Panasonic L1 review in Amateur Photographer this week

[rfleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's worth noting that AP is one of the most overtly pro Leica mags i can recall. It constantly features the brand, running Leica competitions and commemorative specials etc . Geoffrey Crawley is one of the finest in the field, by repute. To my reading, his analyses always seem spot on. Interesting story - he recommended the 0.7 Sonnar to Kubrick and helped put him in touch with Zeiss to pull it off; he is a legend IMHO However, there is only one GC. And GC did not review the Panansonic. But just because the reviewer didn't like it, doesn't mean that they are wrong

 

BTW, I have joined this forum recently, and have found the contributions and discussions extremely useful. As someone with a deposit down for a M8, the info and conjecture on the forum has been fascinating, with so many highly informed contributors.

[albertwang]

It doesn't mean that the magazine is wrong but that they need to can the reviewer who didn't do his job correctly.

[masjah]

Albert

 

Have you read the review - how do you know that the reviewer did not do their job correctly? I thought that the review was balanced and fair, giving credit where due, and keeping criticisms in reasonable proportion. This reviewer has always been very competent (and by the way the reviewer is a woman not a man).

[TimF]

John - quite.

 

What is all this nonsense about the camera being panned anyway. It got a score of 88%, so howzabout a return to sanity?

 

I'd think it unlikely the lens will be reviewed separately, but if that should happen it will be Geoffrey Crawley who does so.

[albertwang]

I read the review. Complete bullocks!

 

Of course, I wouldn't be commenting if I read the review seriously. It is simply canned and similar to other reviews which praise Cannon over Olympus, etc. etc. No look at optical quality and too concerned with the tech processing of images at 100% view. Yawn. I wouldn't give a rat's shiny buttocks if they tortured me to read this again.

[MJLogan]

What is all this nonsense about the camera being panned anyway. It got a score of 88%, so howzabout a return to sanity?

 

Which is why I'd love to read the review--some people seem to think it was very negative, and others that it was very positive. Some even think it was fair & balanced.

 

I've left the L1 cheerleading squad (and cancelled my preorder) because too many questions have been raised, but I still think I may end up with one--I just want to use it first, and to read a few more expert opinions.

 

Good or bad, pro, con, or indifferent, I can't imagine any camera review is worth getting upset about. I'll admit that I'd hoped the L1 would be all things to all men, but the shattering of that illusion hasn't left me bitter. Perhaps it's actually the M8 that will be all things to all men...I'd better start shoring up that bank balance again.

[TimF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read the review. Complete bullocks!.

 

In which case you must be one of

 

a) a subscriber - the review is in the 9/9/06 issue, which only hit the street in the UK yesterday.

currently living in the UK.

c) getting a subber here to send it to you express. My understanding is that British magazines usually take two weeks to a couple of months to cross the pond.

d) yanking our collective chain.

 

or

 

e) there's another (crappy) mag operating in the US under the same title.

[masjah]

Tim

 

Very good point - I got mine (as a subscriber) in the post on Saturday 3rd September; it comes out in the UK shops the following Tuesday (5th Spetember, yesterday). I'm sure Albert isn't an express airmail subscriber to a mere "rag mag" (sic Albert). I suspect therefore, that your alternative (d) is the most likely explanation, namely that he's under hs bridge yanking on our chain.

[albertwang]

Nope, we just happen to get a lot of Brit magazines here at the indy bookstores (Sam Weller's) or even B and N...

 

I peruse it mainly to see which shops exist in the London area... But the reviews didn't impress. They didn't even give the Leica R8 a good review either

 

What's up with that?

[sinwen]

L1 pictures I saw on the various sites are very disappointing to me. We are back to the beginning of digital, flat colours without details. It seems noise reduction is very strong.

I am surprised to see so many in this forum are thrilled.... anyway will wait for further tests...

[albertwang]

sinwen, I bet that you saw some unprocessed jpeg files on the websites. Of course, those are going to suck no matter what...

 

Only proof are original processed RAW files from L1.. then you can check the programme out.

 

Remember, apples to apples, not apples to dog food for sure?

[MJLogan]

The best word to describe the L1 itself, as well as the information available about it so far, seems to be "frustrating."

 

So many of the sample images available, especially the earliest ones, were just mediocre photographs that would have been mediocre no matter what camera and lens produced them. There have been a couple of people who've posted quite beautiful images, but I hope to see more of those.

 

The reviews--the ones I've been able to read, at least--have generally been of the "yes, but..." variety. Reviewers seem to want to love the camera, but one or several details (ranging from the placement of the strap lugs to a polycarbonate lens barrel to the dimness of the VF to the lack of dynamic raw buffer) tempers--or ruins--their enthusiasm. And then people posting on various forums (this one is unusually sane--thank you) spin the reviews to support their own hobbyhorse arguments.

 

And now the US shipping date has slipped from Aug. 31 to "soon." I'm glad I'm in no real hurry to buy my next camera.

[albertwang]

Indeed, people can make up all the negative stuff about any type of camera to their own effect. I can write a lot of things negative about my Nikon D70 I own but it has been a good workhorse until I get the L1 soon when there is a final price.

 

Also I'm surprised no one like the return of the shutter speed dial... I thought people prized control... plus the eyemagnifier will be installed on this machine someday

[masjah]

Albert

 

You deliberately miss Tim's point, which is that no way could you have read the issue of AP in which the review appeared, because it hadn't hit your (or even the UK) shelves at that time.

[TimF]

L1 pictures I saw on the various sites are very disappointing to me. We are back to the beginning of digital, flat colours without details. It seems noise reduction is very strong.

I am surprised to see so many in this forum are thrilled.... anyway will wait for further tests...

 

sinwen, I bet that you saw some unprocessed jpeg files on the websites. Of course, those are going to suck no matter what...

 

Only proof are original processed RAW files from L1.. then you can check the programme out.

 

Yup, I agree with that Albert, and if you read back one of my previous posts in this thread you will see that the AP review says the same thing. Jpeg files from the L1 suffer from over-enthusiastic processing which smooths over fine detail. The RAW files are fine.

 

As for the implication of your comment. Straight from camera jpeg doesn't automatically equal second rate.

[albertwang]

I haven't read the AP article par se, but enough vicarious information has been available. For example,

 

"On scanning through, a few things that pop out are:

 

The camera appeared to underexpose somewhat - a couple of samples pictures, with no obvious areas of highlights to fool the meter, were underexposed in one case by about a stop, and in the second by 1 to 1.5 stops.

 

From a picture caption

"Evidence of rastering to larger areas of continuous colour tones is seen ..... Detail resolution is adequate, but I expected better.

 

From another picture caption, with the Leica zoom set to 14mm

"As I had no tripod ... it is difficult to to ascertain the geometry of the lens from this hand-held example, but it looks to be very good, with no obvious distortion."

 

"As has been the case with all Panasonic Venus Engines, colour interpretation veers towards magenta for all hues"

 

"The colour gamut is excellent, but when the image is examined at 100%, there is evidence of noise in shadows in addition to a raster-like effect on larger areas of continuous tone colour."

 

JE also comments on the unsatisfactory optical viewfinder (as with the DPR preview) which is dark and small (too small he suspected, for accurate manual focusing).

 

On the lens, whilst he is generally approving, the plastic lens barrel was not to JE's taste. Olympus, he notes, spared no expense in using metal for the barrels of its own 4/3rds glass, so why Panasonic chose to cut corners here was a mystery.

 

A bit of a curate's egg then, it appears. Hopefully some or all of the issues raised will have been dealt with on production copies."

 

Quoted from another forum...

 

I am assumed that the review doesn't include a pre-production shot in RAW seriously. That needs to be the benchmark for any serious review. Even Erwin Puts failed to do that on his review with telephoto lens.

 

Professionals know what they want. Amateurs bob their heads to follow the crowd en masse.

[MJLogan]

Albert, what are you trying to accomplish? You've been going on in this thread about the awfulness of a review you haven't seen--going so far as to suggest the reviewer should be fired. You claimed to have read it, and then withdrew that claim. Now you're quoting extensively from an entirely different article--a report by Jonathan Eastland about his very brief experience, months ago, with a pre-production camera on a very gloomy day. You are subtracting from, not adding to, the sum of our meager knowledge about the L1. It isn't helpful.

[albertwang]

Indeed, reviewers aren't very helpful to professionals either seriously. The best review is going to the store, looking at the RAW file, and printing it out yourself. Using the camera is much better than reading about it seriously.

 

For example, I didn't bother to read the review for the Olympus E300 when it came out. Instead, I met up with the Olympus rep at Pixels Foto and then tested the E300 myself in person. It was good. I ended up buying the camera and then printing from it. Good results apart from a little tinge with the ISO 1600.

 

I think that we worship reviewers way too much. Seriously, we need think for ourselves. That's the point of being human. I would hope.

 

Leave the reviewers to their capacity. Good photographers worry about the beautiful shots instead. Spasiba!

[albertwang]

postscript... here is what an objective reviewer needs to do:

 

Shoot in RAW, then repeat by shooting in jpeg

 

1) ISO 100, RAW

2) ISO 400, RAW

3) ISO 1600, RAW

4) ISO 100, jpeg

5) ISO 400, jpeg

6) ISO 1600, jpeg

 

and with the lens in question, shoot the lens wide open and stopped down 2 stops, etc.

 

for each case above

shoot zoom lens at:

 

1) wide-end, wide open say f2.0

2) tele-end, wide open say f2.0 or f4.0

3) wide-end, stopped down to f4.0

4) tele-end, stopped down to f4.0

 

and so on. Then do MTF graphs for the lens.

 

Test for chromatic aberrations, noise levels, acutance, contrast, and other optical qualities.

 

Cameras needs to be tested like automobiles, etc. and under stricter guidelines. Subjective impressions mean only one part of the equation. Until then, a reviewer is just a reviewer is a just a reviewer.

 

Plus, critics never beat the writers they write about.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TimF]

Reading that post with all those quotes from Jonathan Eastland (who, incidentally is a professional photographer of many year's standing, specialising in maritime work, jobs covering the British armed forces, and - more for personal pleasure probably - street photography using M series Leicas) brought a sense of deja vu, as IIRC it was me who posted many if not all of those here after they appeared in a piece, which, as Michael notes, was published in f/2 magazine (previously Freelance Photographer - a subscription only magazine aimed, as the old title suggests, at pro and semi-pro freelance shooters). The mags site can be found at f2 Photo where, for a small fee, everything can be read in full.

 

So, let's put that article in context. It was written after the author gained brief access (lets say a couple of hours at most) to a working prototype L1, during a "whirlwind stopover" in London of Panasonic's National Products Planning Group Manager, Micheharu Uematsu. The prospect of being able to shoot RAW files would effectively have been zero, as there would not have been any software to 'develop' them on. Given the time restraints, any lens testing beyond the most mundane of scrutiny would have been impossible too.

 

The comments made by JE relating to jpegs from the L1 are, IMHO, entirely consistent with those in AP. Whatever you or I may think about the superiority of shooting RAW only (and that is what I do with my 5D, FWIW) it is a fact that probably a majority of casual shooters, a group which makes up the vast bulk of amateur photographers, and one which hardly ever visits online forums (if indeed they do at all) shoot most or all of their pictures in jpegs which they then take the card to the high street store to get prints from, so a decent quality camera jpeg is not something to be sniffed at.