4/3" _non_dSLR / a full 4/3"-system

[etanguero]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... following the digital M discussions for a while ...

... also following the Digilux 2 / Lumix LC1 discussions for a while (and recently managed to get myself a Digilux 2 ) ...

... also following the Lumix L1 [ / "Digiflex" (?)] discussions with a lot of interest (but also scepticism concerning the extra value compared to a Digilux 2 / Lumix LC1) ...

 

... I just ask myself more and more if there is any argument against a non-dSLR camera within the 4/3"-standard!

 

That could be a new product-line for Leica [allthough again based on LookaLeica/PanaLeica-manufacturing]: The "D-series"! And it might even go together with a "L-series"!

Both based on the 4/3"-standard concerning the lenses!

 

 

So let me resume:

- lenses: 4/3"-standard

- dSLR with interchangable lenses ["L-series"]: currently announced by Panasonic as Lumix L1, the Leica version still to be announced. [personally I really love to call it "Digiflex"]

- d-non-slr with interchangable lenses ["D-series"]: nothing announced yet, but could be a Digilux 3 / Lumix LC2 (and higher number with later developements).

 

 

So what do you think?

eT

[MP3]

There has been rumors regarding in early March at forum elsewhere stating that there are two 4/3 bodies soon to be released by Pana, one is a slr while the other one is not. Would definitely raise lots of interest if that is true and combined with your 'guess'... what would happen than?

 

Andy, is that you, once mentioned on the forthcoming PINK, GREEN & GREY/BLACK codenamed new Leica cameras Many people may go bankrupted

 

Best

Matthew

[macos]

I guess a non SLR will have some difficulties with zoom lenses if the camera has an analog viewfinder. 4/3 still has to fight for its share in the consumer and semi pro market in which zoom lenses are dominant. However, the construction of the mirror in e.g. the E300 allows somehow compact bodies, therefore one big disadvantage of SLRs is at least partially compensated.

 

Just my 2 cents

Marc

[etanguero]

I guess a non SLR will have some difficulties with zoom lenses if the camera has an analog viewfinder.

Well: the Digilux 2 / Lumix LC1 both share an Electronic ViewFinder [EVF] ...

... this might/could be continued. Therefore no problems with lenses with variable focal lenght [aka "zoom"].

 

eT

[Bob Ross]

The possibility of a non-reflex, interchangeable lens camera is good. One thing that might encourage this is the switch from LCD to OLED displays, with the increased resolution, higher refresh rate, lower power consumption and lower costs. This will mean the live view eyelevel finder will start coming to age. The one major challenge will be the AF, as phase detection needs a mirror to work. Contrast detection is more accurate, but it is slower than phase detection used in DSLRs. This kind of camera would be a good compliment to a DSLR, for when you need stealth and aren't in a hurry or shooting rapid action.

One possible advantage to this approach would be big bright eyelevel viewfinders, as the viewfinder would no longer be sensor size dependent. Somebody will do this, just like Sony did it with a fixed zoom on the R-1.

[sean_reid]

Hi Bob,

 

Actually, viewfinder size isn't sensor size dependent now. Pentax and Nikon (with the

D200) have followed the logical step of increasing finder magnification to give a larger view in cameras with APS-C sensors. Some people (on this forum's predecessor) have argued (based on theory) that increasing that mag. will make finders dim. Having just tested a Nikon D200 extensively, I must disagree - the finder is large and bright. I'm testing the Pentax DS2 now and it also has a very good finder. The small tunnel-like finders we're used to on many DSLRs need not be as they are. As Nikon (in particular) has shown, they could be much better.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Bob Ross]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Sean,

Your findings are encouraging and point up that there are ways to minimized the darkening in prism systems. A better comparison might be the E-1 against the D200, because the sensors are different size and both have quality prisms or throw in the EOS 1DS. I have always thought Pentax were the prism masters, with unique designs that really work. The Pentax 645 prism is interesting, too.

There are some limits in the optical approach, that an electronic approach doen't have. Of course, this is dependent on EVF quality advances. When you get your R-1 to test, ask yourself how much more fun it would be to have a 24 X 36mm EVF with HQ magnifying lenses, higher rez and refresh rate. This is just some fun speculating, because I can see some production cost & marketing obstacles, to this approach.

