File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Some questions about the µ4/3s system:

1) Everyone is talking about M-to-µ4/3s adapters, which would be great. Has anyone actually announced plans to make them, and if so, how soon?

2) Could anyone (Serenar?) suggest an inexpensive, good M or LTM 35 for a short tele?

3) Is the shoe of the G1 a standard shoe, or is the only flash available going to be the Panasonic ones?
>> Anonymous
Don't know 1) and 3). The Voigtlander (Cosina) 35/1.4 Nokton is well regarded.
>> ponpo !tC/hi58lI.
Are people really seriously talking about that? Why? Why would this camera appeal to anyone with m-mount lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>258528
Because rangefinder lenses have a very short back focus, so you can't mount them on DSLRs. This will be the first digital camera other than the M8 and R-D1 that can take the old Leica M and L39 glass.
>> ponpo !tC/hi58lI.
>>258535

Sorry, i meant this camera in particular. If someone has multiple m-mount lenses and really wants to go digital, i'd assume they would prefer (and be able to afford, anyway) and RD-1 at least.

But maybe not, if there is that much interest around this.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
1) Yeah everyone is talking about this (just look at RFF), but there are no concrete plans as far as I know. Mechanically it's probably easy as hell.
2) The CV 35/1.4 is well regarded but a little pricey, as 1.4 lenses tend to be. Well, it's not expensive at all in terms of absolute value but on a relative scale, you could also be looking at the CV 35/1.7 LTM, 35/2.5PII, and 35/2.5 LTM for quite a bit less. If you must get 1.4 the CV 40/1.4 is much cheaper than the 35, for some reason. I use a Leitz 35/3.5 Summaron on my RD-1, which makes everyone go "wow your shots look so filmy and old school" and me go "fuck this yellow cast and low contrast fuck", but I don't think it's really worth the money to pay for one now (they tend to be in very nice condition whenever I see them sold, with pricetags to match)
3) Why would it be nonstandard?

>>258540
Not really. The RD-1 is considered too expensive by many rangefinder enthusiasts, especially because the perception of digital cameras among many such people is that they're quickly outdated and it's best to pay as little as possible for one. Since some are happy to focus with EVFs, m4/3 satisfies the old dream of the Leicafag for a cheaper, smaller digital M-mount camera - a digital CL of sorts. So far they've been rather disappointed by the very DSLR-y styling of the G1 though.

Actually I hope this doesn't pan out because used prices for lenses will shoot straight up.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258540
Maybe not this camera in particular, but future µ4/3 cameras. The M8 and RD-1 are
1. Pretty big. About the size of an old-school SLR, as I understand it. Leica shooters tend to be all about the discreteness, so a smaller body would be an advantage to them
2. Expensive as hell
3. Not really on what you'd call the technological fast track. The RD-1 was discontinued long ago, and the M8 has received one update since its initial release and that update didn't touch the sensor.
4. Arguably, poorly designed. Lots of reports* of buttons and knobs being way too easy to hit accidentally.

(* Okay, two reports that I know of.)

So especially for someone who has a bunch of Leica glass and film bodies but who can't afford an M8 or RD-1, these would make sense.
>> ponpo !tC/hi58lI.
>>258569

It's a bit taller than an M6 for example, but not by much. I don't think it's a size thing. And i know not all m-mount lenses are Leica branded and $$$$, i just can't imagine someone with a lot M lenses and wanting this body.
>> Anonymous
go away tripfags your shit u make this place bad
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258577
>a lot M lenses and wanting this body.
Key phrase there being "*this* body". I'll agree with you on that. But µ4/3 as a system shows promise.
>> ponpo !tC/hi58lI.
>>258581

Ah yeah sorry, i didn't really acknowledge that part.

Who makes 4/3s bodies now that might manufacture µ4/3s bodies? Olympus, Panasonic...?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258597
Yep. Olympus, Panasonic.

Leica, in theory, but in practice they just slap a red dot on Panasonic bodies and slap some zeros on the end of the price.
>> Anonymous
>>258559
1. Yeah, I just don't want to go out and buy one and be saddled with a kit zoom for a year until one prime of unknown quality hits, with an adapter never coming.

2. Any other older lenses you know of? Is the low contrast from the Summaron low micro and global contrast, or just one of the two?

Are there any decent-priced old f/2 35s you know of?

Thanks.

3. DP Review reads:

"The G1 includes a hot shoe that will work with the DMW- FL360, DMW-FL500 and new DMW-FL220." Three Panasonic flashes, nothing else is said about the shoe.

>>258528
OP here.

I like EVFs and these are the first ones with larger sensors. The precision of a 100% TTL finder without the mirror slap, and great for manually focusing.

I don't like messing with zooms, especially variable-aperture ones. So far, the only prime planned for the system is a 20/1.8- perfect for me, I like wide normals like that, but it's a year away and there's no guarantee it'll be good. A Voigtlaender 21/4, on the other hand, is a little slow but I like depth of field anyway.

Better build quality on any of them- especially real focus rings, and not the focus by wire I'm pretty sure these have- is also a plus. I've got no plans for autofocusing anyway.

Also, old glass people have, etc. And if someone had the money, the 50 Summilux ASPH. would be an amazing portrait lens on this thing. Or if they're a speed freak and have even more money- the new 21 and 24 f/1.4 from Leica.

Etc.
>> Anonymous
>>258598
>Leica, in theory, but in practice they just slap a red dot on Panasonic bodies and slap some zeros on the end of the price.

Yeah, except for that one Panasonic DSLR they rebadged, Leica's involvement with Four-Thirds is exclusively in designing lenses. Which makes sense for everybody.