Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 2109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

FoxShutter: This is the first time I see a “Leica” camera that is made in China.

I have absolutely no idea what a "Japan stunt" is. Could you please explain.

The Leica Type 109 is a rebranded Panasonic LX100... and if rebranding is a stunt, then it probably should be called a "Germany stunt" in this context.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2018 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

FoxShutter: This is the first time I see a “Leica” camera that is made in China.

Absolutely right, Jim.

In fact, the premium you pay for a Panasonic camera sold as a Leica might well be worth it, since you end up with a better warranty, better customer service, better software (usually Adobe Elements or Lightroom rather than SilkyPix), and much better resale value if you ever decide to sell your camera.

And for some people the Leica badge might mean more prestige or status. Granted, it may not make sense to you or me, but we cannot deny it does for some people. Nor should we want to prevent them from paying a premium for a luxury brand.

Of course, if these things don't matter to you then you can always just buy the Panasonic version instead. No one is forcing anyone to pay more to get more. Which is pretty much the cornerstone of a free market.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2018 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

FoxShutter: This is the first time I see a “Leica” camera that is made in China.

"Massive failure" for whom?

I seriously doubt Hasselblad lost any money selling $700 Sony cameras as $7,000 Hasselblad ones.

As for Leica, they charge a much more modest premium for their rebadged Panasonic cameras, and they seem to have no trouble selling them. The fact that Leica has rebadged Panasonic cameras 21 times so far tells you that this must be a success for them.

And ironically, this is ALSO a success for Panasonic. They can market their ZS200 as "the same camera as a Leica for $300 less."

Is this a "massive failure" for the consumer, who now has more options and isn't forced to buy any of them?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2018 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Think about this.

This camera is the 21st Panasonic compact camera rebadged by Leica since 2001. Before that, Leica rebadged 3 cameras by Fujifilm.

Of the 31 compact cameras sold by Leica since 1998, 24 of them were made by someone else, or 77% of them. All of these 24 cameras were essentially untouched by Leica, having only subtle exterior styling changes and branding to differentiate them from their original versions.

Odds are, none of those cameras ever saw the inside of a Leica factory. They were manufactured and branded Leica by Fuji or Pany, then shipped to Leica distributors.

In every case the Leica version commanded a 35%+ premium over the Fuji or Panasonic version, for what was essentially the same camera. Leica usually did provide better software, longer warranties, plus the added advantage of Leica prestige that enhanced resale value.

Leica found a way to leverage their brand name to get a premium price for someone else's products.

I'd call that "smart marketing."

Mac, in the early days of digital any electronics company that wanted to sell digital cameras needed a "lens company name" to give them street cred.

So Panasonic had Leica, Sony had Zeiss, and Samsung had Schneider. Those lenses were 100% built by Panasonic, Leica, or Samsung... and probably 100% designed by them as well. As long as they "met the standards" of the real lens company they could pay royalties and use their brand name.

Your Sony/Zeiss lens isn't fake. It is probably an excellent lens. But it was probably designed and made by Sony, with Zeiss approving of the quality and collecting a royalty fee.

Olympus calls their best lenses SHG or PRO lenses. Canon calls theirs L Series. I think Pentax calls theirs "Limited." But electronics companies had to borrow someone elses name to let you know it was their top of their line.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 21:22 UTC

Think about this.

This camera is the 21st Panasonic compact camera rebadged by Leica since 2001. Before that, Leica rebadged 3 cameras by Fujifilm.

Of the 31 compact cameras sold by Leica since 1998, 24 of them were made by someone else, or 77% of them. All of these 24 cameras were essentially untouched by Leica, having only subtle exterior styling changes and branding to differentiate them from their original versions.

Odds are, none of those cameras ever saw the inside of a Leica factory. They were manufactured and branded Leica by Fuji or Pany, then shipped to Leica distributors.

In every case the Leica version commanded a 35%+ premium over the Fuji or Panasonic version, for what was essentially the same camera. Leica usually did provide better software, longer warranties, plus the added advantage of Leica prestige that enhanced resale value.

Leica found a way to leverage their brand name to get a premium price for someone else's products.

I'd call that "smart marketing."

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 20:56 UTC as 47th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

bluevellet: Can I just buy the red badge instead?

