Micro Four Thirds & Leica M Mount

[Ray Nalley]

Perhaps this technology is going to be used in the new Fuji rangefinder. 🙂

The Internet is a strange place, indeed.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

Why is everyone getting excited over a format that offers the same boring width/height ratios as old televisions? Why 4:3? Does everyone miss their old VCR 'Reformatted to fit your screen" vibe? Why not a smaller 3:2 rectangle?

I guess the photographer could crop to his preferred aspect ratio.

 

[sepiareverb]

Yes, lets crop the smaller sensor. Quality is the least of concerns; with 'smaller cameras are better', and 'sales figures are most important' in the minds of companies like Panasonic and Canon. The logic that a company MUST continue to grow is flawed. Improved products and a varied lineup of quality products that keeps customers returning can be enough. I have no doubt that Leica as a company isn't concerned with outselling Canon on digicams. Binoculars? I doubt there are as many people are lining up to buy a new pair of binoculars every other year, as there are those who will buy a new lens or body that often. I could be wrong, but I'm using the same pair of binoculars I got in 1994, and haven't felt the need to upgrade.

My farmers market is one example- I still get my same products there, for slightly more money, and nobody seems to bemoan the fact that there aren't twenty new kinds of lettuce or some new strain of blueberry on offer. The number of booths shrinks a little, grows a little, and all remains well.

Nikon or Canon continues to spit out new products at an ever increasing pace, products that seem intended to last only as long as it takes for the company to spit out the replacement- with plenty of folks ready to slurp up the latest electronic marvel and IS superzoom. Leica appears to be aiming at a different clientele, smaller it would seem than the DSLR crowd. Why is this fundamentally flawed? Smaller client base, smaller factory. Smaller is ok for a camera but not for a camera company?

 

[Ray Nalley]

How many small camera companies are there that have survived? That would be interesting to know.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Nothing like the Leica M8 craftmanship . . .

you're setting yourself up for the wrath of the Nikonites 😱

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

How many small camera companies are there that have survived? That would be interesting to know.

How many large camera companies are there that have collapsed?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Why is everyone getting excited over a format that offers the same boring width/height ratios as old televisions? Why 4:3? Does everyone miss their old VCR 'Reformatted to fit your screen" vibe? Why not a smaller 3:2 rectangle?

Outside the 1:1 ratio (e.g. "square format"), the 4:3 ratio is regarded as a better maximization of a lens' circle of coverage.

I'll assume we all went to Elementary School and took some basic geometry to figure the rest out.

And I'll assume that there may be some people out there that have the right to get excited about something that others don't, just as much as the right to not contribute anything by bringing up a point that has nothing or barely little to do with the starting post of a thread.

Just saying.

 

[georgef]

Smaller is ok, shrinking is not. I don't believe LEICA is aiming for a smaller market; I think that is their market, but I don't think it will transfer into the next generation.

 

[HiredArm]

Nikon or Canon continues to spit out new products at an ever increasing pace, products that seem intended to last only as long as it takes for the company to spit out the replacement- with plenty of folks ready to slurp up the latest electronic marvel and IS superzoom. Leica appears to be aiming at a different clientele, smaller it would seem than the DSLR crowd. Why is this fundamentally flawed? Smaller client base, smaller factory. Smaller is ok for a camera but not for a camera company?

I would say this practice is fundamentally flawed because the first order of business is to make enough money to keep the business sustainable. The second order of business is to turn a profit. Continuing to lose money or break even and people will look at you as someone misguided or more fit in the service industry. The next thing you know the board members go and replace the CEO. Other than that there's nothing wrong with that strategy.

I like the ideals and products of Leica but the reality is that most people can't justify spending upwards of $10K+ on a camera system. Most people have real problems which is why Leica SHOULD come up with something on the "lower" end of the market. Inexpensive doesn't have to mean cheap. It's those inexpensive sales that grow the company and bring in future purchases because of "brand loyalty." Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and certainly not Sony do not make the best cameras but they are instantly recognized names because parents WILL buy their kids $200-$400 digicams for their kids birthdays or Christmas. When their kids become of age to buy their own guess who they would look at first (assuming they had a good experience with the equipment?) That's usually where your low end dSLR's and high end P&S cameras are being bought - which later turns into the prosumer purchases and more expensive lenses. I think the main people the Micro 4/3 system will benefit though are those interested in a high-end P&S, a certain few who just want a smaller back up, and those interested in prosumer dSLRs.

