Open Letter to Mr. Kobayashi, President of Cosina

pellicle · Feb 12, 2010

well, now at least we know its only me who thinks its a good idea

if you've never pulled a lens apart then this link is kind of fun to read,

http://www.photoscene.com/sw/tour/inside.htm

and shows how compact the electronic iris is ... it is infact more compact than the iris system on any of the mechanical lenses I have and from a design point of view makes it easier to manage the forces.

As to why Leica never implimented it, well, no one was looking through the lens with their range finders ... unlike micro 4/3

PS: Oz ... why do you sound like your jumping down my neck with every ... single ... thing

I thought I was just discussing things reasonably, if I sound like I'm being a belligerent pest please let me know

pellicle · Feb 12, 2010

Brian Mosley said:
Regarding electronic aperture control, I'm inclined to agree with Ray... also, there's an advantage that an EVF can gain up for MF assist zoom.

mine gets quite crackly n jumpy at f8 with a 50mm (doing some table top stuff yesterday using flash as main light and a low intensity modeling light)
stopping down to preview this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

was less than pretty

naturally YMMV

Brian Mosley · Feb 12, 2010

This thread went a little off-topic. We're a young community here, growing fast so please everyone, help us to build something special by showing each other the greatest respect.

At the same time, we value colour and character from around the world - so let's not confuse that with disrespect.

Cheers

Brian

cosinaphile · Feb 12, 2010

at this point we should enlist someone with some optical engineering credentials who would donate some time to drafting a proposal with some specific realistic goal about
focal length \speed possibilities and objectives for a new generation of fast and fast\ wide lenses that truly take advantage of the m4\3 image circle and the distance of flange to sensor,

i have o cred as an optical designer, but a deep interest in seeing faster, wider ,more robust hand focusable designs that the cowardly marketing teams at olympa-sonic seem unwilling to consider or deliver. im just a consumer who has invested in and believes in a micro 4\3 system of quality lenses at realistic prices,

you would think they would learn something from the runaway success of the only fast
prime created for m4\3 the panny 20mm1.7, but alas they seen profoundly stupid when it comes to matters of what the market and their customer base truly wish to purchase

what i do know is that canon was a able to create a 110 rangefinder lens that was 26 mm and f2.0 in speed back in the 1980 it covers the image circle for m4\3 well and is a sharp optic
i know that c mount lenses exist with very good focal lengths and speeds ,[ if slightly too small image circles] at fair prices , in manual mounts and i know that pentax had a hell of a good run with interchangeable lenses for its 110 system whose 2.8 max speed was limited only a diaphragm placement issue
recently a forum poster in one of the ep1\m4\3 forums mentioned a Chinese made 35mm f 1.4 mf lens that sells for less that 40 bucks it does not vignette on m4\3 and looks like a very usable lens

i mention these product as evidence that much more is possible for m4\3 lens than anything we have been given so far , or is dreamed of in a lens roadmap

consider the wildly popular 20mm 1.7 panny, i dont deny its a fine lens , but stop and think about what it delivers ,it is in fact a normal focal length at a decently fast but far from exotic speed, 1.7 1.8 and f 2 prime lens "normals" should be a lens offered for about 150-200 dollars. Optics that must cover an image circle 4 times the size are offered for canon and nikon and other cameras for 100 - 150 dollars

but a panny that provides about the same fov for its gf1 must cost 400 dollars?
pure nonsense

i know that voigtlander could deliver a 25 1.4 a 15 1.8 and a 8mm 3.5 with one hand tied behind its back, it does not do it because it is not sure it can recover development costs and turn a profit , but a petition that gathered a commitment from 100,000
wallets could . its time to network this across the internet .

you can bet toms hardware, engaget, dp review, wired znet and a dozens of other sites would reaching millions would write copy about such a grass roots movement springing up of consumers finally deciding what they wanted to buy rather than accepting the crap thats offered them , heck, even voigtlander might notice

OzRay · Feb 12, 2010

Pellicle, and others. I didn't mean to be offensive or sound as if I was jumping down your neck. Your reaction surprised me a bit and I responded in a way that is quite common in Australian forums, meaning not to take things too personally if someone is forthright. We were only expressing opinions and neither of us can claim the high ground here, so if we differ in our opinions, there's nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, we are in violent agreement that there is a crying need for different/better lenses for m4/3s.