Bob

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean,

Your findings are encouraging and point up that there are ways to minimized the darkening in prism systems. A better comparison might be the E-1 against the D200, because the sensors are different size and both have quality prisms or throw in the EOS 1DS. I have always thought Pentax were the prism masters, with unique designs that really work. The Pentax 645 prism is interesting, too.

There are some limits in the optical approach, that an electronic approach doen't have. Of course, this is dependent on EVF quality advances. When you get your R-1 to test, ask yourself how much more fun it would be to have a 24 X 36mm EVF with HQ magnifying lenses, higher rez and refresh rate. This is just some fun speculating, because I can see some production cost & marketing obstacles, to this approach.

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

 

I've yet to see an EVF (that I would want to work with) in any camera . However...one must never say never and I'll certainly try cameras with new EVF designs as they emerge. For most work, I prefer looking through the window of an RF's viewfinder. But there are DSLRs with excellent optical finders such as the R9/DMR, 1Ds series, 5D, D200, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[etanguero]

Allthough the whole discussion currently is somewhat sliding away from the topic I brought up I have to admit that I am somewhat puzzled that Sean is supposed to test a Sony R1 at the moment or soon: this modell is not the youngest anymore ... therefore I have some doubts that he's really refering to a R1 and not a R2 or R1s [off course - and to be respected - under non-disclosure ].

 

But even so: If Sony is continuing work in that area [digital non-SLR at the high end edge, with EVF ... and who knows perhaps even interchangeable lenses and in-body anti-shake] ... perhaps PanaLeica will continue to compete! And that would be good news, wouldn't it?

 

eT

 

P.S.: As I use the term PanaLeica I would like to stress that I neither use this term pejorative nor think it's bad that some cameras of Leica [D and L line, as I dare to call them] will be "industrially" produced for the general high quality market as well as some other Leica product lines [M and R] will follow the traditional "manufaktur" idea.

[Guest stnami]

Seen elsewhere "The word seems to be the next non-pro 4/3 camera from Olympus will be an electronic viewfinder interchangable lens model and people forget that the E-10 (Oly) was the first dSLR with live preview.

[sean_reid]

eT,

 

If this new forum is anything like the old, discussion will tend to move in all kinds of directions. I am indeed going to test the R1 and the fact that it is not a new model isn't relevant to me at all. I also tested an M7 earlier this year and it's far from new. New, in and of itself, isn't necessarily significant to me - I'm interested in cameras and lenses that might work well as tools. I often test lenses that are far from new because they're worth looking at. The R1 still offers a combination of qualities that noone else is offering yet - how well it works in practice is something I'll know when I've had a chance to test it.

 

The thing that interests me most about the R1 is that it combines a nearly APS-C sensor with a nearly silent shutter. The second is that it allows one to use a waist level finder with the camera against one's body.

 

Sean

[etanguero]

Sean,

 

thanks for the reply!

 

eT,

If this new forum is anything like the old, discussion will tend to move in all kinds of directions.

Well ... not only in this forum. Could also be interesting sometimes. I learnd a lot in a german Pentax-Forum where a lot of discussions tend to move to side topics - and at the end the sideways get terribly interesting.

 

But still I wanted / tried to lead the discussion back as I think a non-dSLR _System_ with interchangeable (high quality) lenses is worth a real try! [therefore also my suspicions concerning a R1s/R2]

 

I am indeed going to test the R1 and the fact that it is not a new model isn't relevant to me at all. I also tested an M7 earlier this year and it's far from new.

True. But also worth it. I'd dare to say that some camera modells (of each manufacturer) have the potentials to have a long life span but still remain 'young' in certain circumstances. I do not know the Leica portofolie too well in details, but with my old analog Nikons my FM-2 as totally mechanical body with even 1/4000 s as fastest shutter speed still is up to date. Btw: the most interesting fact about the earlier mentioned D200 by Nikon is that with the knowledge of a FM-2 user it's intiutively usable ... this can't be said about most of the digital cameras with their fifthteen levels of menus or so. Camera producer should perhaps look back sometimes or even more often ... which brings us back to the 'look back to look forward' design of the Digilux 2 / Lumix LC-1 and soon to be Lumix L-1 / "Digiflex".

