Jump to content

Leica and 4/3rds platform


dhsimmonds

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was thinking of getting the 25mm Summilux, but have instead given up on the m4/3 system, fine for reportage etc but I couldn't do 'serious' stuff with wide angles without a focusing scale at least so I could work out depth of field, and all the manual focus lenses which came out were f/0.95 or something similar, not really for landscape, architecture etc etc. Got fed up with waiting for a nice 17mm f/2 Summicron or Biogon!

 

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply
the 4/3 system is not good for pro photographer.

 

I would bet that there are more people using the 4/3 and m4/3 systems professionally than those using Leica M or S2.

 

There are an awful lot of photographers who don't turn to ill informed pundits on the internet for their camera buying advice, but can weigh up pro's and con's in a camera system for themselves. Professionals can do this far more effectively than amateurs because they have a genuine priority list of features in their minds, not an amateurs wish list for a camera that will make them look good (and of course it turns into a long long wait). Professionals know there is no perfect camera system that suits everybody, but they are able to work around any failings in their own system and still make it work. An amateur just buys another camera when they find a little problem.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of getting the 25mm Summilux, but have instead given up on the m4/3 system, fine for reportage etc but I couldn't do 'serious' stuff with wide angles without a focusing scale at least so I could work out depth of field, and all the manual focus lenses which came out were f/0.95 or something similar, not really for landscape, architecture etc etc. Got fed up with waiting for a nice 17mm f/2 Summicron or Biogon!

 

Gerry

Not that focussing scales are anywhere near correct on a digital camera... The only way to work DOF is to be aware of the end result in your mind. Or apply it in a general fashion and trust luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet that there are more people using the 4/3 and m4/3 systems professionally than those using Leica M or S2...

 

Steve

Can be indeed,,, "pro" identifies a very wide range of tasks... a frien of mine who works time to time for covering std. cronacle for newspapers says that he sees many collegues that in "crowded" environments do use m43 gear instead of APS DSLRs... lightness is a plus and quality is more than sufficient for those kind of pics.

 

But this doesn't concern the Leica positioning towards "under FF" formats : in my opinion their most important point, at the moment, is their NEW and "PROPRIETARY" CMOS sensor , firstly implemented on the M, to say on a high price - high margin camera, as it is correct to be : if it proves to be good they will have room to capitalize on it, "cutting" the format to some other standard (APS-C, APS-H, m43 ?) and buliding some system on it, targeting other markets : imho they won't reach the m43 bottom line, anyway... expecially if they continue the marketing relationship with Panasonic.

 

Btw... about the new sensor, in the other direction... on the pro side there could be room to imagine something to complement the S line around its 30x45 format, for which they have, ready, a lenses' line to capitalize onto... a mirrorless camera which revives the concept of the Fuij 670/690, Mamiya 67 and so, could gain, maybe, a space of its own in some pro tasks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Having tried both Panasonic and Olympus m43 "systems", I've "settled" for a nice

used summicron 50. The attraction of the smaller system was lens adapters for

not only M system stuff but others as well. More trouble than it was worth, and

disappointing results. M43 may have a future as upgrade for point and shoot users,

weight conscious or sight impaired folks and tinkerers, but not for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that the Leica 4/3 camera failed is that it was outmoded the day it was introduced. It was basically an Olympus e330 at three times the price lacking several of the latter's features. As far as the image quality of 4/3 cameras I started shooting with the system with the Olympus e300 and have continued with upgrades till the present. My clients are very satisfied with the results as am I. I sold my M8 two years ago and don't miss it. I recently got an OM-D E-M5 and find the quality of image to surpass those that I got out of the M8. I still use some Leica glass and I find the current crop of both Olympus and Panasonic glass to be superb. The Micro 4/3 cameras such as the e-m5 are a return to the whole idea behind miniature photography, which is what 35mm cameras were classed as.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M43 may have a future as upgrade for point and shoot users, weight conscious or sight impaired folks and tinkerers, but not for me.

 

As presumably I am an upgrading point and shoot user, who is weight concious and sight impaired, and I do actually like tinkering, I thought I'd get some lessons from you on what I am doing wrong. But I can't find any pictures, none, not a one? Is there somewhere other than the Photo Forum?

