Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

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

  1. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, John Bean
    says...
    > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:56:27 +0100, Rob Morley
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    > >01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
    > > says...
    > >
    > >> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
    > >>

    > >Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
    > >so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really. :)

    >
    > I wonder why nobody calls a bus a "buse" then, or a boss a
    > bosse, or a... ;-)
    >

    Because 'bu' and 'bo' end in vowels, but 'len' ends with a consonant -
    didn't they teach you anything in school? :)
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
    1. Advertising

  2. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <C29EC943.85D6%>, Unspam
    says...
    >
    >
    > > Richard Polhill wrote:
    > >
    > >> No need for my regular diatribe on the subject of the use of the
    > >> non-existent word "lense" in place of "lens".

    > >
    > > You're not even involved in this thread but had to post this usual crap?
    > >
    > > Who cares if some spell it wrong?
    > >
    > > You had it right when you said "No need"

    >
    > We must have standards.
    >

    That's the sort of rigid thinking that discourages originality and
    creativity in kids these days - they should be encouraged to communicate
    their ideas however it suits them (even if people can't figure out what
    they mean because the spelling and grammar are 'original' and
    'creative').
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
    1. Advertising

  3. Sammy

    Roger Guest

    "Rob Morley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <C29EC943.85D6%>, Unspam
    > says...
    >>
    >>
    >> > Richard Polhill wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> No need for my regular diatribe on the subject of the use of the
    >> >> non-existent word "lense" in place of "lens".
    >> >
    >> > You're not even involved in this thread but had to post this usual
    >> > crap?
    >> >
    >> > Who cares if some spell it wrong?
    >> >
    >> > You had it right when you said "No need"

    >>
    >> We must have standards.
    >>

    > That's the sort of rigid thinking that discourages originality and
    > creativity in kids these days - they should be encouraged to communicate
    > their ideas however it suits them (even if people can't figure out what
    > they mean because the spelling and grammar are 'original' and
    > 'creative').

    However, lense is a word that has a meaning already, thus:

    a. trans. To make lean; to macerate. b. intr. To become lean.

    a1000 in Napier OE. Glosses 32/1156 Macero..ic hlænsie. c1175 Lamb. Hom. 147
    Mon lense his fleis hwenne he him efe lutel to etene and lesse to drinke.
    c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 Mannes lichame ihalsne [Lamb. MS. lense] iwis,
    enne me hine pined mid hunger and mid urste.

    Hence lensing vbl. n., macerating.

    c1175 Lamb. Hom. 147 Ac he munege us an oer rode to berene et is inemned
    Carnis maceratio fleises lensing. c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 An oer
    [rode]..at is cleped Carnis maceracio at is lichames hlensing.
     
    Roger, Jun 20, 2007
  4. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, Roger
    says...

    > However, lense is a word that has a meaning already, thus:
    >
    > a. trans. To make lean; to macerate. b. intr. To become lean.
    >
    > a1000 in Napier OE. Glosses 32/1156 Macero..ic hlænsie. c1175 Lamb. Hom.. 147
    > Mon lense his fleis hwenne he him efe lutel to etene and lesse to drinke.
    > c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 Mannes lichame ihalsne [Lamb. MS. lense] iwis,
    > enne me hine pined mid hunger and mid urste.
    >
    > Hence lensing vbl. n., macerating.
    >
    > c1175 Lamb. Hom. 147 Ac he munege us an oer rode to berene et is inemned
    > Carnis maceratio fleises lensing. c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 An oer
    > [rode]..at is cleped Carnis maceracio at is lichames hlensing.
    >

    I can just about handle Gawain or the Canterbury Tales, but that stuff's
    a bit too obscure. :)
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
  5. Sammy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:50 +0100, Rob Morley <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, John
    >McWilliams
    > says...
    >> Rob Morley wrote:
    >> > In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    >> > 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
    >> > says...
    >> >
    >> >> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
    >> >>
    >> > Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
    >> > so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really. :)

    >>
    >>
    >> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several "lens'es'".
    >>

    >Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.


    Like "it's", for example.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Bill Clinton agreed Monday to help Hillary
    campaign in Iowa. He's had a lot of success
    there before. This time his task is to warn
    Iowans about the dangers of the John Edwards
    health care plan and not about the presence
    of a pool table in their community.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 20, 2007
  6. Sammy

    dj_nme Guest

    Arthur Seltzer wrote:
    > dj_nme wrote:
    >

    <snip crap about "lense" Vs "lens">
    >>
    >> The "Leica" lenses on the Panasonic compacts are manufactured in Japan
    >> (unless some-one has a Lumix with "Made in X" stamped on the bottom to
    >> prove me wrong) by Panasonic under licence from Leica.
    >> Assuming that you feel that you can trust Panasonic to stick closely
    >> to the designs licenced to them, then the lenses should be just as
    >> good as anything that could be produced in the Solms factory.

    >
    >
    > Whether the lens is truly made by Leica, made to Leica's specs by
    > Panasonic, or simply a Panasonic lens with Leica's licensed name is
    > something not worth spending too much concern on. Panasonic makes some
    > very respectable optics and is well regarded in the professional
    > broadcast market for their video cameras. At the other extreme, I own
    > one of the most basic Panasonic camcorders with a Panasonic lens and the
    > optical quality exceeds expectation. Finally, on a fixed lens camera
    > with a small format lens, the difference between a Panasonic lens and a
    > Leica lens is quite likely immeasurable.


    I was quite impressed with the Lumix FZ20 that a college purchased
    before he went on a world trip.
    As far as I'm aware, the "Leica" version of this camera (and other
    Panasonic digicams) is identical besides some cosmetic differences and
    (of course) the (coveted) red badge on the front.

    > If you want more control over
    > lens quality, move up to a true SLR and choose from a wide selection of
    > lenses. If the Lumix style camera is what you are looking for, know that
    > it has been well reviewed, buy, and enjoy.


    I wholeheartedly agree, most of the Lumix range look quite useful and
    versatile.
    I didn't buy one because I'd just bought Pentax ist-DS, to use my
    K-mount lenses on.
    Not because I didn't like it (or wasn't impressed), but because buying
    (yet) another digicam would mean that it would probably just mostly sit
    on a shelf, rather than being used (to take pictures) as it should be.
     
    dj_nme, Jun 20, 2007
  7. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:51 +0100, Rob Morley
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, John Bean
    > says...
    >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:56:27 +0100, Rob Morley
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    >> >01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
    >> > says...
    >> >
    >> >> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
    >> >>
    >> >Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
    >> >so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really. :)

    >>
    >> I wonder why nobody calls a bus a "buse" then, or a boss a
    >> bosse, or a... ;-)
    >>

    >Because 'bu' and 'bo' end in vowels, but 'len' ends with a consonant -
    >didn't they teach you anything in school? :)


    I had bad vowel troubles when I was young. I think it was my
    vowels anyway...

    Ok then, since you moved the goalposts... why isn't the
    "Marine Corps" called the "Marine Corpse"?

    Is either spelling acceptable? I mean who cares whether
    something is misspelled, nobody dies... Oops.

    Ok, so the wordplay was a little dark and in bad taste but
    it proves a point. It often *does* matter that words are
    spelled correcly. Spelling counts.


    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jun 20, 2007
  8. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, John Bean
    says...

    > I had bad vowel troubles when I was young. I think it was my
    > vowels anyway...


    Diarrhoea can cause vowel problems.
    >
    > Ok then, since you moved the goalposts... why isn't the
    > "Marine Corps" called the "Marine Corpse"?
    >
    > Is either spelling acceptable? I mean who cares whether
    > something is misspelled, nobody dies... Oops.


    Hehe. :)
    >
    > Ok, so the wordplay was a little dark and in bad taste


    Jolly good.

    > but
    > it proves a point. It often *does* matter that words are
    > spelled correcly. Spelling counts.
    >

    I always thought integers count.

    Butt, joking a side, your rite of coarse.
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
  9. Sammy

    Allen Guest

    Rob Morley wrote:
    > In article <>, John Bean
    > says...
    >
    >> I had bad vowel troubles when I was young. I think it was my
    >> vowels anyway...

    >
    > Diarrhoea can cause vowel problems.
    >> Ok then, since you moved the goalposts... why isn't the
    >> "Marine Corps" called the "Marine Corpse"?
    >>
    >> Is either spelling acceptable? I mean who cares whether
    >> something is misspelled, nobody dies... Oops.

    >
    > Hehe. :)
    >> Ok, so the wordplay was a little dark and in bad taste

    >
    > Jolly good.
    >
    >> but
    >> it proves a point. It often *does* matter that words are
    >> spelled correcly. Spelling counts.
    >>

    > I always thought integers count.
    >
    > Butt, joking a side, your rite of coarse.


