The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
G1 Review on PopPhoto
- Thread starter barjohn
- Start date
barjohn
New member
It was in the January issue so maybe that is why they took it down. In any case I collected a comparison set of data from PopPhoto to see how the G1 stacked up in their testing. I am including a snapshot of the spreadsheet. I hope it is readable. If anyone wants the XLS file let me know and I will post it as a ZIP. The G1 seems to compare pretty well through ISO 400 and doesn't seem too bad at 800. Based on my own testing so far, it seems to compare well to the M8 at 1250 and 2500 with an easier to look at noise, more film like and less blobby. 
Last edited:
Thanks for the spreadsheet...this fits well with this post:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4573
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4573
peterb
Member
Yes, that spreadsheet pretty much sums up what I did with my own little piece of cross referencing. Sean Reid on his good website (www.reidreviews.com) just tonight posted a very positive review of the Milich GT adapter which is apparently milled in fine brass to accommodate both M and screw mount Rangefinder lenses on the G1. The article points out what appears to have been a very much overlooked possibility of the 4/3rds and, more to the point, now, the micro 4/3rds (referred to as MFT by Reichman and Reid) and that is with the smaller lens mount due to no longer needing a mirror box a wealth of lenses become available at the outset via adapters like from Milich, Novoflex, Cameraquest and others. Something Panasonic (and I presume Olympus as well) must have known. And the trees are already beginning to bear fruit (just re-read some of the exciting posts here).
It is astounding to me how, in so many of the reviews I'd read, while praising some of the G1's technical prowess (like Pop Photo's key tests of resolution, color accuracy, low ISO noise etc.) some have warned against buying this camera until MORE lenses are made available. The kit lens, as many on this forum (myself included) have observed is simply amazing for a 'kit' lens. Reichman in Luminous Landscape was blown away by it's sharpness and contrast (aside from its ability to win him over for simply being more preferable to tote around over a boulder-like highly obtrusive DSLR and its behemouth glass. And Panasonic has promised (which I'd no doubt) other lenses to come, which with Leitz as a mentor and partner, even if designed on their own by Panasonic, would be worthy pieces of optical engineering as the kit lens has already demonstrated.
But, aside from the kit lens, which in an of itself is a fine place keeper until more MFT lenses are made available by Panasonic, Olympus and Sigma (to name three but I"m wondering if Leitz, CV and Zeiss will get into the fray here) the amazing thing is that Panasonic through a 4/3's adapter of their own make immediately made available (albeit with manual focusing) the entire arsenal of superbly gushed over Zuiko lenses some of which are stellar light giants of a solid f2.0 over their entire zoom range (and with, not surprisingly, equally jaw dropping price tags to match). And within months (the camera was announced in September and came to market in November) a number of players announced M, Nikon and adapters for other mounts.
What other new camera system has so quickly garnered such interest among so many adapter makers in so short a time?
Yet the many of the reviews sniffed about the 'dearth' of lenses. Hardly.
Finally, one more thing to add. Many of the reviews, again albeit positive for the most part, also complained about the introductory price of $800 (okay $799 but we're splitting hairs here) as being too high. When a 'comparable' DSLR' could be had for the same price (albeit bigger and bulkier). Their point being marques like Canon and Nikon et al had a slew of lenses available.
To a point they're right. But considering what's unfolding so quickly as Reid (and myself included) have pointed out, the G1 may turn out to be the photographic bargain of the new century. A $800 body of robust design and skillful image making which promises to be able to use lenses going back to the 1930's with no problem. And a superb focusing system using a very fine EFT and focusing patch that makes fine focus with these optical gems very possible, particularly in low light work wide open, which I'm sure most will employ anyways since that's what we want these optics of Leitz, Zeiss and others for anyway (and together with the low noise and high resolution at ISO 100-400 makes for a deadly combination).
And how many modern digital cameras at any price can claim that.
Peter
It is astounding to me how, in so many of the reviews I'd read, while praising some of the G1's technical prowess (like Pop Photo's key tests of resolution, color accuracy, low ISO noise etc.) some have warned against buying this camera until MORE lenses are made available. The kit lens, as many on this forum (myself included) have observed is simply amazing for a 'kit' lens. Reichman in Luminous Landscape was blown away by it's sharpness and contrast (aside from its ability to win him over for simply being more preferable to tote around over a boulder-like highly obtrusive DSLR and its behemouth glass. And Panasonic has promised (which I'd no doubt) other lenses to come, which with Leitz as a mentor and partner, even if designed on their own by Panasonic, would be worthy pieces of optical engineering as the kit lens has already demonstrated.
