Panasonic L1 review in Amateur Photographer this week

[ejd]

There is a review of the Panasonic L1 with the Leica 14-50mm lens in the AP that arrived in today's post. They're not especially thrilled about it. And they think it rather pricey at £1499.99 (SRP, presumably. No doubt cheaper in practice.) They mention that there will be more Leica lenses in 2007 -- a 14-150/3.5-5.6, a 50-150/3.5-5.6, a 45/2.0 macro, and a 25/1.4. Much of this is old news, I know. Still....

Rgds, John

[smokysun]

read it has 'two' mirror slaps instead of one. hmm. defininitely not a d3.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by ejd

They mention that there will be more Leica lenses in 2007 -- a 14-150/3.5-5.6, a 50-150/3.5-5.6, a 45/2.0 macro, and a 25/1.4. Much of this is old news, I know. Still...

Sorry, but they're really Panasonic lenses ...

[albertwang]

Hmm... okay was the bad review caused by a bribe from the Cannon rep? Aha, I bet it was... geewhiz, that's why I stopped reading reviews. It's all based on the secret corporate conspiracy of Cannon.

[MJLogan]

Originally Posted by sdai

Sorry, but they're really Panasonic lenses ...

The "they're really Panasonic lenses" mantra is tiresome. Everyone knows they're built in Japan. Everyone knows there are Leica QC folks in residence at the factory. Everybody knows Leica and Panasonic collaborated on the design. The Panasonic logo in the photo posted above is on the OIS control ring. OIS is the major technology Panasonic brought to the table for the lens. Thus the logo.

The Leica (or PanaLeica or "Leica" in ironic quotes--whatever!) lenses in the D-LUX and the Digilux 2 (two cameras I've used extensively) are things of great technological beauty. As are "real" Leica lenses made in Germany for M and R system cameras. They're different tools designed for different functions. The PanaLeica lenses lift the quality of the photos they capture to a level just slightly higher than what the (Panasonic) tech in the cameras should be capable of. Images from my original D-LUX, for example, are really noisy if you pixel-peep, because of the tiny sensor, but, thanks to that lens, they look great on screen or in print up to about 11 x 14". I've published them in annual reports at 5 x 8 1/2" size, and they look amazing. And the images from the Digilux-2 are really special--much better than the camera's specs would suggest. That's the Leica magic at work.

I haven't used an L1 yet, so I can't speak from experience about its lens. But based on long experience with its stable-mates, I wouldn't be surprised if it's brilliant.

[albertwang]

Amen...

by the way, who can trust an amateur magazine to review professional equipment. In British pounds, that some expensive b***s**t.

[TimF]

Originally Posted by albertwang

Amen...

by the way, who can trust an amateur magazine to review professional equipment. In British pounds, that some expensive b***s**t.

Why the pooh-poohing Albert?

Amateur Photographer is also the current residence of Geoffrey Crawley, a world renowned expert on matters photographic. Don't judge a magazine by its title. It's not perfect of course (what magazine is?), but frankly AP is streets ahead of the competition in its market area.

[marknorton]

I don't think for one minute that the L1 is targetted at the professional market.

[overgaardcom]

Could be interesting with some more details as to what it is they are not so thrilled about.

As for the price, I consider it a fair price with a Leica lens that can be used with any future cameras. That implies that you believe in 4/3 system of course and that it won't become the "Leica CL" of Leicas.

I could use a camera like that very soon and probably before Leica comes out with a D3.

[albertwang]

Huh, not professional? What, it has a shutter speed dial... that's better than most professional cameras! ... geewhiz.

[TimF]

Could be interesting with some more details as to what it is they are not so thrilled about.

Having read the review, I was half wondering about that too. The biggest downside appears to be the comment that,

"With the Leica kit lens attached, the AF system of the L1 is probably best described as efficient in bright conditions. It doesn't have lightning pace. but it usuaully found its target with reasonable speed. However, when the subject has lower contrast the system starts to struggle. Focusing becomes slower and more problematic when a telephoto lens, such as the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, is fitted to the camera. Placing the AF point over an area with strong contrast helps. In most cases I was able to get a sharp result, but I had to work harder than I should have to."

