Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

Looks like Leica *is* staying away from Micro 4/3rds

lemalk

By lemalk
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

lemalk

lemalk

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Panasonic unveiled the GF-1 today...with Lumix branded lenses.

 

It looks like Leica was serious about avoiding the new format.

 

So...what is the other product(s) being announced in a week if Leica doesnt have a rebadged camera on the way?

 

This is starting to look even more interesting....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest roey

Guest roey

Posted
Posted

I don't see why this announcement would rule out Leica announcing a rebadged version of the GF-1 on 9/9. After all, Panasonic also announced the "Panasonic Leica 45mm F2.8 Macro lens with OIS", which is a m4/3 lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

No connection between what brand Panasonic puts on the lenses and whether Leica will also sell a version. Leica just won't allow their name on lenses that require in-camera corrections:

 

PMA Interview: Panasonic: Digital Photography Review

 

but that does not mean they might not sell M4/3rds bodies and come up with their own lenses, or work with Panny to develop more lenses like the 45 Macro, which meets the standards - or just sell cameras and adapters for M/R lenses. Trying to sell an interchangeable-lens camera with just one "approved" lens - and that a "90mm" f/2.8 - seems silly.

 

I'm totally underwhelmed by the GF-1. The accesory finder is nowhere near as big or clear as the G/GH-1 finders, and it apparently doesn't have the multi-format sensor of the GH-1, which I see as a more likely candidate for a Leica M4/3rds (if any).

Link to post
Share on other sites
miami91

miami91

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica just won't allow their name on lenses that require in-camera corrections.

 

Apparently this philosophy is limited to the mFT cameras, as the lens on the LX3 and D-Lux 4 requires digital corrections, yet bears the Leica branding.

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rosuna

rosuna

Posted
Posted
Apparently this philosophy is limited to the mFT cameras, as the lens on the LX3 and D-Lux 4 requires digital corrections, yet bears the Leica branding.

 

Jeff.

 

The problem appears when you use a Panasonic lens on a Olympus body, or a Zuiko lens on a Panasonic body. Even worse, the lens' limitations are evident when you open the RAW file with a non-prepared RAW converter. The software corrections of the M8 are understanable, but this...

 

E-P1 17mm lens corrections | photostream

 

That would be humiliating for Leica.

 

They don't allow it, and they are right doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
miami91

miami91

Posted
Posted
The problem appears when you use a Panasonic lens on a Olympus body, or a Zuiko lens on a Panasonic body. Even worse, the lens' limitations are evident when you open the RAW file with a non-prepared RAW converter. The software corrections of the M8 are understanable, but this...

 

E-P1 17mm lens corrections | photostream

 

That would be humiliating for Leica.

 

They don't allow it, and they are right doing so.

 

 

I don't disagree with you, but the fact remains that the lens on the D-Lux 4 shows these sorts of issues (distortion at wide angle, unacceptable chromatic aberration, etc.), issues that are fixed either with in-camera algorithms (JPG), or in the RAW converter. This was debated on the forum ad nauseum several months ago when the camera was new (do a search if you're interested). And yet Leica put their branding on the lens. So either the "we won't do digital corrections" philosophy has come about as a result of their experiences with the D-Lux 4, or they don't apply this philosophy to compact digicams, only interchangeable lens systems.

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuno Cruces

Nuno Cruces

Posted
Posted
The problem appears when you use a Panasonic lens on a Olympus body, or a Zuiko lens on a Panasonic body. Even worse, the lens' limitations are evident when you open the RAW file with a non-prepared RAW converter.

The lens' limitations are also evident on the D-Lux 4 when you open the RAW file with a non-prepared RAW converter. That's to be expected.

 

Beyond that, all micro four-thirds bodies correct geometric distortion on all micro four-thirds lenses. It's in the standard, there is no incompatibility there at all.

 

The only difference in terms of digital image correction, is that Panasonic bodies correct lateral chromatic aberration for Lumix lenses (not Zuiko), whereas Olympus bodies don't correct lateral chromatic aberration at all. But this is to be expected, since lateral chromatic aberration was not agreed to be in the standard. Note that, neither Lumix nor Zuiko lenses are particularly bad lateral chromatic aberration, compared to say, four thirds lenses in the same price range.

 

Finally, there's the issue of image stabilization, where Olympus does in-body stabilization for all lenses, and Panasonic does optical stabilization on select Panasonic lenses. But this is totally orthogonal to lens quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ho_co

ho_co

Posted
Posted

Jeff:

To quote from Andy's link:

Of course we work closely with the lens engineers. But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap.

 

Illustrated by the 45 macro.

 

Leica doesn't allow their name on interchangeable lenses requiring firmware correction.

 

OTH: Note that Leica made Phase One remove the ability of writing DNGs from RWLs in Capture One, in order to hide the firmware corrections..

 

 

 

BTW--Panasonic Leica 45mm F2.8 Macro lens with OIS: Digital Photography Review has a specification for that lens that I can't get my head around. With a macro, one usually specifies the maximum reproduction ratio. But dpreview's specs list says:

 

Maximum magnification Approx. 1.0x (2.0x 35mm-equivalent)

 

That's meaningless. 1:1 is 1:1 with any format; 1:2 is 1:2 with any format; etc.

 

Anybody got an idea what dpr is trying to say this time?

 

 

EDIT: ANSWERED AT http://www.panasonic.de/html/de_DE/Produkte/H-ES045E/Übersicht/2816442/index.html?view=&angle=.

 

Lens focuses to 1:1. I wonder what dpr was trying to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
miami91

miami91

Posted
Posted
Jeff:

To quote from Andy's link:

 

 

Illustrated by the 45 macro.

 

Leica doesn't allow their name on interchangeable lenses requiring firmware correction.

 

Thanks Howard --- I sort of puzzled through the logic myself!

 

Not to rehash the old discussion, which I know both of us participated in, but I really don't mind the digital corrections, assuming that's the only way you can get something in the form factor of the D-Lux 4 that is fast (2.0), wide, and incredibly compact. But when it comes to M, R, or S lenses, I certainly wouldn't expect it, and I certainly wouldn't pay Leica prices for it. Come to think of it, not sure I'd pay Zeiss or CV prices either!

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Ho_co: My assumption would be that, since everything else gets converted to "35mm equivalent", dpreview's idea was that a 4/3rds shot at 1:1, enlarged 2x to the size of a 35mm slide or contact print ("35mm equivalent"), would make the subject then 2x life-size.

 

Put another way, if you shot an object 3/4" long at 1:1, with a 35mm camera it would fill half the frame (length), and with a 4/3rds camera it would fill the whole frame - and if you shot the same subject at 1:1 on 4x5 film, it would not even qualify as "macro" - being about 1/6th of the frame dimension.

 

In final prints of the same size (not enlargement, size: say 11 x 14) the object would be twice as big shot 1:1 on 4/3rds as it would shot 1:1 on 35mm film or FF sensor.

 

Or put yet a third way, it would take a 2x lifesize lens to fill a 35mm frame/sensor with a 3/4" object, but only requires 1:1 to fill a 4/3rds frame/sensor with the same object.

 

Logical but screwy, which is why I tend to stay away from "35mm equivalents" whenever possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ho_co

ho_co

Posted
Posted

Andy--

Thanks for applying logic. :o

 

I had mistakenly assumed that the description arose from the numbers-happy folks at dpreview.

 

But no, dpreview simply picked up the peculiar terminology from the Panasonic specsheet: "Nahgrenze 15mm, max. Vergrößerung 1x [KB: 2x]"

 

Sigh. Shoulda known, don't blame dpreview when you can blame Panasonic. :rolleyes: By this calculation, "life-size" (1:1) is different depending on the size of one's camera.

 

 

downloaded from link in German forum:

Panasonic-Datenblatt.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
SJP

SJP

Posted
Posted

A tangential line is the best linear approximation of a smooth curve at a given point, so for a circle the tangential lines run along the circumference (perpendicular to the radial lines). For an arbitrary curve they have a slope given by the derivative of the function at the point of interest.

 

Orthogonal is a line that is perpendicular to another line, or a plane, or a curved surface.

 

Tangential and orthogonal are completely different concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bjmike

bjmike

Posted
Posted

Well, that's nice. Tangential also means:

 

1. Barely connected to or touching a subject;

2. Moving away from a subject when speaking, writing or the like; digressing; diverging.

 

Can we get back to cameras? Leicas, specifically. And m4:3rds? This "sub-thread" is really tangential to the original topic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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