But, aside from the kit lens, which in an of itself is a fine place keeper until more MFT lenses are made available by Panasonic, Olympus and Sigma (to name three but I"m wondering if Leitz, CV and Zeiss will get into the fray here) the amazing thing is that Panasonic through a 4/3's adapter of their own make immediately made available (albeit with manual focusing) the entire arsenal of superbly gushed over Zuiko lenses some of which are stellar light giants of a solid f2.0 over their entire zoom range (and with, not surprisingly, equally jaw dropping price tags to match). And within months (the camera was announced in September and came to market in November) a number of players announced M, Nikon and adapters for other mounts.
What other new camera system has so quickly garnered such interest among so many adapter makers in so short a time?
Yet the many of the reviews sniffed about the 'dearth' of lenses. Hardly.
Finally, one more thing to add. Many of the reviews, again albeit positive for the most part, also complained about the introductory price of $800 (okay $799 but we're splitting hairs here) as being too high. When a 'comparable' DSLR' could be had for the same price (albeit bigger and bulkier). Their point being marques like Canon and Nikon et al had a slew of lenses available.
To a point they're right. But considering what's unfolding so quickly as Reid (and myself included) have pointed out, the G1 may turn out to be the photographic bargain of the new century. A $800 body of robust design and skillful image making which promises to be able to use lenses going back to the 1930's with no problem. And a superb focusing system using a very fine EFT and focusing patch that makes fine focus with these optical gems very possible, particularly in low light work wide open, which I'm sure most will employ anyways since that's what we want these optics of Leitz, Zeiss and others for anyway (and together with the low noise and high resolution at ISO 100-400 makes for a deadly combination).
And how many modern digital cameras at any price can claim that.
Peter
Last edited:
Peter, first, great Christmas card photo.
You mention some excellent points about the G1. It is the most capable camera by far when it comes to lens variety. And this flexibility makes it very complementary to one's existing systems.
In my case, it can use all my Nikkor DSLR lenses. A nice small second body. Perfect if I don't need the low light or high speed capabilities of the D700 (or if just I don't want to lug it around.) Yes, a D40 would serve the same purpose but with an inferior viewfinder and missing all the other G1 features. And it won't meter with older Nikkor lenses, whereas the G1 will!
Everyone is focusing on M lenses, but it even works with my vintage Nikon SP lenses. (My former M8 could do that too, but I wasn't able to focus the M8 accurately, even with a magnifier. No such issue on the G1. )
And here is something no other camera can do: because of TTL focus, it essentially eliminates the inherent focusing error between vintage Nikon RF and Contax RF lenses. I'll be using a vintage Sonnar 50/1.5 alongside my Nikkor RF lenses.
Bonus: what Sonnar focus shift?
It also opens up some nice possibilities if you like to experiment. I also picked up three mint lenses for less than $50: a Rokkor-X 45/2, along with a Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 Tessar, and a Hexanon 40/1.8.
Last but not least, R glass can be a lot cheaper than M glass. Yes, they aren't tiny like M lenses, but where can you buy a mint 50/2 Summicron in M mount for $150? I plan on converting this lens to Nikon F mount so it will work on the D700 as well as the G1 (http://www.leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html) Try that with a Summicron-M!
What's next for M4/3 cameras? This is just the beginning.
You mention some excellent points about the G1. It is the most capable camera by far when it comes to lens variety. And this flexibility makes it very complementary to one's existing systems.
In my case, it can use all my Nikkor DSLR lenses. A nice small second body. Perfect if I don't need the low light or high speed capabilities of the D700 (or if just I don't want to lug it around.) Yes, a D40 would serve the same purpose but with an inferior viewfinder and missing all the other G1 features. And it won't meter with older Nikkor lenses, whereas the G1 will!
Everyone is focusing on M lenses, but it even works with my vintage Nikon SP lenses. (My former M8 could do that too, but I wasn't able to focus the M8 accurately, even with a magnifier. No such issue on the G1. )
And here is something no other camera can do: because of TTL focus, it essentially eliminates the inherent focusing error between vintage Nikon RF and Contax RF lenses. I'll be using a vintage Sonnar 50/1.5 alongside my Nikkor RF lenses.
Bonus: what Sonnar focus shift?
It also opens up some nice possibilities if you like to experiment. I also picked up three mint lenses for less than $50: a Rokkor-X 45/2, along with a Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 Tessar, and a Hexanon 40/1.8.
Last but not least, R glass can be a lot cheaper than M glass. Yes, they aren't tiny like M lenses, but where can you buy a mint 50/2 Summicron in M mount for $150? I plan on converting this lens to Nikon F mount so it will work on the D700 as well as the G1 (http://www.leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html) Try that with a Summicron-M!
What's next for M4/3 cameras? This is just the beginning.
Last edited:
M
marknorton
Guest
I think Panasonic must be pleased the camera has been so well received especially by those who can think out of the box. The camera resists instant classification and if the price is a challenge, that's part down to the Yen, part down to the quality of the camera. How many other cameras have ASPH kit lenses?
For me, the key is the ability to sense actual focus, what you see is truly what you get. It really makes the Leica rangefinder system seem hopelessly out of date. As monza says, focus shift, what focus shift? Front focussing, back focussing, misalignment, all consigned to history with this camera, providing the lens can get to infinity.
I know Jono thinks it's noisy but to my ears, it's like my Leica M6, none of the M8 metallic intrusion. Leica have really missed a trick not getting involved with MFT.
For me, the key is the ability to sense actual focus, what you see is truly what you get. It really makes the Leica rangefinder system seem hopelessly out of date. As monza says, focus shift, what focus shift? Front focussing, back focussing, misalignment, all consigned to history with this camera, providing the lens can get to infinity.
I know Jono thinks it's noisy but to my ears, it's like my Leica M6, none of the M8 metallic intrusion. Leica have really missed a trick not getting involved with MFT.
peterb
Member
Monza, thank you for the compliment. To your point, as an adjunct to one's existing glass collection, the G1 after just ONE month out in the marketplace appears to be without peer in that regard! And the experimental possibilities are great! And not just from Leitz, Zeiss or CV but many, many others. I hadn't even considered R glass because it's an adapter to an adapter but, sure why not? And I didn't realize used R prices were that reasonable. Amazing eh? So have fun! I look forward to seeing what you (and others experimenting with their own collections) see on the electronic pages here.
To paraphrase a famous non-physician writer of children's books, Dr. Seuss...
"Oh the place you'll go.
You'll be seeing great sights!
You'll join some high fliers
who soar to high heights.
You won't lag behind, because you'll have the speed (could Seuss have owned a Noctilux?)
You'll pass the whole gang and you'll take the lead
Wherever you'll fly, you'll be the best of the best.
Wherever you go, you will top all the rest"
:salute:
Mark and Monza, an EXCELLENT point about the fact that with true TTL focusing via the superb EVF the issue of focus shift vanishes (also a point that Reid, et. al. have brought up from time to time). The ultimate photographic WYSIWYG.
And, Mark, you may be right. Leitz, while a supporter of the 4/3's mount may have missed an opportunity here. But did they? Maybe they were curious to see what might transpire after Panasonic released the first volley (they, too, must have realized the possibilities when coming up with 4/3s system and the possibilty of a mirror-box-less camera they had to have supported before embarking on their own versions to entice future minions to their fold). The M8 may ultimately become a full frame to grow into when one has sufficent box tops to afford one while an MFT of their own design, either full rangefinder or, even more likely, a new EVF'ed D3 variant (like Olympus may be trying to develop with their hints of a digital Pen they hinted at at Photokina this fall) could serve to bring new players in for them.
Finally, your thoughts about Panasonic's opening volley of the camera's initial price as being possibly related to the Yen made me also wonder (as an advertising man myself), considering, as you pointed out, that the kit lens has aspherical elements to it unlike others, how much may be in the sheer marketing of creating a bit of a loss leader to attract existing players already entrenched in their existing systems to a totally new niche? But then again, cautious players that they are, Leitz may again be asleep at the switch, however, their well-seeded audience may come to the rescue if and once they do come around.
Happy Holidays all.
Peter
To paraphrase a famous non-physician writer of children's books, Dr. Seuss...
"Oh the place you'll go.
You'll be seeing great sights!
You'll join some high fliers
who soar to high heights.
You won't lag behind, because you'll have the speed (could Seuss have owned a Noctilux?)
You'll pass the whole gang and you'll take the lead
Wherever you'll fly, you'll be the best of the best.
Wherever you go, you will top all the rest"
:salute:
Mark and Monza, an EXCELLENT point about the fact that with true TTL focusing via the superb EVF the issue of focus shift vanishes (also a point that Reid, et. al. have brought up from time to time). The ultimate photographic WYSIWYG.
And, Mark, you may be right. Leitz, while a supporter of the 4/3's mount may have missed an opportunity here. But did they? Maybe they were curious to see what might transpire after Panasonic released the first volley (they, too, must have realized the possibilities when coming up with 4/3s system and the possibilty of a mirror-box-less camera they had to have supported before embarking on their own versions to entice future minions to their fold). The M8 may ultimately become a full frame to grow into when one has sufficent box tops to afford one while an MFT of their own design, either full rangefinder or, even more likely, a new EVF'ed D3 variant (like Olympus may be trying to develop with their hints of a digital Pen they hinted at at Photokina this fall) could serve to bring new players in for them.
Finally, your thoughts about Panasonic's opening volley of the camera's initial price as being possibly related to the Yen made me also wonder (as an advertising man myself), considering, as you pointed out, that the kit lens has aspherical elements to it unlike others, how much may be in the sheer marketing of creating a bit of a loss leader to attract existing players already entrenched in their existing systems to a totally new niche? But then again, cautious players that they are, Leitz may again be asleep at the switch, however, their well-seeded audience may come to the rescue if and once they do come around.
