What if the digital CLE happened and nobody cared?

[Sam N]

(forgive the low-light phone picture)

I've seen people on this forum and others wishing for a modern, digital, CLE. I assume many were thinking of something more along the lines of a compact digital ZI with a 24x36 sensor and no edge issues with their old M-mount glass.

To me, the CLE was a compact, easy to use, quality camera with some useful automatic features. It had optically competent and compact 28, 40, and 90mm lenses to go along with it. The E-PL5 can be described in pretty much the same way.

Sure, plenty of people use m43 cameras, and the 3 lenses pictured above are all quite popular, but it feels like it came on so gradually that it didn't really make the splash it should have. It's been over 3 years since the "CL" lenses (20/1.7 and 45/2.8 macro) were released, but back then screens were crappy, AF performance lagged, and the whole system was a bit "meh" with the grainy 12MP sensors. I remember returning my slow E-P1 in disgust. A year later we got the 50 gram 14/2.5. I'm sure it's no coincidence that Panasonic chose 28/40/90 as the first focal lengths for their prime lenses. Later we saw the wonderful Olympus 45/1.8, and now we finally have plenty of mature cameras.

Autofocus is very quick (less so with the 20mm), and 100% accurate. Image quality is (more than) good enough for the uses that 35mm film cameras often saw. Prices are relatively low.

Here's to a lovely little setup!

 

[Classique]

Personally, digital CLE for me would be a full frame RF with the size of Sony A7 without the hump (and without the leica digital $$). But other than us RF freaks, I don't think the current market would welcome such a machinery with people wanting faster and faster focus speed and the most accurate VF. I see the Sony A7/A7r to be going in the right direction and maybe we'll see something similar to digital RF in the future that is not made by Leica.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I don't think the current market would welcome such a machinery with people wanting faster and faster focus speed and the most accurate VF.

I agree with that assessment. Still, it is an interesting speculation.

 

[Rodchenko]

I still hanker for a proper rangefinder, as I find it gives more accurate and more flexible control over focussing than I get from any other system.

However, I've come to a similar conclusion to the OP, and am saving up for an EP5 as the ideal combination of attributes. What I have learned from my EPL1 is that the shortcomings are the ones directly addressed in the creation of the EP5, so that's where I'm heading.

 

[jsrockit]

The same niche that would have liked it years ago will still like it now. Mechanical RF cameras will never be mainstream and RF fans will never accept M4/3 as a substitute.

 

[Monochrom]

mmmm....don´t think an epl could possibly match a minolta cle...perhaps it´s a terrific camera, but a minolta cle is small and full frame...i can use a 40mm lens as it was intended for...instead the epl will use a wide angle lens 20mm for fit 40mm lens field.

So i´ll have no benefit from a wide angle and no benefit from a 40mm lens.

Of course m43 are fast to focus since even a 50mm fov lens is a short focal length lens...25mm lens with a huge dof from the begining.

Camera market has already got into ff so will have to wait until sony or fuji makes an a7r without the hump 😀

For the time boing i´m happy with my old m9 😀

🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Autofocus is . . . 100% accurate. . .

Dear Sam,

That's a first!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

mmmm....don´t think an epl could possibly match a minolta cle...

I didn't suggest it could

perhaps it´s a terrific camera, but a minolta cle is small and full frame...i can use a 40mm lens as it was intended for...instead the epl will use a wide angle lens 20mm for fit 40mm lens field.

So i´ll have no benefit from a wide angle and no benefit from a 40mm lens.

I don't follow your optical reasoning.

 

[Godfrey]

I always preferred the CL to the CLE, but that's beside the point. 🙂

I wrote a brief for a "digital CL" concept system in 2005-2006. It was for a FourThirds sensor in a slim CL sized/arranged body, with an electronically coupled optical rangefinder and LCD/LED frame line overlays for the viewfinder, along with a dedicated set of compact lenses (15mm f/2.8, 23mm f/2, 39mm f/2). An accessory adapter would net access to the FourThirds SLR lenses from Olympus and Panasonic. I sent the brief to Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica—all members of the FourThirds group who had announced FourThirds products. All three companies sent replies that thanked me for my input.

I was very pleased to hear the announcement of Micro-FourThirds and see the Panasonic Lumix G1 and Olympus Pen E-P1 appear in late 2008-2009. I did not imagine the G1's EVF in my brief as the EVFs of 2002-2005 were pretty far behind even crude OVFs. By 2008, though, the G1's EVF was quite usable; shooting with it for a couple of years, I came to prefer it to my rangefinder concept. Most everything else in my brief was in these two cameras, in one form or another.

The development of mFT has been nothing short of stupendous since. The recently released Panasonic GX7 is closest in form factor and ergonomics to my idea of a "digital CL", the available lens line is far far larger and more complete than I had conceived. The Olympus E-M1 completes the system in having the best viewfinder and the best support for the FT lenses, as well as IMO the best ergonomics, if not the CL shape.

So, for me, the "digital CL" concept I had in the mid-2000s has been fully realized even beyond what I thought of. Image stabilization, WiFi control, TTL viewing and focusing, focus peaking, focus assist magnification, etc etc ... all icing on the cake. To me, it did happen and I do care.

The Olympus E-M1 I acquired last month has rapidly become my main camera. It does everything I need in a camera, and has both ergonomics and customization capabilities I could only dream of half a decade ago. It has the right size and weight. The lenses available for it from Olympus, Panasonic, Panasonic-Leica, Voigtländer, and Sigma are terrific performers. It has features and capabilities that are actually useful which I'd never dreamed of, AND are extremely useful.

I'm happy.

G

 

[lam]

So let's imagine a digital CLE would be made.

The first rumors from sonyCLE.com would be about (SR5) and "OMG! LEICA KILLER!" would be the title.

There would be about 500+ comments about how this is not a Leica and it's not good, how much better a MFT/Sony E-mount/Canon/Nikon is, mixed with about 250 comments of people saying, "WOW! I'D BUY IT IN A HEARTBEAT!"

There would be about 20 different blog posts from Steve Huff showcasing one photo of the camera a day, leading up to one photo taken with the camera and about 50 characters of feedback. -Repeat this for about 3 weeks until camera is released-

Forums would have gigantic argument threads of brand loyalty flaming amongst each other. Predictions of film apocalypse and the second coming of the Barnack. Concerns of corner performance with wide angle lenses, specifically 12-15mm range would infuriate and cause people not to sleep at night until they were assured an answer.

The price would be released, $3,000. Camera is released.
No one buys it.

 

[Rodchenko]

Godfrey, I'd have liked to see your brief become metal, but, as you say, what we have available is pretty good.

lam, I think your speculations are spot on.

 

[shadowfox]

If Sony can get over their obsessions with super thin bodies, I think they are in the most likely position to actually produce a real *full-frame* digital CLE. They should have Minolta's original blueprint for CLE, shouldn't they?

 

[Sam N]

I still hanker for a proper rangefinder, as I find it gives more accurate and more flexible control over focussing than I get from any other system.

I guess this and the numerous comments about "full frame" have answered my question.

A couple questions to ask yourselves:

1) Why full frame? If it's to use your old lenses, there's no need as there are plenty of good native m43 lenses. If it's for Depth of Field, you've got a good point, but how many of the classic rangefinder photos we like were shot with very shallow depth of field (not to mention that the 45/1.8 will give you slightly shallower DoF than the CLE's 90/4 and lets you focus closer)? If it's for low-light performance, the current m43 sensors blow away film in terms of low-light performance.

2) Why manual focusing? I love RF focusing, but I can't possibly see how it's more accurate OR faster than touching a touchscreen (in any part of the frame) and having the camera focus 100% accurately (believe it Roger) in a fraction of a second. Contrast-detect AF is by nature extremely accurate since it's actually using the data from the sensor. There are no calibration issues as with DSLRs. The only problem is when AF breaks down in very low light. In that case, all the m43 lenses are fairly responsive in terms of manual focusing.

 

[jsrockit]

Sam, I believe the combination of the bright OVF and the mechanical RF is what does it for most people who are into RFs. AF and a LCD screen are not proper substitutes if you are looking for bright eye-level OVF and the mechanical RF.

The other thing is that RF cameras tend to be very elegant and fun to use and to hold. An emotional experience but sometimes loving the tool you are using can make you inspired.

I don't own a RF at the moment because, like you, I've found a better solution for my photography. That said, I've been a hardcore RF only person in my life and I know why I love that system. When you want a bright OVF and the mechanical RF, there are no substitutes.

 

[2WK]

I dunno, I guess I'm just still skeptical about m4/3. Sometimes while working with APSc images I wish I had used a full frame sensor. I only imagine what that teeny 4/3 sensor would deliver. I'm mainly talking about print here, not uploading to web.

But again, I'm not really being fair as I haven't tried the latest and greatest. I just read on Steve Huff this morning that he gave "camera of the year" to the EP-1 so that kind of peaked my interest. However, he seams to lean on the camera size and autofocus ability, and oh yeah…weather sealing…which seams to be a big deal in 2013. :/

I mainly care about iQ/resolution.

 

[Michalm]

So let's imagine a digital CLE would be made.

The first rumors from sonyCLE.com would be about (SR5) and "OMG! LEICA KILLER!" would be the title.

There would be about 500+ comments about how this is not a Leica and it's not good, how much better a MFT/Sony E-mount/Canon/Nikon is, mixed with about 250 comments of people saying, "WOW! I'D BUY IT IN A HEARTBEAT!"

There would be about 20 different blog posts from Steve Huff showcasing one photo of the camera a day, leading up to one photo taken with the camera and about 50 characters of feedback. -Repeat this for about 3 weeks until camera is released-

Forums would have gigantic argument threads of brand loyalty flaming amongst each other. Predictions of film apocalypse and the second coming of the Barnack. Concerns of corner performance with wide angle lenses, specifically 12-15mm range would infuriate and cause people not to sleep at night until they were assured an answer.

The price would be released, $3,000. Camera is released.
No one buys it.

Ha Ha you have made my day with this comment , spot on.

 

[Godfrey]

I dunno, I guess I'm just still skeptical about m4/3. Sometimes while working with APSc images I wish I had used a full frame sensor. I only imagine what that teeny 4/3 sensor would deliver. I'm mainly talking about print here, not uploading to web.

But again, I'm not really being fair as I haven't tried the latest and greatest. I just read on Steve Huff this morning that he gave "camera of the year" to the EP-1 so that kind of peaked my interest. However, he seams to lean on the camera size and autofocus ability, and oh yeah…weather sealing…which seams to be a big deal in 2013. :/

I mainly care about iQ/resolution.

Um, two of my photos made with the Olympus E-1 (5Mpixel FourThirds sensor, same format as Micro-FourThirds) and printed 20x24 inch image area took awards at a juried exhibition hosted by the Center for Fine Art Photography.

The camera that Steve Huff and several other rating places have given camera of the year to is the Olympus E-M1, not E-P1 (which was the first Olympus Pen digital camera circa 2008). With the E-M1 and its super clean, 16Mpixel sensor, I could do even better on technical quality than with the E-1.

APS-C and FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds sensor formats are not that different in size. Typical APS-C sensor (nikon, pentax, sony) is ~16x24mm, FourThirds format is 13x17.3 mm. If you crop that APS-C to reflect the same 3:4 format, it would be 16x21.3mm vs 13x17.3mm. Canon APS-C is even closer (native format about 15x22mm).

But ... Care more about content and expression than "IQ/resolution": it gets you much further in photography than details of sensor size and megapixels resolution. ;-)

G

 

[Sam N]

... RF cameras tend to be very elegant and fun to use and to hold. An emotional experience but sometimes loving the tool you are using can make you inspired.

When you want a bright OVF and the mechanical RF, there are no substitutes.

I can't argue with you there. A lot of the joy of photography comes from the process. Nothing will replace working in the darkroom or feeling beautifully engineered gears meshing as you advance the film. The VF on my ZI is beautiful and I loved the R-D1 because it FELT just like a (slightly chunkier) R3a. Part of me wishes more digital cameras had wind levers.

Another part of me, however, realizes that my ZI/R3A/R-D1/TLR/etc images were no better than the images I take with a DSLR or with the m43 camera. Also, there is a different (and maybe slightly less satisfying) joy in having a tiny camera that feels effortless to use and lets me share photos instantly if I want or go back home and process them meticulously.

 

[Peter_S]

I am still not convinced a digital body with a smaller RF base - short as the CLs, or shorter than the M8's - would make people happy in the long run, particularly with the to-be-expected price tag, FF and the new high-res sensors and the stiff competition. It seems like an unbalanced mix of technologies to me. For me, the M8 and Ricoh M-mount were probably as close as it gets.
For me, personally, RF = film. In a digital camera I like digital technology to match the rest. My digital CLE is the X2 and I am very happy with it.

 

[johannielscom]

Sam, I believe the combination of the bright OVF and the mechanical RF is what does it for most people who are into RFs. AF and a LCD screen are not proper substitutes if you are looking for bright eye-level OVF and the mechanical RF.

The other thing is that RF cameras tend to be very elegant and fun to use and to hold. An emotional experience but sometimes loving the tool you are using can make you inspired.

I don't own a RF at the moment because, like you, I've found a better solution for my photography. That said, I've been a hardcore RF only person in my life and I know why I love that system. When you want a bright OVF and the mechanical RF, there are no substitutes.

Granted, but a bright EVF brings a lot to the table that can be considered a close-enough substitute.

My approach to all this is the Ricoh GXR with Mount module, set up as a B&W all-manual camera. To have something full frame would be nice but I might as well get a wider lens to end up with the desired FOV on the GXR-Ms APS-C sensor...

Wrote an article on it: http://johanniels.com/index.php/camera-gear-articles/43-the-ricoh-gxr-m-mount-the-piccolo-m240