Why there are no native Leica lenses for the Lumix G1

[Avotius]

I found a similar shot of my own. 100% crop. I guess I do see some purple fringing here, but it just doesn't seem that bad.

/T

Its true that the G1 will have some of that purple stuff going on but really the camera is very good at getting rid of it! In comparison my Canon 20D with a 17-40 on it, so horrible, I found fringing in some images to be as wide as 4-5 pixles....that is very visible in small and large prints and the worst part of it is that they fringing is in different colors, it might be purple on one side of the image and green on the other, which makes it near impossible to get afterwords. On the topic of fringing, the G1 is sure making it easier for us who have to actually work on the images afterwords.

Take a look at this typical fringing from my Canon, and this is a 100% crop from the left lower center of the frame.

 

[Sam N]

The main things these "software tricks" do are pretty simple...

1) Vignetting correction... Leica (and Canon and others) already do this
2) Chromatic Aberration correction... again, newer Nikon DSLRs (D3, etc.) do this
3) Distortion correction... the LX-3 does this (as do many compact cameras (probably) but not any interchangeable lens cameras (that I know of).

I don't think any of the above three are objectionable at all when used within reason. If a lens is excellent in every way other than easily correctable (in camera raw) CAs... let the camera fix it for me so I don't have to do it myself.

Getting rid of purple fringing is a bit more complicated (it's not the same as regular lateral CAs).

By the way, that guy desperately trying to find differences between the LX3 and DLux4 seems a little crazy to me.

 

[splitimageview]

Forced to guess, I'd say that all of the M glass looks the same and loses its character because the camera is only taking the center of the image circle, where the sort of imperfections that define that character will be minimized.

This supposition is a continuation of RFF urban legend.

The M glass doesn't lose it's character at all, and no, it doesn't look the same! Where does this stuff come from? There are literally thousands of G1 images going back to December of last year, taken with M glass, all over the web. This one is quite easily debunked; it doesn't even make logical sense.

The lens will render light the way it renders light...whether it's film, or an M8, or a G1. A Summarit image will look like a Summarit image. A Nokton will have Nokton bokeh. A Planar will look like a Planar.

Think about it: if you put a Summicron on an M6, shoot a photo and crop the image, does it turn into a completely different rendering and bokeh and character, and look like a Summilux ASPH or some completely different lens?

 

[nemjo]

why???

why???

Back to the original question: because of price!
The G1 (Gx) concept can't afford Leica's prices.
And doesn't need it.😛
I think that the short distance between the mount and sensor brought up an absolutely not planned possibility to use (almost) any kind of glass.
Fortunately if a G1 owner has Leica glass, easily can use it. But I suspect that very few G1 owner will run to buy WATE:bang:
That answer from the company about digital correction is a simple but polite bla-bla

nemjo

 

[JoeV]

Regarding the negative review of the kit lens, that was done without the G1 body; they were reviewing the lens stand-alone, without the system of software correction that IT WAS DESIGNED TO OPERATE WITH.

This is a new paradigm, the lens and body as an integral system; the G1 complicates this paradigm because it's interchangable, permitting non-u4/3 lenses to be used, thus breaking the system's original intent.

I believe the electrical contacts between lens and body, among other functions, inform the body as to which lens and how much correction is needed. Similar, but not identical, to the M8.😉

So I believe a legacy manual lens (or pinhole in the body cap, or any other optical image-forming device) won't have correction applied -- no electrical contacts. But that's merely a guess, since I haven't tested it.

The thing that makes the G1 such a good camera are the ergonomics of the body, the EVF, the folding LCD and the image quality at the price point using the kit lens. It really is a great little photographic tool, the first all-electronic camera that I can actually like and appreciate in the way that I appreciate legacy manual cameras; it does what it was designed to do very well.

I think it will become known as a great little candid/street photography camera, also. But it does much more than that, too.

~Joe

 

[Tuolumne]

The thing that makes the G1 such a good camera are the ergonomics of the body, the EVF, the folding LCD and the image quality at the price point using the kit lens. It really is a great little photographic tool, the first all-electronic camera that I can actually like and appreciate in the way that I appreciate legacy manual cameras; it does what it was designed to do very well.

I think it will become known as a great little candid/street photography camera, also. But it does much more than that, too.

~Joe

This is the best thumbnail summary I have seen of what is great about the G1. You should license it to e-commerce sites for their product blurb!! 😀😎😀

/T