Happy Holidays all.
Peter
Last edited:
barjohn
New member
Peter,
Leica has missed the boat plain and simple. You can't be a market leader unless you lead rather than follow.
Let's assume Leica sees the light and comes out with their own camera. Other than the red badge what can they offer? They will balk at the idea that you can use other glass than Leica's and try and cripple it in some way to prevent that as they did with the M8 by not allowing other lenses in the menu system. Will they be able to improve on the electronics over what Panasonic can do? I don't think so. They will move to make it more proprietary in every way they can so they can price it at 2 to 3 times the Panasonic price. While I might prefer a camera that looked like a CL and about the size of the CL there is a limit to what I will pay for the privilege. To really be competitive they would need to add an optical RF with electronic framing and electronic focus assist. Unless they have already started developing such a VF they are years away.
Leica has missed the boat plain and simple. You can't be a market leader unless you lead rather than follow.
Let's assume Leica sees the light and comes out with their own camera. Other than the red badge what can they offer? They will balk at the idea that you can use other glass than Leica's and try and cripple it in some way to prevent that as they did with the M8 by not allowing other lenses in the menu system. Will they be able to improve on the electronics over what Panasonic can do? I don't think so. They will move to make it more proprietary in every way they can so they can price it at 2 to 3 times the Panasonic price. While I might prefer a camera that looked like a CL and about the size of the CL there is a limit to what I will pay for the privilege. To really be competitive they would need to add an optical RF with electronic framing and electronic focus assist. Unless they have already started developing such a VF they are years away.
What we have here is a company who is entrenched in history, and concerns itself with modernizing its offerings with a clear link to that heritage. (I will cite the M8 baseplate as but one example.) Taking a step forward but keeping one foot in the past.
In some sense they can't be completely blamed; how many avowed Leicaphiles would cry 'heresy!' if Leica had come out with a G1-style product and called it the M8?
Compare that to Panasonic who never (to my knowledge) made a film camera. They've been around a long time in consumer electronics, for sure, but they have no ties to the past photographically, so they can design unhindered.
It will be very interesting to see where the technology path leads in the next few years. Personally I think Leica should focus on glass, and let someone else manufacture the light-tight box. Yes, it will have a red dot and cost more, but it should also have higher build quality.
The line is already blurring between video cameras and still cameras. The Casio offering will record 60fps bursts, and is actually recording into the buffer constantly even before the shutter button is pressed. No more motors, no prisms, no mirrors. Soon, contrast autofocus will outperform phase detect. 4/3 sensor technology will eventually rival today's full frame. So, smaller camera, smaller lenses, less lens mass for faster focus. This is a never ending product development treadmill that only the biggest companies can run on.
In some sense they can't be completely blamed; how many avowed Leicaphiles would cry 'heresy!' if Leica had come out with a G1-style product and called it the M8?
Compare that to Panasonic who never (to my knowledge) made a film camera. They've been around a long time in consumer electronics, for sure, but they have no ties to the past photographically, so they can design unhindered.
It will be very interesting to see where the technology path leads in the next few years. Personally I think Leica should focus on glass, and let someone else manufacture the light-tight box. Yes, it will have a red dot and cost more, but it should also have higher build quality.
The line is already blurring between video cameras and still cameras. The Casio offering will record 60fps bursts, and is actually recording into the buffer constantly even before the shutter button is pressed. No more motors, no prisms, no mirrors. Soon, contrast autofocus will outperform phase detect. 4/3 sensor technology will eventually rival today's full frame. So, smaller camera, smaller lenses, less lens mass for faster focus. This is a never ending product development treadmill that only the biggest companies can run on.
barjohn
New member
I can't say I disagree with you. If they focused on just making lenses they could make a variety of lenses, not just M lenses but new 4/3 and micro 4/3rds lenses. However, their manufacturing has got to be able to produce the lenses at a price that will sell in the respective market. The 4/3rd or micro 4/3rds market is not likely to want to pay $3K+ for a lens. This means shifting to high grade plastics combined with metal. The build quality of the Panasonic lenses appears to be very good. leica should be able to make a slightly better quality and charge a premium. For example if the Panasonic lens sells for $350 and the Sigma lens sells for $275, the Leica equivalent should be priced around $550-$600. They need to leave electronics and software to a company with better capability. Since I manage software development and used to program myself some time back, I can tell you that Leica's software development ability is abysmal and sloooow to produce.
peterb
Member
There is no doubt that when it comes to forward thinking Leica is about as adventurous as some residents in nursing homes (although I have to admit the S2 is certainly a bold move on their part) but I see several possibilities here.
(1) Leica could do nothing. (Which is most likely to the case.) And continue plodding along with the M8.4 (a fully weather sealed M8) or M9 (which would be a FULL frame rangefinder to take full advantage of the M lenses). Possibly developing a full frame R to take advantage of those R lenses already in production (and which would still not compete with the S2 crowd whom they see are those fanatics who want totally unsurpassed no-holds barred digital imaging) and shore up those who'd made commitments to the R system. This is a most likely case scenario for me.