    Just for kicks, I ran your last line (a good one, by the way) through
    Babelfish, translating it from English to French
    and then back to English, with this result:

    Join, while joking a side, your rite of crude.

    When I entered you response with correct spelling, I got the follwing:

    But, juking on side, you are right, naturally.

    Other than "joking aside", it gave much better results.

    I rest our cases.

    Allen
     
    Allen, Jun 20, 2007
  10. Allen wrote:
    > Rob Morley wrote:
    >> In article <>, John Bean


    >>
    >> Butt, joking a side, your rite of coarse.

    >
    > Just for kicks, I ran your last line (a good one, by the way) through
    > Babelfish, translating it from English to French
    > and then back to English, with this result:
    >
    > Join, while joking a side, your rite of crude.
    >
    > When I entered you response with correct spelling, I got the follwing:
    >
    > But, juking on side, you are right, naturally.
    >
    > Other than "joking aside", it gave much better results.
    >
    > I rest our cases.


    And, well done, Sirs, well done!

    There is far too much juking on the side (and frontally) in this here NG!

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 20, 2007
  11. Sammy

    m II Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:50 +0100, Rob Morley <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, John
    >> McWilliams
    >> says...
    >>> Rob Morley wrote:
    >>>> In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    >>>> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
    >>>> says...
    >>>>
    >>>>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
    >>>> so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really. :)
    >>>
    >>> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several "lens'es'".
    >>>

    >> Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.

    >
    > Like "it's", for example.


    It is NOT used on plurals.

    ==============================================
    It's
    "It's" is a contraction. It is short for "it is". It's not a way to
    ascribe a property to some "it". Yes, I know that this would make sense
    given that the general rule for forming a possessive is to tack on "'s":
    fool's errand, brewer's yeast, horse's ass. "It's" is an exception to
    this rule, and I honestly apologize on behalf of the infuriating English
    language. I didn't invent this stupid rule, but it's hardwired into my
    brain like gender of nouns to French speakers.

    Examples:
    It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's
    a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all.
    You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around, that's what
    it's all about.

    Its
    "Its" is a possessive pronoun. Its interpretation is something like
    "that which belongs to it", where "it" stands for some previously
    defined object. In the previous sentence, the object being referred to
    is the word "its", and the thing that belongs to it is its interpretation.

    Examples:
    He left it dead, and with its head he went galumphing back
    Love rears its ugly head.

    http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html
    ===============================================




    mike
     
    m II, Jun 21, 2007
  12. Sammy

    m II Guest

    Les wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:20:08 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    > As the owner of a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5, I disagree. I have been
    > taking photos for 65 years on this camera has produced some of the
    > best photos I have ever taken. It's not perfect and I hate the zoom
    > control - but I have never owned a perfect camera. The lens is superb
    > and having experienced the lens stabilisation, I will never buy a
    > camera without it from now on.
    >
    > Have a look at the reviews rather than believe everything in this
    > thread. This is a good starting point:
    > www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/
    >
    > Les



    The noise issue seems to be a CONTINUOUS point of contention. Great
    lens, sub par pictures.I have the FZ30 and I speak from personal use.



    ========================================
    If you look at the list of pros and cons above you'll notice that the
    pros are mostly concerned with the camera and the cons are mostly
    concerned with the image, or more specifically the effect of noise and
    Venus III noise reduction. This sums up the FZ50 perfectly; a fantastic
    camera with a less than stellar sensor / processor, and way too many pixels.

    And so what we have is a camera that stretches its sensor to almost
    breaking point and compensates for the lack of sensitivity in anything
    but the brightest conditions by using excessive noise reduction. The
    FZ50 is an excellent 5 or 6MP camera, but a rather less impressive 10MP
    camera.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page19.asp
    =========================================
     
    m II, Jun 21, 2007
  13. m II wrote:
    > Bill Funk wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:50 +0100, Rob Morley <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, John
    >>> McWilliams says...
    >>>> Rob Morley wrote:
    >>>>> In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    >>>>> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation
    >>>>>> came from.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is
    >>>>> 'lenses', so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious
    >>>>> really. :)
    >>>>
    >>>> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several
    >>>> "lens'es'".
    >>>>
    >>> Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.

    >>
    >> Like "it's", for example.

