Primarily no. To me the µ4/3 format is the most rangefinder-like digital format.
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.
µ4/3 is to dSLR as RF cameras were to SLR's, and Leica needs to have their name associated with the format.
Perhaps they feel the format is not capable of delivering the image quality required by the Leica brand promise.
Leica is rangefinder cameras.
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'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.
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lens systems like the Pen series existed, as well as semi-compact RFs like the Canonet, but they were eventually superseded by a dipolar market of largeish SLRs and compact point-and-shoot cameras.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Or a dead-end like APS.
If anything, Leica should be full frame 35mm. They're synonymous with the format, after all. Not going the other way where quality suffers. When you think of Leica, you think of 35mm.
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.
The X1 seems to kill 4/3, along with the DP1 and DP2.
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.
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).
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.
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./
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.
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".
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
BTW the X1 should have been made with FF sensor and a 35/2 lens. I miss my Hexar AF-D...
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.