Actually, you can.

This ebay vendor sells them for $5.59 plus $1.00 for postage.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-METAL-DECAL-STICKER-RED-DOT-15MM/322904346415?hash=item4b2e994f2f:g:lIYAAOSw4eJbI1Yz

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

netudiant: Does anyone know whether the Leica branded units are somehow selected or tweaked for better optical performance or is it purely a vanity purchase.

The list prices aren't that far apart. So if the Leica comes with better software and a longer warranty, then it might be a good deal. But we all know the Panasonic will be selling at a 30% discount in a few months, and the Leica will still be at full list price. That price difference will be much more serious.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 18:33 UTC

OK... don't laugh just yet.

This camera might be a good deal for anyone who was planning to buy a Panasonic ZS200 at full list price. I doesn't cost very much more than the Panasonic, and Leica generally includes a longer warranty and better software. Plus the resale value will be much higher than it's Panasonic twin.

Leica says their C-Lux will cost £875, it currently is selling in the UK for £729.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 18:30 UTC as 59th comment | 10 replies
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (361 comments in total)

The APS system could have been a big hit if it weren't for two things:

1. The image quality was pretty poor
2. Digital kept getting better and cheaper

It really was the last gasp of a dying film industry. It was an attempt to prevent a mass switch to digital, but the attempt failed. I guess they had to "try something" even if it didn't work as hyped.

I remember paying $650 for my Canon IXUS Lite SLR kit, and today you can find them on ebay for $5. This is a risk all early adopters and gadget freaks take.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 16:09 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (361 comments in total)
In reply to:

christiankoehler: I don't think it was digital that killed APS-C.
Even in a parallel universe that did not invent digital or much later, APS-C would have failed.
It tried to solve a problem that did not exist. By the 90s, 135 cameras were a very mature technollogy. Putting a film into the camera had become as easy as putting a AA into a torch and rewind was fully automatic. DX coding had been common for a long time. Small enough for very compact cameras as well as large enough for professional quality. All with the same film. Processing was easy and reliable both for individuals as well as for machines doing thousends a day. The two other 'formats' were just crops of APS-C and there was little real world use for the data recorded on the magnetic stripe. The "better emulsions" and index prints became available on 135 as well. Rebuy equipment to get worse quality. Incompatible with common slide projectors, less choice of film. Why bother? Other attempts to replace 135 for amateurs had failed before.

The magnetic stripe (information exchange, or "IX" on Canon models) was designed to mimic EXIF information. It was also supposed to tell the processor information about preferred aspect ratio, and was intended to hold voice recordings. But these things were never fully implemented. Most APS cameras couldn't do any of them.

And by the time APS was introduced, 35mm cameras were already fully automated (auto wind, auto rewind, auto focus, auto exposure, auto ISO setting, etc) so there was very little advantage for this new system.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 16:04 UTC
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (361 comments in total)

This is why I miss Throwback Thursday....

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 15:56 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (361 comments in total)
In reply to:

D logH: APS lost out to 35mm film before digital was really competitive. It just was not a commercial success as it did not offer anything substantial over 35mm film, which was easy to handle and better quality. The film manufacturers were interested in it because silver was a huge cost in the process. APS was seen as a way to reduce costs. Digital did not kill this radio star...

D LogH is right. APS was dead right out of the gate, due to poor image quality and high cost of processing.

Digital wasn't even competitive in 1999, because the image quality was also pretty poor back then, and the cost of digital cameras was very high. Digital didn't kill APS, the 35mm film cartridge did. For all the APS hype, the cameras weren't any smaller or more convenient to use than an Olympus Stylus XA. And the XA got much better results.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

lylejk: OK; using kids in order for adults to play. lolol

OK; this one gets the awesome award of the say prize. ;)

:)

Lyle.... that is actually a pretty good reason for having children. Without kids, you look foolish playing kid's games, or going to the circus, or going to doing anything that seems juvenile for an adult to do. So a small child gives you the excuse to do it.

This also works with grandkids too.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2018 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

MystKid: hmmmmm

And.... they probably used $200 worth of track, ramps, and rocket launchers...

