... and I think you are rather wilfully ignoring the explicitly
stated collaboration between Leica and Panasonic in product
development.
I don't think he is but I do think there is terribly too much import placed on said collaboration considering that there have been companies in the past who have "collaborated" and come up with nothing more than an agreement concerning specs themselves, not necessarily components or otherwise... and here we'll use that old Leica/Minolta partnership from way back on Leica's C series CLS cameras.
Panasonic DO make high quality electronics but they have always had a few issues optically. This partnership was of a necessary making where Leica, of course famous for said optics, couldn't electronically manufacture a paper bag. A match made, we could say.
It does BOTH companies a valuable bit of good to be conjoined twins for the time being. Yin and yang have combined to flush each others' weaknesses from the equation to the best of their abilities.... and still they needed that third component from Olympus.
Sadly, not one of them can market worth a damn. LOL
As for the L1, I remember a quite long magazine article at the time
in which the Panasonic designers spoke about what they had learned
from the Leica engineers who were working with them on the project.
Since the lightbox was obviously an Olympus design (from the 330).
With the lenses, both sides are quite clear that the optical design
is Leica's, while the IS unit is clearly a Panasonic contribution.
How they stack up next to the Zuikos and German-made Leicas I cannot
say (and indeed we don't know for instance the source of the optical
glass used). However, the fact they are machined and assembled by
someone who is Japanese rather than German does not prima facie make
them of inferior optical quality.
On our side of the story, the retail side, Leica has made it absolutely clear that they do not manufacture, in any way, the optics associated with the Panasonic Lumix series, of any level. It IS their design, from all we understand, but it is wholly manufactured under the auspices of Panasonic (though, we have been told, that Olympus may in fact have a hand in the end manufacturing of the DSLR lenses as well, which in my mind would make sense as Olympus would have the factory to support large glass manufacturing like these already set up for the 4:3 system).
Leica have also made clear to us that this is one of the reasons for the differences in price between the Lumix CLS (aka point and shoot) lineup and the C-Lux and D-Lux cameras: aside from the 2 year international warranty Leica provides (instead of Panasonics 90 day domestic) and the differences in the level of software provided, the Leica branded cameras get the real Leica glass.
Now my Leica rep has also stated quite baldly that this also holds true for the 14-50 lens that comes included with the Digilux 3, their L1 equivalent (with appropriate Leica modifications). I have not been able to substantiate this particular statement and, frankly, I don't believe a word of it especially considering the "made in Japan" tag on the lens. And even if it IS true, there are not any discernable differences between the two lenses that we have been able to find in weight, compatibility or in the all important image quality class. None whatsoever.
Leica has, however, also stated that they are planning on releasing some 4:3 lenses of their own. They have not said anything of what type, focal length, otherwise... just made this rather ambiguous commitment at our last Leica presentation.
The fact Leica happily puts them on their own version of the camera
surely says something, though.
I agree with this statement and, practically, it really is the root of this whole discussion. I also believe that Leica wouldn't have signed on to the 4:3 system if Oly's glass wasn't up to their par because you have to believe that they knew an Oly lens or two was going to have to be used on their gear before they really got their sh!t together.
However it cannot be understated that Leica also joined forces with Oly and Panasonic because they had no choices otherwise. Who else could have offered them some sort of open lens mount format for them to jump into, R&D already half finished for them? Nobody, that's who. It was merely the smart financial thing to do at the time.
The partnership is good for everyone involved which means it's good for the 4:3 coalition. This is the most important aspect of it all and I think it can only lead to great things down the road.
Now what I want to see is Fuji getting on the bandwagon.
--
there are no better companies, only better images.