(2) They could develop more 4/3's lenses (like the 25mm f1.4 or the 14-50 zoom). But I suspect the time and effort to pursue that when the excitment is not in regular 4/3's but the 'micro' 4/3's would be a losing proposition for them particularly when Olympus' Zuiko lenses with their superb optics are available (at equally Leitz like stratospheric prices) as well as equally high quality Zuiko lenses that are a notch or two below Oly's best (at prices that are more reasonable so both bases are covered). And again when adapters abound for both M and R lenses it may be also be not worth Leitz' time and effort.
(3) They could convert their existing M lenses with micro 4/3's mounts and flanges. Again I would say why bother? When as Monza and others have pointed out there's a bevvy of adapters on the way that will easily accommodate their existing optics with no additional effort on Leitz' part.
(4) They could develop a MFT camera of their own that readily accepts current M lenses (like the CL they created jointly with Minolta years ago) MIT out der adapters. Based on how they've been jazzing up their D-Lux 4 with goodies like a grip and fancy cases and, now, a body in titanium, that Panasonic didn't do with their LX-3 and Leitz didn't do with any of their prior versions of the LX series, I suspect Leica may be primed for such a move. Long term, they would produce a camera either with a mechanical rangefinder (not likely and too engineering intensive that is not necessary) or an EVF (more likely) in a somewhat less expensive (by Leitz standards anyway) svelte M8- or CL-ish (more likely) looking body that need not resemble the profile of an SLR as Panasonic cautiously did initially because focus groups told them the public may not be ready right away for a non-traditional non-SLR looking camera (which seemed, I noted, to be a disappointment to several reviewers who would have preferred the initial foray into MFT with a more adventurous body that could really take advantage inessential need for a mirror box).
This way Leitz could have a good introductory body of their own industrial design (like they did with the DL 4) that accepted M lenses (I would think they might push their more modestly priced Summarit line) with no adapter necessary and introduce a whole new flock of users to their fold.
But again, as BarJohn has suggested, if past performance is any indication of future predictability, that course of action is simply not in Leica's DNA.
But who saw the S2 coming?
Just my 2 centavos.
Peter
(1) Leica could do nothing. (Which is most likely to the case.) And continue plodding along with the M8.4 (a fully weather sealed M8) or M9 (which would be a FULL frame rangefinder to take full advantage of the M lenses). Possibly developing a full frame R to take advantage of those R lenses already in production (and which would still not compete with the S2 crowd whom they see are those fanatics who want totally unsurpassed no-holds barred digital imaging) and shore up those who'd made commitments to the R system. This is a most likely case scenario for me.
(2) They could develop more 4/3's lenses (like the 25mm f1.4 or the 14-50 zoom). But I suspect the time and effort to pursue that when the excitment is not in regular 4/3's but the 'micro' 4/3's would be a losing proposition for them particularly when Olympus' Zuiko lenses with their superb optics are available (at equally Leitz like stratospheric prices) as well as equally high quality Zuiko lenses that are a notch or two below Oly's best (at prices that are more reasonable so both bases are covered). And again when adapters abound for both M and R lenses it may be also be not worth Leitz' time and effort.
(3) They could convert their existing M lenses with micro 4/3's mounts and flanges. Again I would say why bother? When as Monza and others have pointed out there's a bevvy of adapters on the way that will easily accommodate their existing optics with no additional effort on Leitz' part.
(4) They could develop a MFT camera of their own that readily accepts current M lenses (like the CL they created jointly with Minolta years ago) MIT out der adapters. Based on how they've been jazzing up their D-Lux 4 with goodies like a grip and fancy cases and, now, a body in titanium, that Panasonic didn't do with their LX-3 and Leitz didn't do with any of their prior versions of the LX series, I suspect Leica may be primed for such a move. Long term, they would produce a camera either with a mechanical rangefinder (not likely and too engineering intensive that is not necessary) or an EVF (more likely) in a somewhat less expensive (by Leitz standards anyway) svelte M8- or CL-ish (more likely) looking body that need not resemble the profile of an SLR as Panasonic cautiously did initially because focus groups told them the public may not be ready right away for a non-traditional non-SLR looking camera (which seemed, I noted, to be a disappointment to several reviewers who would have preferred the initial foray into MFT with a more adventurous body that could really take advantage inessential need for a mirror box).
This way Leitz could have a good introductory body of their own industrial design (like they did with the DL 4) that accepted M lenses (I would think they might push their more modestly priced Summarit line) with no adapter necessary and introduce a whole new flock of users to their fold.
But again, as BarJohn has suggested, if past performance is any indication of future predictability, that course of action is simply not in Leica's DNA.