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2018 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: Olympus; the writing's on the wall, not good

That's really not the point. This is a very attractive camera, but the sad fact is that Olympus hasn't introduced a new and interesting/innovative camera in almost two years now. Since 2016's EM1 II and Pen-F all we get from Olympus are minor variants of existing cameras.

Meanwhile, Panasonic has produced some pretty interesting cameras (G9, LX10, GH5s, GX9, TS7, ZS200). I'm starting to worry about Olympus.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2018 at 02:26 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200/TZ200 Review (594 comments in total)

Whenever something looks like it is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

This is a very ambitious camera. Very small and light.... almost pocketable... with a huge zoom range and large sensor, and still fairly reasonably priced. Who wouldn't want something like that?

Unfortunately, the image quality was compromised to achieve the compact size. The lens is slow and soft. The LCD doesn't tilt. The video is severely cropped in 4K mode. And the EVF is mediocre. There is virtually no improvement over the much cheaper ZS60 with it's tiny sensor.

Save your money and buy something else. The LX10 or LX100 is a much better value and will deliver better results, even if you won't get the big zoom range from them. If you need zoom range then a ZS60 starts to make more sense too.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 14:20 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

cdembrey: Old people who don't own, or want to own Cell Phones or Digital P&S cameras, go on vacations too. The perfect camera to complete the Bucket List, before they die—simple as that!

cdembrey... obviously you are basing your assumption on your own personal experience with your father. And you are probably right about him, but you cannot assume that everyone else was just like he was.

You should try visiting a nursing home today. You will see laptops, smartphones and tablets in use by most old people. And they all have free WIFI.

The non-tech generation is almost gone. Anyone under 80 years old today very likely used computers before they retired.

And there are plenty of young folks today that still have cable TV and land lines, and even "shoot film" and listen to "vinyl records"..... so generalizing about age is dangerous.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 12:31 UTC
In reply to:

xiao_xiang: Oh come on!

A lot of grumpy people here living on the forums. Be open minded and a little less critical!

I find the whole thing a little odd, but why not? Everything doesn't have to be digital! I would have thought that this could still be good for events, the young and old, and just for fun!

I would buy one for a laugh for my kids.

Presumably.... they are "all recycled" by the people who develop the film.

These aren't like ballpoint pens or single use razors. When you finish shooting 39 shots you can't just throw them in the trash. You have to send them somewhere for processing, and the processors will recycle them.

Of course, this still doesn't account for the packaging materials, but the odds are there aren't many of those. The biggest environmental hazard is probably the toxic chemicals used for developing the film.

This is one of those things that potentially could be an environmental threat, but not unless these sell in massive quantities. With a .01% market share, there would probably be very little environmental impact.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 12:02 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Waterproof camera shootout 2018 (174 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Am really enjoying these Chris and Jordan videos (always have). They have great chemistry and I enjoy the humor. Being an "older timer," they (in a round about way) remind me of that ole' comedy duo - Abbott and Costello who were popular in the 40's and 50's. Chris being Costello, whereas Abbott is Jordan (I know, I know, I'm really stretchin' it here).

In addition, they cover lots of ground in their reviews, which IMO, really helps. Both Chris and Jordan are quite fluid in their talking points which keeps your attention to the review at hand. Glad to see that DPReview landed them. And am certainly looking forward to more.

Let's face it, there are tons of video reviews out there - some are boring, while other reviewers are, like....errrr - Prima Donna's. Chris and Jordan hit the right mix and are naturals doing these reviews.

This TG5 looks like a sure winner. Now let's see some 1" models of the same genre - but they will be much more expensive obviously.

Russell.... that sounded too good to be true, so I looked it up.
(prices from Amazon.com)

Olympus TG-5 = $399
Sealife DC2000 = $699

The Sealife costs quite a bit more, and it only has a 31mm , but it might be worth it for the bigger sensor. There just is no way you can call it cheaper than a TG-5.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 23:12 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Waterproof camera shootout 2018 (174 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: when a sensor larger than a lentil rears its head in this catagory of all weather wp compacts , wake me.
TCS videos , ...err i mean DPR videos featuring the dynamic range duo [jordan and chris] remain a highlight

Well.... there was a Nikon 1 AW1 with a 1 inch sensor... but it had a problem being waterproof...

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 22:59 UTC
Total: 2109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »