majid
Fazal Majid
You're probably right about 4/3, but that does not mean m4/3 is equally doomed.
Well, the question is how many formats there will be. With digital, since there is no film manufacturing and distribution logistics involved, you have less of a pressure to limit the proliferation of formats. Film manufacturers couldn't produce and stock 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, 8x10, 110, Disc, APS and every other crackpot format there, so the market converged towards a limited number of formats.
Similarly, there isn't a big enough market for interchangeable lens cameras to support an indefinite number of lens mounts. Olympus and Panasonic did the smart thing in uniting on a common format rather than going against the Canon-Nikon-Sony market leaders with two independent mounts. The question is whether they can reach sufficient volumes to make it a viable mount.
For fixed-lens cameras, the sensor size is an internal design decision of the manufacturer (most compacts don't even specify it in their data sheets), unlike with lens mounts where it is baked into the spec. 90% of cameras sold by volume are fixed-lens compacts. SLRs are only 10% (but 25% by value, 35% if you count lenses). While there is a strong minority of enthusiasts who want better quality compacts, the vast majority of people don't know or care, and are very happy with their nasty 1/2.7" sensors. Even if m4/3 is successful, it will remain a niche.
That's the promise, but now they need to deliver on it.
That remains to be proven. Olympus' sales and profits have been hurting and dragged down by the camera division (sales down by 43% year-on-year in the last 3 months, revenues down by 96%). Of course, the E-P1 was just released and it's too early to gauge its impact, but full-size 4/3 seems not to have succeeded in the marketplace, to put it mildly. Panasonic is probably in a stronger position, but it's still an uphill fight.
Replace "Leica" by "BMW" or "Porsche" in your statement and see how well it holds up. Leica are never going to be price-competitive with Japanese manufacturers. Given that, it makes more sense for them to position themselves as a luxury brand.
What really matters for Leica is whether people who would actually buy one are aware of them, not awareness in the general population, most of whom would not consider buying a camera above $500 in any case.
It's more of an advantage for Panasonic than for Leica, were it not for the offsetting financial payments for licensing the brand. It's also a double-edged sword if those Panasonic lenses don't live up to the brand promise.
Why? There is a downside risk of cannibalizing M9 sales, and little upside.
Leica can't manufacture itself mass volumes of lenses. Either Leica m4/3 lenses are a high-volume product, and will have to be manufactured by Panasonic (which means all Leica gets is a royalty), or they are a premium-priced item, say, in the same range as he new low-cost Summarit-Ms or Canon L lenses. It is far from obvious that m4/3 buyers are prepared to pay that kind of price even for Leica glass, and those that are could well be prepared to buy into a 100% Leica system instead, where Leica do not have to share profits with Panasnoc or dilute their brand.
From a marketing and financial point of view, it makes more sense for Leica to make itself a luxury brand (where exclusiveness is part of the draw) than to slum it with Panasonic. From that point of view, the rebadged Panasonics were actually evidence of desperation and weakness rather than an optimal strategy. I suspect M8 sales have done much to improve their financial condition compared to 2005, which allowed them to invest in R&D on the S2, M9 and X1 and thus rebuild their cachet.
One interesting thing about marketing in the last 10-20 years or so is that the midrange has been suffering in many markets. Leica has no credible future as a midrange brand, and they don't have the financial backing of a Sony or Samsung to turn themselves into a mass-market brand. The only way Leica would become significantly more affordable and commonplace is if Panasonic buys them. In that case, they would live on as a badge, but the products will not be the same.
ajuk
Established
It's the electronic viewfinder that puts me off, Is it possible there will be a M43 camera with a Rangefinder?
Last edited:
usayit
Well-known
Leica CL?
Times are different...
* Photographers would spend years saving up for a Leica and that camera would last them a life time. That time is long gone with digital.....
* In the past, once a Leica shooter... they become a loyalist. Today, it is so easy to dump Leica for the next best thing from other competitors. New photographers are influenced by the media.... sports.. etc.. not exactly a presence for Leica. Manufacturers continuously need to give their current customers a reason to stick with them...