But who saw the S2 coming?
Just my 2 centavos.
Peter
Last edited:
barjohn
New member
Peter,
I'm sure they saw the S2 is the easiest path to innovation. In electronics you pay a premium for smaller sizes. Look at the Apple Air, Sony Viao's small units, etc. It just costs more to make it compact and smaller. You need many layer circuit boards and those are expensive and more custom ICs and they are expensive. On the other hand with a larger unit you can use off the shelf components since space is not such a premium. The tighter the density the greater the issues with resolving heat problems too. The M8 doesn't use custom chips and I suspect that the S2 won't either. On the other hand, I suspect the G1 is full of custom ASICs. The problem with off the shelf chip sets is you have to make a lot of compromises that you could avoid with your own custom chips.
I'm sure they saw the S2 is the easiest path to innovation. In electronics you pay a premium for smaller sizes. Look at the Apple Air, Sony Viao's small units, etc. It just costs more to make it compact and smaller. You need many layer circuit boards and those are expensive and more custom ICs and they are expensive. On the other hand with a larger unit you can use off the shelf components since space is not such a premium. The tighter the density the greater the issues with resolving heat problems too. The M8 doesn't use custom chips and I suspect that the S2 won't either. On the other hand, I suspect the G1 is full of custom ASICs. The problem with off the shelf chip sets is you have to make a lot of compromises that you could avoid with your own custom chips.
I would of liked to see Leitz jump into m4/3s too. Although, one change from 4/3s to m4/3s is that the company has to commit to releasing a product before they can join. Announcing that they are in the m4/3s group would be the same as announcing a product (not sure if it has to be a camera, or just lenses). Maybe why the Leica name isn't on the G1 lenses?
Looking at Panasonic's 4/3s products you can see pretty clearly they were preparing for m4/3s. All their lenses support contrast focusing. In lens IS seems better suited for video then in body IS. (I think?) Leitz probably knew this from the beginning too, so I'm curious what they got out of it. They already have M, S, R, compact, maybe 4/3s and m4/3s would be yet another standard for them.
I'm watching m4/3s with quite a bit of excitement. It's the system I wanted when I bought my E-510 and it's really thrown a wrench in my upgrade plans.
Looking at Panasonic's 4/3s products you can see pretty clearly they were preparing for m4/3s. All their lenses support contrast focusing. In lens IS seems better suited for video then in body IS. (I think?) Leitz probably knew this from the beginning too, so I'm curious what they got out of it. They already have M, S, R, compact, maybe 4/3s and m4/3s would be yet another standard for them.
I'm watching m4/3s with quite a bit of excitement. It's the system I wanted when I bought my E-510 and it's really thrown a wrench in my upgrade plans.
peterb
Member
John,
Excellent point. And your Apple/Vaio analogy is spot on. IBM, if you recall at the time Apple rolled out their Apple IIe was so spooked that they sent a team of engineers to come up with their own unit using off-the-shelf parts. The result, of course, was the PC which was the beginning of IBM's slow demise from industry leadership. (Talk about underestimating a market!)
For Leitz, the S2 may be 1913 (or whenever Oskar Barnack fiddled with movie film) all over again and gives Leica a chance to carve out something fresh (or at least the perception of that anyway). Something they haven't done in a long time.
It's ironic that the 4/3's system which Leitz were involved in is something they haven't (at least by their latest offerings anyways) embraced except for two lenses they provided for Panasonic's SLR (as well as Panasonic's L1 as well as Leitz' own D3) as part of their agreement no doubt (but have apparently decided to back off from developing any further offerings).
Leitz' loyal core wanted to see a digital M and they delivered. Flawed with IR issues due to it's thin anti-aliasing filters that left Leitz having to issue IR filters for all their lenses, thus diminishing the full potential of their renowned optics they didn't have to compromise in film in order to compensate for the imaging anomalies. The R has yet to be addressed.
It almost appears that the S2 was an effort to remind everyone they still have something. (And they may very well.) How many need such resolution? From what I've seen from the images produced by scores of digital cameras, it may not be many. But, nonetheless, the line has been drawn in the sand and Leitz is making a bold move. How successful, remains to be seen. But I'm sure there's going to be some considerable nail biting in Solms at the prospect of new folks in these hard economic times globally at having to shell out thousands for a new system. Hasselblad and other medium format legends have been already feeling a pinch from the stepped up competition from below ( i.e. Nikon and Canon) with their increasingly improving image making devices (although in some circles I'm sure there will always be a place for medium format just as large format will never completely fall out of favor save for a few artists keeping it alive).
Yeah, they used OTS parts to keep things simpler on the S2 and the M8. A built-in base of loyal users (for the M anyway) and no real competition (or interest) from other marques (although Nikon has been reported to be working on some new larger format sensor camera) are keeping them alive. History will once again determine whether for Leitz it was a bold move or a foolhardy one.
Peter
Excellent point. And your Apple/Vaio analogy is spot on. IBM, if you recall at the time Apple rolled out their Apple IIe was so spooked that they sent a team of engineers to come up with their own unit using off-the-shelf parts. The result, of course, was the PC which was the beginning of IBM's slow demise from industry leadership. (Talk about underestimating a market!)
For Leitz, the S2 may be 1913 (or whenever Oskar Barnack fiddled with movie film) all over again and gives Leica a chance to carve out something fresh (or at least the perception of that anyway). Something they haven't done in a long time.
It's ironic that the 4/3's system which Leitz were involved in is something they haven't (at least by their latest offerings anyways) embraced except for two lenses they provided for Panasonic's SLR (as well as Panasonic's L1 as well as Leitz' own D3) as part of their agreement no doubt (but have apparently decided to back off from developing any further offerings).
Leitz' loyal core wanted to see a digital M and they delivered. Flawed with IR issues due to it's thin anti-aliasing filters that left Leitz having to issue IR filters for all their lenses, thus diminishing the full potential of their renowned optics they didn't have to compromise in film in order to compensate for the imaging anomalies. The R has yet to be addressed.
It almost appears that the S2 was an effort to remind everyone they still have something. (And they may very well.) How many need such resolution? From what I've seen from the images produced by scores of digital cameras, it may not be many. But, nonetheless, the line has been drawn in the sand and Leitz is making a bold move. How successful, remains to be seen. But I'm sure there's going to be some considerable nail biting in Solms at the prospect of new folks in these hard economic times globally at having to shell out thousands for a new system. Hasselblad and other medium format legends have been already feeling a pinch from the stepped up competition from below ( i.e. Nikon and Canon) with their increasingly improving image making devices (although in some circles I'm sure there will always be a place for medium format just as large format will never completely fall out of favor save for a few artists keeping it alive).
Yeah, they used OTS parts to keep things simpler on the S2 and the M8. A built-in base of loyal users (for the M anyway) and no real competition (or interest) from other marques (although Nikon has been reported to be working on some new larger format sensor camera) are keeping them alive. History will once again determine whether for Leitz it was a bold move or a foolhardy one.
Peter
Last edited:
peterb
Member
Although...after some further thought, using a wholly new sensor of the likes no one else has used before for the S2 could be akin to Oskar Barnack playing with 35mm film and coming up with the Ur-Leica. That large chip had to require some substantial software and other stuff to manage it and while there may be some OTS components lurking somewhere in the body (like the color LCD that may have come from an old discontinued Nokia or Motorola cell phone) the lenses aren't, the body isn't (the M8 I agree was a digital retrofit but I'm not sure the same is true of the S2, given what I've read). It's a whole new ballgame. So again, history will determine its success or not.
My guess is, again, it'll be nail biting time in Solms. While the S2 appears to definitely be a superior camera in terms of size and image potential (the combination of a larger sensor along with new modern, AF Leitz optics (AF which by the way Leitz was admittedly a latecomer to develop) all encased in a body a little SMALLER than the flagships of Nikon or Canon) Leitz has decided to take on, in these very unusually challenging economic times the base of such medium format stalwarts of Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya and Bronica.
Like Betamax, the product may be technologically vastly superior but the established base among these players who may have made such an enormous commitment in terms of equipment and optics and money may be so substantial (as I suspect) that it could be quite daunting for Leitz (or anyone) to make any headway with an entirely new format in this arena at this time.
Peter
My guess is, again, it'll be nail biting time in Solms. While the S2 appears to definitely be a superior camera in terms of size and image potential (the combination of a larger sensor along with new modern, AF Leitz optics (AF which by the way Leitz was admittedly a latecomer to develop) all encased in a body a little SMALLER than the flagships of Nikon or Canon) Leitz has decided to take on, in these very unusually challenging economic times the base of such medium format stalwarts of Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya and Bronica.
Like Betamax, the product may be technologically vastly superior but the established base among these players who may have made such an enormous commitment in terms of equipment and optics and money may be so substantial (as I suspect) that it could be quite daunting for Leitz (or anyone) to make any headway with an entirely new format in this arena at this time.
Peter
Last edited:
barjohn
New member
I worked for Control Data during the heyday of main frame computers. We had the number crunching market and IBM had the business processing market. Both companies resisted the move to new technologies. In the case of Control Data we had the leading capability to design custom large scale integrated circuits using CMOS and other technologies. We had actually built Cray class machines in the lab on LSI circuitry but marketing stood in the way. How could they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for some little dinky machine when their current offering filled a room. They saw it as a threat to their revenue stream since most of the machines were sold on leases.
Leica is stuck in the past for other reasons but the result is the same. Today, CDC, a company with 75,000 employees world wide is gone. It had the leading technology in hard drives and CPUs and threw it away. I can't tell you the number of arguments I had with senior managers about the need to change with the technology and learn to change the marketing to adapt to the way new technology would require. Anyway, that is ancient history.
