Peter,
It is sure causing some consternation on the LUF forum in the comparison thread with the M8. The reality that few there might want to face is that if an image from each using the same lens but cropped to the same image dimensions and tweaked to its optimum with the EXIF data removed they would be hard pressed to say which camera made which one. I have both M8 images and G1 images and if I tweak the colors so they are close it would be hard to tell.
John,
I've been reading a lot of those threads and some of those folks are out-and-out apoplectic at the idea of an interloper like the G1 horning in on their turf! In fact, I'd go so far to say that some of them may be on the verge of having a stroke!
The interesting thing is, people for the most part buy Leica bodies for privilege of using their lenses on them. Yeah you can get Cosina and Zeiss (which some have argued have certain optics that are far superior to the Leitz at some focal lengths at a fraction of the costs), but the vast majority buy Leica bodies for the optics.
At the dawn (or, rather late morning) of the digital age Leitz insisted that a digital rangefinder was not possible with their optics. Then Epson's CEO who had a fondness for rangefinders charged his troops to come out with a respectable camera that would utilize Leitz legendary optics and Leitz had to re-think their position. The result was the M8, a digital version of the illustrious line of film cameras that had preceded it.
Leitz of course not wanting to compromise their vaunted optics opted not to have anything stand between their lenses and their sensors. That position resulted in Leitz having to issue IR filters for all their optics for use on their DRF that resulted in defeating their initial purpose in the first place. Costs for the privilege of using M lenses in the digital age went up even further.
The problem with the appearance of the G1 on the horizon suggests there's an alternative (almost the same way Epson's line in the sand changed Leitz hardened positions). And that's changed the whole paradigm. Some like Sean Reid have argued that an EVF no matter how pristine is ultimately flawed. And that the rangefinder incorporated in the M8 gives it a distinct advantage over other viewing systems. On face value, I whole heartedly agree. But is that difference worth the extra 4.8 kilobucks to get that? For a machined body that is no where near as secure from the elements as the G1? WIth a sensor and firmware that are only as good as the moment they appear on the scene but constantly live in fear of betterment through advances in technology and software? When you factor all that into the equation then I'm not sure.
As far as lens construction and cutting costs go, you may have a point. Today's plastics are certainly far better than the plastics of yore. I think Leitz has always maintained a position that materials should be chosen ONLY where they offer a clear superiority over others. That said, I seem to recall Leitz arguing that metals seem to hold their glass better in mounts than plastic ones do. And that plastics are better as aperture rings and lens hoods. And that metals (like brass and aluminum) are chosen for how well their heating coefficients of expansion are. Leitz trying to make sure their lenses can be used in ANY environment (which curiously cannot be said of the M8!) have chosen to make their lens construction of materials that would perform as intended whether in the Arctic or the Brazillian Rain forest or the arid wasteland of Afghanistan.
That would explain why so many like Sean Reid are excited that the G1 may be offering an alternative body that can utilize Leitz ptics dating back to the 30's. That speaks well of Leitz' dogmatic, no-holds-barred approach to lens construction. An approach that has served them well. (So well, in fact, that as a result of their over built approach to lens construction, Leitz has been forced to continually up the performance of their lenses otherwise no one would buy anything new from them when there were so many good optics in the global inventory!)
Should Leitz offer lenses constructed using the similar approaches that Nikon and Canon feel can be had? Hard to say. On the one hand from what I can tell, for certain high powered optics even Nikon and Canon are in the Leitz camp of all metal construction. (And the prices of those optics reflect that decision.) But what about shorter lenses? Do they need to be finished to the degree that Leitz (and Zeiss) do it?
Some may say no. And that may be worth considering. Others have expressed appreciation of the solidity of the metal lens construction. And how it makes the lens 'feel' worthy of the stellar price it commanded.
On the other hand, why not? After all, how many of us really subject our cameras to the kind of daily abuse Leitz envisions? An occasional roughness now and then but not day in and day out. (This is akin to asking someone do they really need a HUMMER when a Honda CR-V will go to the convenient store just as easily to pick up a quart of milk?)
My thinking is yes and no. Would I like to see Leitz optics that are finished to the nth degree and priced accordingly? You betcha. Would I like to see some Leitz optics finished to sufficiently withstand the daily rigors of typical usage by the vast majority of those likely to use their optics? You betcha.
Let's see.
Peter