RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
But so is Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc., and probably even more so. Most film photogs I knew back in the pre-digital days shot with SLRs. When I think Leica, I think RF first.
Agree, and despite the fact that they've made their 35mm FF camera (and priced it beyond the reach of most non-professional photographers) they're hitching up with APS, so they realize they need a more affordable option (smaller sensor). Is it a mistake not to have produced a micro 4/3 camera? I think a micro 4/3 offering from Leica would have been way more attractive than the X1. I'm sure the X1 will produce quality images, but a micro 4/3 M-styled camera with Leica-crafted glass would have been so f*ing sweet.
/
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
My only issue is that the only point of entry is a C-Lux or a D-Lux, which doesn't seem so expensive seeing that the LX3 is marked up so high.
Still - it's a wide gap going from $699 US to $2000 to $7000. Not a lot of range there...
Still - it's a wide gap going from $699 US to $2000 to $7000. Not a lot of range there...
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I guess I think they did the right thing. A rebranded panasonic would not have done much for them.
On the other hand, I find a fixed lens pretty uninteresting when the lens is f2.8.
This is yet another case of my obviously not understanding the design/marketing aspects of it all, since there is no way in the world I can imagine putting out such a product.
On the other hand, I find a fixed lens pretty uninteresting when the lens is f2.8.
This is yet another case of my obviously not understanding the design/marketing aspects of it all, since there is no way in the world I can imagine putting out such a product.
count_zero
Established
The D-lux 4 is an awesome little camera with a fast lens. I don't know why anyone would choose the X1 just to get a psuedo rangefinder looking camera and a couple more mega pixels. I can see it now. Random fashionista sees person with red dot camera "oh, wow you have an awesome, errr, wait sorry, I thought you had the M9".
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Remember the Pentax 110 camera that was a miniaturized system? You could change lenses, etc. That was pretty darn neat. What killed it was the silly little film it took.
OUCH! That's a brutally inaccurate comparison.
110 film was bad, not much better than Disc film. I still see those Pentax cameras popping up at thrift stores, garage sales and on CL. /
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
To answer this question one must know the estimations of Leica according this cameras. If they plan to sell x, y z units (on that prices) within w months, and manage to do so - than they made the right choice.
But there is nothing to do with that success and the future of photography.
As the development of other manufacturers cameras show, live view seems to become the mainstream.
And live view doesn't require mirror nor RF.
The size of the sensors is another question. The GH1 shows that the m4/3 format is not entirely closed in that aspect...
BTW the X1 should have been made with FF sensor and a 35/2 lens. I miss my Hexar AF-D...
nemjo
But there is nothing to do with that success and the future of photography.
As the development of other manufacturers cameras show, live view seems to become the mainstream.
And live view doesn't require mirror nor RF.
The size of the sensors is another question. The GH1 shows that the m4/3 format is not entirely closed in that aspect...
BTW the X1 should have been made with FF sensor and a 35/2 lens. I miss my Hexar AF-D...
nemjo
Last edited:
250swb
Well-known
Lol, like if it shrinks when you put it in the washing machine?
I just don't understand this nose in the air attitude to m4/3. How many people on RFF regularly print over 16"x20"? Not many I'd bet. Well under normal shooting conditions you wouldn't see any difference you could identify any camera with between a print made from a Panasonic G1 or from a Nikon D3, or dare I say from a Leica M8 or M9.
As for "if you need interchangeable lenses there is the M9", where do we start? We could start with the wonderful zooms lenses you can get for the M9, or the fantastic telephoto lens selection, not to mention the weather sealed lenses, or the macro lenses of which the M9 is superb at using. Continuing the list would be arduous and long. I just wonder if you thought about anything like that before suggesting the M9 was the ultimate camera?
Steve
jarski
Veteran
well, following that logic, almost any cheapo Sony P&S would do enough justice for most of us Sunday snappers ? so why even bother with M4/3 either ?
in fact, whats the whole point spending any money to cameras at all, if one can buy post cards
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
majid
Fazal Majid
In terms of form factor, perhaps. It ain't a rangefinder unless it actually has a rangefinder. Thus neither m4/3 nor the X1 nor the Contax G are rangefinders. I like rangefinders independently from the format (I also have a X-Pan II and a Fuji GF670), and I would have loved to have a Fuji GW690 or a Mamiya 7.
Perhaps they feel the format is not capable of delivering the image quality required by the Leica brand promise.
No, they had the R system, and now the S system. Leica's brand is about uncompromising optical and mechanical quality, streamlined user interface and conservative German design. This goes beyond cameras into binoculars.
Leica is a small company and they don't have the resources of a Panasonic or Olympus. They have to consider their battles very, very carefully. The flip side is they don't need to sell as many cameras to suceed. If they sell as many X1s as DP1/DP2s were sold, it will already be a tremendous commercial success for them.
As for the large-sensor fixed lens segment, this already existed with film and the Leica Minilux and CM, or the Contax T series, the Nikon 35Ti and 28Ti, and the Ricoh GR1. Compact interchangeable lens systems like the Pen series existed, as well as semi-compact RFs like the Canonet, but they were eventually superseded by a dipolar market of largeish SLRs and compact point-and-shoot cameras. Just because Sigma failed to execute in AF speed and high-ISO performance on the DP1/DP2 does not mean it can't be done.
The GF1 is not out yet but is indeed promising. I canceled my preorder of it when the X1 news came out nonetheless, because I'd rather have the larger sensor and interchangeable lenses don't matter to me in a compact camera.
The E-P1 is fugly. I liked the Photokina 2008 concept much better. Its AF is terrible, almost as bad as the DP2, and the 17mm's optical quality is lackluster at best. After testing the camera in-store, I decided to pass and stay with the DP2 instead.
You are assuming Leica believes the m4/3 format can deliver the goods on quality. Clearly from their actions, they seem to believe the format is a dead-end, like the half-frame Pen format or APS. Nobody asks if Leica missed an opportunity by not making half-frame IIIs in the 50s or APS cameras in the 90s (well, actually they did with the C11). If the format is the limiting factor and not the lenses, then there is no way they could sustain the higher prices required by their artisanal production methods and tight tolerances.
People who want to use their legacy M glass. That's why the M9 is such a big deal. I am a 50mm-e kind of guy. When the M8 came out, I had to get a 35mm Summilux ASPH to be the new normal lens for it. From that point of view, the M9 is a bargain as the combined price of a M8 and 35mm Lux far exceeded $7K.
Or a dead-end like APS.
Another big factor is the 3:2 aspect ratio. They keep insisting about it in the S2 brochures as well. Maybe it has to do with the golden section, but they don't seem enamored of the 4:3 aspect ratio. Considering that 4/3 is giving way to 16/9 everywhere, including TVs and computer monitors, they may have a point.
Not at $2000 it won't.
The question is whether m4/3 can create a market with sufficiently large volume for Panasonic and Olympus to survive. If it isn't large enough, for instance if Canon, Nikon, Sony and Samsung strike back with APS-C compacts, the first-mover advantage could dissipate and leave them with no option but to exit the market altogether, as Konica-Minolta has.
Leica does not need anywhere near the same volumes to soldier on.
Leicas were never priced for the mainstream. The M9 is competitive pricewise with the Nikon D3X. As their CEO said, they are not going to try a suicidal frontal charge against the Japanese behemoths on their own turf.
They would not have been able to make a compact telescoping design because the m4/3 sensor is so close to the flange. If they had made a pancake, I would have gotten one with a GF1 but their margins would have been less. I for one would rather have the larger sensor, even if costs the interchangeable lens mount, i.e. the digital Contax T3. The question is whether the AF on the X1 is going to be good enough.
I had purchased the D-Lux 4 and returned it after 2 weeks to get a DP2 because the images were so bad. Fuzzy optics and horrible noise at ISO 320 and beyond. I don't care about the RF styling, I want a digital Contax T3 - pocketable, high-quality optics, decent ISO 1600+ performance and top-notch build quality. The D-Lux 4 does not meet this, the E-P1 does not either. The GF1 might, but I don't trust the m4/3 format.
When I view my thumbnails in Lightroom, photos from the DP2 and the M8 stand out with superior clarity than even my 5DmkII ones (and I have excellent Canon glass, the 50mm f/1.2L and 24-70mm f/2.8L).
For many people such as myself, it makes more sense to have one DSLR system for what you describe, a M system with one lens as an everyday camera to carry in the bag, and a decent compact to carry in the pocket.
The Hexar AF was an awesome camera and lens combo, but it wasn't pocketable.
----
Just to clarify - my evolution in terms of compact cameras 1994-2009 was: Nikon 35Ti -> Fuji MX700 -> Canon Digital Elph -> Contax T3 (couldn't stand the Elph pictures after getting a DSLR) -> Fuji F31fd -> Sigma DP1 -> Sigma DP2. The next steps I am considering are the GF1 with 20mm f/1.7 or the X1. I have preordered the X1, but might change my mind if the 20mm f/1.7 turns out to be exceptional.
Last edited:
count_zero
Established
You brought up a good point about the horrible noise in D-LUX4. I wasn't aware of this, now it's off of my wish list . You figure that the sensor on the D-LUX4 is larger than FF, but its only 10Mpixel. The X1 sensor is smaller than FF, but 12Mpixel; therefore, better pixel density and sharper images (3.3MP/cm2). The M9 is FF 18Mpixel, and maintains the same density at the M8.2 (2.1MP/cm2) yet it cannot do ISO 3200 and up most likely due to firmware issues. If you look at the Canon 1D mark3, it has 1.9MP/cm2, which is why its near flawless at ISO3200. I like the the 4/3 because it maximizes pixel density (I think its at 5MP/cm2) without sacrificing quality due to noise (uses less power to reduce noise maybe?), and you get the 2x depth of field advantage (or do I have that backwards?) for very cheap. You cant compare 4/3 to Leica M9 since its simply a different class of camera. But, in my opinion 4/3 is better than Nikon DX and Canon EOS in the same price range (Nikon D5000 has 3.3MP/cm2, but weighs twice as much with crap lenses). The M9 wins over the Nikon and Canons in the same price class because of the smaller form factor and Leica glass. Leica S2 kills the Canon 1D mark3 in pixel density and form factor.
Last edited:
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Before I start answering I would like to precise that I am an happy owner of an Oly E-330, a 11-22, the lens which come with the camera (I almost never used it, is it 24-58?) and a 25mm pancake but...I think the format does not have a future.
Have you ever taken a pictures in MF? You know then how better it looks than 35mm (minus maybe the very very top lenses and low low ISO films like the old Agfa APX 25). Have you taken pictures with a view camera? Well, then you know there is another quatum leap from MF. And if you had the chance of producing a contact print from a sheet larger than 8x10 you know how they look like...
With film every exposure make a 8x10 picture much more expensive than a 35mm picture but with digital the investment is once and for all with the same quality difference we had in film when the sensor get bigger.
We can already buy a 30-something megapixel 48x36 digital back from Mamiya for around half the price of an M9 and prices will drop and drop.
Sure a 4/3 camera might be smaller than a FF but difference is so small that I would not pay the price in quality for that...and I guess few will do that in the future.
I guess that 4/3 could however be a good format for point-n-shot cameras...I would even say hopefully that will became the standard for these cameras.
GLF
Have you ever taken a pictures in MF? You know then how better it looks than 35mm (minus maybe the very very top lenses and low low ISO films like the old Agfa APX 25). Have you taken pictures with a view camera? Well, then you know there is another quatum leap from MF. And if you had the chance of producing a contact print from a sheet larger than 8x10 you know how they look like...
With film every exposure make a 8x10 picture much more expensive than a 35mm picture but with digital the investment is once and for all with the same quality difference we had in film when the sensor get bigger.
We can already buy a 30-something megapixel 48x36 digital back from Mamiya for around half the price of an M9 and prices will drop and drop.
Sure a 4/3 camera might be smaller than a FF but difference is so small that I would not pay the price in quality for that...and I guess few will do that in the future.
I guess that 4/3 could however be a good format for point-n-shot cameras...I would even say hopefully that will became the standard for these cameras.
GLF
ramosa
B&W
i said, "yes." because of its size as a company, leica can't have too "irons in the fire" ... and its counterpart in various ventures--panny--has a strong presence in 4/3s and micro 4/3s.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Note: I'm the delighted owner of a Panasonic G1 alongside my Leica M cameras.
The thing is, Leica still has the option of having a Leica-badged m4/3 down the road, for what that's worth to them. Meanwhile the very existence of the G1 and GH1 and GF1 (and E-P1) reinforces the value of Leica lenses.
In the meantime, Leica is saying, "we're going to ship the best digital point-and-shoot there is," the X1. There's a market in serious photographers who want one for a second camera and (maybe) also for "novices" (but with a lot of money) who want to take DSLR-quality pictures with a point-and-shoot camera. I am assuming, I think correctly, that the X1 will smoke the G1 shooting at the equivalent of a 35mm lens.
So I think the X1 is a more important thing for them to have done--a brilliant thing. It does not really preclude a Leica m4/3 camera down the road. (It would be good if Leica does not bad-mouth the 4/3 sensor too much more. Their website was still advertising the Digilux 3 a couple of days ago!)
Tom
The thing is, Leica still has the option of having a Leica-badged m4/3 down the road, for what that's worth to them. Meanwhile the very existence of the G1 and GH1 and GF1 (and E-P1) reinforces the value of Leica lenses.
In the meantime, Leica is saying, "we're going to ship the best digital point-and-shoot there is," the X1. There's a market in serious photographers who want one for a second camera and (maybe) also for "novices" (but with a lot of money) who want to take DSLR-quality pictures with a point-and-shoot camera. I am assuming, I think correctly, that the X1 will smoke the G1 shooting at the equivalent of a 35mm lens.
So I think the X1 is a more important thing for them to have done--a brilliant thing. It does not really preclude a Leica m4/3 camera down the road. (It would be good if Leica does not bad-mouth the 4/3 sensor too much more. Their website was still advertising the Digilux 3 a couple of days ago!)
Tom
250swb
Well-known
So what camera is it that you do use, because unless its an 8"x10" I'm not sure what your point is? Are you saying you don't compromise on quality at any stage?
I have used 4x5 extensively in the past for landscape work, but admit its not great for street shooting, so I use m4/3 for that. Compromise is something photographers do, and suggesting MF (or larger) is better is only relative to the ability for MF to get you the photo you want. Likewise an M9 is a great camera, but it won't get you all the photo's you may want to capture, so you may need a DSLR for that. But its pretty laughable predicting m4/3 has no future on an assessment of quality presumably based on your four year old camera. If it needs saying once it seems it needs saying a million times, the resolution of a m4/3 sensor is higher than a FF Nikon D3, so I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge my photo's are plenty sharp enough for the use I put the camera to. And it will get me a whole lot more street photo's than my Hasselblad or 4x5.
Steve
usayit
Well-known
I voted No and I know I am the minority.....
If Leica is to continue and grow, they must win over a larger market share and establish those ~new~ customers as loyalists. The price point of their premier line, now the M9 and X1, severely limits them to pre-existing customers. Those looking in from the outside see the Leica branding as the "rich man's" toy and look elsewhere for exciting new products. It doesn't help that customer's see their only "entry" point to the Leica brand is through the C-lux and D-lux P&S cameras which on the surface offer no real advantage over their panasonic cousins at a much lower price.
When People see Leica CAMERA's they either don't know anything about them (My Canon attracts more attention in public) or they don't understand. How many of us Loyalists respond with "you won't understand until you own one and shoot with one." For Leica, that is not a good position to be in since the discussion usually ends with that statement.
When people see the Leica branded GLASS on the Panasonics, they automatically think that the glass must be of the highest quality. Looking through online discussions and reviews regarding panasonic's LX3 almost always specifically mention the quality of the optics. That's Leica's advantage and they need to capitalize on it then expand on it.
The micro4/3rds format cameras are the closest alternative to the DRF and Leica needs to play along. This is a new format that doesn't have a rich system of optics available... yet. A perfect opportunity for the Leica branding to come on strong. A Panasonic micro 4/3rd camera body with a whole system of Leica optics is a whole lot more compelling than a couple P&S cameras. It also opens the door for expansion into the micro 4/3rd based camera in the near future.
If Leica is to continue and grow, they must win over a larger market share and establish those ~new~ customers as loyalists. The price point of their premier line, now the M9 and X1, severely limits them to pre-existing customers. Those looking in from the outside see the Leica branding as the "rich man's" toy and look elsewhere for exciting new products. It doesn't help that customer's see their only "entry" point to the Leica brand is through the C-lux and D-lux P&S cameras which on the surface offer no real advantage over their panasonic cousins at a much lower price.
When People see Leica CAMERA's they either don't know anything about them (My Canon attracts more attention in public) or they don't understand. How many of us Loyalists respond with "you won't understand until you own one and shoot with one." For Leica, that is not a good position to be in since the discussion usually ends with that statement.
When people see the Leica branded GLASS on the Panasonics, they automatically think that the glass must be of the highest quality. Looking through online discussions and reviews regarding panasonic's LX3 almost always specifically mention the quality of the optics. That's Leica's advantage and they need to capitalize on it then expand on it.
The micro4/3rds format cameras are the closest alternative to the DRF and Leica needs to play along. This is a new format that doesn't have a rich system of optics available... yet. A perfect opportunity for the Leica branding to come on strong. A Panasonic micro 4/3rd camera body with a whole system of Leica optics is a whole lot more compelling than a couple P&S cameras. It also opens the door for expansion into the micro 4/3rd based camera in the near future.
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
M4/3 is a joke
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Yes, they are laughing all the way to the bank...
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
Isn't this how it has been for Leica since like.... 1957 or so? When was the last time they had a "larger market share" than any of the other big companies. They have always had a higher price point vs competition, right?
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Yep, I was probably a bit tired when I wrote, I agree with you that I was not clear.
My point wanted to be the following: difference in external size between a 4/3 and a FF is minimal, difference in price will get smaller and smaller, difference in quality is already visible and in the future it might get even bigger so I don't see why bother designing new lenses for a company which already has the very best lenses covering 24x36.
As for the camera I use, of course it depends on what I want to do, but I think I am in the Ansel Adams way of thinking with minor variations: the one with the highest image quality among those which can do the work and, of course, which I happen to have at a given moment! Usually this means FF for digital, 35mm or 6x4.5 for outdoor film, and 4x5 for studio using film.
(He said the biggest he could transport but as you noticed that is not always a good principle.)
GLF