Leica seems to be falling into its past trap of going for glitz over substance. Titanium special editions, fancy colored covering, changing the logo from red to black, etc. It becomes the rich man's status symbol as opposed to a usable camera. The G1 just seems to do a good job at what it does and is priced fairly for what it offers.
With the M8.2 Leica should have found a solution to the need for external IR filters. They didn't. It took them two years to come up with a sapphire crystal cover for the LCD, two new metal masks for the viewfinder, a slower shutter and minor changes to the software. Not very impressive to me. The firmware still has bugs, the electronics still show problems and they didn't bother to enhance the sensor. For these minor improvements they have the chutzpah to charge $2,800 or 2,000 Euros?
Leica is stuck in the past for other reasons but the result is the same. Today, CDC, a company with 75,000 employees world wide is gone. It had the leading technology in hard drives and CPUs and threw it away. I can't tell you the number of arguments I had with senior managers about the need to change with the technology and learn to change the marketing to adapt to the way new technology would require. Anyway, that is ancient history.
Leica seems to be falling into its past trap of going for glitz over substance. Titanium special editions, fancy colored covering, changing the logo from red to black, etc. It becomes the rich man's status symbol as opposed to a usable camera. The G1 just seems to do a good job at what it does and is priced fairly for what it offers.
With the M8.2 Leica should have found a solution to the need for external IR filters. They didn't. It took them two years to come up with a sapphire crystal cover for the LCD, two new metal masks for the viewfinder, a slower shutter and minor changes to the software. Not very impressive to me. The firmware still has bugs, the electronics still show problems and they didn't bother to enhance the sensor. For these minor improvements they have the chutzpah to charge $2,800 or 2,000 Euros?
peterb
Member
Wow CDC. Boy, does that bring back memories. I was an undergrad at UVA and was interested in computers and recalled many a session in the basement of the biology building where the CDC was housed, typing out punch cards in Fortran. (And I recall the CDC being touted as the preferred mainframe of choice for the Astronomers and physicists who needed that number-crunching power.)
CDC, a noble brontosaurus. Gone. And, you're right. Leitz has clung to the past marketing ploys of exotic reptilian coverings for special Pasha editions of the M's. And with the D-Lux 4 it may be more of the same (although part of me thinks Leitz may feel this latest iteration of their small sensor camera may finally be hitting its stride which is why they were so emboldened to do some of their old Leitz-y things to it like supply it with different skins and fancy leather bags like they used to do with their M film cameras).
And, with the M8.2 not only should Leitz have addressed the IR issues, they should also have announced a camera that was weather sealed. To spend 4 kilobucks on a camera that could evaporate under the first drizzle is, in my opinion (along with others more knowledgeable with the innards and daily workings with the M8 like Sean Reid for example have expressed similar sentiments), totally inexcusable.
All the more reason an $800 gem like the G1 is soooooooooo amazing. And so utterly reasonable.
Peter
CDC, a noble brontosaurus. Gone. And, you're right. Leitz has clung to the past marketing ploys of exotic reptilian coverings for special Pasha editions of the M's. And with the D-Lux 4 it may be more of the same (although part of me thinks Leitz may feel this latest iteration of their small sensor camera may finally be hitting its stride which is why they were so emboldened to do some of their old Leitz-y things to it like supply it with different skins and fancy leather bags like they used to do with their M film cameras).
And, with the M8.2 not only should Leitz have addressed the IR issues, they should also have announced a camera that was weather sealed. To spend 4 kilobucks on a camera that could evaporate under the first drizzle is, in my opinion (along with others more knowledgeable with the innards and daily workings with the M8 like Sean Reid for example have expressed similar sentiments), totally inexcusable.
All the more reason an $800 gem like the G1 is soooooooooo amazing. And so utterly reasonable.
Peter
iiiNelson
Well-known member
My theory or at least what I think would make the most sense for Leica to get into the mFT fold would be to make the future "D-Lux 5" or "Digilux 4" a mFT camera. No need for Leica to really have two overpriced point and shoots competing with each other IMO. They already gave us a strong shock value of the newly "upmarket PanaLeica cameras." They might as well add an extra $100 over current D-Lux4 prices for a G1 body made of magnesium or anodized aluminum with a red or black dot on it. I agree that they could fill the "upmarket lenses" that the Lumix brand doesn't have yet in the same and different focal lengths.
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
What I think a lot of people are missing is that Panasonic have made and are marketing this camera as the kind of first time SLR buyer who used to buy a Canon Rebel. Soccer Moms. I doubt they could care less about a thousand or so sold during its lifespan to be used with legacy lenses, that's not where the money is. As such the G1 being dinged for lack of lenses makes a lot more sense, the review is relative to the cameras intended market not a very specialist genre.