If Leica could tap into that prosumer part of the market with a great product (selling a system or kit in the $800-2000 range) it will set them up in a better position to have a customer who may stick around and buy into the M or R systems for the $5K-10K+ required when that time comes. As it stands most people have no idea what a Leica is or why they should have one (much less a rangefinder camera.) If they do they're probably a photographer or a serious hobbyist at the very least.

If they work that strategy it would be wise of them to work out a way to bring rangefinder capabilities (even if it takes an additional year to make it happen) at that price point for two reasons.

1) It would create new rangefinder enthuisiasts
2) It's their bread and butter - and it would ease the learning transition to an all manual M system

Again, it's very important that it incorporates some type of semi-automatic features because most people won't want to learn the manual way just to snap a few pictures for their Myspace or Facebook pages.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Contax/Yashica (Kyocera)
Graflex
Kodak
Konica
Mamiya
Minolta
Voigtlander
Zeiss Ikon/Contax

I believe that all of these were at least the size of Leica and in most cases, orders of magnitude bigger.

How many large camera companies are there that have collapsed?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would say this practice is fundamentally flawed because the first order of business is to make enough money to keep the business sustainable. The second order of business is to turn a profit.

I like the ideals and products of Leica but the reality is that most people can't justify spending upwards of $10K+ on a camera system. Most people have real problems which is why Leica SHOULD come up with something on the "lower" end of the market.

For the first, I agree completely: this is something that people often forget.

For the second, I disagree completely. Not many people can afford a Rolls Royce or a Bristol either. Does this mean that Rolls Royce and Bristol should bring out 'econobox' mini-cars?

Where are you going to save the money on a 'second string' Leica?

If it's built to Leica standards, in Germany, with interchangeable lenses and a coupled rangefinder, it's not going to cost much less than a 'real' Leica.

If it's built more cheaply, it won't feel like a Leica and it probably won't last as long. In other words, what would there be to make someone choose a cheap Leica instead of a ZI or Voigtländer? This would destroy brand loyalty, not build it.

You can forget about building in China or elsewhere. Reworked point-and-shoots are one thing; the M brand is another. In Leica's own words, "If we started building somewhere else because it's cheap, we'd be dead in a year. Part of what people are buying is a tradition of German engineering. This is especially true in India, Russia, China..."

To those who disagree with this analysis, I suggest that you do what Dr. Kaufmann did: buy the company, and try doing it your way instead of Leica's.

Also bear in mind that the USA is currently a rotten market for Leica, because of the extremely feeble dollar. It is in their interest to listen to as many nationalities as possible, not just Americans, in order to spread the market as far as possible.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Contax/Yashica (Kyocera)
Graflex
Kodak
Konica
Mamiya
Minolta
Voigtlander
Zeiss Ikon/Contax

I believe that all of these were at least the size of Leica and in most cases, orders of magnitude bigger.

Quite a few of these did not collapse, but stopped making cameras because there wasn't enough money in it. Zeiss is the prime example: still a big, profitable company. Of course, by the time they stopped making cameras, they also owned Voigtländer. Kyoto Ceramics is also entirely healthy, I believe. And Kodak stopped making high-end cameras (as distinct from cheap cameras designed to help people use more film) some time before the film market started to decline.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kshapero]

For the first, I agree completely: this is something that people often forget.

For the second, I disagree completely. Not many people can afford a Rolls Royce or a Bristol either. Does this mean that Rolls Royce and Bristol should bring out 'econobox' mini-cars?

Where are you going to save the money on a 'second string' Leica?

If it's built to Leica standards, in Germany, with interchangeable lenses and a coupled rangefinder, it's not going to cost much less than a 'real' Leica.

If it's built more cheaply, it won't feel like a Leica and it probably won't last as long. In other words, what would there be to make someone choose a cheap Leica instead of a ZI or Voigtländer? This would destroy brand loyalty, not build it.

