Why there are no native Leica lenses for the Lumix G1

T

Tuolumne

Veteran
Local time
12:07 AM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,005
While everyone is yammering about the "mock" or not mock surprise of a Panasonic executive to a question about a more rangefinder-like body for G1 successors, I found this remark much more interesting:

But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap.
Click to expand...

First of all, I had no idea that digital corrections were being applied in camera to the G1 lens. Perhaps that is why it is so small and so good. (I now understand that these corrections are even applied in RAW mode.)

Second, what happens with adapted lenses? Is there no digital correction applied to them? I would assume so, but who knows.

Third, if Leica is resistant to making lenses that incorporate digital correction for the m4/3rds body, what is the "plan" referred to above for working with them?

/T
 
well

well

If Leica branded lenses designed for the 2x crop and in-camera digital manipulation that the newer Panasonics do, then they'd be getting out of the optics business, and into the software correction business, competing with the lenses and photoshop corrections that Ken Rockwell touts a lot.

I think Leica wants to stay a leading edge optics designer and maker, even though that value in the consumer market might be dwindling with the acceptability of LX3 and G1 in-camera digital tweaks. However, no one doesn't see the value of the Leica name...

Tuolumne said:
While everyone is yammering about the "mock" or not mock surprise of a Panasonic executive to a question about a more rangefinder-like body for G1 successors, I found this remark much more interesting:



First of all, I had no idea that digital corrections were being applied in camera to the G1 lens. Perhaps that is why it is so small and so good. (I now understand that these corrections are even applied in RAW mode.)

Second, what happens with adapted lenses? Is there no digital correction applied to them? I would assume so, but who knows.

Third, if Leica is resistant to making lenses that incorporate digital correction for the m4/3rds body, what is the "plan" referred to above for working with them?

/T
Click to expand...
 
I have wondered too what happens to adapted lenses and if it is a reason why when I did a lens test of many different M mount lenses from different brands and vintages that the results were exactly the same for each lens and no one could ever tell them apart.

Also if Leica does not allow digital corrections then what about the LX3? The lens on that camera is so corrected to death!

Its funny that these things come out on the day that I decide to sell my G1, will probably make it harder to get rid of :) I decided though for a small carry around camera I would rather have my GRD in pocket.
 
If Leica were partnering with Panasonic, why wouldn't they make the optical part of the lens (their expertise) and let Panasonic do the software corrections (their expertise)? Best of both worlds, unless it's just too impractical to separate the design that way.

/T
 
Avotius said:
I have wondered too what happens to adapted lenses and if it is a reason why when I did a lens test of many different M mount lenses from different brands and vintages that the results were exactly the same for each lens and no one could ever tell them apart.

Also if Leica does not allow digital corrections then what about the LX3? The lens on that camera is so corrected to death!

Its funny that these things come out on the day that I decide to sell my G1, will probably make it harder to get rid of :) I decided though for a small carry around camera I would rather have my GRD in pocket.
Click to expand...

Why should these revelations make it hard to sell the G1? I don't care how lens correction is done, optically or digitally. The G1 takes damn fine pictures with its kit lens. If digital correction is part of the equation, so be it. I just care about the results - not the method.

/T
 
i don't care.

the panasonic kit lens is great and if software is part of that who cares?
i like the results i get.
 
Tuolumne said:
Why should these revelations make it hard to sell the G1? I don't care how lens correction is done, optically or digitally. The G1 takes damn fine pictures with its kit lens. If digital correction is part of the equation, so be it. I just care about the results - not the method.

/T
Click to expand...


Indeed, part of the problem for me though is that here in China the G1 did not sell well at all, and to make things worse almost all the forum posts (on Chinese forums) are for adapted lenses and many Chinese photographers are extreme purists when it comes to method (which is kind of funny for this camera)
 
Avotius said:
I have wondered too what happens to adapted lenses and if it is a reason why when I did a lens test of many different M mount lenses from different brands and vintages that the results were exactly the same for each lens and no one could ever tell them apart.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I found. I saw no discernable differences in the G1's files using M glass over the cameras own Panasonic lenses. As a matter of fact, I thought the Panasonic's lenses performed better that any M glass prime.
 
Well if no one cared about methods, optical precision, purple fringing, etc., whey are we here, and not using camera phones, with heavy photoshop, and praising Ken Rockwell?? ;)

A bit unrelated, but Leica cares very much about firmware. You might pay double for a DLUX4 over an LX3, but get different software. Software that exposes in such a way as to get a better image out of pretty much the same camera and lens: http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/panasonic-lx3-vs-leica-d-lux-4.html
 
kbg32 said:
This is exactly what I found. I saw no discernable differences in the G1's files using M glass over the cameras own Panasonic lenses. As a matter of fact, I thought the Panasonic's lenses performed better that any M glass prime.
Click to expand...

If so, wouldn't the results from adapted lenses just look distorted, and not all the same as the kit lens?

/T
 
ampguy said:
Well if no one cared about methods, optical precision, purple fringing, etc., whey are we here, and not using camera phones, with heavy photoshop, and praising Ken Rockwell?? ;)

A bit unrelated, but Leica cares very much about firmware. You might pay double for a DLUX4 over an LX3, but get different software. Software that exposes in such a way as to get a better image out of pretty much the same camera and lens: http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/panasonic-lx3-vs-leica-d-lux-4.html
Click to expand...

I care. And none of those are present in a G1 kit lens. Have you used one?

/T
 
Photozone.de reviews of Panasonic kit lenses

Photozone.de reviews of Panasonic kit lenses

Tuolumne said:
I care. And none of those are present in a G1 kit lens. Have you used one?

/T
Click to expand...

Just about the worst lens tests I've seen for modern lenses. Obviously, there is more to good lens performance at short registration distances than electronic fixes. Explains why Leica M lenses cost so much.
 
kbg32 said:
This is exactly what I found. I saw no discernable differences in the G1's files using M glass over the cameras own Panasonic lenses. As a matter of fact, I thought the Panasonic's lenses performed better that any M glass prime.
Click to expand...

Forced to guess, I'd say that all of the M glass looks the same and loses its character because the camera is only taking the center of the image circle, where the sort of imperfections that define that character will be minimized.

And the Kit lens, benefiting from software correction, looks better for that correction. It's a sign that whatever it is that they do, it works reasonably well. If a cheap kit lens can compete with M glass, someone's doing something right, and I'm not going to complain about what gets us there.
 
ampguy said:
Wow you G1 fans would be in Hog Heaven with a DSLR and the kit lens ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wholly remarkable about the camera. It is an entry level "DSLR and the kit lens." Nothing more or less, apart from being rather small and pretty fun to play with.

But compared to the entry+kit of other makes, the performance is well above what I'm used to seeing from Rebels and low-end Nikons using their respective kit lenses. Again, nothing remarkable, but as a function of cost, I think the performance is rather good. I don't begrudge anyone having such a low-cost entry-level kit, and in the G1 I applaud that they're able to offer something that yields such results.
 
Tuolumne said:
Hasn't this been debunked as a Leica marketing myth?

/T
Click to expand...

Beyond that, there was nothing in that comparison that convinced me that there's a bit of difference between the two. A little sample variation, perhaps? Nothing that made me lean in, take a closer look, and come to the conclusion that the cameras are different in the slightest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom