> But surely the D2 and, indeed, all the compact
> digital Leicas fall foul of the comments made by Leica on
> quality requirements?
I think you have to agree that the D2 was, at it's introduction, far and away the best small sensor camera. You have to compare like with like. The Leica comments re quality refer to 4/3 and FF against the APS-C sensor.
In the end, Leica needs to surivive
> commercially and if there is a solid business in branding
> a Four Thirds body, how could they not do it?
Is there solid business in 4/3?
Personally I feel it's the (film)APS of the digital world, too few takers and, compared to other sensor sizes, too many problems. All I know is when ever this question is raised to Leica management they dismiss the format.
I have the feeling that Pana/Oly will go 4/3 and Pana/Leica will go APS-C; this makes sense from Pana's point of view, they have a foot in both camps. 4/3 is IMHO an non-starter untill someone like Canon, Nikon or Kodak take it up, and I don't thinkthe first two will. Kodak have signed up to 4/3 but seem very disinterested in making a 4/3 camera.
> I'd also expect Panasonic to produce Leica-branded lenses,
> though I agree that this doesn 't necessarily mean they
> will be designed or manufactured in Germany and nor will
> it mean Leica will produce their own Four Thirds body, but
> a Leica-branded Panasonic Four Thirds surely seems
> entirely logical and would continue the established
> policy.
See above re 4/3 cameas.
Leica have virtually dismissed producing lenses other mounts a la Zeiss.
These comments are only my interpretation of various LFI articals and forum replys from Leica people.