Pax?

Cheers

Ray

Ranger 9 · Feb 12, 2010

cosinaphile said:
consider the wildly popular 20mm 1.7 panny, i dont deny its a fine lens , but stop and think about what it delivers ,it is in fact a normal focal length at a decently fast but far from exotic speed, 1.7 1.8 and f 2 prime lens "normals" should be a lens offered for about 150-200 dollars. Optics that must cover an image circle 4 times the size are offered for canon and nikon and other cameras for 100 - 150 dollars

but a panny that provides about the same fov for its gf1 must cost 400 dollars? pure nonsense

Most of those Canon/Nikon lenses are based on designs that have existed since well back into the film era. Panasonic had to design its 20/1.7 from scratch.

Also, it's not just covering the image circle that's the issue. It's easy to do that with any lens if you can extend the back focus distance far enough. But that eliminates compactness, which is a key selling point for mu 4/3 for many buyers.

i know that voigtlander could deliver a 25 1.4 a 15 1.8 and a 8mm 3.5 with one hand tied behind its back

I suspect it's not quite that easy. Given the short back focus distance, the shorter the focal length, the greater the problems you'd have with a very steep "chief ray angle." There are optical designs that would solve that problem, but again, they'd require that the lens be much larger and more complex. My 12.5mm f/1.9 Computar -- which doesn't cover mu 4/3 -- is a skinny lens, but it's much longer than a 20/1.7 Panasonic. A lens with similar specs that did cover mu 4/3 probably would need to be just as long and significantly fatter.

it does not do it because it is not sure it can recover development costs and turn a profit, but a petition that gathered a commitment from 100,000 wallets could. its time to network this across the internet.

Are there 100,000 mu 4/3 camera owners out there yet? And if there are, won't most of them demand autofocusing and full integration with the camera's electronics? I just don't see manual-only mu 4/3 lenses being a big segment of the market.

If some outsider firm were going to get into this, I suspect it would be one that already makes cine lenses; many of these designs already cover mu 4/3, and since the makers are mostly relatively small-volume, high-end operations, making versions with a mu 4/3 lensmount wouldn't disrupt their workflow too much.

But if you think a Panasonic 20/1.7 is too expensive, wait 'til you see what a 25/1.4 Zeiss Ultraprime would cost... :-0

Amin · Feb 12, 2010

I was hard at work and did not have time to respond to what occurred earlier today in this thread. Having now gone through the deleted posts, I'll say my piece.

I think it is important to try not to confuse spirited disagreement (which is absolutely welcome at mu-43) with personal attacks (which will not stand). A little skin thickness and allowance for cultural differences goes a long way in internet forums.

That said, one of the posts crossed the line of what is acceptable on this site.<o

></o

> To borrow a page from the folks at GetDPI, members here are expected to carry on discussion, including disagreement, with as much courtesy as house guests. This will be enforced.

<o

></o

> Anyone has anything else to say about this issue, say it to me in PM or email, not in this thread which I hope from here out will remain on topic.<o

></o

>

hohoho · Feb 12, 2010

cosinaphile said:
i have o cred as an optical designer, but a deep interest in seeing faster, wider ,more robust hand focusable designs that the cowardly marketing teams at olympa-sonic seem unwilling to consider or deliver. [...] you would think they would learn something from the runaway success of the only fast prime created for m4\3 the panny 20mm1.7, but alas they seen profoundly stupid when it comes to matters of what the market and their customer base truly wish to purchase

Wary though I am -- in this thread in particular! -- of flatly contradicting what somebody else here says, I think you're very wrong, Cosinaphile. (At the same time I'll happily add that I have 0 cred as anything and I'll buy you a virtual, e-beer: nothing personal in any of this.)

First, I don't see anything cowardly about Olympia or Panasonic.

Secondly, while I'd concede that the Panasonic 20/1.7 has been a runaway critical success and it seems to have sold pretty well as a package with the little Panasonic camera, I've no reason to think that it's been a runaway success in its own right or that it would be one even if available more widely or more cheaply. That is, most buyers of the "digital Pen" or the G(H)1 are happy with the lens(es) that come(s) with it.

Thirdly, Panasonic didn't get where it is (at the very top of the electronics pile) by stupidity in gauging customer preferences. No doubt its marketing research people make the occasional gaffe, but without clear evidence to the contrary I'll presume that they're right. (My own (dis)tastes aren't evidence. After all, I'm very used to disgust with the will of the consuming majority. Consider mass tastes in music, beer, holiday destinations, TV programming ... eurghh.)

And lastly, you/we/people should be mildly surprised and grateful that Olympus is in this at all. I have reason to think that Olympus's recent history in marketing digicams has been disappointing and that they were ready to follow Kyocera and chuck it in when somebody in the company pointed out that the 50th birthday of the Pen was coming up and they shouldn't just let that go uncelebrated. So the digital Pen was one last fling. It has been selling well and they're fairly happy, but despite all the buzz over it (here in Japan, anyway) it hasn't been selling as well as its Panasonic near-equivalent. I think that Olympus's future in cameras is still a bit iffy; it's unlikely be be in a mood to risk confusing customers with more lens options.

cosinaphile · Feb 13, 2010

i disagree with you on that as well the Panasonic 20 1.7 is most certainly a runaway
success, Panasonic ,in a pattern ive seen develop lately,was completely was caught off guard by not understanding customer desires and has been unable to meet demand for this prime optic,it is far and away the first af lens any m 4\3 shooter seeks to add. Its rarely in stock in many stores, and its general rarity outside of the kit has led to some price gouging on amazon and elsewhere.
Panasonic had a similar problem with the lx3, while demand for many of their models was flat the lx 3 had a runaway success and Panasonic could not meet demand at all , in fact after 5 months of waiting to buy one in the usa , i gave up and got the ricoh gx200
,a decision i dont regret.

as far as demand would be for a good fast prime the existence of the community of micro 4\3 owners has completely changed the dynamic in the secondary market
for prime lenses especially rangefinder and good cine lenses and even many slr primes

it takes a huge number of people committedly buying these lenses to affect the changes that have occurred and on e bay and elsewhere. the escalating prices of of many lenses like pentax 110 and good rangefinder lenses and cine lenses are the evidence of this. had olympus\ panasonic given users a quality fast prime out of the gate that was not obscenely priced , that money would have been theirs.
it is easy to forget that there is nothing exotic in considering a given focal length
of say 20 mm where the image circle is a fraction of that required for a full frame sensor
panasonics 20 mm prime s relationship between barrel diameter and front optical element
reminds me of a penny sitting on a hockey puck. there is no image stabil in that relatively large barrel as well , bottom line? its some tiny optical elements in an avg quality plastic housing and i stand behind my opinion that at 400 bucks it and many other lens offerings for micro 4\3 mount are grossly overpriced.

when image sensors are smaller like in many point and shooters, as you well know, may seem exotic . 24mm to 70mm fovs are provided by focal lengths like 5.1 mm- 15.3 [f2.5-4.4]in the case of my gx200 and the lens is superb. at iso 64 its images are as sharp at 16x as one could hope for.the numbers seem exotic but are normal ranges considering sensor size.
the making of those lenses like the the 20 mm panny didnt require unusual or heavy or wide optical elements to achieve its optical formula ,is it the same design or as easy as a fifty ?perhaps not , but the creation of these lenses was supposed to be made easier smaller and cheaper ,by the m 4\3 lens mount system and flange distance and sensor size. olympus said and this is a promise that has not been kept

cosinaphile · Feb 13, 2010

perhaps cowardly is an unfair characterization of the lens roadmaps and those who make them , so let me just say i think they are timid instead

a 12 mm 2.8 and 24 1.4 would change my opinion in a heartbeat

the tv cine lenses almost cover the image circle in many cases i could imagine only slightly larger designs working well with my ep1 and gf1

also
id love a good e- beer right now.lol cheers

Conrad · Feb 14, 2010

cosinaphile said:
The making of those lenses like the the 20 mm panny didnt require unusual or heavy or wide optical elements to achieve its optical formula ,is it the same design or as easy as a fifty ?perhaps not , but the creation of these lenses was supposed to be made easier smaller and cheaper ,by the m 4\3 lens mount system and flange distance and sensor size. olympus said and this is a promise that has not been kept

It is indeed easier to design a lens for a smaller image field size. But only so if the requirement on resolution is the same. MFT has a two times smaller field size than 35mm, but also a two times higher requirement on resolution. As Steve Huff's comparison between the D3s with 50/1.4 and the EP-2 with 20/1.7 shows, Panasonic has delivered a lens that meets this requirement. This does not come for free, and I'm sure was not easy.

