Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Leica participation in 4/3rds format
From: nathan at nathanfoto.com (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Mon Feb 27 20:52:16 2006
References: <C0274FA4.CE54%bdcolen@comcast.net> <4401EDFC.4060602@adrenaline.com> <32178ECB-38D9-4442-8712-222FCC03E1F4@msu.edu>

Leica's association with Panasonic is not new, so from that point of 
view this announcement is just a continuation of what was already in 
place. The value of the Leica brand will be a moot point if the company 
goes bankrupt. It needs new revenue, badly, and providing lenses to 
Panasonic is an excellent way to achieve that and to get a foothold in 
the corner of the digital imaging field beyond the DMR.

As to viability of the 4/3 format, the jury is out on that--as others 
have said, if the sensor technology improves to the point that 800 or 
1600 speed is good, then the 4/3 format has many attractions in terms of 
the compact bodies and lenses. In the meantime, Leica gets some badly 
needed additional sales.

I am not a business professor, but I manage a company, and I see this 
partnership as a win-win for both parties.

Nathan

Steven A. Melnyk wrote:
> I am confused by this series of moves for several reasons.  First, as 
> a business professor, this move does not make sense because it 
> degrades the value of the Leica brand.  Leica has always been 
> associated with high quality, high end products.  Olympus, Kodak and 
> Panasonic are considered "prosumer" at best.  Panasonic benefits; 
> Leica does not.  Second, as a photographer, I have followed what is 
> happening in the camera field.  We see that Konica/Minolta has left 
> the camera field.  In my opinion, Pentax is next to go.  Olympus is 
> not strong. I am not sure off the attractiveness of the 4/3 standard 
> (especially since the big boys are not playing in it).  Third, the 
> reviews on the olympus systems ((as seen in dpreview) have not been 
> that outstanding.  This seems to be a good system with low ISO 
> settings but one that deteriorates at the higher ISO levels.
> '
> In short, I am not convinced of the long term validity of the 4/3 
> standard.  I am not sure that Leica does itself any benefit by 
> aligning itself with this standard.  Past history tells us that when 
> there are several standards, only one or two will emerge as the 
> dominate standard.  In a world dominated by Canon and Nikon, I am not 
> sure of the long term viability of this standard.  I may be wrong but 
> history would argue against the 4/3 standard.
>
> Steven A. Melnyk
> Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management
> Michigan State University
> melnyk@msu.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>

-- 
Nathan Wajsman
Almere, The Netherlands

SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUY DANISH PRODUCTS!

General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com

Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507
Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com

Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog



Replies: Reply from aalmansi at yahoo.com (Aquiles Almansi) ([Leica] Leica participation in 4/3rds format)
Reply from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Leica participation in 4/3rds format)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Leica participation in 4/3rds format)
Message from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] Leica participation in 4/3rds format)
Message from melnyk at msu.edu (Steven A. Melnyk) ([Leica] Leica participation in 4/3rds format)