Has Leica made the right choice to not join the micro 4/3 ranks?
This question is posted as a poll at the M43 Rumors Blog. (you can predict the results so far)
I actually think the answer is yes. I think their digital product line shows some foresight and planning. Let's face it, Leica offers very high end items, things they do not expect to sell to me or many of us. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means I am not in their sights as a buyer.
So, what do they offer. A really nice P&S in the DLux4 (with their partner Panasonic), the fix lensed X1 (with a larger sensor, surely great lens and hopefully stellar performance) and the full framed M9.
I think the key is that the X1 has a fixed lens. Why? It would be easy for Leica to jump in with an M43 camera. But that would mean investing capital in bodies, and a lens series. By going with a fixed lens camera they can focus on engineering a solution which is specific, one lens for one body rather than a lens that will work on a number of bodies.
So, here we go again talking about Leica's financial position. But look at the other side, they are still involved in the m43 game with their partner Panasonic. They are committed to introducing a series of m43 lenses with Panasonic in the near future. All of that R&D is being done largely with Panasonic's capital I bet, so Leica gets to offer products funded and branded by someone else. Sound like another company we know? Maybe Cosina?
Add in the fact that by doing this they are able to not offer a direct competitor to their bread & butter, which is now the M9. Leica lived the CL experience once, they are smart to not repeat it.
Well, that is what I think. How about you?
OK, Ruben impersonation over.
This question is posted as a poll at the M43 Rumors Blog. (you can predict the results so far)
I actually think the answer is yes. I think their digital product line shows some foresight and planning. Let's face it, Leica offers very high end items, things they do not expect to sell to me or many of us. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means I am not in their sights as a buyer.
So, what do they offer. A really nice P&S in the DLux4 (with their partner Panasonic), the fix lensed X1 (with a larger sensor, surely great lens and hopefully stellar performance) and the full framed M9.
I think the key is that the X1 has a fixed lens. Why? It would be easy for Leica to jump in with an M43 camera. But that would mean investing capital in bodies, and a lens series. By going with a fixed lens camera they can focus on engineering a solution which is specific, one lens for one body rather than a lens that will work on a number of bodies.
So, here we go again talking about Leica's financial position. But look at the other side, they are still involved in the m43 game with their partner Panasonic. They are committed to introducing a series of m43 lenses with Panasonic in the near future. All of that R&D is being done largely with Panasonic's capital I bet, so Leica gets to offer products funded and branded by someone else. Sound like another company we know? Maybe Cosina?
Add in the fact that by doing this they are able to not offer a direct competitor to their bread & butter, which is now the M9. Leica lived the CL experience once, they are smart to not repeat it.
Well, that is what I think. How about you?
OK, Ruben impersonation over.
ferider
Veteran
Just a side note that M9, S2, and possibly X1 development must have started under Leica's previous CEO, at a time when m4/3 cameras were not released yet. We are looking at the end of a development cycle and I would hope most of Leica is now focusing on exploiting the results, including building the necessary support network.
So yes, smart to not work on yet another camera, but maybe focus on lenses for a few years.
Why do you think so ? A u4/3 25mm Summilux would be pretty cool, also mounted to an Olympus.
So yes, smart to not work on yet another camera, but maybe focus on lenses for a few years.
Why do you think so ? A u4/3 25mm Summilux would be pretty cool, also mounted to an Olympus.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
with panasonic behind m4thirds that's enough for me.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Heck yes they did the right thing.
They need to take the high ground on image quality. m4/3 while a very interesting platform puts them into a me-to race. Their strength is glass and usability. By waiting on the m4/3s stuff they can move the race to a place they can win. A great lens (we hope and it's a bit slow) and control looks as close to traditional as you can get. The X1 is aimed at folks like us and I think it hits us spot on in features (way off in price). They see the GRD and SP series and have one upped them.
The m4/3s stuff can wait a bit, come out with a X1W (16/3.5) and an X1T (50/2.8) and they will sell a lot of them. The Digilux 3 is a fine camera but has tons of other cameras playing at the same space. The X1 has no competition with large sensor. I think they missed the market price of $1500 USD with finder, but heck, I'm cheap.
Build the glass for m4/3 and 4/3, sit on the sidelines and figure out KICK A55 features and controls that make a difference and then move in. They can sell a lot of glass without having a camera to put it on.
B2 (;->
They need to take the high ground on image quality. m4/3 while a very interesting platform puts them into a me-to race. Their strength is glass and usability. By waiting on the m4/3s stuff they can move the race to a place they can win. A great lens (we hope and it's a bit slow) and control looks as close to traditional as you can get. The X1 is aimed at folks like us and I think it hits us spot on in features (way off in price). They see the GRD and SP series and have one upped them.
The m4/3s stuff can wait a bit, come out with a X1W (16/3.5) and an X1T (50/2.8) and they will sell a lot of them. The Digilux 3 is a fine camera but has tons of other cameras playing at the same space. The X1 has no competition with large sensor. I think they missed the market price of $1500 USD with finder, but heck, I'm cheap.
