Panasonic releases its DMC-L1 DSLR

Always looking to one-up its long-standing Japanese rival, Panasonic has gone and beaten Sony's first digital SLR -- the Alpha A100 -- to market with its own premiere DSLR -- the DMC-L1 -- which just became available today. As you'll probably recall, this 7.5 megapixel "Live MOS"-equipped shooter was developed in conjunction with Olympus, thus including that live preview 2.5-inch LCD that got us so jazzed up about the E-330, and ships with an optically-stabilized 14-50-millimeter Leica D Vario-Elmarit lens. And at $1,999, the Panasonic had better throw in a few extras if it wants to remain competitive, because the Sony, while not arriving with a lens in the box, will sport a higher-resolution 10.3 megapixel sensor at half the price of the L1.

[Ypoknons @ Jun 21st 2006 10:10AM]

An optically-stabilized 14-50-millimeter Leica D Vario-Elmarit lens with Venus isn't something extra?

[Reagan @ Jun 21st 2006 10:25AM]

The press release actually says it's available July 22nd in Japan, no specific word on US availability.

The camera looks sweet, but I can't help thinking the $2k price tag is a bit much. It's a $1k camera, is it a $1k lens? I guess we'll see when there are some solid reviews of it. (DPReview has a preview today, but they give no impresions of quality... http://www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicdmcl1/)

[Special_K @ Jun 21st 2006 11:19AM]

This live view stuff is quite gimicky, in my humble opinion. As the guys at DPReview said, you'll end up using the viewfinder anyway. Live view is just a way to convince people who drop a few hundred on one of those "prosumer, kinda' looks like a DSLR but isn't" cameras to move up to DSLR- they're making the format more accomodating for prosumers. But for a budding pro like me, not to mention all the full pros out there, this is a gimick that won't affect my buying decisions at all. I'll stick to my E-500, thank-you-very-much.

[PSE @ Jun 21st 2006 11:20AM]

Actually the $999 Sony Alpha does come with a kit lens. the $899 version comes without one. The kit lens sells for $199 alone. (MSRP)

[Matt @ Jun 21st 2006 11:34AM]

Just a fancy Evolt, actually lakcing features like live view, and lots of ISO stops.

[Eric @ Jun 21st 2006 11:37AM]

Well, having been a Leica user for almost 20 years, I can attest to the worth of their lenses. If this is truly a Leica lens worth owning, then, I'm on board! On top of that, you can put some totally awesome Olymps 4/3 system lenses on this body.

Check current Leica 35mm lens prices. JUST the lenses mind you run from about $2,000 - 3,700. And that's not the expesnive ones!

I'm getting one!

[Sacramento Photographer @ Jun 21st 2006 12:05PM]

Between a 7.5 MP sensor and Leica glass, this looks like an outstanding camera. It's a little pricy for a vaction camera, but nonetheless would make an excellent one. Assuming the images look good, this could be a great little camera.

[pbg @ Jun 21st 2006 12:35PM]

i actually prefer the 'mega pixel war' to the bullshxt that these electronics companies are bringing to digital imaging. live view lcd? um ok awesome...this camera is cute but theres no reason to buy one except MAYBE to make camera freaks wonder (at a distance) if you pulled the trigger on the RD1 epson :)

[Brian @ Jun 21st 2006 12:35PM]

Tiny little viewfinder (like all the 4/3rd cameras), tiny little sensor, slooooow startup time, and a limited lens selection?

And they want to charge $2K for it? Are they high?

[DirtHerder @ Jun 21st 2006 12:44PM]

Don't understand the objection to "live view". It's been debated to death over at DPReview, and the only thing that is really clear is that those that flat out object/dismiss live view as a "non pro" "gimmick" are rather curmodgeony.

SLR's have evolved from film to digital. In so doing they have changed quite substantially (including the addition of what most "pro's" would call "gimmicks" though funny thing is many "pro's" that I speak to don't really bother wasting time by labeling developments in their gear as "gimmicky"... guess they have more important things to do... like take photographs), and they will continue to do so, as manufacturers are able to leverage the advantages of going digital to greater and greater effect.

Anyone that says otherwise is living in a dream world.

[Jeff @ Jun 21st 2006 1:45PM]

"SLR's have evolved from film to digital. In so doing they have changed quite substantially "

The "live view" is a gimmick because it DOESN'T WORK.

And you know what? It CAN'T work. This is the whole point. People who argue against live view on an SLR aren't doing so because they're "curmudgeonly", they're doing so because they actually understand how cameras work and the basic fact that LIGHT DOESN'T BEND. You can't have an image in a viewfinder and then have that same image on a sensor, when there's a mirror blocking that sensor specifically so the image can be projected in the viewfinder. The only solution to this is to use mirror lockup all the time (which is one of the modes on the Olympus live view), which presents its own unresolvable issues (and also renders the viewfinder inoperative).

Read up on how SLR's actually function and you will stop telling those of us that know how our cameras work that we are "living in a dream world."

You can have live preview OR you can have a functioning TTL viewfinder. You can't have both. It's perfectly fine if you want a camera with live preview - that's your choice - but that is NOT an SLR, anymore than a still camera that also shoots video is a "video camera". SLR's have TTL viewfinders; cameras with full-time TTL live preview LCD's do not and CAN not.

[DirtHerder @ Jun 21st 2006 1:58PM]

[Sigh] I know how SLR's work.

The "you don't know how SLR's work, we do!!!" argument is yet another tired tool of the curmudgeon. :)

I'm not going to bother going into all the arguments against the whole "SLRs cannot and should not change" PoV (feel free to stop by the DPReview forums for that - though ultimately they are unproductive diversions of opinion). But it is clear that camera makers are looking for a way to make this work (even if that means redefining what people consider an "SLR" to be...).

Frankly I think that with people hung up on the term "SLR", maybe they should just ditch the term altogether so that the medium can continue to move forward.

BTW: "digital" was considered a "gimmick" by many pro's back in the day because it "DID NOT WORK" (why do people feel the need to yell to try to get their point across... must be an insecurity thing). But the technology evolved, and has now become common place (as a matter of fact those that were not quick on the uptake ended up having to struggle rather mightily). Don't be so quick to dismiss something as being impossible, or a "gimmick" simply because early itterations aren't quite there yet.

[Westacular @ Jun 21st 2006 2:41PM]

Jeff:

"LIGHT DOESN'T BEND"

Tell that to the lens in your camera.


"You can have live preview OR you can have a functioning TTL viewfinder. You can't have both."

Sure you can -- and it's relatively easy to manage if you don't insist on having both at the exact same instant. (Mirror up, live preview; mirror down, viewfinder.) And here's the thing: could you honestly tell me under what sort of circumstance you'd actually want (or be physically able) to view both the LCD preview and the viewfinder at the same time?

[DirtHerder @ Jun 21st 2006 3:11PM]

Ah speaking of mirror up and/down.

Here is an argument against having a mirror mechanism at all.

People over at the DPReview forums have found that they can actually get better low light results by locking the mirror in the up position (I guess it is a feature of some DSLR's like those from Konica/Minolta). The reasoning is that the mirror movement actually causes some minute vibration within the camera (which makes sense if you think about it).

Now if this is true (admittedly the observations people have made are anecdotal, not sicientific), than it is even more reason to re-examine the workings of the DSLR, to see if there are certain fundamental improvements that can be made in the evolution of that medium, via advancements in technology that exists today (to replace certain things that might not be the optimal choice to begin with... but rather simply what we've grown accustomed to).

[James @ Jun 21st 2006 3:43PM]

Won't the Leica lens work on the Olympus E-500?

[Doc. @ Jun 21st 2006 4:23PM]

I'd pay $2000 for a dSLR with a Leica lens... Hell, that's what a M7 body more or less.

[Brian @ Jun 21st 2006 5:06PM]

"People over at the DPReview forums have found that they can actually get better low light results by locking the mirror in the up position (I guess it is a feature of some DSLR's like those from Konica/Minolta). The reasoning is that the mirror movement actually causes some minute vibration within the camera (which makes sense if you think about it)."

This isn't some sort of magic thing that's only available on KM cameras. Lots and lots of cameras have mirror lock up. And this isn't a "low light" thing, either. It's a slow shutter speed thing.

"Now if this is true (admittedly the observations people have made are anecdotal, not sicientific), than it is even more reason to re-examine the workings of the DSLR, to see if there are certain fundamental improvements that can be made in the evolution of that medium, via advancements in technology that exists today (to replace certain things that might not be the optimal choice to begin with... but rather simply what we've grown accustomed to)."

You really don't know anything at all about SLRs, do you?

[DirtHerder @ Jun 21st 2006 5:43PM]

Brian,

yet another trait of the curmudgeon. Resorting to mis-characterizing other's postings through the use of hyperbole.

"magic" don't recall saying it was "magic". Just wasn't pretending that I knew whether all DSLR's have this or not. And As I said in my posting.. It's not jsut a KM thing. Though i realize for your purposes it is useful to characterize me as saying so. Only flaw being that mis-characterization doesn't really work when you have the original sitting right there. Sorry bub, nice try.

As for it not being a "low light thing". Again, as I stated, the observations these people made was when they were trying to take low light images. Which is when you often find yourself using a slow shutter... which is when it is critical to keep the camera as steady as possible.

Once again. Nice try but you've failed to make your point. I'm afraid you just can't bend people's words (or reality for that matter) to suit your needs, as easily as you seem to think.

"You really don't know anything at all about SLRs, do you?"

[sarcasm on]

Yes yes, you've proven this so definitively with your volley of enlightening posts.

[sarcasm off]

As I've already said. Nice try. But you are going to do much MUCH better than that.

Your statement's have got no legs whatsoever.

[Bobadillo @ Jun 21st 2006 5:59PM]

No he doesn't

[DirtHerder @ Jun 21st 2006 6:27PM]

"No he doesn't"

More pearls of wisdom... sadly like Brian's statments, lacking in any real substance.

I don't know anything about SLR's because... what?

Because I know that a slow shutter speed is often used to take pictures in low light? A scenario in which you want a s little camera movement as possible? [sarcasm] Yeah.. that proves my ignorance (nice try though).

I don't know anything about SLR's because... what?

Because I wrote my posting acknowledging that locking the mirror in te up position is not a uniquely KM trait... but also acknowledge that it might not be something that every DSLR has? Ah yes.. i see your point now. [sarcasm] I must really not know what I'm talking about if I'm saying things like that. Get real.

I don't know anything about SLR's because... what?

I acknowledge and accept the fact that DSLR's are going to continue to evolve?

Seriously? You guys have a long ways to go.

Simply stating that someone doesn't know anything about something (and using mischaracterizations, and BS to support those statements), isn't all that effective.

[Yem @ Jun 21st 2006 7:40PM]

That is a good looking camera. I have Pentax DS and two old Pentax ME bodies - the film bodies are so much nicer to use. Half the size and half the weight.

[bliss @ Jun 21st 2006 8:06PM]

form is def. reminiscent of older models, which is cool.. and hey, a Leica lens? Probably the only thing worth the money.

[physics @ Jun 21st 2006 8:30PM]

Who is going to pay $2k for a camera with a 4/3s sensor with tiny little noisy pixels?

For around the same price or less, you can get a camera with an APS-sized sensor with gloriously huge pixels from Nikon, Pentax or Canon (and soon Sony).

No way a 4/3 camera can come close to a true DSLR in terms of image quality, dynamic range, etc. etc. no matter what lens you stick on it.

Its like having a choice between a toyota Corolla and a bmw M5 for the same price; Lobster or grilled cheese sandwich; snap-on or craftsman; huffy or litespeed :-D

[pbg @ Jun 21st 2006 9:02PM]

those who are defending the live view: why and when is anyone going to use this? cant wait to see the pics you get holding it at arms length like a sony P&S with no optical viewfinder...also cant wait to see the amazing pics you get using it as a waist level or low angle finder like the marketing is pretending is an in-demand feature. Comparing the 'new' live view SLR to the transition to digital imaging in general is completely absurd, this is just another shxtty marketing tool, all the photo/imaging trade magazines are talking about camera features and image processing software as the 'next big thing' in selling cameras. They realized mega pixels are no linger impressive, so they found another thing to push.

[DirtHerder @ Jun 21st 2006 9:55PM]

Sheesh, no one is advocating eschewing the optical viewfinder in favor of the LCD.

You anti-"live view"-heads will do anything to get a flame war started huh.

Anyway, from the sounds of it, you've done all the marketing research there needs to be had in order to make such an informed statement as "pretending is an in-demand feature".

Yeah.. I'm sure that's what it's all about.

As for comparing live view to the move into digital. It is hardly absurd since the point is evolution of technology.

And back to the whole idea of taking pic's at arms length. There is a time and a place for everything, and there are certainly shots that would be easier to take via LCD without having one's eye plastered to a viewfinder (and visa versa). Having the option simply gives the tool added versatility.

Ex: you are in the midst of a large tightly packed crowd, and there is a shot ahead of you, that you can just make out, but can't get from eye level (too many heads in the way). What options does a camera with only a viewfinder give you?

1 - Stick the cam up there and hope you get the shot?

2 - Take the shot, then bring the cam back down so you can double check the shot on the LCD afterwards (wasting valuable time and possibly missing a great shot in the process)?

3 - Say F-it, I can't get the shot, and tell your editor that you just couldn't get the shot framed correctly from where you were.

Those are pretty much the only options left you in such a scenario.

If you had the option to say, I dunno lock the mirror in the open position, and use the LCD to frame the shot (I say "I dunno" because I don't purport to be the smartest guy in the world so I'm sure those engineers at the various cam companies will come up with a far more clever solution). Now you've got a fighting chance of making the shot.

And as I said, the flipside is, there are certainly instances where you want to use an optical viewfinder rather than an LCD.

It's about using the right tool for the job, and quite frankly that should really be the only concern of a real pro anyway (not some fanatical objection or deeply rooted bias).

[jps @ Jun 21st 2006 11:29PM]

You people know that the leica of today is not the leica of yesterday, right? I'm pretty sure the lenses are made in Asia now.

[Andy @ Jun 24th 2006 11:14AM]

To DirtHerder...

Mirror lock-up has been a feature of many SLRs for decades, just because the effect of the mirror slapping is a well-known, very well-documented "weakness" of SLR photography, and has been a mainstream point of debate at least since rangefinders and SLRs both were popular, maybe even longer.

That's why that post seems to indicate you don't know much or at least are too well-informed of the SLR shortcomings. Your suggestion that the DPreview folks somehow found about it, and even more so, this statement: "Now if this is true (admittedly the observations people have made are anecdotal, not sicientific)" (mirror slap is a fact known for decades) just drive home the point.

About live view, it is not really necessary, considering the downsides. Having the sensor exposed for long times is not a good idea on an interchangeable lens camera, then the added electronics and cost, the shutter getting worn and not even taking a picture for it, etc, etc. The main upside (viewing angle) is pretty frivolous considering all these.

The only worthy upside for me would be a live histogram (a RAW one would be just perfect), but I don't think the folks at which this live thing is aimed want or need that, or even know they could have it and why they should ask for it.

But then again, there can be other ways to make a live histogram that don't involve having the sensor exposed at all, which could be a very good solution.

[DirtHerder @ Jun 24th 2006 12:13PM]

Andy.

Really? I dunno... maybe it's been a while since I used a Nikon F1 (admittedly my father's) a lot, but I don't remember a mirror lockup as described. But, that was a long time ago.

And my suggestion isn't that the DPReview folks made a revolutionary discovery. My suggestion is simply that they have made this observation (not here to claim credit for them... and quite frankly who cares who discovered what, that's not really the point of the discussion anyway?)

And so I said that "Now if this is true (admittedly the observations people have made are anecdotal, not sicientific)". So what? I never purported to know everything about SLR's. And that is one aspect that I never really thought much about when I was using them (I guess I took it for granted, so sue me. That still does not mean "You really don't know anything at all about SLRs, do you?").

Anyway, I'll always speak out against objections to advancements in technology/looking forward, because I believe that there is always more to be imagined, learned, discovered, and created.

[Andrew Waters @ Jun 28th 2006 12:18AM]

To all the

[Andrew Waters @ Jun 28th 2006 12:18AM]

To all the

[Andrew Waters @ Jun 28th 2006 12:22AM]

To all the DMC L1 naysayers: What irritates you most, the $2,000 price tag with the lens or the fact I can afford one and you can't.

[sony-alpha @ Jun 16th 2008 10:38PM]

I agree with you