You can forget about building in China or elsewhere. Reworked point-and-shoots are one thing; the M brand is another. In Leica's own words, "If we started building somewhere else because it's cheap, we'd be dead in a year. Part of what people are buying is a tradition of German engineering. This is especially true in India, Russia, China..."

To those who disagree with this analysis, I suggest that you do what Dr. Kaufmann did: buy the company, and try doing it your way instead of Leica's.

Also bear in mind that the USA is currently a rotten market for Leica, because of the extremely feeble dollar. It is in their interest to listen to as many nationalities as possible, not just Americans, in order to spread the market as far as possible.

Cheers,

R.

I gotta go with roger on this one.

 

[Spyderman]

As far as I remember, the 4/3 system was developed with the intention to
i) make lenses smaller and faster
ii) use only the sweet spot of the lenses near the optical axis
iii) light rays would hit the sensor at 90° or close to it, so there would be no light fall-off

but making the register distance 1/2 (20mm) would completely negate iii)

 

[Roger Hicks]

As far as I remember, the 4/3 system was developed with the intention to
i) make lenses smaller and faster
ii) use only the sweet spot of the lenses near the optical axis
iii) light rays would hit the sensor at 90° or close to it, so there would be no light fall-off

but making the register distance 1/2 (20mm) would completely negate iii)

Dear Ondrej,

i) It is also easier to design and build a lens with really high quality for a smaller format, in addition to the advantages you list.

ii) Not really. This would only apply if you are using lenses designed for larger formats. Scale the lens down to cover the smaller format with the same angle of view, and the 'sweet spot' diminishes proportionately.

iii) Again, not really. A side benefit of leaving space for a reflex mirror is that wide-angles must be more telecentric but once the focal length of the lens is more than about 20mm greater than the flange/film distance, telecentricity is not affected by flange/film distance.

Bear in mind that telecentricity is not an absolute, i.e. that lenses can be more or less telecentric, and that colour correction is harder with telecentric lenses.

The only way a 'four thirds' M-mount would be of interest to me is with a dedicated studio camera, i.e. a tripod-mounted box with manually controllable shutter speeds and (preferably) a socket so it can be tethered to a laptop via USB. Focus confirmation might be nice, too. You then have a useful portrait/still life/pack shot camera at modest cost, and double mileage out of your M lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Wiyum]

HiredArm said much of what I wanted to say, but better. As for Roger's point, I offer the rest of what I was going to say:

Most people that shoot with a Leica offer a variety of reasons for shooting with a Leica. Most, I imagine, use Leicas for many of these reasons, but the reasons often given are: small camera size, small lens size, outstanding optics, beautiful design, cameras that look discreet (at least until you encounter a person that recognizes the camera but has never held a Leica), mirrorless thus essentially noiseless operation, rangefinder focusing, and in some cases entirely mechanical, electronics-free operation. Obviously, because all pre-M8 Leicas were 35mm film bodies, and because those outstanding optics have a reputation for performing well wide-open, many Leica users love what they get when shooting wide open and that narrow depth of field.

The micro4/3 system offers an opportunity to recreate almost all of these features: small camera size, small lens size, outstanding optics, beautiful design, cameras that look discreet, and mirrorless thus essentially noiseless operation. A micro4/3 camera would cease to be a rangefinder and would not deliver the same depth of field. It seems to me that this format (and Leica's partnership with Panasonic) offers Leica the ability to make a camera system that is still very much a Leica but which doesn't suffer from the same cost burden that the M system demands. All of Leica's co-developed products with Panasonic have felt at odds with Leica's reputation in some way or another. The pocket digicams all suffered from terribly small chips and the noise problems that those have, and the Digilux-3 is an SLR that can't support the sort of small lenses that Leica would probably rather be making, features a mirror, and in no way resembles an M- Leica. Their whopping two lenses for the system are evidence of their lack of enthusiasm.

