Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/08

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: 4/3 cameras
From: phamard at numericable.fr (Philippe Amard)
Date: Thu Mar 8 08:50:47 2007
References: <200703081235.l28CZ5Bf032826@server1.waverley.reid.org> <71E4C0B9-8A28-419F-8026-873E6057CDB8@optonline.net>

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
 


Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:35 AM, lug-request@leica-users.org wrote:
>
>> My point was: why are the 4/3 cameras and lenses as big as the  other 
>> ones - because, at least in the beginning, the 4/3 system
>> claimed to be more compact?
>>
>> I strongly doubt that the 4/3 system is becoming a significant  
>> factor in photojournalism, especially sports photography. Sounds more
>> like wishful thinking to me. The Oly and Panaleica lenses, as sharp  
>> and fast they are, the slow is their autofocus.
>>
>> The trend for DSLR cameras clearly goes to bigger sensors, not  
>> because of the backward compatibility to older lenses, but because
>> they deliver better quality than smaller ones - period. The sport  
>> photographers I often meet in the hockey stadium are glad to have
>> high pixel counts - allowing them to crop more off a picture and  
>> still keeping enough details. THAT'S ONE OF THE NEEDS, MARK. Have
>> never seen them using something else than (many) Canons and (a few)  
>> Nikons.
>>
>> Larger 4/3 sensor: very unlikely. This would break the system into  
>> subsystems. The so far produced lenses are made for exactly that
>> 4/3 sensor size, would not cover a larger field. Bigger sensor =  new 
>> lenses = new system = probably the death of the old 4/3.
>
>
>
> I hate to admit this but I am old enough to remember when exactly the  
> same argument was used about 35 mm cameras in photojournalism. The  
> film size was too small to stand much cropping. It was slow. There  
> was too much visual noise (grain). Small Leicas and Contaxes would  
> never be competitive with Rolleis and Speed Graphics. Miniature  
> cameras were only suitable for amateurs, not working professionals,  
> etc., etc. Sharpness and even flash lighting were the order of the  
> day, HCB and Capa were criticized for their blurry and grainy images.  
> Baseball pictures were taken with Graflex SLRs. Who cared what the  
> Europeans were doing? Real men carried big cameras.
>
> Doubt me? Go to your library and check out bound copies of photo  
> magazines from the 1940s era.
>
> Larry Z
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from leica at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] Re: 4/3 cameras)
In reply to: Message from lrzeitlin at optonline.net (Lawrence Zeitlin) ([Leica] Re: 4/3 cameras)