Panasonic "shocked, shocked" at idea of m4/3 rangefinder

It sounds like this guy is high enough up the totem pole that he may actually not have heard anything - or he's trying to be coy - personally.. I think it's the former and not the latter. How much time does someone in that position have to browse internet forums to listen to the proletariat ? :D

Cheers
Dave
 
Leica is still involved in the MFT "roadmap", at kleast as far as lenses are concerned.

In my reading, the GM obviously is aware of the demand for incorporating rangefinder elements into the MFT design, but the tough market is forcing a conservative approach.
 
Maybe now that someone mentioned it to him, he can have one of his subordinates do some research.
 
Get a group of people together on the internet, who all like the same basic thing(s), and they will quickly decide that they are some kind of market force or majority, and act accordingly.

For the deluded: rangefinders are a tiny little niche of a relatively small segment of cameras users, known as 'enthusiasts'. We ain't the market - enthusiasts barely get noticed, and most of them don't know a rangefinder from a load of coal. Get over it.
 
That was quite an interesting interview. The most interesting part for Leica users was not the supposedly coy response to the RF question it was this:
But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap.
Click to expand...

Why don't you guys go crazy speculating on that one? ;)

/T
 
back alley said:
thanks for that positive and supportive comment bill!

from the great unwashed
Click to expand...

I'm reality-based. I like rangefinders, I like film. I don't delude myself that my preferences matter much to manufacturers outside of the very small niche that cater to our guys.
 
I would have to agree with Bill - it's a small(er) market now than it may have been say, 50 or 60 years ago when the RF was "the" thing.

I think that's one of the reasons you don't see "a lot" (which I realize is a relative non-quantitative term) of money from the likes of Nikon and Canon being placed into the current RF market - it's just too small to warrant the costs involved - (oh, and before anyone gets medieval on my behind; the fact that I said "I think" suggests that this is my opinion and not based on any factual evidence like statistics or knowing some guy who's sister's cousin's husband's father-in-law works at Nikon or Canon... :D)

Cheers,
Dave
 
First up; there's a lot of demand for a smaller Micro Four Thirds body - more 'rangefinder' style than faux DSLR. It's not really a question, it's more just telling you what they want. But do you have any comment?
(mock surprise) I didn't hear anything about such a request? This is news to me!
Click to expand...

how many of you actually read the exact quote?
 
yeah

yeah

I don't blame Leica for not wanting their name on a cheezy purple fringing lens that is in-camera tweaked to appear to have less distortion than it really does that Panasonic uses these days.

Gone are the days of the fixed 2.8 Leica designed lenses for Panasonic.

But I've always thought Panasonic would be a great potential partner with Leica, for Panasonic to brand their higher end products with.


Tuolumne said:
That was quite an interesting interview. The most interesting part for Leica users was not the supposedly coy response to the RF question it was this:

Why don't you guys go crazy speculating on that one? ;)

/T
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom