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

[Guest chris_h]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Albert, the difference from 4/3-cameras to APS-size-cameras is not as big as most users think - and the special XL-lenses for the 4/3-system are XL-heavy and -big.

[albertwang]

true but they are faster lenses than the average. Try to compare a f2.8 zoom for Nikon versus that of 4/3 and you will notice a 25% weight reduction.

[etanguero]

Thanks for the new inputs and insights!

 

You got me absolutely right, Geoff!

I do share your point of view concerning EVF: still terrible at the moment they also will develop and we'll see great and unexpected quality sooner or later.

 

G'nite.

eT

[Guest stnami]

Geoff

"Building such a camera as an offshoot of the Four Thirds standard would ensure existing lens availability"

. Exactly what Olympus are proposing to put out.WIth panasonic and oly having an association the flow on must head towards leica. Some at Olympus are quite negative towards EVF and the camera is dubbed as the EVIL one

[geoff]

"Building such a camera as an offshoot of the Four Thirds standard would ensure existing lens availability"

 

Perhaps I used my words wrong. What I meant to imply was that rather than having to start from scratch, any new non-DSLR camera based on the Four Thirds standard lens mount would already have an assortment of lenses to work with at introduction.

[rohit]

Christian/Geoff,

Interesting speculative thread...some more pedantic comments...

 

Panasonic has opted to package live-view alongwith conventional SLR functionality in the L1.

This is likely to gain popularity given that (many) prospective live-view PnS

users aspire a more capable camera (Sony R1 market) and (some) DLSR users are keen to exploit this feature.

It's a matter of time when others will offer live-view in their DSLRs as well.

 

Selling the L1 body alone would allow users to add an affordable ($100+) Oly/other kit lens,

making it (more) competitive against affordable DLSRs. If the L1 + D-lens combo IQ is good,

the combi street price might not seem so bad, when one compares with other systems

comprising a mg-alloy (not plastic) body with an analog/F2.8/OIS (not starter kit) lens.

 

So how will Leica differentiate their products ?

 

For their D-system 4/3rd std. DSLR, will they

1. just put a red dot on the L1 (hope not)

2. drop live-view ? (conserve power and reduced heat related benefits)

3. revise the mirror-box (for a brighter OVF) ?

4. provide a bigger/better OVF ? (unlikely, shares the L1 body)

5. drop AF support (like R system) ? (unlikely, the D-lens supports AF)

 

For their Digilux line, will they

1. maintain the (almost Digilux2 sized) L1 body

2. drop the mirror-box and feature (only) live view mode

3. add a (Minolta A2 like) EVF

4. provide a 4/3" sensor

5. provide the 4/3 std. mount (would the D-system retro-focus lenses be suitable?)

 

The VenusIII LSI firmware should be adaptable for either DSLR/OVF or LiveView/EVF body.

This allows users to invest in Leica D-lenses for either system.

 

But is the market large enough for 2 (similarly spec'd albeit different) Leica cameras,

given that their partner/manufacturer has opted to combine the two ?

If not, the Digilux3 might remain 2/3" sensor based, hopefully Digilux1 like is size,

with Digilux2 issues addressed, slotted b/w the DLux3 and D-System DSLR.

 

-rohit