Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Panasonic / Leica dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 13, 2006, 8:03 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

With so many good cameras out there, I wouldn't evenpay 700$ for the L1 with the kit lens. LivePreview doesn't mean anything, at least not as long as I can get bigger and better cameras for less. L1's design is superb but that is absolutely not worth the extra thousand. It's hilarious to even think of it! :blah:
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2006, 9:40 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default



Zygh said, ''With so many good cameras out there, I wouldn't evenpay 700$ for the L1 with the kit lens.''

And you wouldn't even pay $700 dollars for an L1 with the lenseven if it matched the Sony Alpha, 30D or the Nikon 200? You've got a lot of courage. :?:-)
Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2006, 10:17 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Given that I paid less than $700 for the KM 5D with thesuperb Tamron 28-300 lens,I would not pay any more for the L1 and lose my image stabilization. Why should I?And why should anyone else given the same choice?
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 1:36 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Andsince my comment was made with an unspoken reference to an L1 possibly being in the upper $1,0000 bracket with the lens and stabilization (in the lens) and zygh's comment was he wouldn't buy it even if it was $700 dollars, which put it well below what the Sony Alpha, 30D and D200would cost, and presumably the L1 will be the equal at least, then thepost was specificallydirected towards those three cameras being the equal of the L1, or, if you prefer, the L1 being the equal of the other three,but the L1being much cheaper at $700 dollars, according to zygh's rhetorical comment...and he/she still wouldn't buy it if in the market for a new camera? Yet he/she favors a camera (D200)that costs twice, or more,thanwhat his mythical$700 figure is for the L1?

The conclusion is zygh's first sentencewas meant as a joke of some kind. Immediately afterwards it turned serious. Now it's obvious Zygh isn't an L1 'fan' but within the context of comments already made above a few days ago about the L1 being (possibly)overpriced then of course if it isn't the equal of thethree above mentioned cameras then why would anyone buy it (L1)at an inflated price considering the lesser priced Sony equal.There is no mystery here.

But there is one here: again, if a person is in the market for a first DSLR and withno axes to grind in terms of a favorite manufacturer andthe L1 miraculously weighs in at $700 dollars performing at the same rate as the above mentioned DSLRs then why wouldn't you buy it. However, this is assuming your price point isn't fixed at $699 dollars.


Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 2:42 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

Andrew, I guess we'll have to wait and see but please tell me, how on earth do you think the L1 could match the D200or de 30D?!?! I read what the Panasonic officials said in that interview but I am sure they were either ironic orunder the influence because you don't have to be a genious to see that the L1 will flop big time if it enters the market aiming the big boys at Nikon and Canon. You don't have to feel offended because of my post, Andrew. In my opinion,the L1 isn't worth much more than 600-700$ including the kit lens. That is how I see things. And now that Sony has raised the stakes, I hope that manufacturers like Canon andPanny will be tempered when it comes to pricing their products. I'm speaking of Canon because I think that they are also overpricing the 350D. And I most assure you nothing I said in my previous post or in this one, for this matter, was meant as a joke. I am a fan of the L1 and have been ever since it was announced, but I absolutely dislike manufacturers that overprice their products. When I first heard what they intended on asking for it, I was hugely disappointed.
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 10:49 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

Personally if the L1 follows the LC1 then I think it will be one cracking camera with the only real points of contention being the price and high ISO's. Regards the D Leica lens there is simply no way you can compare a kit lens which may only cost $100 to a quality bit of glass no matter who manufactures it. Case in point the new CZ 16-80mm for the Sony is priced at $700 on its own so if I was to buy a Sony Alpha it would be with that the lens or an equivalent quality. Therefore I know that I will be looking at a price in the region of $1500 for the Sony equivalent to the L1. Now hopefully, with both camera's the kit price will be less but its not realistic to expect a camera that is supposed to be aimed at the semi-pro market with regards to build quality and then expect it to be sold at a budget price and with a high quality lens to boot although if they do sell its at that price i'd buy two!

Now if we're talking size and ergonomics I would much prefer a smaller, lighter, quieter camera (digicam or dSLR) any day of the week, with inbody IS to boot and that doesn't shout hey look I'm a DSLR.

Cheers

HarjTT

:|


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 6:05 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Andrew Waters wrote:
Quote:
Andsince my comment was made with an unspoken reference to an L1 possibly being in the upper $1,0000 bracket with the lens and stabilization (in the lens) and zygh's comment was he wouldn't buy it even if it was $700 dollars, which put it well below what the Sony Alpha, 30D and D200would cost, and presumably the L1 will be the equal at least, then thepost was specificallydirected towards those three cameras being the equal of the L1, or, if you prefer, the L1 being the equal of the other three,but the L1being much cheaper at $700 dollars, according to zygh's rhetorical comment...and he/she still wouldn't buy it if in the market for a new camera? Yet he/she favors a camera (D200)that costs twice, or more,thanwhat his mythical$700 figure is for the L1?

The conclusion is zygh's first sentencewas meant as a joke of some kind. Immediately afterwards it turned serious. Now it's obvious Zygh isn't an L1 'fan' but within the context of comments already made above a few days ago about the L1 being (possibly)overpriced then of course if it isn't the equal of thethree above mentioned cameras then why would anyone buy it (L1)at an inflated price considering the lesser priced Sony equal.There is no mystery here.

But there is one here: again, if a person is in the market for a first DSLR and withno axes to grind in terms of a favorite manufacturer andthe L1 miraculously weighs in at $700 dollars performing at the same rate as the above mentioned DSLRs then why wouldn't you buy it. However, this is assuming your price point isn't fixed at $699 dollars.


Of course, iftheL1comes with an image stabilized Leica lens, it'sworth well over $700, but then again, the in camera stabilization of KM/Sony lets me buy cheap, but great, old Minolta lenses - all stabilized. I would not even consider aDSLR at any price that does not have that feature. And my pictures are in no way inferior to, let's say, the Canon 20D. In fact, I went on a shoot with a professional photographer who used his 20D and my pictures came out identical in quality, but with less blur.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 2:57 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Harjtt wrote: ''Regards the D Leica lens there is simply no way you can compare a kit lens which may only cost $100 to a quality bit of glass no matter who manufactures it. Case in point the new CZ 16-80mm for the Sony is priced at $700 on its own so if I was to buy a Sony Alpha it would be with that the lens or an equivalent quality. Therefore I know that I will be looking at a price in the region of $1500 for the Sony equivalent to the L1. Now hopefully, with both camera's the kit price will be less but its not realistic to expect a camera that is supposed to be aimed at the semi-pro market with regards to build quality and then expect it to be sold at a budget price and with a high quality lens to boot although if they do sell its at that price i'd buy two!''

This iswhat I'm referring to zygh. Obviously Panasonic said their competition is in the 30D range. Stretch that a bit further and the D200 falls close. Maybe it was a scare tactic against Sony andCanonwho knows. But I will say this: Canon nor Nikon can afford to look the other way. Competitors don't ignore similar business models. Just ask Ninitendo about this one ( the beginnings of a downturn in market dominance several years back from which they've never recovered).

And I don't see this irony you're talking about. Your ''under the influence'' can be understood to mean a market share for Panasonic I'm sure. And only their investment in this product will tell them what their market share should be. Further, I'm sure Panasonic and Sony are realistic in the sense they know it is hard to unseat established players;Ifthe L1sells as well as the FZ30 (?) or nearly so then they're ahead of the game. If not, then Matsushita (Panasonic), like Sony Corporation are electronics giants:not bothered by a temporary loss.

As for the kit lens: If the lens Panasonic offered at the time of the unveiling of the DMC L1 isn't considered part of the kit lens then what kit lens can they be talking about. None was mentioned.Besides, whatcompetition can they have with Nikon and Canon if the L1/lens comes in at your $600-$700 price range.?

Quote:''And now that Sony has raised the stakes, I hope that manufacturers like Canon andPanny will be tempered when it comes to pricing their products.''

Judging by your resentment for manufacturers 'charging too much' for their products, from what economy perspective are you basing this one on? Manufacturers charge what the market will bear.And yes, the logo carries a lot of weight too; not that it's right of course, but it does.But even if it isn't right, what factors can you cite to say those two are overpriced. By extension youmean any country that has a manufacturing basewill be overpricing its products also?Or how about the price of bread, or milk. Someone has to be paid for the labor—even in countries that have rock bottom wages per hour/day.





Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 3:48 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

There is no use in debating this any further. Time will only tell. Andrew, if you think the L1 is worth 1000+ for the body only then go ahead and get it. If you think you'll shoot better pictures just because of the Leica lens then go ahead and get that too. Just don't try to persuade me or anyone here that what the Panny official said in that interview (about the L1 challenging the boys at Nikon/Canon) is true. As far as anyone can see from specs posted on the net, stands very little ground to the likes of the D200 and 30D. It doesn't take a whole lotta sense to see that the L1 isn't worth more than cca.600$ for the body. It has no true photographic advantage over APS-C size sensor cameras. At least, that's what I think. And hoping that the L1 will sell as good as the FZ30 is pure fantasy world arithmetics. The thing is that all these brands will try to sell you something that is worth 1 dollar for 5. One has to be wiser and to be able to correctly evaluate a product before paying what someone asks for it. It's a free market and there's lots of places/products to choose from.
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 12:46 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default



zygh wrote: ''Andrew, if you think the L1 is worth 1000+ for the body only then go ahead and get it.''

My comments had nothing to do with whether the L1 is worth $1,000 dollars.

''If you think you'll shoot better pictures just because of the Leica lens then go ahead and get that too.''

Technically possible, with the lens. I don't know this .Nothing to do with composition however.

''Just don't try to persuade me or anyone here that what the Panny official said in that interview (about the L1 challenging the boys at Nikon/Canon) is true.''

I'm not trying to persuade anyone hereconcerning what thePanasonic officials said. They are the ones that said it. Everyone that was interested read it (and this includes you). They took it a face value. But you have no way of knowingit is less than face valueuntil it turns out the way yousaid.What other conclusion is to bedrawn from that. No one can know it isn't true until it, well, isn't.



''As far as anyone can see from specs posted on the net, [L1]stands very little ground to the likes of the D200 and 30D.''

And I do recall asking you to say something along those lines a couple of weeks ago to benefit me but you didn't. Conclusion: you didn't know. Just so you will understand my comment from that time, I said I was clueless on theAPS-C/4/3 sensor argument. You, in effect, said you didn't think it (4/3) could compete with the APS-C. I offered speculation and opinion as to why it may or may not from a Panasonic engineering perspective; you offered no rebuttal as to why Panasonic will be offering an inferior sensor. Really dumb engineers at Panasonic wouldn't you say. Again, since everyone can see for themselves the pertinent informationyou are talking about will you be so kind as to direct me to a link so that I can really see how inferior the DMC L-1 will be to the D200, 30D and even the Sony Alpha.

'' It has no true photographic advantage over APS-C size sensor cameras. At least, that's what I think.''

So you added a qualifier at the end of yourabove commentbut I still don't know why.



''And hoping that the L1 will sell as good as the FZ30 is pure fantasy world arithmetics.''

You may be right on this one but ifa question was posed to Panasonic about thisI'm sure they would be delighted to knowthe possibility. Then again the L1 supposedly is competing in a higher bracket of cameras so it may well nullify the dreams of FZ30 popularity.If Panasonic realizes what you've been saying all along that their L1 should be priced at$600 dollars then it will be aspopular as the FZ30after they've fired all their incompetent engineers for adding technology to the L1 that was too expensive and unnecessary.

''The thing is that all these brands will try to sell you something that is worth 1 dollar for 5. One has to be wiser and to be able to correctly evaluate a product before paying what someone asks for it. It's a free market and there's lots of places/products to choose from.''

Capitalism at work on this one. Do you ever wonder why Best Buy and HH Gregg's prices are similar. For that matter, anyone else's that sell similar goods. The prices are similar because the manufacturer sets a price to turn a profit just as the retailers do in order to stay in business. (Much more involved however.) I will say this: Comp USA will not sell an EOS30DCanon camera for a$1,200dollars when the price is set at $1,400 or so from Canon. If they do then Canon undoubtedly will give notice.


Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:47 PM.