* The differences between what Leica brings to the table and what their competitors brought to the table is much much more obvious back in those days. A young photographer would look at an M3 and dream of the time they can purchase such a masterpiece. Now, young photographers look at a Leica and walk away thinking.. more megapixels and more features for a cheaper price..
* Cameras are now considered disposable consumable items... not so in the 50s.
Me for example.... The bridge from Canon to Leica (M8 and M3) wasn't an "affordable" Leica (doesn't exist) but an "affordable" Digital Rangefinder.. a-la Epson R-D1 (ok affordable refurbished). The Epson R-D1 is to Leica M8 what the Canon Rebel is to the 1d MII. The Epson R-D1 was my "entry" point to the Leica premium line... Leica should thank Epson for that....
usayit
Well-known
No comparison..... the automotive markets and photographic markets are COMPLETELY different at this point.
BMW's sales model is LEASING and their entire lineup (at least in the US) is based on that. They are also a major leader in sales in the US with the resources to go head to head with competitors at all levels. Leica is not even close. They also don't need to continuously bring in new loyal customers... they have tons of them already.
Porsche also a bit different in that it still considered the "ultimate mid-life crisis" car. Its branding within its own market is so much more recognizable than the Leica branding. How many times Porsche comes up on automotive TV shows.... Top gear mentions it practically every show. People still mistaken my M8 as a P&S. :-/ Their 911 (akin to the M series) is easily recognizable by kids everywhere. It is recognizable even among those that don't like the car. The 911 might have styling cues from the past... but the car is fairly up to date technology wise (water coolant versus air == Autofocus versus manual focus only).
Automotive industry itself has undergone many technological changes... but it has been a slow progressing one. The Digital sensor hit the photographic market like a bomb.... thinks changed so rapidly and many were left behind in the dust (the once mighty Pentax and Minolta included).
So to answer your question.. my point still holds true and simple substitution of BMW or Porsche doesn't hold water.
usayit
Well-known
It is very important.... People buy products they see friends/family/acquaintances enjoy. This is the basis for marketing... brand recognition driven by personal experiences as well as messages from media. That Olympic photo with a see of white Canon lenses must have been a HUGE driving force in Canon's marketing campaign.
Pretty much the rest of the post is pushing Leica's current model as a good direction... If it were true, Leica's financial status wouldn't even be an issue. Gotta try something else...
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The sensors in any of those P&S cameras (including the high-end ones) are about 1/4 to 1/10 the size of m4/3rd (and 4/3rd) sensors.
On the other hand, APS-C is only 14% bigger than the 4/3rd sensor.
See the size ratio difference?
This article goes into more details if you would like to know more: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/sensor-size.html
dougi
Established
I thought that one of the points of the X1 was to make it more affordable. But at expected launch price here in Oz of over $3000, I went and got a E-P1 instead.
BTW the in body stabilisation means in low light, despite the smallish sensor size, I can take pictures with a better hit rate for most subject matter I shoot over my M8 under those conditions.
Leica should at least consider making lenses for M43. Personally, I was very dissapointed that the X1 didn't have a proper OVF. especially for the price. I'm sure that picitures will ultimately be better in some circumstances than M43, but M43 for a lot of users is 'good enough'. Obviously it is not these users Leica is targeting, but perhaps they should if they want to start having a bigger market share.
BTW the in body stabilisation means in low light, despite the smallish sensor size, I can take pictures with a better hit rate for most subject matter I shoot over my M8 under those conditions.
Leica should at least consider making lenses for M43. Personally, I was very dissapointed that the X1 didn't have a proper OVF. especially for the price. I'm sure that picitures will ultimately be better in some circumstances than M43, but M43 for a lot of users is 'good enough'. Obviously it is not these users Leica is targeting, but perhaps they should if they want to start having a bigger market share.
ferider
Veteran
Any comments on Leica's first u4/3rd lens, the DG MACRO-ELMARIT 45mm/F2.8 ASPH ?
Cheers,
Roland.
mrisney
Well-known
I bet it will be superb, price seems a little steep, The Olympus 50mm Macro f/2.0 has gotten a high regard, but have been waiting for a macro that has autofocus, and it is a Leica, the images will probably be amazing.