 

But neither am I surprised. Photographers discover the value of a camera system by using it and showing what both the photographer, and in a much smaller part the camera, can do together.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically the Fuji EX-1 is the EVIL camera I was expecting from Leica. There is no reason why Leica could not go head to head with Fuji on price for such a camera. Leica do not need to make the camera them self, look at Apple, Apple don't make a thing they are a design house. Leica could take the same approach as Apple, design a fantastic product and get someone else to make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that the Leica 4/3 camera failed is that it was outmoded the day it was introduced. It was basically an Olympus e330 at three times the price lacking several of the latter's features. As far as the image quality of 4/3 cameras I started shooting with the system with the Olympus e300 and have continued with upgrades till the present. My clients are very satisfied with the results as am I. I sold my M8 two years ago and don't miss it. I recently got an OM-D E-M5 and find the quality of image to surpass those that I got out of the M8. I still use some Leica glass and I find the current crop of both Olympus and Panasonic glass to be superb. The Micro 4/3 cameras such as the e-m5 are a return to the whole idea behind miniature photography, which is what 35mm cameras were classed as.

The reason the Digilux3 failed was that it was an unwieldy lump of a camera. I was at Photokina 2006 (carrying a Digilux 2 btw), held the thing for ten seconds and gave it back disappointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the Digilux3 failed was that it was an unwieldy lump of a camera. I was at Photokina 2006 (carrying a Digilux 2 btw), held the thing for ten seconds and gave it back disappointed.

I'm sorry the reason it failed was that it was grossly overpriced and it offered nothing over its competition other than than the Leica name and a red dot, btw I put a red dot on my e-330.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A read I found interesting and refreshing, written by a professional photographer using 4/3 and occasionally Leica glass (Leica D 25mm f1,4) can be found here. The article's opening image is from that lens.

 

Besides, I still like to use the 4/3 system myself and would agree to neal's view on the E-330 (my first 4/3) compared to the Digilux 3. I regretted that there was no better thought and built follow-up to the beast than the Panasonic L10 (e.g. as regards the finder and ability to use the lens' aperture ring) and finally sold my Leica 14-50 f/2,8 in favor of a weatherproof Olympus 12-60 f/2,8-4.

 

The latter is the nicest zoom I tried and combined with the E-3's viewfinder makes me happy in many cases. Add the reach, compactness and IQ of a zoom like the Oly 50-200 and you can see how very much alive the system is. Paradoxically, it seems that it's Olympus that needs to be convinced of this.

 

If Leica had the great idea to propose a camera (M)4/3 with an optical finder system, I certainly would want one. I know I'm dreaming. It's just that I hate EVFs.

 

Alexander

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Digilux 3 failed because it was too bulky and too expensive. Why buy a small sensor camera that was basically as big as a FF DSLR and certainly bigger than many APSC DSLR's ?

 

I was simply a bad design.

 

the Digilux 2 was also bulky, also too expensive, and with a small sensor......that never stopped you guys before! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was considerably less bulky, with great ergonomics including an aperture ring, and of course THAT lens...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

 

it's pretty huge though....I held one a few weeks ago and it made my Ms seem compact in comparison....the design actually reminded me very much of the recent Pentax K01....very similar design ethos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry the reason it failed was that it was grossly overpriced and it offered nothing over its competition other than than the Leica name and a red dot, btw I put a red dot on my e-330.

Well, that was not the feeling I had at the introduction - the price was of little interest to me - or any other Leica owners I knew. We were looking for an SLR that could be compared to an R6. Or a larger-sensored Digilux 2 successor. But not this thing - which is not really a bad camera btw. I still use one in my practice for medical documentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Whilst I fully understand Leica's decision to cease production of 4/3rds lenses and cameras I wonder if in hindsight and recent sensor development it was such a good decision?

 

With the recent change by Olympus from Kodak to Sony sensor for their new micro 4/3rds OMD camera, a similar development for Leica could have been wonderful.

 

The latest m4/3 sensors have addressed most of the previous concerns of many photographers in particular dynamic range, much higher ISO capability and resolution, all in a superbly small package. Leica 4/3 lenses are still sought after by 4/3 and m4/3 users.

 

But then the sales volumes are much larger and I doubt if Leica could have handled such a volume judging by the long wait for M lenses.

 

Just dreaming!

 

IMO the decision looks even better in hindsight due to the success of FF M9 / M lenses.

 

I have owned a few mirrorless both m43 and NEX, and these are not that that much a smaller package than the M9, and can certainly not replace my Rangefinderish use including landscape.

 

Perhaps the m43 can replace DSLRs for more action oriented photo if they can get the EVF to work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the decision looks even better in hindsight due to the success of FF M9 / M lenses.

 

I have owned a few mirrorless both m43 and NEX, and these are not that that much a smaller package than the M9, and can certainly not replace my Rangefinderish use including landscape.

 

Perhaps the m43 can replace DSLRs for more action oriented photo if they can get the EVF to work?

 

Try this one then: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/265663-whiskers.html

 

These little fellas don't hang around either. Constantly moving but caught using the EVF viewfinder on my Oly OMD/Leica m4/3rds 45mm lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...