    >
    > It is NOT used on plurals.
    >
    > ==============================================
    > It's
    > "It's" is a contraction. It is short for "it is". It's not a way to


    Er, yes, thanks, all correct. However, I am sure the previous posters
    were responding t.i.c. to a similar post of mine, which in turn, yada,
    yada....

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 21, 2007
  14. m II wrote:
    []
    > The noise issue seems to be a CONTINUOUS point of contention. Great
    > lens, sub par pictures.I have the FZ30 and I speak from personal use.


    With the earlier FZ5 and FZ20 (both 5MP cameras) noise is not a
    significant problem in practice providing you keep the camera set to ISO
    80 or 100. Using lower ISO rather than auto would help with your FZ30 as
    well. Using the Digital Camera Noise Reduction function in programs like
    Paint Shop Pro will also help.

    I would not expect the noise to be even visible in normal use unless you
    print at 8 x 10 inches or pixel-peep at 1:1 zoom.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 21, 2007
  15. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <dXmei.4551$tB5.4269@edtnps90>, m II
    says...
    > Bill Funk wrote:
    > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:50 +0100, Rob Morley <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <>, John
    > >> McWilliams
    > >> says...
    > >>> Rob Morley wrote:
    > >>>> In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    > >>>> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
    > >>>> says...
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>> Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
    > >>>> so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really. :)
    > >>>
    > >>> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several "lens'es'".
    > >>>
    > >> Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.

    > >
    > > Like "it's", for example.

    >
    > It is NOT used on plurals.
    >

    I think maybe you need to recalibrate your irony meter.
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 21, 2007
  16. Sammy

    John Turco Guest

    Rich wrote:
    >
    > On Jun 13, 12:12 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:


    <edited, for brevity>

    > > 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.



    Hello, Rich:

    Bingo! Slap a German name on >any< optical device, and it magically
    becomes God's gift to photography.

    That's what the marketers (or is it, marketeers?) seem to think, at
    least. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
  17. Sammy

    John Turco Guest

    dj_nme wrote:

    <edited, for brevity>

    > The difference between using colour/color as a reason why both "lens" &
    > "lense" are correct is what's known as a "false arguement".
    > The spelling "colour" is used by every native English speaking country,
    > except for the USA, which uses the spelling "color".
    > No native English speaking country uses the spelling "lense", it may be
    > an attempt to make "cute" or "chibi" variation of the English spelling.
    > It just isn't correct in any of the dictionaries which I own.
    > Webster, Oxford and Macquarie all disagree with "lense".


    <edited>

    Hello, DJ:

    Noah Webster (1758-1843), the famous American lexicographer, changed the
    spelling of "colour" (and "humour," etc.), by the way.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
  18. Sammy

    John Turco Guest

    EOS wrote:

    <edited, for brevity>

    > 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.


    <edited>

    Hello, EOS:

    All very true...provided that they belong to Americans, Europeans,
    Japanese or Koreans, that is. The "quality control" in China's >own<
    factories, leaves a lot to be desired, from what I've seen of "no
    name" Chinese merchandise.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
  19. Sammy

    John Turco Guest

    dj_nme wrote:

    <heavily edited, for brevity>

    > I was quite impressed with the Lumix FZ20 that a college purchased
    > before he went on a world trip.


    <edited>

    Hello, DJ:

    Hmmm. Are you sure that your "college" isn't a university, instead?

    Ask "him," next chance you get! <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
  20. Sammy

    Frank ess Guest

    http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

    Rob Morley wrote:
    > In article <dXmei.4551$tB5.4269@edtnps90>, m II
    > says...
    >> Bill Funk wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:50 +0100, Rob Morley
    >>> <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <>, John
    >>>> McWilliams
    >>>> says...
    >>>>> Rob Morley wrote:
    >>>>>> In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    >>>>>> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
    >>>>>> says...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling
    >>>>>>> variation came from.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is
    >>>>>> 'lenses', so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious
    >>>>>> really. :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several
    >>>>> "lens'es'".
    >>>>>
    >>>> Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.
    >>>
    >>> Like "it's", for example.

    >>
    >> It is NOT used on plurals.
    >>

    > I think maybe you need to recalibrate your irony meter.
     
    Frank ess, Jun 22, 2007
    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:
    1,927
    Frank ess
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Eric
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    489
  3. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    662
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  4. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,782
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
    RichA
    Feb 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page