The jpegs produced by the L1 appear to suffer from in-camera noise reduction/smoothing, which removes a lot of finer detail. RAW files don't suffer from this.

The dim viewfinder, which is something I've seen commented upon elsewhere (Reichmann on LL, and Jonathan Eastland in f/2 magazine) isn't mentioned.

[marknorton]

I really hope the L1 is not rebadged as Leica's entry into this market.

It's been a long time - too long - coming, the price is frightening compared to buying a mid-range from Nikon or Canon and they are starting a long way back in terms of functionality/range of lenses and other accessories. Add the ho-hum reviews and these things are not going to fly off the shelves.

I think Leica need to tread very warily with this. We fully expect the M8 to provide the company with a much needed revenue injection which will count for nothing if cash haemorrages out of the company supporting an ill-fated new venture.

[flatfour]

I have seen this subject somewhere else where it was said that Leica are now trying to distance themselves from Panasonic. The intention is to have only the software and bodies outsourced elsewhere but to have all glass and assembly at a Leica works. I will try to find the thread.

[davephoto]

Originally Posted by flatfour

I have seen this subject somewhere else where it was said that Leica are now trying to distance themselves from Panasonic. The intention is to have only the software and bodies outsourced elsewhere but to have all glass and assembly at a Leica works. I will try to find the thread.

now that would be a significant development. to take this to the extreme, can you imagine leica making glass for different systems, like a high end tamron or sigma? they could really broaden their market. (i guess neither can i; it would really cannibalize their own systems.)

[albertwang]

Yawners... of course jpegs are going to suffer compared to RAW... nothing new there.

Amateur doodads are going to spill the obvious. They don't even bother to check out the optics of the new Leica zoom which is what people are more worried about...

[MJLogan]

I'd love to see this review--especially since I've read posts describing it as rubbishing the camera and posts describing it as "high praise, for them." Sadly, I can't find a newsstand in Los Angeles that stocks Amateur Photographer.

[Trevor Hare]

Amazed that anyone is still reading Amateur Photographer. Last time I looked at one I think it had about 5 pages of editorial. The print quality was always atrocious and the reviews were always exercises in.. "stating the bleedin' obvious" with pictures of statues on the South Bank never more than a 15 minute walk from the AP offices. The senior staff would be allowed to take a car somewhere like a zoo or an off season beach resort. (To photograph beach huts)

Every new Pro grade Nikon/Canon DSLR review always raved that it was the greatest camera ever (for their revenue) and overlong articles about junk shop cameras (Braun, Agfa, Hanimex etc) to keep the actual readership (average age 91) happy.

Some guy with an improbable beard and a monocle (!) would always occupy the last page with debates lifted almost word for word from a photo.net troll thread that he often initiated himself (when he wasnt expanding on the delights of living large in the south of France and his collection of Leica exotica). His wife always took the better pictures.

There would often be a feature of photos from some retired fleet street photographer of 1950s street urchins playing in the cobbled streets of a long ago demolished part of the North of England that no-one had ever heard of or been to. (Again for the Braun/Agfa/Hanimex/91 years old/beach hut mob)

Please take the above with a large pinch of salt. If you like Amateur Photographer then good for you and long may it thrive.

[albertwang]

There is a reason why no decent store will sell this rag mag... because

Discerning photographers read Lens Work, B and W Photography, or some respectable high quality mag which effort is put into their analyses.

Amateur Photog is just an overpriced Paris Hilton-lite photog mag that is a more boring version of Pop Photo.

[TimF]

So when was the last equipment review in LensWork? I must have missed those bits.

[albertwang]

No one really cares about equipment reviews... that's why I prefer Lens Work... they talk about the real meat of photography.