Leica & Lumix

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mybokeh, Aug 3, 2006.

  1. mybokeh

    mybokeh Guest

    I know that the Leica C-Lux & D-Lux are rebranded into Panasonic Lumix
    models (at a hefty cost reduction). Other than not having the red dot,
    are there any other significant differences in the models. I believe
    the senors are the same, as are the lenses. But is the build quality
    the same? is one metal and one plastic? I thank you in advance for your
    comments.
     
    mybokeh, Aug 3, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. mybokeh

    Roy G Guest

    Hi.

    I think you have got the re-branding arse for elbow. The cameras are made
    by Panasonic, the lenses are made by Panasonic.

    I am not even sure if the Leica factory is still in existence. The whole
    point of Leicas was that they were not Mass Produced, and what made them
    expensive was the care and precision with which they were built. Their
    lenses never were state of the art design.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Aug 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roy G wrote:
    []
    ... although the lenses they now design for Panasonic seem to produce
    better images than any of the competition, and have some of the most
    effective image stabilisation.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 3, 2006
    #3
  4. mybokeh

    Marvin Guest

    I have a Lumix, DMC-LZ3. The case looks metallic, but when
    I open any of the three doors, I see it is plastic. That
    doesn't bother me. I don't expect to use a digicam for a
    very long time. The Lumix I bought replaced an Olympus that
    was only 4 1/2 years old. Like for computers, the half-life
    of digicam technology is 2 years or less, so my Oly was
    archaic. Frequently replacing the camera may seem a costly
    way to do photography, but I surely saved the price of the
    new camera - and more - by not paying for film and
    development. One trip last year, the photos I took would
    have used up more than 20 rolls of color film. My wife took
    even more photos on that trip, with her digicam, and we
    rarely duplicate each other's photos.
     
    Marvin, Aug 3, 2006
    #4
  5. mybokeh

    ASAAR Guest

    A magazine review that compared the Panasonic and Leica versions
    (don't recall if it was the C-Lux or D-Lux) didn't find a difference
    between the two cameras other than plastic vs. metal case, and that
    the Leica version included a superior software package that added
    enough value to take much of the sting out of the Leica's higher
    price. I don't recall any indication that the Panasonic's build
    quality was lower. If it's any help in identifying whether it was a
    C-Lux or D-Lux, I believe that the review mentioned that the camera
    offered choices between three image aspect ratios, possibly 4:3, 3:2
    and one other that I can't even guess at. I may be mistaken though.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Snip>
    I am happy to report that the Leica factory is still in existance, and
    feeding a thriving market, with 50-year-old Leica cameras selling for
    £1000-plus, and new ones outwith the reach of ordinary photographers.

    Leica lenses, designed and made just after WW2, still outperform many modern
    lenses. Those designed for Panasonic and made under strict supervision from
    Leica are simply superlative. If you can design a twelve-times zoom lens
    that maintains it's maximum aperture throughuot the zoom range, let us see
    it. Nikon users, take note!

    Have a look on E-bay.

    Likewise, Rolls Royce Motors is now owned by Hitler's little plaything,
    Volkswagen. How times change!

    Dennis.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Aug 4, 2006
    #6
  7. mybokeh

    minnesotti Guest

    Panasonic LX1 was added Photoshop Elements 4 (with ACR as a raw
    converter) and rebranded into Leica D-Lux 2.

    Panasonic LX2 got SilkyPix which I consider the best universal Raw
    converter so far, and the camera's price was reduced by 1/5 compared
    with LX1. It is much more attractive proposition than LX1. I have LX1,
    and I do not think that I will be tempted to get LX2. LX2 has got a
    larger resolution, thus the burst speed is less. I am not happy with
    that.

    ...
     
    minnesotti, Aug 4, 2006
    #7
  8. mybokeh

    mybokeh Guest

    Thanks to all who responded. I appreciate your opinions and input.
    point--the creation of images--is the same whether the camera says
    Leica or Lumix. The software issue isn't important to me since I'm
    already using PS CS2 and RawShooter. Sure, I have a bit of a dream of
    having a Leica, but, as one poster pointed out, a Leica digital is not
    the same as a Leica film because of the constantly changing
    technology. As long as the lenses and sensors are the same, I can't see
    sinking another 200-300 dollars into the Leica branded version over the
    Panasonic. I would rather save that cash and buy a classic Leica film
    camera.

    Thanks again!
     
    mybokeh, Aug 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Sensible thinking!
     
    Dennis Pogson, Aug 4, 2006
    #9
  10. mybokeh

    J. Clarke Guest

    Then where _is_ the M7 made?
     
    J. Clarke, Aug 5, 2006
    #10
  11. mybokeh

    per Guest

    Now, that's far from correct, the Volkswagen factory was initiated by the
    british supervisors right after WWII, and funded with US Marshall aid money.
    Rolls-Royce Motor Cars is a BMW subsidiary responsible for the manufacture
    of the Rolls-Royce Phantom while VAG (Volkswagen) "only" make Bentleys.
    /per
     
    per, Aug 5, 2006
    #11
  12. mybokeh

    Bill Funk Guest

    I don't think the VW plant at Wolfsburg was initiated by the British;
    it was built in 1941, although I don't think it made the VW as we know
    it, but the factory was used to make JU88s.
    Propduction of Beetles in 1942 was about 150 or so, as well as over
    500 Schwimmwagens.
    In 1945, the British took over, and in 1946, production of Beetles
    reached 1000 a month. But, the factory was in a shambles, and
    production dropped as the factory wasn't repaired (it was to be sold).
    Production picked up again with Nordhoff at the helm.
     
    Bill Funk, Aug 5, 2006
    #12
  13. Don't wish to start WW2 again! The earlier remarks about Leica lenses being
    crappy got me annoyed, as I simply don't accept this. There ARE some " soft"
    early Leica lenses and these are well-documented, but the vast bulk of their
    post-war coated lenses were streets ahead of the competition and only
    equalled by Zeiss until the Japs got their rare-earth glasses to the
    marketplace.

    As the owner of a mint 1950's Leica which works beautifully, people who
    knock Leica annoy me. Does anyone really believe that these modern plastic
    fantastics will be working in fifty-odd year's time?

    PS- I do own a top-of-the-range digital too, so I'm not knocking the
    technology!

    Dennis.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Aug 5, 2006
    #13
  14. mybokeh

    ASAAR Guest

    If the plastic holds up and proprietary batteries are still
    available, sure. Sort of. Many cameras now maintain settings and
    power the internal clock using a small rechargeable battery soldered
    to an internal circuit board. If these batteries lose most of their
    capacity it shouldn't be a problem. If they fail it would be, and
    most will probably fail well before 50 years pass. I'd guess (and
    hope) that internal batteries aren't used by DSLRs.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 5, 2006
    #14
  15. mybokeh

    ColinD Guest

    Yes, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9, the modern TV format. The 8 megapixels refers
    to the 16:9 format, as does the 28mm equivalent focal length. The 3:2
    and 4:3 formats are achieved by cropping the sensor image longways, so
    3:2 is equal to 13.5:9 and 6.75 MP, and 4:3 is equal to 12:9 and 6 MP.

    For most people shooting at 3:2 or 4:3 the cameras is roughly 6
    megapixel.

    Colin D.
     
    ColinD, Aug 6, 2006
    #15
  16. mybokeh

    ASAAR Guest

    Ah, yes. Thanks for refreshing my memory. The review also
    mentioned that this was unlike most cameras that also offer wide
    format images. They tend to have 4:3 sensors, and crop them,
    resulting in fewer pixels for the wider format images.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 6, 2006
    #16
  17. mybokeh

    Bri. Guest

    In ColinD typed...
    I can only speak for the FZ30, but in that respect, the 8M refers to the
    4x3 format.

    ie
    3264 x 2448 = 8M (4:3)
    3248 x 2160 = 7M (3:2)
    3072 x 1728 = 5.5M (16:9)
     
    Bri., Aug 6, 2006
    #17
  18. mybokeh

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Well my canon 350d has a second battery CR2016 for date/time.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Aug 6, 2006
    #18
  19. mybokeh

    ColinD Guest

    oops. You might be right, but I interpreted the writeup as I said, but
    that could be wrong. On second thoughts, though, why specify 28mm eqv.
    for 16:9, inferring less coverage with the other two formats, I wonder?
    If they crop the vertical dimension, I would expect the greatest
    coverage to be with the 4:3 ratio. Clues, anyone?

    Colin D.
     
    ColinD, Aug 6, 2006
    #19
  20. mybokeh

    ASAAR Guest

    I guess you missed my reply that preceded Brian's by several
    hours? I think that you're both correct. As I said, the magazine
    review remarked that the Panasonic/Leica cameras went against the
    tide in reserving the greatest resolution for the wide 16:9 format,
    cropping the sensor to produce the other two image aspect ratios.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 6, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.