Build the glass for m4/3 and 4/3, sit on the sidelines and figure out KICK A55 features and controls that make a difference and then move in. They can sell a lot of glass without having a camera to put it on.
B2 (;->
I think that is a real possibility in this plan. Leica gets to go down their path with their products, and still participate in m43 with Panasonic as a partner. Surely Leica's investment is not with out a cost. But their excellence in lens design will be supported with Panasonic, so the m43 25 Summilux may come along sooner rather than later if it is planned at all.
mh2000
Well-known
I hate the 4:3 aspect ratio. I'd already own one of the cute little Oly DSLRs if they weren't that stupid 4:3 aspect ratio. give me 3:2 or nothing in a 35mm form factor camera.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I think it would have been interesting to see what Leica might have done with 4/3rds.
A rework and rethink of one of Panasonic's cameras. Say the G1. And a set of Leica 4/3rds glass to go with it. Have it all made in Japan so the costs are reasonable. It was good enough for Zeiss. And let us not forget here that Zeiss is every bit the optical company that Leica is (and maybe then some).
Right now, Leica has just released three very enticing cameras. The problem is that they remain niche products. How many RFFers are going to buy any one of these cameras in the next two years?
A solid 4/3rds entry + glass would have had a lot of us getting ready to drop some coin I expect.
Having said that, I suppose Leica has decided to protect its brand with the X1. It's a no-compromise attitude and maybe 4/3rds felt like too much of a compromise.
From a film shooter who looks seriously at a lot of digital gear, 4/3rds, to date, is a concept that is still trying to be worked out. Just my opinion. I know some love it but to me it's all coming off a little half-baked at the moment. And Leica doesn't do half-baked...well, if you ignore the M8
A rework and rethink of one of Panasonic's cameras. Say the G1. And a set of Leica 4/3rds glass to go with it. Have it all made in Japan so the costs are reasonable. It was good enough for Zeiss. And let us not forget here that Zeiss is every bit the optical company that Leica is (and maybe then some).
Right now, Leica has just released three very enticing cameras. The problem is that they remain niche products. How many RFFers are going to buy any one of these cameras in the next two years?
A solid 4/3rds entry + glass would have had a lot of us getting ready to drop some coin I expect.
Having said that, I suppose Leica has decided to protect its brand with the X1. It's a no-compromise attitude and maybe 4/3rds felt like too much of a compromise.
From a film shooter who looks seriously at a lot of digital gear, 4/3rds, to date, is a concept that is still trying to be worked out. Just my opinion. I know some love it but to me it's all coming off a little half-baked at the moment. And Leica doesn't do half-baked...well, if you ignore the M8
noirist
Newbie
I agree that Leica made the right choice in focusing on compact cameras with the largest possible sensors and greatest image quality irrespective of cost. Leica is a premium brand, and M43rds is mass market. The M9 is spot-on with a full frame sensor, rangefinder, and your choice of amazing M-mount glass. However, I think the X1 is DOA with a sad slow not-so-wide 36mm equivalent f2.8 lens and a pathetic 230k pixel LCD. With those parameters, the EP1, GF1, and even the LX3 are better in at least two or three material dimensions. For example, LX3 has a higher resolution LCD, a faster f2.0 wider 24mm equivalent lens, plus it can record 720p movies and costs 1/4th as much. Think how compelling the X1 would have been with a 24mm equivalent f1.4 Leica lens and a 460k pixel LCD! With those specs, the X1 would have been the best compact on the market in every possible way and I would have gladly dished out big bucks for it. As it is, based on specs alone, I would rather use a GF1 or an LX3 than the X1, even if the X1 cost less.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes. Who wants a camera that turns a 25mm lens into a 50mm lens? The idea is to get away from crop factors, not to make them worse.
majid
Fazal Majid
Yes in passing on m4/3 bodies, because in merely rebadging Panasonic cameras they do not add value or differentiate themselves, and they don't have enough R&D capacity to squander on systems where there is strong competition and price-sensitive customers (as opposed to rangefinders or digital MF).
They could release glass for m4/3, or at least assist Panasonic with optical design, but I would suspect there is a bigger market opportunity in making premium lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts the way Zeiss is.
They could release glass for m4/3, or at least assist Panasonic with optical design, but I would suspect there is a bigger market opportunity in making premium lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts the way Zeiss is.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Primarily no. To me the µ4/3 format is the most rangefinder-like digital format. µ4/3 is to dSLR as RF cameras were to SLR's, and Leica needs to have their name associated with the format. Leica is rangefinder cameras. Leica's decision to put out a high-end large sensor APS fixed focal length camera is kind of lame. It feels like an attempt to conquer and own a niche marketplace in which only Sigma wants and in which Sigma has demonstrated ends in flailure (flailing and failure). It's easy to conquer, boring, and not very lucrative.