 

 

New, in and of itself, isn't necessarily significant to me - I'm interested in cameras and lenses that might work well as tools.

I really like you stressing the word "tool"! IMHO this is the most important issue of a camera ... and a good camera should be usable the way that you do not have to think about the tool any more.

 

I often test lenses that are far from new because they're worth looking at. The R1 still offers a combination of qualities that noone else is offering yet - how well it works in practice is something I'll know when I've had a chance to test it.

You're absolutely right! The R1 was the other option when recently I bough my Digilux 2. I even would have been cheaper with a wider zoom range. But still the just-take-it-in-your-hands-and-go design of the Digilux 2 fitted me better.

 

The thing that interests me most about the R1 is that it combines a nearly APS-C sensor with a nearly silent shutter.

So true ... and painful for Leica users: Bigger sensor with higher resolution ... would have been sooooo much appreciated on a Digilux 3!

 

The second is that it allows one to use a waist level finder with the camera against one's body.

That's the other issue Leica/Panasonic is missing so far on there L1: flipable screen. Allthough this also should be a metall one, fitting the rest of the serious design of the L1. [i do know of own usage the Pentax Optio 555 and Optio 750Z compact modells with the 750Z having such a flipable screen: terrible craftmanship, destroying the look&feel of the 555 in a bad manner.]

 

Let's hope for everyone that Sony and PanaLeica will continue to compete in this very interesting area! Let's also hope that PanaLeica will be able to come up with a great solution soon ... as I think those type of cameras will come more and more into focus once the dSLR-hype is over! And concerning monetary problems of Leica it would be good for them if they could get hold of this market share as soon and as successful as possible.

 

Greetz!

eT

[albertwang]

I am liking the L1 a lot in concept but want a cheaper body. Panny, hope that you can get something that's within our range

[humanized_form]

i have always thought that 4/3 could become an ideal "between" size sensor for digicams. i think the sony aps digicam is just too big. the other manufacturers, at least up to this point, have seemed reluctant to compete against their entry level dslr models and put aps size sensors in relatively compact digicams (if this could even be done).

 

note to olympus: instead of manufacturing the same old small sensor digicams with more features and too many megapixels, why not try a 4/3 sensor Olympus XA? you really don't have to compete for the same market as canon/sony/nikon et al, why not accept the niche market that exists and has been waiting for high quality digicams? the units sold would probably suprise you.

 

hmmm. bigger sensor in a high quality relatively compact camera = Digital M! photokina is only a few months away.

[albertwang]

Yes, the R1 is a monster. Good image quality but it's like my Hassy. Very hefty! The Digital M may turn out to be heavier than expected? R-D1s?

[supperman]

One of the problems with the 4/3" lenses is that they're big too. They were designed with the SLR system in mind, so even if you get rid of the mirror in the body, you're still stuck with a ultra-retrofocus lens.

[MP3]

Max

 

As an RF user, can't agree more with you. The L1 and it's supposed superb D-lenses are just slr bulk.

 

Cheers

Matthew

[rvaubel]

Yes, the R1 is a monster. Good image quality but it's like my Hassy. Very hefty! The Digital M may turn out to be heavier than expected? R-D1s?

I think what we are all looking for is a new paradigm for a sensor size compatible with a compact camera that produces very high quality images. Before digital this niche was occupied by Pentax in the SLR world and Leica for rangefinders. Both cameras manifisted a clean aesthetic, without extraneous "bells and whistles" and appealed to both proffesionals and enthusiast. However, neither camera pretended to be general solution for all photographic situations. Dare I say that they were the conissiours point n' shoot of the day.

This thread may be looking for the digital equivalent in todays world. Many of us are pinning our hopes on the M8 in the rangefinder format. The 1.33 sensor seems like the largest one that support a traditional "M" sized body. At 10MB that seems large enough to support a high quality image while providing the possibility of a developing a 16MB sensor(figuring a minumum of 5mu pixel size for diffraction reasons,e.g. Physics). The lack of a mirror means we can continue to enjoy or compact, non-retrofocus, short back focus lenses.

The world of the DSLR is more complex because of the backfocus issue. Lens design inherintly is more complex and retro-focus lenses are neccessarily more bulky and complex. Perhaps the 4/3" standard provides an answer. On the other hand, both Canon, Nikon and others have provided pretty compact models in the APC format, a la OM1. With a little prodding from the marketplace, I'm sure Nikon, Canon, et al, would be happy to provide a enthusiast quality, compact APC sized body.

The answer may lie with a smaller standard. But, I have the feeling that, even disregarding the MB issue, smaller than APC sized sensors will not result in much smaller sized cameras and lenses.

I believe the sweet spot is somewhere in the 1.3 to 1.6 range. This may be the new standard for the "35mm" format where full frame becomes the new "medium format" for professional use.

Just my $1.02 worth (inflation)

 

Rex

[albertwang]

I still think that the 4/3 standard isn't too bad. The cameras are much smaller than the Nikon or Canon offering in general for the feature set.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[geoff]

Christian,

 

If I read you correctly you are basically hypothesizing about a non DSLR Four Thirds System camera. You further go on to suggest that Leica should develop such a camera system and called it the “D” series–one that is separate from Leica’s recently announced intentions of a new system based on the Four Thirds System which you suggest should be label the “L” system or as you prefer the “Digiflex.”

 

I believe that the “D” label has already been chosen by Leica for their Leica Four Thirds System line. This based on the fact that their first Four Thirds System lens, the Leica “D” Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm/ƒ2.8-3.5, is already marked with a “D” much in the same nomenclature as “M” and “R” system lenses are respectively identified.

 

However, labels aside, I too have thought about similar systems and the unique solution it affords separate what any other type of camera can provide. The main objective, for me, would be a camera that could be a true successor to the Digilux 2. One that offers the benefits of a silent vibration free electronic shutter system and “true” live LCD preview but with noticeably higher image quality, retains full analog control, and possibly offers interchangeable lens support.

 

My reservation with a Four Thirds base solution would be the loss of camera compactness and the wide depth-of-field that is obtainable with a 2/3” sensor. Something I strongly feel are other strengths that the Digilux 2 offers. I understand many people are interested in obtaining the shallow depth-of-field that is afforded by larger sensor cameras. However, wide depth-of-field has equal merit as well and a lot of the work I and others do depends upon it.

 

Also, I understand that many people are not keen on the use of a live LCD display for framing and that the current crop of electronic viewfinders leaves much to be desired. I think EVF technology has come a long way and can go a lot farther than what is found in the Digilux 2. I, however am very keen on using the LCD for framing. Coming from a Leica M2 rangefinder background, it is surprising how many shots I now actually take that would be impossible with the camera raise and held close to my eye.

 

Building such a camera as an offshoot of the Four Thirds standard would ensure existing lens availability. However, it would definitely deviate from the present Four Thirds System specification which has been strictly defined as a DSLR system solution, although that could change.

 

I am not sure how the Panasonic Live MOS sensor would fit into the scheme of things or if a new sensor would be needed due to electronic shutter requirements. Is this different altogether from full-frame transfer (not to be confused with 35mm frame sized sensors), frame-transfer or interline transfer? Anyone? Sean? The information from the Panasonic Global Lumix Website is still cloudy to me:

 

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/l1/sensor_venusengine01.html

 

“The circuitry in the Live MOS sensor employs a new drive system in which signals are read out pixel by pixel while also lowering power consumption. It reduces the number of control wires from the three required in conventional CMOS sensors to two, which results in a larger light-receiving area. The 5-V drive system also reduces noise. These features all combine to produce the same high level of image quality as a CCD sensor. This advanced sensor provides delicate gradation, realistic textures and vivid colors.”

 

Clearly to me, neither the forthcoming digital M nor the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 can serve even as a remote replacement for the unique capabilities that the Digilux 2 offers. Obviously they will provide higher image quality but if the tool does not allow one to capture the desired image in the first place what is the point?