Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Didier, Not so sure there's a real professional claim on the 4/3, but here again you might be right. More pragamatic : How much for an M8 plus Summilux 35 ASPH if there's such a lense? How much for an Oly, L1 or Diglix3 with a 25 / 1.4 ASPH? How many times a year do you need these extra pixels? How many times do you want to get bothered with slow autofocus, with liveview, with magenta cast, or filters? I'm no professional but I most certainly think that I will never need them. Should I, I 'd go MF The M is meant for another kind of photography, for other photographers, with references to past criteria - not to be dumped for sure, but past all the same. I don't find it offensive that Leica and others should try and re-invent the whole concept and think about the future - even at the expense of Leica glass lenses owners - which , we must confess to this, is the main - if not the only - reason why we, Leica people, are "so conservative" with our gear and approach BTW: I hold no shares in the 4/3 "holding" - I simply think that things are never either so simple, or clearcut in life Yours Phil..x . Didier Ludwig wrote: >Phil > >The name 4/3 does not refer to the picture format ratio, but to the >traditional Vidicon tube size, see http://tinyurl.com/2ub4x9 (german). Btw >newer computer screens have mostly a larger ratio, like 16:9 or 3:2. > >I too believe more quality will be got out of smaller sensors in the >future. The question is if the 4/3 system can survive until then. Olympus >sells fast top-pro level lenses (f2/14-35, f2/35-100, f2/150mm, f2.8/300 >and more) in the price category, or even higher, of the most expensive >Canon and Nikon pro lenses - so the upper class four thirds cameras, like >P-1 (project name of announced E-1 successor), L1 and Digilux-3, must be >compared with the flagship of the competitors. And the actual rule is: >bigger sensor = more quality, less noise. The mentioned 4/3 cameras are in >the middle consumer level in terms of picture quality and speed. There's a >antagonism of the professionality claim between the 4/3 optics and bodies. > >Leica's future lies in the hands of Leica. They'll never be in the cheap >sector and stay in their niche. The younger generation (which is probably >more talented as we are, because photographing is much more common today >and kids start much earlier to shoot) does less care about a red dot on a >camera, though I have noticed a certain interest for exotic gear amongst my >students. > >Didier > > > > >>I agree with Lawrence - the 4/3 is a shift in paradigm - I don't know if >>it will survive, but who would have predicted that >>a) the 35 mmm format would, >>b) Leica would ever build SLRs, >>c) Leica would turn digital at all. >> >>Look at our computer screens - what is their format? There, is the answer >>to many comments on the 4/3 format. >> >>To me, the remainder seems to be in the order of habits - some good ones I >>must admit too - but any habit can be changed. >> >>The future of Leica, and of photography, lies in the hands of younger >>generations, as talented as ours, but for the time being with a lower >>purchasing power. They can get nice results out of cameras that are five >>times less expensive than an M8 or R9DMR combo for instance - do they get >>results that are five times inferior? >> >>Yours >>Phileicangemix >> >> > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >