Glass Prices
Dear J-
Minor thought: the new “kit lens”, a 12~60mm f/2.8-4, for the Olympus E-3 provides a 74 to 17 degree angle of view (horizontally), which matches up with a 24~120mm lens on the 35mm format. Because the 4/3rds system lenses appear to be computed to provide equivalent horizontal views, you get a little extra on the vertical dimension thanks to the aspect ratio, and thus a smidge more coverage, diagonally, as well.
A few years ago, the first large-sensor compact (Sony’s DSC-R1) was touted as providing dSLR capabilities in a relatively small package. It, too, was sold with a relatively bright (equivalent) 24~120mm lens (to fit the reduced sensor size, the actual focal lengths are 14.3~71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8). It made a lot of sense for Sony who, at the time, lacked any real presence in the dSLR market (the R-1 was announced bare months before the sale of Konica Minolta assets, including the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha system, to Sony), despite being the OEM manufacturer of choice for most dSLR sensors, and its valuable co-branding agreement with Carl Zeiss. The costs involved in developing a new lens mount are not to be taken lightly, and perhaps Sony would have ventured in that direction had the Maxxum system not become available.
Remember that through 2005-06, both Kyocera/Yashica/Contax and Konica Minolta exited the camera business — Contax would have been a more natural fit, I think, for Sony than developing a ZA (Zeiss Alpha) branding for Maxxum. Except that the Contax brand was hopelessly fragmented into several niche ranges — luxury compacts, luxury SLRs, luxury AF rangefinders, and, er, luxury medium format — that failed to play on the strong heritage of Zeiss except as a premium product; the Contax N series wasn’t broadly compatible with the parallel-selling classic Contax SLR line — you could adapt the 645 lenses, but not the manual focus line. That was an acceptable tradeoff for Canon and Minolta when they dropped manual focus, but to leave both products in the lineup … it felt a little like they’d suddenly spread themselves too thin after the reasonable ’70’s successes with the classic SLRs and later compacts.
The R-1’s lens is a gem, and considering the number of people who’ve never swapped the kit lens off their SLRs, it provides a good range for most folks. One might reasonably assume that the reason we haven’t seen an equivalent Zeiss lens for the Alpha mount is because without a mirror box to design around, the optical elves were free to put elements closer to the image plane. I would expect the Olympus lens to be similarly well-received and indeed, it appears to exceed the performance of the earlier premium kit lens, the 14~54mm f/2.8-3.5. It’s slightly faster than the Zeiss R-1 lens (and yes, I know about actual light gathering and depth of field control and honestly, am quite tired of the whole discussion — depth of field is secondary to exposure calculation for me), but here’s the kicker: the R-1 was sold at what was probably a loss-leader price of $999 (consider that the sensor bears remarkable similarities to the Nikon D80 & D200 sensor, albeit smaller), as that’s what the market would bear for a dSLR-like camera at the time, with the benchmark Digital Rebel/D300 going for the same price.
The Olympus 12~60mm lists for $900, three years on from the R-1. Granted, good glass is going to be pricey, but it’s still a significant jump over the 14~54mm ($600 at launch in 2003) and getting into difficult money territory for lots of people — compare the slightly slower Nikkor 24~120mm (f/3.5-5.6), which runs approximately $500 new and provides, like the 12~60, an ultrasonic motor but adds optical stabilization on top of it. My theory is that there’s some economies of scale at work here; the userbase of Nikon lenses is much larger than that of Zuiko Digital people, so other technologies (stabilization, ultrasonic motors) are able to trickle down at lower costs.
I’ll have to give some more consideration to why Contax died a relatively lonely death, while Alpha rose from the grave thanks to Sony, later. My hypothes is that Sony wanted into the dSLR market and, branding issues aside, Minolta had a far more complete lineup/design ready than Contax had to offer. Also, the curious situation of used E-330 prices, which, judging from their current level, might make you think that using the camera would set your eyes on FIRE (how many other articluated-screen Live View cameras can you think of?)
Mike
