Leica comment on the PanaLeicas

[Guest badbob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So please show us under what situations the Leica version will produce a better photo than the Panasonic will.

 

Someone posted a LF1 to C-112 compare on Dpreview Leica forum. It looks like they're both bad.

[Guest badbob]

If the Leica version would really be better IQ wise, then they would have told it to AP, why NOT say it if they ARE better?!

 

If Leica were a true competitor to (and independent of) Panasonic in small cameras, then yes, they would say 'better', but since Panasonic makes the small Leicas through a special relationship, they cannot say that.

 

Most people naively assume things that just aren't true, especially in business relationships.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dkCambridgeshire]

I guess we'd only ever know for sure whether a PanaLeica has better IQ than the base Panasonic model if an unbiased comparison test/review was conducted by an accredited expert with the necessary experience to do it properly. And ideally, an independent overseer would have to ensure there was no hanky-panky ... and also ensure that the same test parameters really were rigidly applied equally to both cameras.

 

Whatever the conclusions of such an exercise, the zealots in both camps would still be sceptical about the results ... even if the proofs of the puddings were displayed for all to see in the form of 20x16 or larger prints in e.g. a Central London gallery.

 

To make such a test really definitive it would need to conducted with several sample cameras plucked straight from dealers' shelves ... but with widely different serial numbers to ensure they came from different production batches. The test(s) might also be done by arranging for existing owners to volunteer use of their cameras by the expert tester at a forum members' GTG.

 

dunk

Edited October 11, 2013 by dkpeterborough
typo

[Guest badbob]

I guess we'd only ever know for sure whether a PanaLeica has better IQ than the base Panasonic model if an unbiased comparison test/review was conducted by an accredited expert with the necessary experience to do it properly. And ideally, an independent overseer would have to ensure there was no hanky-panky ... and also ensure that the same test parameters really were rigidly applied equally to both cameras. Whatever the conclusions of such an exercise, the zealots in both camps would still be sceptical about the results ... even if the proofs of the puddings were displayed for all to see in the form of 20x16 or larger prints in e.g. a Central London gallery. To make such a test really definitive it would need to conducted with several sample cameras plucked straight from dealers' shelves ... but with widely different serial numbers to ensure they came from different production batches. The test(s) might also be done by arranging for existing owners to volunteer use of their cameras by the expert tester at a forum members' GTG. dunk

 

If the comparison were the LF1 and C-112, both have lenses that are bad enough that picking a winner could just as well be done blindfolded. And you wouldn't need an accredited expert either - just have the same outdoor scene shot side by side on a cloudless day, and the EXIF data will confirm the story. Instead of easy targets - items with straight lines etc., have leafy trees and other foliage filling the frame out to the edges - then you'll really see what the little beasties are made of.

[dkCambridgeshire]

If the comparison were the LF1 and C-112, both have lenses that are bad enough that picking a winner could just as well be done blindfolded. And you wouldn't need an accredited expert either - just have the same outdoor scene shot side by side on a cloudless day, and the EXIF data will confirm the story. Instead of easy targets - items with straight lines etc., have leafy trees and other foliage filling the frame out to the edges - then you'll really see what the little beasties are made of.

 

This sort of dogmatic statement may result from an unscientific test comparison of just two cameras. I have seen some superb test results from a C-112 and I know others have seen them too. But nobody can draw firm conclusions from such small samples. One other possible 'variable' that might need taking into account is Leica's vs Panasonic's production quality control/assurance procedures - we do not know for sure if they differ.

 

dunk

[earleygallery]

One other possible 'variable' that might need taking into account is Leica's vs Panasonic's production quality control/assurance procedures - we do not know for sure if they differ.

 

dunk

 

The cameras are made by Panasonic. Leica QC standards are applied to the Panasonic production line (this was part of the partnership).

 

Remember these are low margin/high volume FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods). The notion that Leica can inspect each product individually and/or make minor adjustments or changes to them before repackaging is frankly ridiculous

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The cameras are made by Panasonic. Leica QC standards are applied to the Panasonic production line (this was part of the partnership).

 

Remember these are low margin/high volume FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods). The notion that Leica can inspect each product individually and/or make minor adjustments or changes to them before repackaging is frankly ridiculous

 

Nobody knows for sure exactly what additional tweaks/QA procedures, if any, are made to PanaLeicas ... not even you James ... unless you have made a visit to the factory in Japan to see both variants being made ... and also followed a resultant batch of PanaLeica cameras to Portugal and /or Solms to ascertain if further QA/tweaks are made.

 

QA procedures do not necessarily involve testing every camera - it can be done on a sampling basis with a well designed sampling frame. Such frames could differ for both variants - and the better of the two could result in a better end product.

 

And since when have Leica cameras and PanaLeica cameras been FMCG products? They are cameras ... not Tetra Pak consumables flying off supermarket shelves.

 

dunk

Edited October 11, 2013 by dkpeterborough

[earleygallery]

Nobody knows for sure exactly what additional tweaks/QA procedures, if any, are made to PanaLeicas ... not even you James ... unless you have made a visit to the factory in Japan to see both variants being made ... and also followed a resultant batch of PanaLeica cameras to Portugal and /or Solms to ascertain if further QA/tweaks are made.

 

QA procedures do not necessarily involve testing every camera - it can be done on a sampling basis with a well designed sampling frame. Such frames could differ for both variants - and the better of the two could result in a better end product.

 

And since when have Leica cameras and PanaLeica cameras been FMCG products? They are cameras ... not Tetra Pak consumables flying off supermarket shelves.

 

dunk

 

I've not been to the factory but I do know a little about modern production practices and logistics.

 

I'm certain that the Panaleica's never touch foot in Solms either, they ship direct from Panasonic.

 

Correct me if you know otherwise of course.

[Guest badbob]

This sort of dogmatic statement may result from an unscientific test comparison of just two cameras. I have seen some superb test results from a C-112 and I know others have seen them too. But nobody can draw firm conclusions from such small samples. One other possible 'variable' that might need taking into account is Leica's vs Panasonic's production quality control/assurance procedures - we do not know for sure if they differ. dunk

 

A direct hands-on photo under ideal conditions by an expert shows the Leica is worse than the Panasonic in some cases. I think you're very confused about photo tests. If I shoot a tree with leaves at 1/800 second with both cameras at the same location under a cloudless sky, and with both cameras the center is in sharp focus for all 20 images with each camera, just exactly what do you think is missing from that test? Foliage is a great stress test for lenses, and probably the best test anyone can do while out away from their scientific lab. The lack of quality in the 'C' and LF1 lenses isn't some subtle thing - it screams at you. And the D-Lux6 has been 100 percent consistent in edge-to-edge quality throughout.

[dkCambridgeshire]

A direct hands-on photo under ideal conditions by an expert shows the Leica is worse than the Panasonic in some cases. I think you're very confused about photo tests. If I shoot a tree with leaves at 1/800 second with both cameras at the same location under a cloudless sky, and with both cameras the center is in sharp focus for all 20 images with each camera, just exactly what do you think is missing from that test? Foliage is a great stress test for lenses, and probably the best test anyone can do while out away from their scientific lab. The lack of quality in the 'C' and LF1 lenses isn't some subtle thing - it screams at you. And the D-Lux6 has been 100 percent consistent in edge-to-edge quality throughout.

 

The test you refer to was done with just two cameras. You'd need to do the same test with several different sets of the two cameras with wide ranging serial numbers before drawing any firm conclusions. Rather foolhardy to tar the whole production run with the results from just two cameras. You might be right ... but nobody could place any reliance on your results from such a small sample of cameras. Compared to your two allegedly dud cameras there could be 98 others which produce better results.

 

dunk

[Guest badbob]

The test you refer to was done with just two cameras. You'd need to do the same test with several different sets of the two cameras with wide ranging serial numbers before drawing any firm conclusions. Rather foolhardy to tar the whole production run with the results from just two cameras. You might be right ... but nobody could place any reliance on your results from such a small sample of cameras. Compared to your two allegedly dud cameras there could be 98 others which produce better results. dunk

 

Naturally you misrepresent my findings in a specious attempt to divert attention away from facts. I first got the LF1 and compared to the D-Lux6, finding the LF1 lens not good. So I got the C112 to compare to the LF1 and same deal. Now you think that these 2 cameras in succession are both duds while ALL other LF1s and C's are probably OK. Who are you kidding?

[dkCambridgeshire]

Naturally you misrepresent my findings in a specious attempt to divert attention away from facts. I first got the LF1 and compared to the D-Lux6, finding the LF1 lens not good. So I got the C112 to compare to the LF1 and same deal. Now you think that these 2 cameras in succession are both duds while ALL other LF1s and C's are probably OK. Who are you kidding?

 

 

Maybe someone else - preferably someone who understands statistical sampling - might care to comment on your findings and conclusions. You might be right but nobody could say with any degree of certainty based on a sample of just two cameras.

 

I have seen some superb results produced by the C camera.

 

dunk

[Guest badbob]

Maybe someone else - preferably someone who understands statistical sampling - might care to comment on your findings and conclusions. You might be right but nobody could say with any degree of certainty based on a sample of just two cameras. I have seen some superb results produced by the C camera. dunk

 

I like the C-112, and I'll definitely keep mine. I doubt anyone will find differently as far as what I've seen in test photos, but maybe they will provide a critique of the C-112 lens along the edges and through the frame, and where they think it stands compared to other $500 compact cameras (LF1 is $500), or if it isn't comparable to other $500 compacts, a reasonable and credible explanation. That may sound awfully demanding, but even the Panasonic version is $500, and that puts it in a special class of very small cameras.

 

Edit: I'm actually a master of statistics, having worked with HP technical computers since the late 1970s.

[Guest badbob]

Addendum: Blind statistical sampling of a large data sample might seem like a good idea, but it might not be. Think about it: Who would have the ability to sample 50 C-112s using real world data (photos of trees and leaves, edge to edge)? Would you trust them? Of all truly independent labs, do you think one of them is going to obtain 50 C-112s for testing? Ummm, no. And if they did, they wouldn't do the crucial test.

 

But blind statistical testing can lead to wrong conclusions for lots of reasons. I do statistical sampling of a few things - blood pressure readings at home over a period of weeks, with various deviations factored in. Driving in L.A. for many years, I did stats on time to work with the various routes broken into segments that offered the ability to take a choice of route segments, eventually connecting back to the main route. That proved very helpful, even though the deviations were sometimes very large. In that latter case, just print 2 tables, one with the large deviations and one with the deviations normalized.

 

But to the point of camera testing: Anyone who's tested cameras and lenses knows what to expect when a lens is out of spec. When you get 2 in a row that follow a pattern that doesn't look like it's out of spec so much as it's just cheaply made, that should inform you about the design, not the QC.

[AlanG]

If you really care about getting high quality why wouldn't you just use a better camera rather than trying to split theoretical hairs between these models?

[Guest badbob]

If you really care about getting high quality why wouldn't you just use a better camera rather than trying to split theoretical hairs between these models?

 

I do testing, and I'm constantly amazed at how many people would like the results to just go away. So ... whatever.

[AlanG]

I do testing, and I'm constantly amazed at how many people would like the results to just go away. So ... whatever.

 

So where are these results?

[pop]

I have removed a number of posts. Just as a reminder to all concerned:

 

... all participants are obliged to interact in a civilized and respectful manner and in a manner which is not likely to cause offence to other forum members.

[AlanG]

Photography is simply a visual medium. We are all familiar with a variety of camera tests. If there are significant differences between these two models, it should be possible to illustrate them and explain under what circumstances one camera would produce a better photo than the other.

 

Since we have no examples to analyze and discuss, some are just spinning their wheels and wasting our time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Lux

[Guest badbob]

Photography is simply a visual medium. We are all familiar with a variety of camera tests. If there are significant differences between these two models, it should be possible to illustrate them and explain under what circumstances one camera would produce a better photo than the other. Since we have no examples to analyze and discuss, some are just spinning their wheels and wasting our time.

 

There's a new post in the Leica forum of DPReview, a historic church of some kind, that shows a gradual deterioration of the C-112 image from left to right, as though there were motion blur in just part of the image (which isn't possible). From what I've seen the OP is getting no response to that, or previous posts. Could be that nobody has an answer.