Leica could easily design an impressive micro4/3 camera that would feel like an M system camera in the hand. It would only feature the LCD and would have no viewfinder, so that would be a difference, I'll admit. They could design a series of top-notch small lenses for said camera. The camera would not have a mirror and it would be small and with Leica's design team on the job would be just as discreet as an M. They could sell such a camera for less than $2000 and could sell said lenses for less than $1000. Such a product would in no way tarnish the value of the Leica name, would not come across as cheap, but would suddenly be within reach of many consumers that would buy a Leica if not for the cost. I can see why some might feel like the product would betray the essence of "a Leica," but in reality, this could be very near to what a Leica already is, and at the very least has the opportunity to be alot more like an actual Leica than their current non-M8 digital offerings and also be vastly more successful in the marketplace. The target market for this new system is very close to the target market for Leica's current cameras, at least as far as camera design and usability is concerned. It feels like a good fit, and an enormous opportunity for the company.

Will

 

[Ray Nalley]

I'm not sure it would be the same "Leica" experience for me. If shooting Leica, I want the feel of a small, dense, all metal camera body. And the solid feel of real brass and metal lenses. It's why I'm willing to pay the prices Leica demands, even if buying used. And an autofocus, live view camera, is the last thing I would want to buy with the Leica name on it. From the posts, I guess I'm in the minority. Most would seem to embrace a totally different Leica. Which is kind of surprising.

But if Leica is to flourish, they are going to have to get into this kind of product.

 

[Wiyum]

I'm not sure it would be the same "Leica" experience for me. If shooting Leica, I want the feel of a small, dense, all metal camera body. And the solid feel of real brass and metal lenses. It's why I'm willing to pay the prices Leica demands, even if buying used. And an autofocus, live view camera, is the last thing I would want to buy with the Leica name on it. From the posts, I guess I'm in the minority. Most would seem to embrace a totally different Leica. Which is kind of surprising.

You're mixing your message here, and I just want to clarify that. I'm saying that I don't see why such a camera couldn't be small, dense, and all-metal. I don't see why the lenses couldn't be metal lenses. Pentax's DA Limiteds are a great example of autofocus DSLR primes with very nice all-metal construction, for example.

At the same time, yes, this would be an autofocus live-view camera, with a smaller sensor to boot. I recognize those sacrifices, but I believe that those are the only sacrifices, and seem to me to be sacrifices that Leica can make without selling out the brand.

But if Leica is to flourish, they are going to have to get into this kind of product.

And that's the real point to be made. They need to do something, and they need it to have some success and they need for it to not "sell out the brand" as I said this needn't do. This seems like a great candidate for that and, I'll repeat, a far better attempt at offering a prosumer digital product than they've been doing.

 

[sepiareverb]

Once again you've made the point eloquently Roger. I certainly don't dispute profit is a requirement of business, but rather that ever upward spiraling profits need not be a requirement. A modest profit might certainly be an acceptable means of approaching a small market where sales volume will never be huge.

That a second-tier Leica is needed seems to be the consensus of many here, but I agree that such a product will only lessen the opinion and destroy brand loyalty. That is exactly what happened with the lousy P&S 35mm's of the eighties.

The D-Lux 3 is a metal bodied camera, made in Japan, that certainly feels like an electronic device rather than an M- size & weight aside, and longevity is uncertain- although as a digital camera longevity does seem to be unimportant.

A digital CM would be another thing altogether- and in the $1000-2000 price range(?). It could have a hybrid AF/MF lens, an aperture ring with AUTO detent, and a shutter speed dial. A simple electronic 'in focus' indicator as in many AF cameras. But, as I readily admit I'm not anyone's idea of a 'normal' customer...🙄

 

[Wiyum]

Contax/Yashica (Kyocera)
Graflex
Kodak
Konica
Mamiya
Minolta
Voigtlander
Zeiss Ikon/Contax

I believe that all of these were at least the size of Leica and in most cases, orders of magnitude bigger.

Just catching up here, but Mamiya is neither out of business nor have they stopped making cameras. With a new model just introduced, along with at least one new lens, and their new partnership with PhaseOne, their future is brighter now than it has been in at least five years. And given that they are the top alternative to the increasingly-closed Hasselblad system, I don't see them going anywhere too soon.