Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 2004, 4:10 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 164
Default

Well said Bob, Leica is a large, financial sound company with a reputation for very high quality optics (see www.leica.com for more info). They won't put their reputation at stake for a fee from Panasonic.

Now let's take some pictures and enjoy thatwonderful lens!


Klaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2004, 4:22 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

I hear ya Klaas.

And I'm on my way out in a few to take some pics.
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2004, 4:24 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 141
Default

Nick, in what way do you consider the Lumix lenses to be different from the Leica CL, a 1973 camera that was manufactured by Minolta, in Japan? Leica has made no secrect of the fact that some products that bear the Leica name have been manufactured by other companies for more than thirty years. So there's really no reason for anyone who is familiar with the Leica name to be shocked or feel misled by the branding of these lenses.

Also, why do you continue to say "the defense rests" when you are playing the role of the prosecutor?

And finally, is there any reason your post should not be considered FUD?

Robb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2004, 1:55 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Okay, here's my final post on the subject. Eagles game was over by the 2nd quarter (the boys are kicking butt this year, huh, bobc), so I did a little digging...

Exhibit A
Epson Photo-PC 3000 Review from DPReview
After receiving the 3000Z I put it on my desk next to a Sony DSC-S70.. That's when it struck me, it's the same lens. No, really, bear with me. They're both 7 - 21 mm (F2.0 - F2.5) lenses, size, extension speed/mechanism and internals appear identical.. Which is kind of confusing because Sony put a Carl Zeiss badge on theirs, yet Epson simply say "Epson Digital Camera Lens". Interesting, yes? From the images above you can clearly see the lenses are identical even down to the aperture diaphragm
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonphotopc3000z/

Exhibit B
Review of the Canon G1 from DPReview
More Lens Confusion
Remember my Epson PhotoPC 3000Z review? Where I spotted the lens on the 3000Z was identical (in design) to that on the Sony. Well guess what? The lens is back. The lens on the G1 appears identical to that found on the Sony S70 and Epson PhotoPC 3000Z. Close inspection shows the aperture diaphragm to be the same, the internal structure and make-up of the lens system to be identical...it does raise an interesting question... Epson call it an "Epson Digital Camera Lens", Sony call it "Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar" and Canon call it "Canon Zoom Lens".. Which is correct?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1/

Exhibit C
Review of the Sony DSC_S75
DCResources... DSC75
The "Carl Zeiss" lens looks familiar -- I think we've seen this one before on Canon, Epson, and Toshiba cameras
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_s75-review/


After reading this, if the name "Zeiss" appears on the lens of a digicam do you think it to be anything more than a marketing nonsense? Lots of folks buy these cameras thinking they're getting Zeiss lenses.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2004, 12:22 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Yes these lenses look identicle in dimension. Has anyone taken them apart, and examined each component? No. Has anyone analized what materials each component was made from? No.

All they said was hmmmmmmm. seems funny.

Maybe you are right. Maybe your not. But you are dragging this out way too far to proove a point that no body can proove except the people involved in the actual production of these things.

I have worked in manufacturing jobs where we made stuff that looked exactly the same as other stuff, but had different grade components, and where labeled differently.

This prooves nothing.

Leica or not, This camera speaks for itself.
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2004, 3:10 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Rookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 124
Default

Guess I need to add my two cents. I really hate to get involved but this discussion is based on hear-say and read between the lines. I do not know which answer is correct, except without knowing the facts youcannot make a correct analysis of the situation.

I work for a manufacturer of large scale machinery in engineering. We do not make everything ourselves. We couldn't do it and stay competitive. Neither can Panasonic or Lieca, they use subcontractors who can do it based on price and market accessibility.

The world has changed.If you track a company to a parent company to a conglomerate....many are owned by the same company. A real good example is GE. Take some time and see the brand names they own. They actually compete against themselves.

Another example is thenew LG phones that are the rage.....the G stans for Goldstar. The company that made cheap microwave ovens years ago. They merged with Lucky Electonics (L)and no one knows who they used to be. This is happening all over the world. Lieca and Panasonic have shared ideas to make a decent midrange camera. Accept it for what it is, a business opportunity to make money.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Rookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2004, 7:07 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 141
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Connect the dots. Here we have a lens, which Leica claims to be some sumo-whatever on their Digilux 1. But on the Sony, same lens, it's a "Zeiss" Vario-whatever. Identical lens is on the Canon G1 labeled as a Canon. On the Panasonic it goes again by its Leica name. The SAME FRIGGIN LENS also appears to be on models from Epson, and possibly Toshiba, and (gasp) a Casio camera.
Sigh. I suppose this still seems like a startling revelation to some, but the dots have been connected for more than thirty years, and the Leica name still carries a certain cachet. Maybe the Leica CL (aka Minolta CL) wasn't "really" a Leica, but it's still highly regarded.

