Micro 4/3 announcement and Leica

[jonoslack]

Hi There
Interesting post in 'other cameras'

Micro 4/3

I wonder whether Leica will be jumping on this bandwagon - it sounds right up their street to me, rather like a digilux 2 BUT with interchangeable lenses and twice as big a sensor.

I can just imagine a metal bodied CL sized camera with interchangeable lenses. Personally I'm not keen on digital viewfinders, but I think I might just manage to get used to it for a camera like that!

Maybe this is what they've been hinting at all year?

What do you think?

 

[vieri]

Hey Jono, we are switching places here - you started something similar to what I posted on DPReview and the LUF... I think it might have potential, however I don't see using M lenses on such a camera: the 2x crop factor wouldn't make much sense with the actual Leica M line-up. However, new lenses PLUS an adapter to be able to use M lenses, that would make a lot of sense in the tele-RF arena. A 180 mm f2? A 270 mm f2.8? Not too bad! I wouldn't care for a 56 f2.8, or a 48 f2.8 though, or even a 36 f4 (!)... so, if Leica is up to something here, I surely hope they will have some lenses to go with. More, I assume eventual new lenses will surely be AF, and I can see some problems in using M lenses in MF with a contrast detector confirmation light of some sort.

Anyway, good times for us photographers!

 

[S.P.]

I hope LEICA will not jump on this little sensor gadgets.

I would rather throw my Summicron-M 28/2.0 asph. on ebay than using it as a 56mm Standard-lens.

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi Jono,

Thanks for the tip off. This has some serious potential!

 

[jonoslack]

I hope LEICA will not jump on this little sensor gadgets.

I would rather throw my Summicron-M 28/2.0 asph. on ebay than using it as a 56mm Standard-lens.

Have you used a 4/3 camera? They're good, and getting better, and not
much smaller than the ape-c sensor.

 

[gero]

think about the lenses possible with this:

25 nuctilux?
21?
18?

 

[gero]

why couldn't they do the same with R & M lenses? have an M type camera with which you could use both M & R lenses with adapters. So there are 2 sensor sizes:

4/3 & "full'frame or larger"

 

[jonoslack]

I would rather throw my Summicron-M 28/2.0 asph. on ebay than using it as a 56mm Standard-lens.

On the other hand, what about a 100mm f1 noctilux?
or 180mm f2

Of course, I take your point - you aren't going to be using existing lenses for wide angle (and it may easily not be possible to make an adaptor anyway).

But you can use your summicron on your M8 . . . . M9 . . . (and so could I if I had a 28 'cron . . I wish!).

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I said this on photo.net, but it seems to me like this is more a replacement for the Hexar AF or Contax G1 than for the CL or the rangefinders (which were still fully manual, fully compatible full-frame cameras). Assuming they don't mess it up, these could be very compact, but still serious digital cameras. Instead of the fingernail sized GX100, would you go up in size a bit to get a 4/3rd's sized compact with interchangeable lenses? I probably would. These will hopefully be sized more like a Leica CL and Contax G1 -- that size of a camera with a real sensor, even half frame like 4/3rds would be a huge improvement on the current compact "prosumer" cameras like the V-lux, Digilux 2 and so on.

 

[johnastovall]

On the other hand, what about a 100mm f1 noctilux?
or 180mm f2

Of course, I take your point - you aren't going to be using existing lenses for wide angle (and it may easily not be possible to make an adaptor anyway).

But you can use your summicron on your M8 . . . . M9 . . . (and so could I if I had a 28 'cron . . I wish!).

Now an f/1 nocti gets my interest....

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Stuart

I said this on photo.net, but it seems to me like this is more a replacement for the Hexar AF or Contax G1 than for the CL or the rangefinders (which were still fully manual, fully compatible full-frame cameras). Assuming they don't mess it up, these could be very compact, but still serious digital cameras. Instead of the fingernail sized GX100, would you go up in size a bit to get a 4/3rd's sized compact with interchangeable lenses?

I quite agree with you that it's more a replacement for a G1 than a Leica . . . . unless, of course, Leica decides to put a rangefinder on one!

Worth mentioning that with respect to sensor size it isn't going up in size 'a bit': (sizes are approximate)

ricoh Gx100: 5.4 x7.4mm
4/3 13 x 17.3mm
Fovean (sigma) 13.8 x 20.7
Canon APS-c 14.8 x 22.2
Nikon APS-c 15.7 x 23.6

4/3 is much closer to other APS-c cameras than it is to any of the compacts.

I probably would. These will hopefully be sized more like a Leica CL and Contax G1 -- that size of a camera with a real sensor, even half frame like 4/3rds would be a huge improvement on the current compact "prosumer" cameras like the V-lux, Digilux 2 and so on.

The existing E420 certainly feels smaller than a Contax G1 (so long since I handled a Leica CL). So I reckon they could make a body the size of a Canon G9, with a much lower pixel density. That certainly seems to be the crux of the diagrams they've shown

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Sorry Jono, I don't mean to disparage 4/3rd's cameras, I know that they are much much larger than sensors like the GX100. I think the potential here is superb for truly compact, truly capable digital cameras. We have not really achieved that yet, at least compared to the way we achieved it with film. My concerns with 4/3rds are not with resolution or capability, but with depth of field issues. Shallow depth of field figures very largely in my photography, and while it is certainly possible on 4/3rds, it is not as easily achieved without resorting to true telephotos. But if I could replace my Gx100 with a camera that operated well (read no glaring noise) up to 1600, along with a much better lens and sensor, I would be very interested.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

By the way, the CL is small.

Here is the CL as compared to the D3. By the way, the CL's lens is one stop faster!

The CL is lighter too. By about 40lbs. So if they can make a 4/3rds compact camera that size, I would be quite happy about it.

 

[jonoslack]

Sorry Jono, I don't mean to disparage 4/3rd's cameras, I know that they are much much larger than sensors like the GX100. I think the potential here is superb for truly compact, truly capable digital cameras. We have not really achieved that yet, at least compared to the way we achieved it with film. My concerns with 4/3rds are not with resolution or capability, but with depth of field issues. Shallow depth of field figures very largely in my photography, and while it is certainly possible on 4/3rds, it is not as easily achieved without resorting to true telephotos. But if I could replace my Gx100 with a camera that operated well (read no glaring noise) up to 1600, along with a much better lens and sensor, I would be very interested.

Hi Stuart
I know you know - there just seem to be so many people clumping in 4/3 sensor size with compact cameras rather than APS, where they clearly should be.

As far as depth of field is concerned - I quite understand, of course, it's a great deal smaller than the GX100, but not up to the full framers.

The CL / D3 pictures are wonderful . . . here's hoping, but as we all know, these hopes are rarely fulfilled!

 

[S.P.]

Have you used a 4/3 camera? They're good, and getting better, and not
much smaller than the ape-c sensor.

I use Nikon for digital, Leica M and Hasselblad V-Series with Film.

I don´t want another system, it´s a pain for me to decide "which camera should I use today".

But probably the Micro 4/3 an a small but high quality non-zoom-lens will be a great camera to carry around all the time, like the Contax T2 which I like very much.

 

[trisberg]

I wish someone would make a body the size of a Contax G1 without the built in finder but with good add-on finders showing focus confirmation. They should also provide fast AF, maybe using phase detection . Combine that with a compact 14/2.8 and 20/2 lens and I would be all set.

-Thomas