bill Posted May 11, 2013 Share #41 Posted May 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Many people who read reviews of cameras on the internet naturally compare the Japanese made Leica’s with the “sister” “doppelganger” Panasonic model and fail to understand why the Leica’s cost a lot more, there are many reasons here are the main and most important reasons.(a) The lenses take 40 minutes for each element to be individually ground, polished and tested. Made on German imported machines to Leica tolerances and use Leica lens coatings.(The Panasonic Lumix ones are mass produced on their own machines and use their own “Nano” coatings). ( The CCD’s are individually tested to Leica manufacturing tolerances and are made by Kodak, Sony etc.( Panasonic Lumix ones are not). © The Panasonic made Leica’s are ALL sent in to Leica AG, Solms, to be inspected by hand/eye then wired to a computer to have the firmware (digital only) added so each image gives the “Leica look” European skintones and other colour rendition and LCD menu changes, then tested again. (d) Boxed and packaged in Germany. Proofs of all of the above please, or this is just more internet puffery. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Hi bill, Take a look here V Lux- 4 Bridge Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jon_Doh Posted May 12, 2013 Share #42 Posted May 12, 2013 Proofs of all of the above please, or this is just more internet puffery. Regards, Bill Leica has said as much. Now, are they pulling our legs to get us to buy their camera or is it a fact? They also say they have a quality control rep who pulls one in I forget how many thousand cameras off the line and test its tolerances. On the Panasonic side, no such quality control procedures are in place. The lens are also coated differently according to each company's patents. Panasonic actually makes the lens under a license from Leica. This is all from Leica. I have one and whether any of this is true or not I can verify two things. If I turn my Panny and Leica up and look at the lens you can definitely see they are coated differently. The Leica lens is much darker. Does this make a difference? Can't say. According to Leica it's to add contrast consistent with Leica lens. And the second thing I can say is that the colors the two cameras produce is different. The photos the V-Lux produce does look more like what their rangefinders produce. Can that same effect be duplicated in post processing? Perhaps. I know a company who makes a Photoshop and Lightroom plug in that is supposed to duplicate the "Leica Look". This debate will never be settled. Let those who prefer the Panasonic buy it if that type of camera meets their needs and those who are looking for something a little different spend a few extra bucks and buy the Leica. After all, some people see a Camry every time a Lexus 300 drives by while others see the epitome of luxury. Just depends on the lenses you are looking at the world through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_Doh Posted May 12, 2013 Share #43 Posted May 12, 2013 Forgot to add, you can lay the Panasonic beside the Leica and there are physical differences in the two bodies so they aren't just pulling FZ200's off the assembly line and sticking a red dot on them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 12, 2013 Share #44 Posted May 12, 2013 Leica has said as much. ... Again, proof please. No amount of hearsay constitutes evidence. The true differences are well documented - body shape, package, warranty and residual value. Anything else is wishful thinking without a shred of truth in it. Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northwest Wanderer Posted May 12, 2013 Share #45 Posted May 12, 2013 Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The whole argument is really sounding childish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 12, 2013 Share #46 Posted May 12, 2013 Yup... Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
symmetron Posted May 14, 2013 Share #47 Posted May 14, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know about the VLUX-4, but I purchased a LX-7 thinking it was a more affordable DL6 and there was a huge difference in the colors. The LX-7 JPGs were terrible, and the RAW required significant PP. I returned the camera as I do not want to be forced to always shoot RAW. BTW, it's my impression in the forums that, generally, for all the Panny and the Leica version cameras, the results are ONLY comparable after significant PP in RAW except perhaps for B&W settings, of course. I'm sure this post will set off a fire storm! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_Doh Posted May 14, 2013 Share #48 Posted May 14, 2013 Again, proof please. The internet is your friend. Or do what I and others have done, simply contact Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_Doh Posted May 14, 2013 Share #49 Posted May 14, 2013 I don't know about the VLUX-4, but I purchased a LX-7 thinking it was a more affordable DL6 and there was a huge difference in the colors. The LX-7 JPGs were terrible, and the RAW required significant PP. I returned the camera as I do not want to be forced to always shoot RAW. BTW, it's my impression in the forums that, generally, for all the Panny and the Leica version cameras, the results are ONLY comparable after significant PP in RAW except perhaps for B&W settings, of course. I'm sure this post will set off a fire storm! Like you, I've owned both and know there is a difference. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it offends the rangefinder snobs who over pay for what they get that Leica could be making a high quality affordable camera. And they simply can't accept the V-Luxes and DL6's into their club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 14, 2013 Share #50 Posted May 14, 2013 The lens are also coated differently according to each company's patents. Panasonic actually makes the lens under a license from Leica. This is all from Leica. I thought that the Panasonic equivalent used the Leica branded lenses anyway. No one has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that a Lumix branded lens was the same as the Leica branded ones, on these Panasoinc cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 14, 2013 Share #51 Posted May 14, 2013 Unfortunately, I'm afraid it offends the rangefinder snobs who over pay for what they get . I think that it might be wise not to insult the vast majority of the memers of this forum. If you don't understand rangefinders, or Leica, then that's fine. The vast majority of people here do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 14, 2013 Share #52 Posted May 14, 2013 I have owned Panasonic and Leica. They are identical except for the slight variations already mentioned in body shape, package, support, add-ons and residual value. Nobody has offered up any PROOF to the contrary, opting instead for smartarse remarks. Any perceived difference in output or lens coatings are self-deluding wishful thinking. Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmike Posted May 26, 2013 Share #53 Posted May 26, 2013 This response may be a bit late for the OP, but I just sold a V-Lux 1 that I bought in 2008. I got about 50% of the original (new) price. That is much better than I've ever gotten for used Canon, Panasonic, or Olympus cameras that I've sold (both relatively high-end ~pro equipment or P & S's). I'm pretty sure I could have gotten a better price had I been able to supply the original documentation and box; I tossed them long ago, unfortunately. IMHO, that more than makes up for the original gap in price. Additionally, while I haven't compared sibling models side by side, the Leicas appear to have more vivid colors when the in-camera JPEG processor is at work. I'm not sure that RAW performance would be any different. My experience w/ the V-Lux 1 was pretty good and it performed at least as well as expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosecpf Posted June 9, 2013 Share #54 Posted June 9, 2013 A while ago I had a Lumix L1 and a Leica Digilux 3. In jpeg mode, the Lumix was sharper a retained more detail than the Digilux 3 with same settings and lens across the iso range. Enviado de meu Nexus 7 usando o Tapatalk 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstech Posted June 24, 2013 Share #55 Posted June 24, 2013 i seem to be getting slightly soft pictures at maximum focal distance (optical-28x). i am a bit confused about the autofocus modes, afc, aff, and afs. which would be the best to use for ultimate sharpness. also does the "intelligent iso" figure into the sharpness? thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northwest Wanderer Posted June 24, 2013 Share #56 Posted June 24, 2013 Jstech, The best suggestion I can offer is, print a copy of the manual and really study it. Try the different settings while reading the manual. The camera is capable of producing very good images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstech Posted June 24, 2013 Share #57 Posted June 24, 2013 read the manual.Reread the manual Still not getting great sharpness at max optical! tried all different combos of settings. Getting frustrated:confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northwest Wanderer Posted June 24, 2013 Share #58 Posted June 24, 2013 read the manual.Reread the manualStill not getting great sharpness at max optical! tried all different combos of settings. Getting frustrated:confused: Don't get frustrated. If you are having problems maybe you could look into what Lightroom can do to help your images. That and understanding the camera better will do much for taking better images. PM me if you would like an issue by issue solution (in my opinion) to some of your problems. It took me some time to learn what works for me. Good luck to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickgrafixstop Posted June 25, 2013 Share #59 Posted June 25, 2013 It's nice to see some praise heaped upon this very capable camera - and one that just keeps getting better and better. Maybe I'm just getting lazy, but I find myself leaving other stuff behind and travelling with just this. Love the long zoom when exploring new places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 25, 2013 Share #60 Posted June 25, 2013 i seem to be getting slightly soft pictures at maximum focal distance (optical-28x). i am a bit confused about the autofocus modes, afc, aff, and afs. which would be the best to use for ultimate sharpness. also does the "intelligent iso" figure into the sharpness?thanks! Are you using a tripod or another steady camera rest? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.