Not committing to µ4/3 feels like a bold stroke of conservative fence-sitting on Leica's part. I'm sure they want to see how the battle goes first, and in doing so they run the risk of having to come in late again. The recent offerings in the µ4/3 format have been incredible, great performance and looks. The GF1 looks like it could be a modern day M, and the EP-1 might be the best-looking camera around.
Leica should be on the cutting edge of this format cranking out new M-style cameras and cool new tiny high-quality fixed FL glass. Look at what Oly did commemorating and leveraging their Pen design (yes an SLR), and look at the stir and attention they created for themselves. Imagine if Leica had commemorated the M legacy and styled a µ4/3 M2.
/
Not committing to µ4/3 feels like a bold stroke of conservative fence-sitting on Leica's part. I'm sure they want to see how the battle goes first, and in doing so they run the risk of having to come in late again. The recent offerings in the µ4/3 format have been incredible, great performance and looks. The GF1 looks like it could be a modern day M, and the EP-1 might be the best-looking camera around.
Leica should be on the cutting edge of this format cranking out new M-style cameras and cool new tiny high-quality fixed FL glass. Look at what Oly did commemorating and leveraging their Pen design (yes an SLR), and look at the stir and attention they created for themselves. Imagine if Leica had commemorated the M legacy and styled a µ4/3 M2.
/
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
I don't quite understand this - the m4/3 specifications are clear to the companies that buy into the system - the mount size, the register distance, what commands you need to send the lens to get it to focus, how the lens communicates with the body and what information is transferred from the lens...
It is a single specific design target. If you design your lens to meet it, it works on all the compatible bodies. How is having to design one lens for one body somehow easier?
Cheers,
-Gautham
250swb
Well-known
Errm, its actually the person who puts a 35mm lens onto a camera designed for a different format lens that induces a crop factor. I think you'll find that there is no crop factor if you use the correct lenses.
To the question, yes, Leica did the right thing not to get involved in m4/3, for the simple reason that they wouldn't be able to keep up. Within months of each release their product would be over priced for the market and rendered obsolete by new introductions from Olympus and Panasonic. It would also have been ironic if Leica had jumped on board and then either Olympus or Panasonic finally relased a RF type m4/3 camera that destroys the market for the M9.
Steve
Anupam
Well-known
The 25 is still a 25. Who said that every other format needs to be judged by 35mm? Do you ever complain that the hassy turns 80mm lenses to 50mm?
aizan
Veteran
it would have just been a rebranded panasonic, so what's the point? they've still got one lens in the fray, and there might be more.
the x1's main strength would seem to be responsiveness, and that's a biggie considering the competition. for now.
it's primary weakness, of course, is it's simplicity and price. there's nothing to stop canon, nikon, pentax, and sony from making a similar camera that has more features and costs less. they can easily give theirs image stabilization and higher resolution lcds. pentax and nikon will probably make theirs weather sealed, and i expect olympus is doing the same for their high-end m4/3 body. sigma is probably working on improving the responsiveness of their cameras, too. everybody is going to have their poor man's leica...x1.
and that's a good thing, because it means it has broad appeal.
the x1's main strength would seem to be responsiveness, and that's a biggie considering the competition. for now.
it's primary weakness, of course, is it's simplicity and price. there's nothing to stop canon, nikon, pentax, and sony from making a similar camera that has more features and costs less. they can easily give theirs image stabilization and higher resolution lcds. pentax and nikon will probably make theirs weather sealed, and i expect olympus is doing the same for their high-end m4/3 body. sigma is probably working on improving the responsiveness of their cameras, too. everybody is going to have their poor man's leica...x1.
and that's a good thing, because it means it has broad appeal.
Last edited:
roundg
Well-known
I select Yes. As anything M43 promises, APS sensor can do the same or better. M43 is more like a concept for sales but nothing break through.
You can achieve this goal with adaptors and use any number of lenses on an m43 camera, but not every lens is built the same. Some perform better than others. Of course designing a lens specifically for m43, assuring the light is reaching sensor at an ideal angle will make all perform better than an old MF lens, but over time sensors will change, the product will advance. With variations performance levels will vary which will have to be accounted for. Leica can control that with the X1 and any future like models. They can't with m43.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
So if I understand you right - because sensors change it is easier to design a lens that is fixed onto the body, that is suitable to that sensor so you have to pay for a lens and body every single time and if the body dies you toss the lens with it and just wait until the next X whatever body.
Cheers,
-Gautham
jarski
Veteran
I believe X1 is only a first model in this line, and doesnt take long from them to bring out zoom version of the camera. personal speculation ofcourse, but cant believe they would stop into this fix lens version.
ampguy
Veteran
I think they are fine without micro 4/3. They can always consider partnering with Panasonic if they need their name on some 4/3 product.
The X1 seems to kill 4/3, along with the DP1 and DP2. If you need interchangeable lenses, there is the M9.
The micro 4/3 sensor is very small, and will only get relatively smaller as time goes on.
The X1 seems to kill 4/3, along with the DP1 and DP2. If you need interchangeable lenses, there is the M9.
The micro 4/3 sensor is very small, and will only get relatively smaller as time goes on.