I really like the price on the pancake 20mm f1.7, that's a no brainer. waiting for reports on that lens, I also heard a fisheye is coming out. Excited about these lenses in general.
ampguy
Veteran
The area of a 4/3 sensor relative to an APS-c Nikon sensor (Canon APS-C is slightly smaller) is significantly smaller.
The Nikon APS-C sensors have an area of about 372mm, while an 4/3 sensor is about 243mm.
4/3 is larger than most P&S sensors, but ~40% smaller than an APS-C sized sensor.
The Nikon APS-C sensors have an area of about 372mm, while an 4/3 sensor is about 243mm.
4/3 is larger than most P&S sensors, but ~40% smaller than an APS-C sized sensor.
count_zero
Established
I am more than happy sacrificing 2x field of view to gain 2x depth of view. The Nikon and Canon sensors crop at weird intervals that makes the math complicated and you don't get much depth of view benefit. I shot this a couple nights ago using my EP-1 with Nikkor 1.8D 50mm at f2.8, ISO 1250, shutter stop at 320.
Attachments
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I'm going to be a pedant and say that the sentence is incomplete.
The largest P&S sensor vs 4/3rd sensor is about 1:4 (being generous)
4/3rd sensor vs APS-C (Nikon) is about 1:1.5
That's quite a jump in ratio won't you say?
And most importantly, it's really apparent when you want shallow DoF, 4/3rd is still large enough to allow you to do that.
Good luck trying that with P&S sensors.
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
For the 1:4 ratio, I assume you're mentioning the very tiny 1/2.5" low end P&S, which do have trouble getting shallow DOF, though it is sometimes possible with subjects close up and with flowers, for example, as the lens can sometimes focus very close.
With a higher end P&S like the Fuji F30 series, Canon G10, Lumix LX3 with ~1/1.6" sensors, the ratio is only about 1:2 with 4/3rds.
4/3rds was a great idea a few years back, but unless you have a bunch of ultrawides that you want to make twice as long, I'm not sure of the benefits over higher end P&S, or entry level DSLRs which cost 1/2 of a 4/3 kit.
ok
For the 1:4 ratio, I assume you're mentioning the very tiny 1/2.5" low end P&S, which do have trouble getting shallow DOF, though it is sometimes possible with subjects close up and with flowers, for example, as the lens can sometimes focus very close.
With a higher end P&S like the Fuji F30 series, Canon G10, Lumix LX3 with ~1/1.6" sensors, the ratio is only about 1:2 with 4/3rds.
4/3rds was a great idea a few years back, but unless you have a bunch of ultrawides that you want to make twice as long, I'm not sure of the benefits over higher end P&S, or entry level DSLRs which cost 1/2 of a 4/3 kit.
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Roland
Hi Roland
From the spec sheet at dpreview, this is a Panasonic lens, with testing done to Leica's standards for this medium. The macro (15cm) mode seems like it would be nice for photographing flowers.
Hi Roland
From the spec sheet at dpreview, this is a Panasonic lens, with testing done to Leica's standards for this medium. The macro (15cm) mode seems like it would be nice for photographing flowers.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I am answering quite irregularly due to my work but, just to be clear, I hope 4/3 and M4/3 will survive, it sounded to me like a good idea to have some standard which goes beyond camera brand when the 4/3 come out in photography. I just think it will not survive and so that Leica for once toke a wise decision because larger format cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper and also fit into smaller and smaller packages, that's all. As long as it does not die on me I shall be using as a casual camera my E-330 and if the format will live I shall just be happy but I think that if I were to decide whether to design a new 4/3 camera I would just pass the same way as I am not buying new lenses for the format...
GLF
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
Not exactly...
Even the 2/3 sensor is smaller more than 4 times than a 4/3, if you count on the surface...
I have to admit the LC1 is still a very good camera (the only one with 2/3 sensor I've used)
nemjo
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You're going to have to explain to me how did you come up with 1:2, because from all the data that I can get, the sensor size on my LX3 is about 6mm x 8mm. If you compare that to 4/3rd which is about 13mm x 17mm, you'll get approx. 1:4 ratio in area size. Not 1:2.
You keep comparing the 4/3rd DSLR with high end P&S. I have both E-620 and Lumix LX3. One allows me extremely shallow DOF at a non-macro distance (like a good DSLR should), and the other doesn't. One has a wider dynamic range than the other. One allows me to mount virtually any good manual focus lenses via adapters, the other doesn't.
One is a DSLR, the other one isn't. It is not very hard to see the benefits, unless you've set your mind against it, ignoring all the facts.
And the strength of 4/3rd cameras is on the long-end of the focal-length spectrum, taking pictures of birds using a 300mm Zuiko OM lens that acts like it's a fast and handhold-able 600mm, is a joy.
Another point, which entry level DSLR costs 1/2 than an E-620 which is $599 body only, $699 with two (incredibly sharp) kit lenses?
Sorry for being so adamant (it's been a while since I write this long). Truth to be told, if you don't like the idea of 4/3rd systems, that is fine by me.
ampguy
Veteran
math and sensors
math and sensors
The s/n and sensor unity gain increase is the square root of the sensor size.
So to double the s/n and/or gain of a sensor by a ratio of 4, you would need to square the 4 (16x). For a gain ratio of 2, you need to quadruple the area.
The square root of 4 is 2.
The Nikon D40x with new 35/2 lens cost me about $479. I think it has a better sensor, less crop factor, uses more of *my* existing lenses, than any 4/3 camera, at least without expensive adapters.
If you like 4/3, this is great. I don't dislike it, and might get one to try soon, but I don't think it's in a good position with lower priced, larger sensor solutions, from both a) the dslr segment, and b) the higher-end p&s cameras using larger sensors such as the new Leica X1 and Nikon using the APS-C Sony sensor, the Sigma DPs, the Samsung, etc.
math and sensors
The s/n and sensor unity gain increase is the square root of the sensor size.
So to double the s/n and/or gain of a sensor by a ratio of 4, you would need to square the 4 (16x). For a gain ratio of 2, you need to quadruple the area.
The square root of 4 is 2.
The Nikon D40x with new 35/2 lens cost me about $479. I think it has a better sensor, less crop factor, uses more of *my* existing lenses, than any 4/3 camera, at least without expensive adapters.
If you like 4/3, this is great. I don't dislike it, and might get one to try soon, but I don't think it's in a good position with lower priced, larger sensor solutions, from both a) the dslr segment, and b) the higher-end p&s cameras using larger sensors such as the new Leica X1 and Nikon using the APS-C Sony sensor, the Sigma DPs, the Samsung, etc.
You're going to have to explain to me how did you come up with 1:2, because from all the data that I can get, the sensor size on my LX3 is about 6mm x 8mm. If you compare that to 4/3rd which is about 13mm x 17mm, you'll get approx. 1:4 ratio in area size. Not 1:2.
You keep comparing the 4/3rd DSLR with high end P&S. I have both E-620 and Lumix LX3. One allows me extremely shallow DOF at a non-macro distance (like a good DSLR should), and the other doesn't. One has a wider dynamic range than the other. One allows me to mount virtually any good manual focus lenses via adapters, the other doesn't.
One is a DSLR, the other one isn't. It is not very hard to see the benefits, unless you've set your mind against it, ignoring all the facts.
And the strength of 4/3rd cameras is on the long-end of the focal-length spectrum, taking pictures of birds using a 300mm Zuiko OM lens that acts like it's a fast and handhold-able 600mm, is a joy.
Another point, which entry level DSLR costs 1/2 than an E-620 which is $599 body only, $699 with two (incredibly sharp) kit lenses?
Sorry for being so adamant (it's been a while since I write this long). Truth to be told, if you don't like the idea of 4/3rd systems, that is fine by me.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Alright, that's enough sensor talk to last me for a year
I'm tired, let's go shoot instead...
or a beer
I'm tired, let's go shoot instead...
or a beer
ampguy
Veteran
sounds good Will!
sounds good Will!
Today's setup for me is the M8 with early collaps. cron.
sounds good Will!
Today's setup for me is the M8 with early collaps. cron.
Alright, that's enough sensor talk to last me for a year
I'm tired, let's go shoot instead...
or a beer