We've already
played around some with Panasonic's
DMC-L10, but the folks over at PhotographyBlog have given the consumer-oriented cam a thorough going-over, and it looks like Panny's second attempt at a DSLR is a solid effort that's both elevated and hampered by the inclusion of a high-end Leica lens. That lens, a Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm unit with optical image stabilizer, enables the L10's 10.1 megapixel sensor to capture solid images with very little distortion, but increases the overall cost of the camera to $1300 -- well into prosumer territory. That number doesn't jive with the beginner-oriented design of the camera, sadly -- and although the flip-out rotating LCD, Live View, and face detection features seem like they'd be useful on any DSLR, PB doesn't think the DMC-L10 has the jones to compete with Canon
EOS 40D, Nikon
D200, or Sony
A700. For the beginner with cash, however, it looks like the L10 is a solid option -- now let's see how Panny brings the price down the next time around.
posted Nov 2nd 2007 4:30PM
ehh, if it were 12mp i could justify the cost, but for 10.1mp if it ain't sub-$1000 it ain't really in the consumer market anymore. But thats just what i think, anything other than MP is lost on the typically consumer.
Nilay- I've noticed you post a lot about DLSRs. I'm waiting on a potential 40D purchase to play with the D300 and see if the extra cost is worth it. I haven't looked seriously at the non-Canon or Nikon competitors. What camera do you have?
I take issue with the assumption that "beginners (won't) appreciate the difference between the Leica lens and one costing hundreds of pounds less" . Almost every person I know who bought an entry-level DSLR, thinking it would magically make their pictures wonderful because it has gobs of megapixels, is always disapointed. This is never due to the body itself, but what is infront of and behind it (ie crumby kit lens and untrained user.) I give them a couple of lessons and loan them a decent prime lens and the story changes drastically. Why DSLRs don't come with a good prime (50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2.0) instead of a crappy zoom is beyond me.
If Panasonic wants to make just another pro-sumer DSLR they picked the wrong lens partner. Leica lenses are among the best 35mm format lenses in the world and they aren't cheap. Electronics ARE cheap and have a short life until obsolesence. Not the case with optics. So a kit with a lens worth twice as much the body isn't completely unreasonable. In 5 years you will want to upgrade the body, but you'll keep the lenses!
By the way 10MP in a 4/3 sensor is a good number. Don't fall into the MP trap. More doesn't mean better. The more pixels you cram into a small area, the smaller (and less sensitive) they get. Eventually you have so little active area that you can't take a decent shot without heaps of light.
BTW, there is another review of this kit @ dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcl10
cheers
@paragraph:
Uhh, since when do megapixels equal quality?
all you need to understand the "prosumer" pricing on this camera is to look at the name on the lens.
Its nice to see Leica glass in DSLR format but its really a shame its not on a full frame CMOS camera to take advatage of it. The 4/3 format drives me crazy. Nothing like only using half the lens surface, mirror and sensor being nearly half the size. I would really hesitate putting tons of money into a lens system that is not necessarily as established or as mainstream as Canon or Nikon.
Well, first of all, the FourThirds system was designed from the ground-up, so everything, form the lenses to the mirror box to the distance from the rear element to the sensor, is optimized for a sensor that size, in the same way that a 35mm film camera's internal parts are for the 35mm format. That is the main difference (besides sensor size, of course) between FourThirds and "crop" formats.
Canon's for instance can't be fully optimized, because the distance from the mount to the sensor is limited so it can take regular EF lenses. The same should go for Nikon's.
Secondly, the FourThirds format has not half the sensor surface nor size of a 35mm format camera. It is more like 1/4. It IS that small. My gripe with FourThirds is that their advantage is in size/price, and NOT image quality or control. Up till now, they haven't taken any of those advantages at all, they seem to wanna compete with the likes of Canon's EF-S and such, and unless they take the size/price advantage, they will always lose. Their cameras are the same size, or bigger than Canon's offerings.
And even if what you said was true, what surface of what lens (element) are you talking about? Even with actual "crop" cameras, every point of the front element is used, so for longer focal lengths, the size and weight of the lenses will be pretty much the same. The difference is that for a similar angle of view, with a FourThirds system you will need half the focal length. The advantage also comes with the wide angles. That is where the same focal length lens will be smaller and lighter for a smaller format.
I think the FourThirds system is very interesting, but it is trying to reach for too much. It could be a very good segway from compacts to "full-frame", but it can't pretend to be as "prosumer" as a "crop" camera, which still has a considerable sensor size advantage. It HAS to take the size/price advantage against it. It can't compete for quality or control as they are pretending.