Panasonic Precursor?

M

merlin

Established
Local time
7:46 AM
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
58
Location
north carolina
View My Gallery
Last edited:
Old news and not a junior M8 by any means.

It's Panasonic's 4:3 system camera. Haven't paid that close attention to it, but I hear the reviews are mostly positive if you want an SLR and the small sensor isn't a problem for you.
 
Only about 6 months old and less than rapturous reception. Mostly positive? The lens is good but the body is a bit of a clunker. You shouldn't attach credibility to NYT's (or any other paper's) "experts". If they were any good, they'd be out there taking pictures, not writing syndicated columns to educate the Great Unwashed. The M8 will be in an entirely different league.
 
Yeah........... and the L1 already has a successor--really pisses me off to buy some high-priced digital then two or three months later, see an improved version. I just won't be lured into that kind of BS myself.
 
Matthew said:
Old news and not a junior M8 by any means.

It's Panasonic's 4:3 system camera. Haven't paid that close attention to it, but I hear the reviews are mostly positive if you want an SLR and the small sensor isn't a problem for you.
Click to expand...
But the viewfinder is not regarded too highly. It doesn't really matter as these camera's will be used mainly with AF.
 
Well, I don't see a DSLR successor on Panasonics website.

But for me, this is the kind of digital I could consider getting. I like the analog stlye shutter speed & aperture setting. The resolution is sufficent. IS & decent glass (LEICA D VARIO-ELMARIT 14-50mm/F2.8-3.5 ASPH.) with a useful range (28 - 100 eqiv.) and with MF available if you'd like. Being a semi-standard mount (four thirds) there are some other lenses available. The flash is able to do ceiling bounce which would make it actually useful. A bit expensive for what it it - and it is hardly perfect, but for what I'd use it for it would make much more sense than a M8. I'll keep my Summicron on my CL and at 50mm, thank you.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I would also expect it to be the only DSLR I bought for as long as possible. I don't do the "gotta have the latest and greatest" game... 🙂

William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill58 sums it up for me -- the frequency with which the manufacturers update the digital cameras makes it extremely hard for me to justify spending serious money to buy one.
 
The L1 can be had for 1500-1600 USD (street) in Japan, with the "Leicasonic" lens included ... everywhere, sales is very disappointing ... and sluggish. There was a review giving it only 3 something on a 5 scale regarding image quality and operability.
 
sdai said:
The L1 can be had for 1500-1600 USD (street) in Japan, with the "Leicasonic" lens included ... everywhere, sales is very disappointing ... and sluggish. There was a review giving it only 3 something on a 5 scale regarding image quality and operability.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I didn't read enough reviews...will be more cautious in future.
 
I wonder why almost all "reviewers" in the US or Europe all overlooked this ... 😀

l1_body_08l.jpg


(Potential) buyers beware ... it's NOT a freaking Leica lens 😉
 
So is that like my "Made in Japan" CL isn't a Leica either? 😀

William
 
wlewisiii said:
So is that like my "Made in Japan" CL isn't a Leica either? 😀

William
Click to expand...


Only Wetzlar, mate. If you are using anything else, like Japan, Portugal,Canada,maybe even Solms we will form a hollow square, rip your buttons off and drum you off the forum....😀
 
This does raise the question of whether or not Leica actually designs and/or builds these digital camera lenses or whether they're buying in designs from other manufacturers and giving them the seal of approval by putting a Leica badge on them? (I was told by a Leica dealer about 15 years ago that the first 28-70 mm zoom for the R series was made by Sigma and that would tie in with the fact that it was certainly significantly cheaper than other comparable R series optics.) There was a lot of talk when the first Leica Digilux came out that the lens was the one from the Canon Powershot G2. They look absolutely identical, they have an absolutely identical specification and appear to perform in exactly the same way in terms of distortions - I've always been convinced that they are the same. Particularly noticeable is the identical, irritating barrel distortion. Mind you, this still seems to be de rigeur at the wideangle end of digital compact zoom lenses! I must admit, I find it hard to believe that Leica would be putting so much development effort into lenses for digital compacts.
Provided the lenses are up to standard of course, then it really doesn't matter.
Now, is there a strikingly similar lens to this one in the Olympus range...
 
Mark Wood said:
Now, is there a strikingly similar lens to this one in the Olympus range...
Click to expand...

Butbut... If you're refering to the new Leica FourThirds lens, I must disagree.

1) Olympus has no 14-50 lens, only a 14-45 and a 14-54. The 14-45 has a different diaphragm range, too. Also, it's considered the bottom range lens, the 14-54 is the high-end range. You wouldn't compare a Leica lens to an Olympus bottom range lens ? Let's do it anyway.

2) Then again, Olympus's 14-45 isn't weather proofed, the 14-54 is. No mention of weather proofing regarding Leica's lens.

3) Leica's lens is a 16 elements in 12 groups design. The Olympus 14-54 is 15 elements in 11 groups. The 14-45 is 12 elements in 10 groups. Looks all very different to me.

4) Oh yes, the Leica has image stabilisation in 2 modes ! None of the Olympus lenses have that.

Other "comparable" Olympus lenses are a 14-35 f2.0 fixed, a 17.5-45 f3.5-5.6 and then there's 2 Sigma 18-50 lenses.

If you were referring to the Leica FourThirds lens, I don't understand where you got that bit about a "strikingly similar lens".


Peter.
 
Apologies for the confusion - I was referring to the 4/3 lens but was asking a question (and forgot the question mark!) rather than stating that there is a similar lens in the Olympus range, which I know there isn't. Or at least there isn't yet... Aren't Sigma also introducing 4/3 lenses?
 
wlewisiii said:
... and with MF available if you'd like.
Click to expand...

william,

the lens being able to be manually focused is one thing.
deciding about whether you focus corretly, the other.
and, having looked through an oly 330, i have sincerest doubts about that finder. it is soooooo smaaaallllllll - you have no chance of focusing on the finder picture at all. you need to use the AF measurement based indicator.

so, though the cam looks acceptable on the paper, i do not believe it meets the requirements of someone who has learned to value a real rangefinder.

cheers,
sebastian

(ps: hooray! my RD1 is on the way!)
 
Mark Wood said:
Apologies for the confusion - I was referring to the 4/3 lens but was asking a question (and forgot the question mark!) rather than stating that there is a similar lens in the Olympus range, which I know there isn't. Or at least there isn't yet... Aren't Sigma also introducing 4/3 lenses?
Click to expand...

Ah, ok 🙂 I got confused because of the lack of question mark.

Sigma has indeed introduced a number of 4/3 lenses. The full list is on this site.


Peter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom