--
As has already been pointed out, it's not possible to do with current technology.
I was always rather partial to trying to alter the angles of the microlenses under computer control. There are DLP projectors that aim arrays of micromirrors, so it should e possible to aim arrays of microlenses.
The 3-CCD camera doesn't necessarily require telecentricity. It does require a huge back focus (distance from sensor to rear element of the lens), about three times the sensor diagonal. For four thirds (tm), that's about 66mm. But four thirds only has a back focus of about half that, 38.68mm from the lens mount flange to the sensor, and the rear elements of the lens protrude about 8mm past the lens flange into the mirror box.
That's already being done. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 doesn't meet the Oly spec. The exit pupil is about 64mm, so the angle on a four thirds camera is about 9.6 degrees. That's a great angle, a lot better than the 15.5 degree angle of a 50mm f1.8 Nikkor on a D2X (which does perform very well center to corner). As Sigma puts more of their line into four thirds mount (and if Tamron and Tokina start doing four thirds lenses) there will be more and more lenses that don't meet Oly telecentricity.
Yup. Just an annoyance, if the new lenses end up smaller, lighter, and probably cheaper, but work just as well.
Exactly: 18x27 is a good choice for backward compatibility with existing 35mm format lenses; optically better than 1.5x or 1.6x, if one can afford the more expensive sensor, which Leica customers probably can.
The new E system kit of E-400 (380g), 14-42/3.5-5.6 (190g) and 40-150/4-5.6 (220g) seems to do quit well for size and weight advantage, though of course compact digicams do far better for size, and hence sell vastly better than DSLR's of any format.
What is so favorable about the 4/3 format?
Actually, they released the M7 in 2002, at a time when they had not yet announced the M8. Even as much as two years later, in 2004, Leica was publicaly stating that a digital M was not possible.
I'm not sure if it's a "compromising the output quality" as much as it is failing to take advantage of what the format offers. The big advantage of a rangefinder is in wide angle lenses. Since a crop factor reduces the width of wide angle lenses, any crop factor cuts into the whole point of using a rangefinder in the first place. Their widest lens is the new 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, followed by their 21/2.8 M Elmarit. Those would barely be wide angle on a 4/3 sensor and would be only modestly wide on an APS-C sensor, so the whole point of the system would be compromised.
Unfortunately, using legacy lenses is pretty much mandatory for any system, and more so for Leica than for most makers. Any camera system is more attractive if it has a complete lineup of lenses, and designing a complete lens lineup is an enormous expense. There's a reason that every interchangable lens digital camera system except for 4/3 is built to be compatible with a legacy lens lineup; it's too expensive to do it any other way. That's especially true of a fringe player like Leica that simply lacks the money to redesign its whole lens lineup even if it wanted to.
Again, that logic only applies if sensor development were the most expensive part of the process. In Leica's case it was probably cheaper to develop the camera around a more expensive sensor that would largely preserve the company's investment in lens designs (and the photographers' investment in lenses) than to go with a cheaper off-the-shelf sensor that would require a whole new set of lenses.
I don't know about that. My impression is that most of the camera companies try to be vague so that they can't be held to a specific promise, but that when they do make a promise they tend to carry through with it. If they promise they'll make a camera that uses technology ABC, they may miss their release date- even badly- but they rarely come out with a camera that uses technology XYZ instead.
So the lens company decided to fix the lenses. If all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.
The new zooms are small, the optics in the 35mm are small, the 11-22 is about the same size as Nikon 12-24. The 7-14 is… well huge, but it seems to work.
Leica isn't a lens company?
Neither does Leica.
About as much commitment as has been shown with other rebadged Panasonic, or in this case rebadged-panasonic-rebadged-olympus.
(and I reinserted, because context matters)
A lens company with a line of existing lenses designed for 35mm format.
I was referring to the lenses. But I don't think they would put
Ditto with Oly. Ever heard of OM?
What patents and supplier relationships would Leica be trampling on by redesigning their lenses for their mount?
Plural? There is 1 lens.
M5. CL. Some would say the entire reflex line.
They're both lens companies with lines outside 35mm full frame. One third of Leica Camera's business is what they call "sport optics", spotting scopes and binoculars. Oly is possibly the largest player in the endoscopy business (which suggests all sorts of corporate slogans).
Interesting question. I didn't know we were talking about Leica on that one, but if we are, there's only one Leica branded four thirds lens, and as far as I can tell, it's neither Leica, Panasonic, or Oly IP.
I wouldn't call that particular lens a Leica. Variable aperture f2.8-3.5 lenses are a bit rare, what are the odds that Leica and Oly, independently, would come up with a 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 and a 14-54mm f2.8-3.5, respectively. And, as I've pointed out before in my comments on the 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 and the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, the designs are unusual, without the tightness of comparable lenses. There is an unusual open space in the rear area of the optical path that practically screams "insert stabilizer here".
Again, I thought we were talking Olympus here, so...
