Leica Digilux 1
PRGault
think I'm in love!...
Thanks
Patrick Gault
prg...@cs.com
Class Action
very useful feature. two good links for you...
http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux1/index_e.html
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022405leicadigilux1.asp
"PRGault" <prg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020516113841...@mb-mc.news.cs.com...
Mathew Hendry
<CP5000Cl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>looks nice but would prefer if the display was articulated like on the g2...
>very useful feature. two good links for you...
>
>http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux1/index_e.html
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022405leicadigilux1.asp
And some sample images here
http://home.impress.co.jp/magazine/digitalcamera/02_04/sokuho/index.htm
-- Mat.
Jim O'Neill
very positive:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/lumix_lc5.html
And the 4/29 entry here seems to agree:
Todd Walker
prg...@cs.com says...
Dont get sucked in by the Leica name and similarity of appearance to
Leica film cameras. This ain't no M6...
Todd
--
______________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon Pro90IS
______________________
Kinon O'Cann
"PRGault" <prg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020516113841...@mb-mc.news.cs.com...
Bill Yowell
the first Leica Digilux Zoom, which was only "an overpriced rebadged"
Fuji. Only 1.5 megapixels. It continues to out perform my expectations;
always suspected it was the lens. Finally, the "premium" price, if there
is one, is not very much, considering a larger capacity memory card and
the inclusion of Photoshop Elements.
Don't know why "don't bother" disturbs me, but it does. Shouldn't we each
make up our own minds, and aren't our preferences, requirements and uses
different? Of course if you're a dedicated Leicaphobe, my opinion won't
matter.
Bill Yowell
Roland Karlsson
news:3CE41EDC...@21stcentury.net:
> I am amazed by the Leica "hate" demonstrated on various forums.
I am surprised to hear that there exists a Leica hate.
I thought that Leica had a very good reputation.
> I have
> the first Leica Digilux Zoom, which was only "an overpriced rebadged"
> Fuji. Only 1.5 megapixels. It continues to out perform my expectations;
> always suspected it was the lens.
It was a rebadged Fuji. If it is overpriced is up to the buyer
to decide. The Leica looks way cooler though :) And maybe knowing
that it is a Leica makes the photographer take better pictures.
It is not only technology that counts.
> Don't know why "don't bother" disturbs me, but it does. Shouldn't we each
> make up our own minds, and aren't our preferences, requirements and uses
> different?
Of course. But, "don't bother" does not mean that you are forbidden
to make up your own mind. It only means that the writer does not
think that you shall bother - or rather that the writer should
not have bothered. What you do or think is up to you.
> Of course if you're a dedicated Leicaphobe, my opinion won't
> matter.
Here we go again :) Assuming things that are not true.
Roland
PRGault
Bryan in Wales
this isn't a Leica as such. Don't let that red badge and "classic
rangefinder" outline fool you. It's a Panasonic, and this is badge
engineering. Not Leica's usual style.
Bye
Bry
"Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9210F1C6C669Dro...@130.133.1.4...
J. Clarke
east...@SierraPAMbtinternet.com says...
> Leica DOES have a good reputation. Up there with the world's best. But
> this isn't a Leica as such. Don't let that red badge and "classic
> rangefinder" outline fool you. It's a Panasonic, and this is badge
> engineering. Not Leica's usual style.
Consider--Leitz knows optics. Panasonic knows electronics. A
Panasonic-designed digital camera will have good electronics and at best
average optics. A Leitz-designed digital camera will have superb optics
but average electronics.
What it says on the label doesn't matter as much as the engineering and
QC that went into it. Do you know for certain what percentage of the
design was contributed by Panasonic and what by Leitz?
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
TooTall
you want. The point is, the camera is not a Leica. Read the reviews in the
previous post and you'll understand why people are down on the camera.
"Bill Yowell" <wmyo...@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
news:3CE41EDC...@21stcentury.net...
Kinon O'Cann
Please don't accuse me of that. Also, I'm not married to any brand of
anything, and feel no emotional attachment to inanimate objects, so hate has
nothing to do with my comments. Second, even though it says Leica on the
label, it's not built by Leica, but by Panasonic. You can get the same unit
for less money. So why bother with the more expensive version? Because of
the name? That's bad advice. And how much larger is the memory card? You can
buy a 512M card for about $200, which is the price difference between the
two. And Elements, if you need it, can be had cheaply, as well.
You're paying for a name, in this case, and little else. I'm not a
Leicaphobe, or any other "phobe" for that matter. I am a fan of getting what
you pay for, and not worshipping sacred cows. If that constitutes hate in
your book, so be it. But I do recognize that some people will spend the
extra money so they can hang that Leica around their neck in order to
validate themselves as either "real" photographers, or some other label they
wish to acquire. That's not for me, and I don't recomment it for anyone
else.
"Bill Yowell" <wmyo...@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
news:3CE41EDC...@21stcentury.net...
Kinon O'Cann
won't see any difference in the pix.
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ac1mj...@enews2.newsguy.com...
David Oddie
wrote:
>Do you know for certain what percentage of the
>design was contributed by Panasonic and what by Leitz?
I don't but I would prefer it if Leitz and Panasonic had a similar
relationship as do Ziess and Sony.
With the high-end Sony camera you know Sony supply the electronics and
Ziess the lenses so there is no ambiguity. Sony gets kudos for using
top notch lenses. Likewise a rung lower down Casio gets kudos for
using Canon lenses. The companies have seen the value of the optic
manufacturers names.
With the "Leica" everyone knows its a Panasonic but it still leaves a
doubt about the lens.
What label is on the Panasonic clone of this cameras lens? Is it
Leitz or Panasonic?
I would guess the latter. So you could say there is a doubt that the
lens in the Leica variant is a real Leitz lens.
If Leica stuck to what it knows in this relationship - lens technology
and Panasonic stick to electronics I think we would be better off all
round. Cloned camera just muddy the waters.
Dave
--
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.
Remove the uppercase N O S P A M to reply via email.
VT
<Dave...@yNaOhSoOoAM.co.uk> wrote:
> I would prefer it if Leitz and Panasonic had a similar
>relationship as do Ziess and Sony.
>
<snip>
>
>With the "Leica" everyone knows its a Panasonic but it still leaves a
>doubt about the lens.
>
>What label is on the Panasonic clone of this cameras lens? Is it
>Leitz or Panasonic?
>
On the Panasonic Lumix LC5 the lens is marked as a Leitz -
BUT its design is suspiciously similar to the lenses on the Canon G1,
G2, Sony S75, S85 and even Casio QV4000 (marked as Canon)
But unfortunatley the bottom line has to be the results and Steve's
Digicams is not particularly amoured with the Panasonmic version of
the camera:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/lumix_lc5_pg5.html
Particularly:
QUOTE:
One of our major concerns is the LC5's auto focus system. The wide
area AF mode is less than reliable and often focuses on high-contrast
background objects. The wide AF mode is the default setting in the
"AUTO" shooting mode and cannot be changed. The solution is to select
spot AF but this can only be selected in Program, Aperture or Shutter
priority modes, not "AUTO" which many first-time users would select.
The disadvantage of spot AF is that the subject must be in the center
of the frame when you half-press the shutter release for focus lock
before recomposing. If you are photographing two people who are not in
each other's arms, spot focus makes the camera focus between them and
possibly on the wall behind which makes the main subjects out of
focus. The wide AF mode on other cameras in this price range handle
this and most other AF situations properly, unfortunately the LC5
doesn't. The only reliable focus mode after considerable attempts at
people photography was the spot AF focus mode. The LC5 requires
careful pre-focusing in all AF modes as it allows the shutter to fire
regardless of whether the focus is locked or not.
Image processing is another area of concern, it takes approx. 6
seconds between shots in single frame mode, this is slow compared to
its peers. Hair detail and skin tone reproduction in a head and
shoulders flash portrait is less than satisfactory. We judge a
camera's resolution by its ability to record the fine detail (or the
lack of) of human hair. And everyone wants a camera that faithfully
reproduces proper skin tone colors. The LC5 consistently captures
average Caucasian skin color with too much magenta, reminiscent of the
problem seen with the Nikon D1 (not D1X or D1H.) Outdoors in "fine"
weather the colors of most subjects are very close to natural but
people still look a little too magenta. We saw more than the usual
amount of "noise" in clear blue sky areas and there was noticeable
shadow noise in the low contrast areas of the image. We also noticed
that people's skin often appeared "blotchy" or even semi-solarized,
something that is normally attributed to a lack of dynamic tonal
range. See samples photos. Other people that have seen LC5 sample
photos posted on the net have made the comment that they appear to be
posterized or badly post-processed. After seeing the LC5 sample images
posted at DC Resource I feel confident that our camera was not
defective, it seems that they all operate similarly. Jeff made the
following comment: "Parts of the image (due to noise?) look like
they've been run through the "Impressionist" filter in Photoshop!"
<snip>
Consumers shopping in this price range (above $700) and resolution
class are those who want to capture large, high-quality images and
world class memories of their family. If the camera fails to focus on
the intended subject or the image processing fails to render a clear
and properly colored image - they're going to be disappointed.
Panasonic seems to have dropped the ball on the image processing and
focus system, the LC5 is just not the contender it should be in the
highly competitive arena of today's 4-megapixel cameras. The Lumix
DMC- LC5 has an excellent Leica zoom lens, its design is unique for a
digital camera and we very much like the larger sized body. Tiny
cameras are "handy" but they're difficult to hold steady and often
yield less than optimal images. The LC5's control layout and overall
ergonomics are very good, the lithium rechargeable battery pack is top
notch, but the competitiveness of this camera seems to wain from
there. We hope that the LC5's successor will fix these obvious
problems and if it does, it could be a real contender.
UNQUOTE
--
Vincent
remove CLOTHES when replying
Todd Walker
fu...@bout.it says...
> I'd be willing to bet that when these cameras are tested side-by-side, you
> won't see any difference in the pix.
> >
> > Panasonic-designed digital camera will have good electronics and at best
> > average optics. A Leitz-designed digital camera will have superb optics
> > but average electronics.
> >
> > What it says on the label doesn't matter as much as the engineering and
> > QC that went into it. Do you know for certain what percentage of the
> > design was contributed by Panasonic and what by Leitz?
Kinon, I think you have misunderstood. The Panasonic and the Leica are
the same camera marketed under both brands. You won't see any difference
because they are identical.
Alan Thwaites
"Todd Walker" <twalk...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.174efdec8...@news-server.jam.rr.com...
> In article <Tj8F8.939$c6....@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>,
> fu...@bout.it says...
> > I'd be willing to bet that when these cameras are tested side-by-side,
you
> > won't see any difference in the pix.
> > >
> > > Consider--Leitz knows optics. Panasonic knows electronics. A
> > > Panasonic-designed digital camera will have good electronics and at
best
> > > average optics. A Leitz-designed digital camera will have superb
optics
> > > but average electronics.
> > >
> > > What it says on the label doesn't matter as much as the engineering
and
> > > QC that went into it. Do you know for certain what percentage of the
> > > design was contributed by Panasonic and what by Leitz?
>
> Kinon, I think you have misunderstood. The Panasonic and the Leica are
> the same camera marketed under both brands. You won't see any difference
name Leitz no longer appears on anything .The company was bought by Wild who
use the Leica trade mark.this then appears on
binoculars,microscopes,theodolites and what have you,which seems slightly
absurd considering that Leica is an abbreviation of "Leitz camera". Second
the digilux and the LC5 are not identical as they have different bodies
although same lens and,presumably,same innards.
> Alan.
RichTrav
seen a production model Digilux 1 yet, so anything else is jumping to
conclusions. To make matters more confusing, apparently the LC5s that were
released in Japan have a considerably higher image quality than the ones seen
in the US and Europe.
Rich
Bill Yowell
posts on the News Discussion Forum Digital Photography Review. Some posters
there have, in my opinion, exercised extreme hyperbole in their descriptions of
the images. They claim to see flaws that I cannot see on a 19" screen or in
8X10" prints with an HP 722 on Kodak glossy paper. Some of their opinions refer
to greatly compressed images; hardly reasonable for comparison. Again, and it's
only my opinion, my Leica Digilux Zoom (two years old now, and only 1.5 Mega
pixels) produces better results than I would have expected because of the lens.
Leica claims the lens on the Digilux 1 is not the same as others which look the
same.
I agree with you that "hate" is too strong a word, although it's close to what I
perceive, and also agree that one should weigh carefully the value if it is
indeed a $200 price difference. I think we would all like to know just what the
differences are between the Panasonic and the Leica.
Bill Yowell
Bryan Olson
> On the Panasonic Lumix LC5 the lens is marked as a Leitz -
> BUT its design is suspiciously similar to the lenses on the Canon G1,
> G2, Sony S75, S85 and even Casio QV4000 (marked as Canon)
Also the Panasonic PV-SD5000, Toshiba PDR-M70, and Epson PhotoPC 3000Z.
I believe it's actually made by Canon.
--Bryan
Class Action
"VT" <vtvi...@prodigyCLOTHES.net> wrote in message
news:3ce53815...@news.prodigy.net...
phantom309
this NG.....
"Bryan Olson" <bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a517b5.02051...@posting.google.com...
Robert Hoffman
Class Action wrote:
>
> actually the lens on the panasonic lc5 is marked "leica".
Which is German for the word Canon.
Alan Thwaites
"Robert Hoffman" <san...@interaccess.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3CE66F7C...@interaccess.com...
>
>
> Class Action wrote:
> >
> > actually the lens on the panasonic lc5 is marked "leica".
>
> Which is German for the word Canon
>
Camera. The name dates back to when the inventor Oskar Barnak persuaded
Ernst Leitz to manufacture the worlds first 35mm still camera. However ,I do
believe you were being sarcastic ! Alan.
David Oddie
wrote:
>On the Panasonic Lumix LC5 the lens is marked as a Leitz -
>BUT its design is suspiciously similar to the lenses on the Canon G1,
>G2, Sony S75, S85 and even Casio QV4000 (marked as Canon)
Spotted a review in a magazine today and indeed it is a Leitz or Leica
marked lens on the Panasonic.
Whatever its origins I can live with that. It's like Sony and Ziess.
What I find even harder to believe now though is Leica now have a
camera that does not even have the presumed advantage over the
Panasonic you would expect - the lens.
Same lens, same body different label but I assume the Leica variant
costs more. Pointless.
FYI the review was positive. It said it was very well made and had
lots of features and gave good results with the main gripe being the
flash metering.
Price wise it was quoted as 599 UKP. A bit less than a G2 I think,
bit more than a Minolta 404.
Dave
--
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.
Remove the uppercase N O S P A M to reply via email.
David Oddie
<wmyo...@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> I think we would all like to know just what the
>differences are between the Panasonic and the Leica.
True and since the Panasonic has a Leica lens on it I suspect the
differences might be limited to a leather case or some other such
packaging deal!
Alan Thwaites
"David Oddie" <Dave...@yNaOhSoOoAM.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:c76ieukqd9406820j...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:28:11 -0500, Bill Yowell
> <wmyo...@21stcentury.net> wrote:
>
> > I think we would all like to know just what the
> >differences are between the Panasonic and the Leica.
>
> True and since the Panasonic has a Leica lens on it I suspect the
> differences might be limited to a leather case or some other such
> packaging deal!
>
> Dave
>
have not handled either I think the LC5 looks to be ergonomically better,its
rounded edges look more "hand friendly" than the very squareish Leica which
reminds me of the old Argus cameras.Sort of shoe-box with cotton reel on
front style !
> Alan.
TooTall
differences are between the Panasonic and the Leica.<<<<<
We do know, there's no difference.
"Bill Yowell" <wmyo...@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
news:3CE5920B...@21stcentury.net...
Bill Yowell
the larger memory card and Photoshop Elements instead of the program that comes
with the Panasonic. Perhaps you know, but I think you're expressing your
opinion. To which you are perfectly entitled.
Bill Yowell
Roland Karlsson
> You may be right, but Leica has said there are differences other than
> the shell, the larger memory card and Photoshop Elements instead of the
> program that comes with the Panasonic. Perhaps you know, but I think
> you're expressing your opinion. To which you are perfectly entitled.
>
According to www.dpreview.com they are the same.
Roland