Micro Four Thirds & Leica M Mount

Gabriel M.A. said:
Could you spell that in cheeseburger terms? A lot of people don't care what they chew, as long as it's a super-sized $2.99 combo!
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I can -- for several recent breakfasts.

First (for two):

1/2 Royal de Canard (magret stuffed with foie gras) = 2.25 euro
1 bottle Saumur = 4 euro
1 tomato, home-grown = 0
1/10 (maximum) lettuce as garnish @ 1.5 euro = 15 centimes
Nasturtium flowers & leaves from garden = 0.

Sum: 6.40 euo = roughly $9.60 or $4.80 each

Second (for me):

1/2 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 2 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50g. butter = 20 centimes
1/10 bottle Polish vodka = 1 euro

Sum: 3.30 euro = $5 (cheaper for my wife as she drinks iced tea)

Third (for my wife):

1/3 pack Aquitanian smoked trout = 1.33 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50 g. butter - = 20 centimes
iced tea = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.93 euro = under $3.

Fourth (for two)

1/3 can foie gras = 2 euro
1/6 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 75 centimes
2 eggs = 50 centimes
10g butter = 5 centimes
1/2 bottle sparkling Saumur = 2 euros

Sum: 5.30 euros, or 2.65 each = $4.

Fifth (for me):

Feuille de brik (thin pastry like Won Ton skin) = 9 centimes
Egg = 25 centimes
Extra virgin olive oil, 50 ml @ 4 euros/l = 20 centimes
1/3 bottle Chilean Chardonnay/Sauvignon = 75 centimes
1/20 bottle crème de cassis = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.69 euros, or $2.70.

In all five cases, I have neglected the cost of cooking and washing up; but equally, a $2.99 cheeseburger combo neglects the cost of fuel needed to get to the burger joint.

Cheers,

R.
 
Double Negative said:
^ Dinner at Roger's tonight! 😉
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, it was pizza!

The café-bar across the square has recently introduced pizzas, and we invited a couple of friends over with their 9-year-old grandson (he was the real 'target audience') to see what they were like.

Pretty good, was the answer: good average by American standards, so very good indeed by most provincial non-Italian standards.

Tomorrow: spit-roasted ox at the local donkey races.

Saturday: grilled magret de canard (duck breast) with roast potatoes, roast qara baghli (courgettes, zucchini) and roast garlic. And home-grown baby carrots. We could possibly accommodate one other couple... (The wine will be a very ordinary sparkling Limousin).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Actually, I think I can -- for several recent breakfasts.

First (for two):

1/2 Royal de Canard (magret stuffed with foie gras) = 2.25 euro
1 bottle Saumur = 4 euro
1 tomato, home-grown = 0
1/10 (maximum) lettuce as garnish @ 1.5 euro = 15 centimes
Nasturtium flowers & leaves from garden = 0.

Sum: 6.40 euo = roughly $9.60 or $4.80 each

Second (for me):

1/2 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 2 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50g. butter = 20 centimes
1/10 bottle Polish vodka = 1 euro

Sum: 3.30 euro = $5 (cheaper for my wife as she drinks iced tea)

Third (for my wife):

1/3 pack Aquitanian smoked trout = 1.33 euro
3 slices Heudebert toast = 10 centimes
50 g. butter - = 20 centimes
iced tea = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.93 euro = under $3.

Fourth (for two)

1/3 can foie gras = 2 euro
1/6 pot lumpfish 'caviare' = 75 centimes
2 eggs = 50 centimes
10g butter = 5 centimes
1/2 bottle sparkling Saumur = 2 euros

Sum: 5.30 euros, or 2.65 each = $4.

Fifth (for me):

Feuille de brik (thin pastry like Won Ton skin) = 9 centimes
Egg = 25 centimes
Extra virgin olive oil, 50 ml @ 4 euros/l = 20 centimes
1/3 bottle Chilean Chardonnay/Sauvignon = 75 centimes
1/20 bottle crème de cassis = 30 centimes

Sum: 1.69 euros, or $2.70.

In all five cases, I have neglected the cost of cooking and washing up; but equally, a $2.99 cheeseburger combo neglects the cost of fuel needed to get to the burger joint.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

..... and .... a new Leica ........

..... price-less !!! 😀

Roland.
 
Thanks everyone (Ray, Roger, etc) for your points; they are valid and sensible. While I don't reach entirely the same conclusions, I now understand where you're coming from.

A new prosumer-grade camera designed by Leica and manufactured under Leica's supervision in Asia *is* entirely possible, and if they oversee it could be a product that they could be proud of, much more so than the rebadged Panasonics they currently offer. Would it be the same as an M-Leica? No, but I don't think anyone here is saying that it would. Would such a move require them to change the way they're always made the M products? No. Because of this, I don't see why such a move would be suicide for Leica or their reputation, but that's just my opinion on the matter.

Look at Zeiss' relaunched Ikon. The camera and most lenses are made in Japan, but under pretty stringent supervision from Zeiss. The end result is a product that I haven't heard anyone call "cheap," and it certainly doesn't seem to have hurt Zeiss' reputation or the reputation of their products that were in production prior to the Ikon relaunch. I still believe that Leica could do the same thing with this new mount and make some money without devaluing their hallowed M line, which would still be made in exactly the same way it always has.

That's my conclusion.

Will

PS: Anyone here know where the two Leica lenses for the four-thirds mount are currently made, and what the performance and build quality are like?
 
Wiyum said:
PS: Anyone here know where the two Leica lenses for the four-thirds mount are currently made, and what the performance and build quality are like?
Click to expand...

There are four, three zooms and one prime. None of them are Leica strictly - they are all Lumix lenses i.e. Panasonic, designed by Leica and subject to their QC. They do have a little Leica name on them but I'm not sure this is actually licensed from Leica Camera AG. I think the license for the name comes from Leica Microsystems. While it will make many here retch, a lot of us call them Leicasonics affectionately. They are all made in Japan.

The prime, the 25/1.4, is absurdly sharp wide open, does vignette slightly wide open but not a lot, suffers a little lateral CA, quite resistant to flare, has bokeh that some like and some do not but this is very dependent on relative distances, is generally considered big for a prime but balances well on the bodies and has a ridiculously large lens hood that I wager most owners never use. In actual use it is brilliant.

2213979762_b8cbd121c7.jpg
2213979660_4ae24ab206.jpg
2671327533_5f8db209ed.jpg
2107177541_fac6fb6164.jpg

The other three zooms are
14-50/2.8-3.5
14-50/3.5-5.6
14-150/-3.5-5.6

They all have optical image stabilization. The first two are the "kit lens" that comes with the Leica and Panasonic 4/3rds DSLRs. The first is very well regarded, generally thought to be sharper than the Zuiko 14-54/2.8-3.5 but significantly higher priced. As it was only available as part of a kit with the L1 and dlux-3 it is hard to find and it usually goes for about $700-800 which is about the price that the entire kit would cost. Quite common to see people buy the kit and keep the lens and sell the body for a few hundred dollars. It isn't weather sealed (indeed none of them are in contrast to anything above the entry level Zuikos) and is apparently something of a vacuum cleaner with regards to dust. The newer slower version is the only one nobody seems to care about and I do not recall reading anything about it.

The last is considered one of the best, if not the best "superzoom" out there. It is quickly becoming a very popular option with the smaller 4/3rds bodies like the 420 as a light versatile single lens camera and is quite highly regarded. The optical image stabilization it has seems particularly effective and I've routinely seen shots at shutter speeds that are 4-5 stops under what would be possible without IS.

Availability of all of the four is an issue. The 25 in particular seems to be made in batches and sells out within a day or two of anyone getting any stock.

A search on dpreview or flickr will pull up plenty of lovely results with both lenses.

Cheers,
-Gautham
 
I've seen enough 4/3rds goodness to know I'd be happy with the IQ.
The limitations I worry about involve availability of fast primes...what are the odds we'd see a 17mm <f2?...and contrast detection AF.
 
dazedgonebye said:
I've seen enough 4/3rds goodness to know I'd be happy with the IQ.
The limitations I worry about involve availability of fast primes...what are the odds we'd see a 17mm <f2?...and contrast detection AF.
Click to expand...

Steve, I assume you've seen this new lens they came out with:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051302olympus9-18.asp

Is there really a lens (any make) that is 17mm with <f2? That would make the lens huge wouldn't it?
 
hurm... digital 4/3rds crap-o-noise sensor or not, "plasticky" body or not, crop issues galore.. but in the end, isn't there an obvious argument that is exciting? :

THIS MIGHT BE a reasonably cheap way to use vintage M-Lenses (and their unique optical signatures) on a digital "back".

Considering that the only other way to currently do this is the M8/RD1 route, which is unaffordable to many, I believe the possibility to adapt M-Lenses to the MicroMount (or whatever it's called) would be super-marvellous. And ironically, those MicroBodies would probably cost less than the vintage lenses one would use on it. Personally, I'd love to have the chance to use a 50 1.2 Canon or 1.4 Nikkor or 1.5 Summarit on a digital body; sure, they'd be "tele" all of a sudden, but hey! pretty fast tele!
.. and focusing accuracy wide open a problem? hell... just put in a 4 gig card, put the thing on burst and pull the focus while snapping away at the subject. it's digital, after all- so who cares about wasted frames?

So let's hope this will happen, so niche applications like what I said above would become possible. I couldn't care less about the modern slowpoke lenses they'll design for this system, really...

cheers,

M
 
shadowfox said:
Steve, I assume you've seen this new lens they came out with:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051302olympus9-18.asp

Is there really a lens (any make) that is 17mm with <f2? That would make the lens huge wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I'd not seen that particular lens...but I don't find it interesting for any m4/3rds system I'd like to have.

I don't know a great deal about the specifics of lens design, but I do think I understand the concept of design compromise. Looking at the lens you linked to, and thinking of M4/3rds, I think I can assume a few things.
Mainly, an equivalent lens would be much smaller for M4/3rds due to the 20mm flange distance. Also, primes can be made smaller than zooms. Also, Also...I'm not interested in the wider end of that zoom and it's the wide that makes things so large.
So, we get smaller for m4/3rds, smaller for prime, smaller for the longer FL and then larger again for speed. What do we end up with in size? I don't know. Maybe it's do-able, maybe not.

Maybe the 25mm f1.4 is a better place to start in a discussion of size for the lens I want. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030703leica50mmsumm.asp
Considering the move to M4/3rds, could a wider lens be made at f1.4 at about the same size as this lens? Just guessing wild here, but that doesn't seem out of line to me. Will they build what I want? I think that is a better question.
 
dazedgonebye said:
Unfortunately, it would take a 17mm f1.0 to match the Hexar AF's dof control.
Still, I'll be interested if they even make it to f2.
Click to expand...

f2 they have. Except it is a zoom. 14-35/f2. Quite big. Costs a lot of money too. Like a whole $500 less than a 35 Summicron ASPH.

Really hope they come out with smaller primes to go with the mFT bodies - with a register distance of 20mm they should in principle be able to make a 17mm quite fast and small but whether they do is another question.
 
gnarayan said:
f2 they have. Except it is a zoom. 14-35/f2. Quite big. Costs a lot of money too. Like a whole $500 less than a 35 Summicron ASPH.

Really hope they come out with smaller primes to go with the mFT bodies - with a register distance of 20mm they should in principle be able to make a 17mm quite fast and small but whether they do is another question.
Click to expand...

Yea, if they can build that, they certainly can build 17mm <f2.

I did a little looking. 14mm at f2 has decently narrow dof. Perhaps something 17-20mm at f2 would do the trick. Faster would be better.
 
dazedgonebye said:
Yea, if they can build that, they certainly can build 17mm <f2.

I did a little looking. 14mm at f2 has decently narrow dof. Perhaps something 17-20mm at f2 would do the trick. Faster would be better.
Click to expand...

Steve, 5 years using an E-300. Never have I wished for a shallower DOF. Granted I "cheated" by using my f1.4 - f2 OM Zuikos.

Maybe this is one of those "when you use it, it works just fine" sort of thing? 🙂
 
Olympus built a 35mm 21/2 > 20 years ago. They (or somebody else) sure can built a 14mm 1.7 (maybe less?) prime for 4/3rs now. If there is demand. It still will give you more DOF than a FF 28/2.8 though.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Ray Nalley said:
Which would demand a new line of lenses. That wouldn't be bad thinking on Leica's part, because everyone would have to buy new lenses.
Click to expand...
Well, not quite. Current 4/3s lenses are compatible with m4/3, but are by nature larger and there are fewer WA choices (and no WA primes) than would be possible with new m4/3 lenses.

There were a lot of silly (to me) comments in the initial posts on this thread. I think it really boils down to this:

* m4/3s reduces flange mount distance; much shorter distance is a fundamental characteristic of RF cameras
* m4/3s gets rid (by necessity of the mount distance) of the mirror box in favour of ...

well, it would either by Live View (this is why Olympus was developing Live View all along), or it could be mechanical RF focusing.

The latter would be a niche product (just as the R-D1 and the M8 are) but at a lower cost (probably), and opens up the choices for all of us.

I think Olympus would have little interest in developing a RF m4/3 camera as they are no longer interested in speciality items, they are more interested in high quality (in the DSLR marketplace) with reduced size and reasonable price.

I see Cosina or maybe even Nikon having a potential interest in an m4/3 RF, but not so much Zeiss. Zeiss has pretty much committed to "full frame". But hey, you never know.
 
Now, if true, that's interesting. Kaufman said in another interview that there will be no full frame sensor for the M nor a sensor upgrade for the M8, and now they abandon 4/3. It isn't clear to me what other options there are, except staying the course with the current M8.
 
I wanted to address this issue of 'live view only'. This last weekend I had the opportunity to photograph an indoor birthday party at one of those indoor-inflatable-jumping-kids-go-wild places, using my old Sony DSC-90 point and shoot. I started shooting using the live-view mode (that is, using the LCD screen to compose and shoot.) Invariably I would miss an action shot, plus I had to deal with the other nuisances of that camera, like it refusing to fire the shutter and flash unless it has focus lock, etc.

Anyway, about halfway through the party I switched to using the optical viewfinder instead, which does have parallax issues, but the immediately noticable difference was that I could get those fast-moving shots first time. I finally realized, after only owning this camera for several years, that there's a significant time delay between the live action and the live view on the LCD screen, due to processing time I figure.

So now this has me reconsidering the purchase of any new camera that has live view only. There's a chance that the processing circuitry in a newer camera may have a faster response time, but it's something you need to consider - and demo live - before purchasing.

~Joe
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom