D-Lux 4 and missing CONVERSION setting

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Panasonic LX3 offers a menu setting for use with the wide angle adapter. (See pp 92 and 122-3 of the instruction manual, available at Panasonic - ideas for life - Downloads).

 

That setting is not available on the D-Lux 4.

 

Any ideas why one camera would have it and not the other?

 

 

 

Oops--The above link previously went to Panasonic UK's English-language downloads page, but at the moment it apparently gets redirected to a German-language site also at panasonic.co.uk. YMMV.

[Shootist]

Yes this was covered in another thread about the wide angle lens and adapter for it.

Leica has stated that they will not produce or sell this lens or adapter so if they aren't going to offer it as a accessory then they don't need a option in the menu system for it.

Don't expect it to show up in future firmware updates either unless Leica changes there mind and do offer this lens/adapter accessory.

[ho_co]

Ed--

Thanks, but if you're referring to http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/71287-wideangle-lens-d-lux-4-a.html, then the issue wasn't covered.

 

There was speculation there as to why the function _might_ have been dropped, but nothing definitive.

 

As I said there, I don't know why Panasonic feels the function is needed. I started this thread in the hope that someone more knowledgeable either about the optics of converters or the functionality of the Panasonic setting might share some light on the matter.

 

Panasonic says that setting CONVERSION to "on" locks the lens at widest angle and turns the flash off, but doesn't say whether that's all it does.

 

I'm hoping for more information if possible.

 

 

Oh, and as I said there, there's no chance that Leica will themselves offer a conversion lens IMHO.

[Shootist]

Howard it was covered in the third post to that thread.

QUOTE:

Whilst at photokina, David Farkas posted on his blog that Leica would not be producing this accessory because they thought it compromised image quality a bit too much. Given some people's complaints about native barrel distortion at 24mm (which Leica corrects in firmware for jpegs or via the RAW converter), an extra piece of glass in front of the lens stretching the FOV to 18mm may truly be a dodgy proposition. And there won't be any automatic compensation via firmware or RAW conversion, as the camera will have no way of knowing the adapter is mounted (you can do manual correction, of course).

END QUTOE:

 

OK after actually reading your complete reply. Pana feels it is needed to correct the even greater barrel distortion along with the other functions you mentioned. Do I know for sure, NO.

But as to one of your first questions, Leica doesn't need to include that setting because they aren't making and or selling that lens/adapter and if Leica isn't going to offer it for use on the D-L4 then they don't need to include that option so you can pay less for it from Pana.

[ho_co]

Ed, we've gone through this. Read the rest of the thread.

 

No one says the adapter adds distortion.

 

Jeff and I both say later that it's speculation on both our parts.

 

I posted the present thread to try to get more information, because the earlier thread devolved into pure speculation.

 

Now if anyone competent to respond to the question glances at this thread, you continually tell him that the matter has been covered, and it hasn't.

 

So: Granting you the benefit of the doubt in your assessments:

1) Would you tell me why the adapter "adds barrel distortion"? Why is that the case when other such adapters made by Panasonic do not? Cite a link for that supposition, please.

 

2) And since the Leica camera doesn't offer the CONVERSION setting that supposedly corrects for this additional distortion, why does LFI not argue against its use, but rather says that it would be nice if Panasonic were to offer an additional, tele conversion lens?

 

3) You say "Leica doesn't need to offer that function." My question is whether Panasonic does, as I said above. Please show me a competent optical designer's opinion that a camera needs this function if it might be used with conversion lenses. An old Kodak camera of mine doesn't seem to need to know whether it's wearing a conversion lens, even though Schneider offered two for it under Kodak's name. IIRC, neither Digilux 1 nor Digilux 2 nor their sister Panasonic models offer the setting, though conversion lenses were also available for them.

 

4) You say "Leica doesn't need to offer that option." So tell me, what does Leica "need to offer"? I've always been delighted with their product, but never thought I knew enough to say what they needed to do.

 

5) In the paragraph you cite, Jeff says Leica won't offer the conversion lens "because they thought it compromised image quality a bit too much." Would you link to the source of that statement? I can't find it on David's excellent blog, which I had already read before these threads appeared.

 

Please, Ed. I offered speculation as did others on that earlier thread. I've read that thread and it doesn't answer my questions. I don't think it's particularly helpful for you to tell me that it really does and cite a paragraph whose contentions the author later rejected.

[miami91]

 

5) In the paragraph you cite, Jeff says Leica won't offer the conversion lens "because they thought it compromised image quality a bit too much." Would you link to the source of that statement? I can't find it on David's excellent blog, which I had already read before these threads appeared.

 

Yes Howard, as I stated later in the other thread, I think I attributed that bit of information (supposition?) to David because I had been relying so heavily on his blog whilst waiting eagerly for my D-Lux 4 to arrive. Indeed, that information was not provided on David's blog. I did read it *somewhere*, but I can't vouch for the veracity of the source.

 

As for LFI, I don't know that their mention of the possibility of using the Panasonic adapter exactly constitutes an endorsement. I seem to recall that they didn't have any of the accessories available to test, the Leica ones (viewfinder, grip, flash) or the Panasonics, so it was pretty speculative to say the least.

 

I'd also be interested if anyone with any real knowledge of the situation could weigh in. Personally, I'm not too interested in a wide angle adapter, as 24mm in a point and shoot is good enough for me. If I know I need to go wide, I'll opt for my M7 and a CV 12 or 15mm (which, btw, both exhibit significant barrel distortion).

 

Jeff.

[miami91]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ahah! Just discovered where I read the statement about the quality of the adapter not being up to Leica standards. It was on this very forum, and it was David Farkas! So I'm not losing my mind, it just wasn't David's blog where he relayed this info.

 

Again, take it with a grain of salt, but I trust David --- he's very well connected to Solms.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/63698-d-lux-4-conversion-tube-accessory.html

 

Best regards,

 

Jeff.

[ho_co]

Jeff--Thanks for the link. It is indeed from David, just as you said. Good memory!

 

I'm reserving judgment on the "we won't sell it because it's not up to our standards" statement, as I said in the other thread. It isn't that I distrust you or David; I'm sure that's what he heard. But as I said, I think the reason is more complex. Leica has never offered these devices; my guess--fully compatible with the "not up to snuff" argument--is that it isn't something Leica can offer at the quality they require for a price we will pay. In other words, "buy the Panasonic but expect some loss in image quality." (In fact, the Panasonic manual even says to expect quality loss.)

 

As for LFI, I don't know that their mention of the possibility of using the Panasonic adapter exactly constitutes an endorsement.

 

I don't say LFI endorsed it. They didn't dissuade from using it, didn't comment on its quality, and remarked that a tele conversion lens seemed more useful since the camera has such a short max telephoto equivalent.

 

I'm not looking for you or Ed or David to justify your or his or anyone's comments. I want more information on eliminating the CONVERSION setting.

 

There are a fair number of people who, as I did before you corrected me, think that the D-Lux 4 is functionally identical to the LX3. We already knew that some of the menus are of different color, and we now know that CONVERSION isn't offered on the D-Lux 4.

 

a) Obviously there will be some degradation of image quality;

I doubt that the setting is needed optically;

c) my guess is that the CONVERSION setting does exactly and only what the manual says it does (Panasonic is often very good about explaining how a setting affects picture-taking);

d) and if © is correct, then the CONVERSION setting would be either 1) a help in reducing flash and zoom errors with the WA converter and in reminding the user to reset the camera after removing the converter (Panasonic's view) or 2) just one more unneeded fiddly bit in the menus (Leica's view).

 

But here I am speculating again.

 

... I'd also be interested if anyone with any real knowledge of the situation could weigh in. ...

Hear, hear! I'm with you in being curious about Leica's choice to delete the function (if that's what they did), about whether a camera needs to know when a conversion lens is attached, and about whether the CONVERSION function does anything besides what Panasonic says it does.

 

... Personally, I'm not too interested in a wide angle adapter, as 24mm in a point and shoot is good enough for me. ...

Another possible negative is that the camera ceases to be a point-n-shoot when you start carrying the conversion lens. People on the forum commented that the Digilux 2's Panasonic wideangle adapter was optically quite adequate, but too heavy to carry along 'just in case.'

 

System camera indeed! Camera, flash, external viewfinder, wideangle converter and lens adapter tube; filters, batteries, memory cards, charger, case to carry it all in; software to read funky RWL files.... When will it ever end? And all for such a paltry amount more money than its similar sister.