Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sammy, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Sammy

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <> 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?
    >


    Panasonic nor Leica ever claimed that they did. What both companies have
    claimed is that in order for Panasonic to put the Leica name on their
    cameras they lenses have to meet Leica's specifications. If you think that
    lenses makers only have one grade of lens then once again that makes your a
    dumb ass.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Jun 14, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Sammy

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jun 13, 7:58 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <> 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?
    >


    Once again you miss the whole point of this discussion. We are talking about
    how Panasonic is able to use the Leica name and they are able to do so by
    meeting the lens specifications laid out by Leica. Show me that Kodak or
    anyone else using one of the older highly regarded lenses names has to do
    this. You can't as Kodak has never said to use the name they do that they
    have to meet a specification set out by the lens people. Sony is the same
    way, never a statement. So for all we know Kodak and Sony bought the names
    and are just wily nilly stamping them on anything they want hoping to sucker
    people in. I want to see a public statement that says they aren't doing
    this. And, if you think they wouldn't do this think about Sony's recent
    purchase of Minolta. That is how they got the dSLR camera technology so them
    buying another company for a name they feel will bring in money or licensing
    the name with no quality strings involved doesn't seem that far fetched. If
    this isn't the case then they need to make a public statement indicating
    that just like Leica and Panasonic have done.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Jun 14, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Sammy

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Garrot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:00:41 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>Actually she isn't full of shit. The Leica lens are among the best made.
    >>The
    >>fact that Leica doesn't actually assemble them for Panasonic has nothing
    >>to
    >>do with it. The fact that in order for Panasonic to use the Leica name the
    >>lenses have to made to exactly specifications laid out by Leica is what's
    >>important. Besides if you think that Leica has people sitting around all
    >>day
    >>assembling lenses by hand your the one full of shit. Like everything else
    >>these days the lenses are made in some Asian or other 3rd world country,
    >>but
    >>to Leica's specifications meeting Leica's standards.
    >>
    >>=(8)

    >
    > And you're FOS because I bet the lense is no better than what most
    > other DC manufacturer's use. Putting the name Leica on the lense is
    > just to scam gullible dumb fucks like yourself. Either that or you are
    > an emplioyee form Panasonic that has come here to try and do some
    > damage control and spread BS.



    Right and Leica's and Panasonics public statements to the contrary means
    nothing. Talk about dumb fucker. You take the prize.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Jun 14, 2007
    #43
  4. Sammy

    notbob Guest

    On 2007-06-14, Rich <> wrote:

    > ANYONE pay that for another P&S POS with a 1/2.5" .....


    What kind of dimension designator is 1/2.5"?

    nb
     
    notbob, Jun 14, 2007
    #44
  5. Sammy

    Allen Guest

    Garrot wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:00:41 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Actually she isn't full of shit. The Leica lens are among the best made. The
    >> fact that Leica doesn't actually assemble them for Panasonic has nothing to
    >> do with it. The fact that in order for Panasonic to use the Leica name the
    >> lenses have to made to exactly specifications laid out by Leica is what's
    >> important. Besides if you think that Leica has people sitting around all day
    >> assembling lenses by hand your the one full of shit. Like everything else
    >> these days the lenses are made in some Asian or other 3rd world country, but
    >> to Leica's specifications meeting Leica's standards.
    >>
    >> =(8)

    >
    > And you're FOS because I bet the lense is no better than what most
    > other DC manufacturer's use. Putting the name Leica on the lense is
    > just to scam gullible dumb fucks like yourself. Either that or you are
    > an emplioyee form Panasonic that has come here to try and do some
    > damage control and spread BS.


    Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever believe
    that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert on lenses?
    Allen
     
    Allen, Jun 14, 2007
    #45
  6. Sammy

    DFS Guest


    > Frank, by rebrand I mean that Nikon changed the brand bame of their
    > entry level cameras and lenses. The old brand name in the 1970s of
    > Nikkormat was replaced by the Nikon brand.
    >
    > The Nikkormat EL2 became the Nikon FE.
    >
    > Check it out.
    >
    > Apologies accepted.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both Nikon and Nikkormat used the same lenses. There was no second tier
    lens until the "E" series cheapies, if memory serves.

    dfs
     
    DFS, Jun 14, 2007
    #46
  7. Sammy

    DFS Guest

    >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.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Or unless they get a pot full of money for doing so... which is likely the
    case.
    ds
     
    DFS, Jun 14, 2007
    #47
  8. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    > > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> 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?
    >
    >

    The Panasonic cameras are made in Japan. (check it out)
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 14, 2007
    #48
  9. In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    says...

    >
    > Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever believe
    > that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert on lenses?
    > Allen
    >

    If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 14, 2007
    #49
  10. David J Taylor, Jun 14, 2007
    #50
  11. Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
    []
    > 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


    It depends on what makes the camera "better" for you. There is no single
    absolute measure.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 14, 2007
    #51
  12. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:06:06 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    >> > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> 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?
    >>
    >>

    >The Panasonic cameras are made in Japan. (check it out)


    Don't confuse Rich by introducing facts to one of his
    worthless rants.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jun 14, 2007
    #52
  13. Sammy

    Allen Guest

    Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
    > In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    > says...
    >
    >> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever believe
    >> that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert on lenses?
    >> Allen
    >>

    > If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    > Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.

    To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of the
    subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue here.
    Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the chemistry of
    combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen". Would you respect
    their postings?
    Allen
     
    Allen, Jun 14, 2007
    #53
  14. Allen wrote:
    > Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
    >> In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever
    >>> believe that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert on
    >>> lenses?
    >>> Allen
    >>>

    >> If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    >> Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.

    > To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    > misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of the
    > subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue here.
    > Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the chemistry of
    > combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen". Would you respect
    > their postings?
    > Allen


    My word, the world is turning to my POV. ;-)

    No need for my regular diatribe on the subject of the use of the non-existent
    word "lense" in place of "lens".

    Saves my fingers and my blood pressure.
     
    Richard Polhill, Jun 14, 2007
    #54
  15. Sammy

    Vic Dura Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:45:27 -0500, Allen <> wrote Re
    Re: Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?:

    >To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    >misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of the
    >subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue here.
    >Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the chemistry of
    >combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen". Would you respect
    >their postings?


    No.
    --
    To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.
     
    Vic Dura, Jun 14, 2007
    #55
  16. Sammy

    EOS Guest

    On Jun 13, 4:24 pm, Garrot <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:09:40 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >What's the difference between a crack in the plastic and a dent in the
    > >metal. In the end the result is the same. You case is damaged and the guts
    > >maybe as well. People that think plastic cased cameras are cheap are just
    > >idiots. I can you are unaware of it we have plastic now that can stop
    > >bullets. Besides you drop just about any camera and you have most likely
    > >trashed it. Of course there are some rare miracles but not many.

    >
    > >=(8)

    >
    > Yep, definitely an employee of Panasonic.


    Panasonic Cameras are actually made of metal, at least my FX01
     
    EOS, Jun 14, 2007
    #56
  17. Sammy

    EOS Guest

    On Jun 13, 4:34 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    >
    > > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> 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?


    You've got to be over 60. You think like my dad. EVERYTHING is made in
    China today- iPods, Macs, medical equipment and many cameras and
    lenses. When you build a new factory, the soil you build it on has
    very little to do with the quality of the products it will end up
    producing. Most high tech factories in China are new, well built and
    maintained and are manned with talented, hardworking people. The
    result is a lot of quality products we use every day. Not admitting it
    is maintaining the old western superiority complex, or worse plain
    racism. To the matter itself, Leica like any other brand, know very
    well that the brand name is all they have. if they sell the German
    factory (another hint of the age is your reference to "West Germany"-
    an entity that doesnt exist, at least not in the past 17 years) they
    will not get a fraction of what they'd get if they sell the brand. so
    such a valuable brand is carefully kept by only allowing quality
    products to carry its name, though they can be manufuctured anywhere.
    The argument of the $3000 Leica lens is the most redicilous. it's like
    saying that Canon doesnt make the Elph because they also make a $8000
    1sd. And to the very bottom line- Panasonic "LUMIX" camera with Leica
    lenses are perhaps the best compact camera. They do lack in low light
    performance, but in almost any other benchmark they score higher than
    most.
    Grow up guys, you're too old to argue like children.
     
    EOS, Jun 14, 2007
    #57
  18. Richard Polhill wrote:
    > Allen wrote:
    >> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
    >>> In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    >>> says...
    >>>
    >>>> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever
    >>>> believe that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert on
    >>>> lenses?
    >>>> Allen
    >>>>
    >>> If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    >>> Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.

    >> To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    >> misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of
    >> the subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue
    >> here. Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the
    >> chemistry of combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen".
    >> Would you respect their postings?
    >> Allen

    >
    > My word, the world is turning to my POV. ;-)
    >
    > No need for my regular diatribe on the subject of the use of the
    > non-existent word "lense" in place of "lens".
    >
    > Saves my fingers and my blood pressure.


    Crikey! Where is Floyd now?

    But that's bloody-mindedness, not ignorance.

    --
    john mcwilliams

    Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed
    should be shown in public.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 14, 2007
    #58
  19. Sammy

    Frank ess Guest

    Allen wrote:
    > Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
    >> In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever
    >>> believe that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert
    >>> on lenses? Allen
    >>>

    >> If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    >> Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.

    > To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    > misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of
    > the subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue
    > here. Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the
    > chemistry of combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen".
    > Would you respect their postings?
    > Allen


    Would you respect the opinion of a person whose world view doesn't
    account for societies whose language includes "colour" and "behaviour"
    as correct spellings for familiar phenomena?

    How about someone who refers to "a person" and "their postings"?

    You're correct, anyone can maker typos, but it takes a particularly
    pretentious, narrow-minded, insecure kid to attack someone over a
    customary spelling, and then commit a Skitt's Law-confirming error,
    right here in front of gahd and everybody, so it will circulate in Net
    Space for ever and ever.

    Very sincerely,

    --
    Frank ess
    ¡Viva predisambiguatization!
     
    Frank ess, Jun 14, 2007
    #59
  20. Frank ess wrote:
    >
    >
    > Allen wrote:
    >> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
    >>> In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    >>> says...
    >>>
    >>>> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever
    >>>> believe that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert
    >>>> on lenses? Allen
    >>>>
    >>> If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    >>> Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.

    >> To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    >> misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of
    >> the subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue
    >> here. Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the
    >> chemistry of combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen".
    >> Would you respect their postings?
    >> Allen

    >
    > Would you respect the opinion of a person whose world view doesn't
    > account for societies whose language includes "colour" and "behaviour"
    > as correct spellings for familiar phenomena?


    The words "colour", "color" are perfectly acceptable spellings. "Lense" is not.

    >
    > How about someone who refers to "a person" and "their postings"?


    Sounds good to me. Why do you ask?

    >
    > You're correct, anyone can maker typos, but it takes a particularly
    > pretentious, narrow-minded, insecure kid to attack someone over a
    > customary spelling, and then commit a Skitt's Law-confirming error,
    > right here in front of gahd and everybody, so it will circulate in Net
    > Space for ever and ever.
    >


    To which "customary spelling" are you referring?
     
    Richard Polhill, Jun 15, 2007
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Larsson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,945
    Frank ess
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Eric
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    502
  3. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    688
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  4. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,834
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
    RichA
    Feb 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page