

4/3 is about the only format that can use it, unless its another point and shoot, which I doubt because why would that knock my sox off more than DP1. And he does claim high end, thats a dSLR me thinks.

 

Add to that an apparent September release, which roughly corresponds with Olympus's P1

Certainly the IQ of the sensor is capable of pro quality imagery, especially with Oly glass as opposed to Sigma. Plus we think the P1 exceeds 10Mp, which by the way they measure Mp on a foveon could be in the ballpark.

 

makes an interesting juncture of terms doesnt it

[andit]

Hi all,

 

When the 4/3rds open system was introduced, it was stipulated that the sensor size should not exceed 18 x 13.5mm. Based on this the manufacturers (Olympus, Sigma and Leica/Panasonic) designed the lenses to perform for this sensor size. By putting a sensor with a larger surface area, you will start running into all sorts of optical difficulties.

 

One must bear in mind that when the 4/3rds open system was designed, full frame sensors were not in production - mainly because to produce such a sensor would at that stage have extreme costs. IMO this is one of those cases where technology just moved ahead faster than what most people expected.

 

Personally, I think the 4/3rds standard is wonderfull. Keeping in mind how many people used an Olympus E1 to do some incredible photography and earn their livings with it. If one looks at the technological difficulties that are being experienced by companies in pursuit of "full frame", just maybe the 4/3rds size is not so bad.

 

Even companies like Canon and Nikon have invested some serious money on developing "digital" only lenses, that would simply not produce results on full frame or on 35mm film. This must give an indication, at least for the near future, that they too have placed their bets on APS sized sensors (thus keeping the 1.5/1.6 factors). It is a pity that they have not accepted the 4/3rds standard more.

 

With Leica coming on board, I think that this will give a few other companies something to think about. As for the quality of Olympus glass, they manufacture some of the finest optics in the industry - everybit as good or better than Canon's famed "L" optics.

 

Now you're probably asking as to why I did not invest in the D3? Simple, I needed to upgrade my setup (using a 6MP Canon SLR) and the step to 7.5MP just did not seem to make sense. Since I did not want to wait another year for a 10MP Digilux 4 to come along, and I did not want to invest further in Canon equipment (nothing wrong with there stuff, I just got Canon "fatigue"), Leica announced the M8 at just the right time for me.

 

I must admit here, I'm still waiting for my M8 to arrive, I'm just a bit nervous after reading all the things about the M8 if I should not rather have gone for the D3 and Oly glass combination. I just hope that I don't get one of the "samples" that dies on you, or locks the card, or does anyone of the other things so often talked about here on the forum.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

Andreas

[dist]

Excellent points Andreas. As it stands now, 4/3 sensor and lenses are made for each other. Enlarging the sensor in favor of that futile quest for "low noise" would entail exactly the kind of difficulties Leica is facing now with the M8 sensor - shoehorning two mismatched items together, each of which is valid in its own right but who just won't go together well. Slanted microlenses, insufficient IR filtering - things that we can do without!

 

I hope those responsible for maintaining the four thirds standard won't cave in to marketing pressure.

 

Cheers, and keeping my fingers crossed for you re not getting a lemon

[Riley]

i can think of two things to add

 

firstly the 4/3 foveon as the conversation went on forums

was able to be masked for 4/3. that in itself isnt unusual,

most sensors are a little outside the image circle

im not sure if they are masked in other applications or just do not have the surplus connected

 

the other thing was that the image circle of 4/3 lenses by Olympus

actually is a little larger than the 4/3 sensor, so it would be possible to incrementally increase sensor size

however not by a tremendous amount

but at some risk of heavier vignetting/fall off etc that other formats suffers from

[egibaud]

For me, these differences, starting with the basic shape of the body, are significant enough that I would not have purchased a 4/3 camera had the L1/D2 body not been available.

.

Regarding shape I do agree with you. I was speaking about camera features etc.

[jaapv]

Don't sell Olympus short on their lens quality. for instance, for a wildlife photographer, the 2.8 90-250 is a dream lens, with near-Leica quality (unfortunately also near Leica weight - 3,7 Kg's and near-Leica price: a Digilux3 plus this lens will set you back close to 10.000$ )