But to get back to the original topic, we should not ask CV to repackage their current lenses to an MFT mount. We should ask them to design MFT optimized lenses that take advantage of the small image size and short back focal distance: small, high speed lenses that are fully usable wide open. Lack of AF is no problem. Current wish list: 12/2 and 45/1.4. Maybe they can produce a 20/1.0 as a showoff product.

Streetshooter · Feb 14, 2010

Lack of AF....no Problem.

Only if there is a useable DOF markings on the lens.
Make it like a real lens and that will work, otherwise I'd like the AF.
I've been MF Leicas for too long...
I like AF...

soundimageplus · Feb 17, 2010

Reply from Voigtlander

I received a reply from my email to Voigtlander.

Thank you for your email and your suggestions in making lenses with
MicroFourThird mount.

There are no plans as of yet and we can not forsee the future, what will
happen next.
All new items will be presented on our website though, so please follow up
with it.

We hope we have been able to help you.

Kind regards

i. A. Petra Meredith
_____________________________________________
VOIGTLÄNDER GmbH
ein Tochterunternehmen der RINGFOTO Gruppe

Benno-Strauß-Str. 39, D- 90763 Fürth
Tel: 0049- 911/ 65 85 182
Fax: 0049- 911/ 65 85 196
www.voigtlaender.de

Streetshooter · Feb 17, 2010

Well, that's a refreshing response.
I hate to think that they might miss the boat.

hohoho · Feb 17, 2010

soundimageplus said:
I received a reply from my email to Voigtlander.

Pardon the pedantry, but actually you received it from Ringfoto. Perhaps Cosina (the company that people here hoped to interest, and one that's only tenuously related to Ringfoto) would have replied differently.

My guess, though, is that they wouldn't reply very differently even if they thought very differently. Announcements are made on the one day of the month that the Japanese camera magazines appear (and of course beforehand to their editors), and perhaps at trade fairs (though I think that Cosina rarely participates in these).

Brian S · Feb 17, 2010

My take on this- the Micro 4/3rds is not a widely supported standard, and third party manufacturers are adopting a wait and see attitude. Olympus and Panasonic are the only two manufacturers so far. Adapters for the system are cheap, and allow many-many lenses to be used with the bodies. A lot of people are buying the u4/3 cameras to use their older lenses with. They are going to get one or two kit lenses for using it "like a P&S". That's my plan- get a body with kit lens, Nina uses it for a high-quality point and shoot, I buy some adapters for using older lenses with it.

The Panasonic line has EVF, making manual focus easier. The Oly's, the base models are "chimp" until you shell out for the added EVF. Adds a few Hundred $ to the cost.

I would like to see (as in personal preference) an Adapter for M-Mount that has a built in Viewfinder/Rangefinder. Build the RF pickup, RF mechanism, and optical viewfinder with manual frameline selection into the lens adapter that rises above the camera, sits over it. I think the "Diax" (???)camera -I know a 1950s Interchangeable Lens RF- worked this way. The VF/RF was matched to the lens, the combo bayonet mounted onto the Body.

And, if the Leica M-Mount with its 27.8mm flange distance does not have enough clearance for the Cam with the u 4/3rds adapter (I think it could be done, travel on the cam is less than this) , Nikon S-Mount and Contax mount would give an extra several millimeters at 34.85mm. Wonder if some of those Phoenix RF mechanisms are still around in China.

http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm

Open Letter to Mr. Kobayashi, President of Cosina

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer

Brian Mosley

Administrator Emeritus

cosinaphile

Mu-43 All-Pro

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer

Ranger 9

Mu-43 Regular

Amin

Mu-43 Legend

hohoho

Mu-43 Regular

cosinaphile

Mu-43 All-Pro

cosinaphile

Mu-43 All-Pro

Conrad

Mu-43 Veteran

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus

soundimageplus

Mu-43 Top Veteran

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus

hohoho

Mu-43 Regular

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran

Similar threads

Latest threads