Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

Reply
Thread Tools

Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007
On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2007-06-13, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
> > lenses on those cheap cameras.

>
> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
> and are going to share them with us, right?
>
> nb


The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
a Chinese made Panasonic?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stan Beck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007
You are paying $3000 for the red dot, not the camera. It's not how much
something is worth, but rather how much you can get for it.

--
The smaller the fine print, the less you will like what it says.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 2007-06-13, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
>> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
>> > lenses on those cheap cameras.

>>
>> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
>> and are going to share them with us, right?
>>
>> nb

>
> The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
> made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
> remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
> a Chinese made Panasonic?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Yoshi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007

"Sammy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns994E9644AA0C0451E7A@127.0.0.1...
> On 12 Jun 2007, Yoshi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> You are clueless. There are no "Nikkormat lenses" At the time the
>> Nikkormats were produced, Nikon marketed Nikkor lenses for them.
>> The Series E lenses marketed as "Nikon" weren't rebranded, and were
>> made to sell with the EM and FG series cameras. Don't spread
>> misinformation. If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
>>
>> "Sammy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
>>> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor.
>>> It diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was
>>> ok.
>>>
>>> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses.
>>> (I've only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long
>>> time.)
>>>
>>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l..._10/leica.html
>>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l..._10/index.html
>>>
>>> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which
>>> was very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than
>>> the lenses on similar cameras?
>>>

>>
>> You are clueless. There are no "Nikkormat lenses" At the time the
>> Nikkormats were produced, Nikon marketed Nikkor lenses for them.
>> The Series E lenses marketed as "Nikon" weren't rebranded, and were
>> made to sell with the EM and FG series cameras. Don't spread
>> misinformation. If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
>>
>> Yoshi
>>

>
> "Nikkormat lenses" can mean lenses which are for a Nikkormat. Is
> English your first language?



You apparently didn't even read the original post... or else you are the one
who English comprehension is impaired. The OP specifically mentions
rebranding Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. This precludes your interpretation.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert A. Cunningham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007

"=(" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:466ee3e8$0$14083$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Sammy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
>> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
>> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.
>>
>> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses. (I've
>> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)
>>
>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l..._10/leica.html
>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l..._10/index.html
>>
>> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
>> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
>> lenses on similar cameras?

>
>
> Leica sets the specifications that Panasonic must follow in order to claim
> it is a Leica lens. However, Leica does not make the lens Panasonic does.
> Having owned both a FZ20 and I still own an FZ30 the lenses are very
> impressive. The same is true for the FZ50, however for it the higher
> resolution, small sensor and totally crappy noise reduction makes that
> camera total junk. However, the Leica lenses are fantastic.
>
> =(

Question: I also own the FZ30, but was thinking about getting the FZ50.
Based upon your comments regarding the FZ50, I guess you are saying the FZ30
is a better camera overall. Is that correct?

Thanks,

Robert A. Cunningham


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007
On Jun 13, 6:17 pm, "Stan Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> You are paying $3000 for the red dot, not the camera. It's not how much
> something is worth, but rather how much you can get for it.
>
> --


True, you do pay a premium. Which is why the Leica Digilux 3
(Panasonic L1) costs 50% more than the L1.
But, Leica boosters will tell you...it's got different internal
software....

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007
On Jun 13, 6:44 pm, "Robert A. Cunningham" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> "=(" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:466ee3e8$0$14083$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > "Sammy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
> >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
> >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.

>
> >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses. (I've
> >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)

>
> >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l..._10/leica.html
> >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l..._10/index.html

>
> >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
> >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
> >> lenses on similar cameras?

>
> > Leica sets the specifications that Panasonic must follow in order to claim
> > it is a Leica lens. However, Leica does not make the lens Panasonic does.
> > Having owned both a FZ20 and I still own an FZ30 the lenses are very
> > impressive. The same is true for the FZ50, however for it the higher
> > resolution, small sensor and totally crappy noise reduction makes that
> > camera total junk. However, the Leica lenses are fantastic.

>
> > =(

>
> Question: I also own the FZ30, but was thinking about getting the FZ50.
>


Big mistake. The FZ50 is where Panasonic caved in to the masses and
ladelled on the NR in-camera. Result?
A 10 meg camera with LESS resolution than the old 8 meg!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
notbob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2007
On 2007-06-13, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
> remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
> a Chinese made Panasonic?


Sure. China is not Germany and nobody claimed to be selling $3k 50mm
German Leica lenses of Chinese manufacture. What? Leica can't produce a low end
line and sub it out like everyone else?

nb

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2007
On Jun 13, 7:58 pm, notbob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2007-06-13, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
> > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
> > a Chinese made Panasonic?

>
> Sure. China is not Germany and nobody claimed to be selling $3k 50mm
> German Leica lenses of Chinese manufacture. What? Leica can't produce a low end
> line and sub it out like everyone else?
>
> nb


Sure they can, and they have. But lets not toss around the Leica name
as if their participation amounted to anything more than a badge.
Personally, I would like to see Leica put resources into a good P&S
long zoom lens, just to see what they could come up with, but would
anyone pay the $5000 the resultant camera would cost? And why would
ANYONE pay that for another P&S POS with a 1/2.5" sensor, unless they
were brain-dead?

 
Reply With Quote
 
=\(8\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2007
"Garrot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:07:07 -0700, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>> Panasonic has said that they build the lenses but have to mean Leica's
>>> standards to use their name. Makes sense Leica wouldn't want their name
>>> tarnished with crap lenses. They leave that to Kodak.
>>>
>>> =(

>>
>>Sure. Kodak, who uses the Schneider lens name on THEIR cameras. It is
>>all big con.

>
> Yea, all other lenses besides Leica are crap. I'm pretty certain
> now that our little friend is a Panasonic employee who has come here
> to do damage control by trying to sell us his bullshit.


Until you can show a statement from Kodak or anyone else using a well
respected name that in order for them to put that name on their products
that the lenses have to meet or exceed their quality specifications then
they are questionable. Panasonic and Leica have both stated that in order
for Panasonic to use the Leica name the lenses have to meet Leica
specifications. That is proof. Kodak and others have never made such a
statement. So for all we know they bought the company for the name and just
put it on any old thing. Add to that that for a very long time Kodak used
plastic lenses in their cameras that also adds doubts. I want proof and a
statement saying they have to meet specifications before they can use the
name is that proof.

=(

 
Reply With Quote
 
=\(8\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2007
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> On Jun 13, 12:12 am, "=\(8\)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 1:38 pm, Sammy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
>> >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.

>>
>> >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses.
>> >> (I've
>> >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)

>>
>> >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l...htmlhttp://pan...

>>
>> >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
>> >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
>> >> lenses on similar cameras?

>>
>> > Those Leica lenses are as "Leica" as the lens in an old Kodak.
>> > The biggest con in cheap cameras is namedropping German lens design
>> > companies, that have next to ZERO to do with the lens their name is
>> > stamped on.

>>
>> You are so full of it Rich. I submit that any company that allows there
>> names to be slapped on another's products and has no say in the quality
>> of
>> the products or the quality of the technology said company is responsible
>> for is not a company that makes a good product. Leica is simply not going
>> to
>> let Panasonic of anyone else simply slap their name on a product unless
>> it
>> meets or exceeds their quality and design requirements.

>
> Sure, which is why we see the same chromatic aberration from their P&S
> camera lenses(Panasonics) as everyone else's. Leica with Panasonic,
> Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
> sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
> lenses on those cheap cameras.
>
>


Chromatic aberration means nothing. All lenses are capable of that given the
right circumstances. To use that as your proof just makes you more an ass
and a dumb one too boot!

=(

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Panasonic re-designing mediocre Leica m4/3rds 45mm macro lens? RichA Digital Photography 0 02-02-2011 09:42 PM
What is best (non-Leica) digital slr back for Leica R lenses? TJ Digital Photography 13 12-23-2007 10:46 PM
Is Lumix Leica real Leica? John Navas Digital Photography 1 11-18-2007 09:16 AM
Re: Any experience with Leica Digilux and Panasonic Lumix DMX-LC5 Eric Digital Photography 0 12-24-2004 04:30 AM
Subcompact camera recommendatio - Minolta Dimage Xt, Casio Exilim EX-Z3, or Pentax Optio S? Peter Larsson Digital Photography 5 02-16-2004 11:26 PM



Advertisments