More info here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm

Did any of those dot-connecting reviews suggest that the lens wasn't a good lens? Did any suggest that it wasn't worthy of the Leica name? Or the Zeiss name, for that matter. That might be significant. What's been dredged up here is old news, and it's worth no more than a big yawn, if not for the danger that some newcomers might take it seriously.
Robb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2004, 9:25 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default


This might seem a rehash BUT I there IS a controversy about the honesty of calling these lenses "Zeiss" and "Leica" lenses. If you hang around photography blogs all day, maybe it's old news... but it's probably not to your average buyer. In fact, my assumption when I saw the name "Leica" on the Pana lens was that it was probably Leica designed, but manufactured outside of Germany to keep the costs down, which would qualify in my mind as a "Leica". What I see here doesn't qualify the lenses on the Pana as a Leica. Great lens? yes. But not entirely honest to call this a "Leica" great lens. So maybe that name shouldn't play so big a factor in your decision to buy.

Are these great cameras for the money? Yes. Are the lenses on them great? Yes! Is it fair to say these are true "Leica" or "Zeiss" lenses? That's another matter. You might take it with a grain when the salesman at Ritz starts on his "Leica this, Leica that" dissertation when talking about the Panasonics. Still buy the camera, though ; )

Again... last post on the subject.

N
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2004, 10:18 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Would you be willing to compromise?

It's a Liecasonic Lense...

No Wait...

It's a PanaLieca Lense...

No Wait...

It's a PanLeicasonic lense...

Or maybe...

It's a LePanicasonic lense...

Or Maybe...

It's a lense made by a little Japanese person named Chow Choo, who used to live in Germany, and secretly stole the plans from a German Fellow at Leica, and went back to Japan, and made it in his basement, under the strict guidelines of nobody, and sold it to Panasonic, Canon, Olympus, and several other digicam manufacturers with different labels so nobody would notice, and then secretly contacted the people who review cameras and said... Hey isn't it strange that all these lenses look the same, but have different labels on them? hmmmmmm...

And It's a ChowChoo lense.

Notice how similar our stories are?

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2004, 12:03 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Look it's not Watergate, or lensgate or memogate. However, Zeiss and Leica are high-end names. They make very top-of-the-line cameras and lenses. I happen to think it's misleading, in the case of Sony and Panasonic, to claim their cameras have a "Zeiss" or a "Leica" lens. The name on the lens is a big part of both companies marketing hype. Many people buy these cameras because of the names "LEICA" or "Zeiss" on the lens. It's misleading because:

1. They are not produced in Leica or Zeiss factories
2. They are not produced factories subcontracted by these companies.
3. Leica does not claim to make any part of the lens
4. In the case of Leica/Panasonic there is only a loose claim regarding "collaboration" and "QC prodedures" that I find - right or wrong, suspect. It sounds more like a way to give some credence to what is mainly a licensing agreement.
5. I find this suspect because there's pretty strong evidence that the lenses that Zeiss "makes" for Sony show up, sans spin, with banal names like "Epson digital camera lens" on a dozen or so other digital cameras models made by 1/2 dozen manufacturers.

You may agree with me or not, but at the very least, if you read this thread and are considering a Panasonic or a Sony because of the name on the lens, you have a better understanding of what you're getting and might not weight the names "Zeiss" or "Leica" so heavily and make a better decision. At least you know that these aren't lenses that roll off the Leica assembly line in Germany.

I didn't fall off the turnip truck, I know that parts are made by different manufacturers and are labeled as something else. But with some brands - the very, very top of the line, it's different. It just is. Names like Leica, Zeiss fall under this category in photography. People buy the camera because of these names. There's just not "enough there" for these lenses to qualify as Carl Zeiss or Leica lenses.

The compromise I would make I guess would be more along the lines of "there are Leica lenses and then there's Leica lenses". (And then there's Leica "in name only" lenses...)
NickTrop 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 8:56 AM.