Leica V-Lux 4 (or Panasonic DMC-LX7)?

[davidedric]

Following the recent thread about photographers using simpler cameras, has anyone thought about, tried or even splashed out on the new Leica V-Lux4 (or the Panasonic LX7, which I think is the same under the skin).

f2.8 throughout 25-600mm equiv. sounds mighty impressive!

Dave

[Bobobird]

I have not tried it myself but someone told me that this is the best bridge out that at the moment.

When asked that the Panasonic was the same, he said yes but the Leica's firmware is differently written and produces better colours and saturation.

Since Canon has gone to 1000 on their HS50, maybe Leica will make the same jump in the next model. If so will surely get one then. f2.8, 24-1000 wow!. Who needs multi-thousand $$$$ lens then.

[thequacksoflife]

Following the recent thread about photographers using simpler cameras, has anyone thought about, tried or even splashed out on the new Leica V-Lux4 (or the Panasonic LX7, which I think is the same under the skin).

f2.8 throughout 25-600mm equiv. sounds mighty impressive!

Dave

David

I think you mean Panasonic FZ200 rather than the LX7.

[davidedric]

I think you mean Panasonic FZ200 rather than the LX7

Oops Just checking you were paying attention

[rpcrowe]

The Panasonic DMC-FZ200 seems like an interesting choice. Especially for times when for one reason or another, I would not want to carry a full-size DSLR kit? The price differential between the Panasonic and Leica V-Lux-4 is really hefty.

I looked up the differences/similarities between these two cameras on snapshot.com. That site really didn't tell me a lot about either camera. If I were considering either camera, I would need to do further research!

http://snapsort.com/compare/Leica-V-...umix-DMC-FZ200

Although snapshot doesn't mention much about the lenses; the two lenses appear almost identical. I wonder about close-up capability... (answered in the photography review blog below)

I do like the constant f/2.8 aperture through that long focal range. A 600mm equivalent focal length is quite nice, especially with an f/2.8 aperture. My 400mm f/5.6L provides a 640mm equivalent on my 1.6x cameras but, only has an f/5.6 aperture and no stabilization...

I also like that both of these cameras have eye level viewfinders. I am not sure I would enjoy shooting with an electronic viewfinder but, I am satisfied with the electronic viewfinder of my Panasonic TM-900 video camera for video work.

I wonder what the shutter lag on this camera would be in comparison to my DSLR cameras using through the lens viewing. Since, shutter lag is longer on a DSLR using live-view, would the lag be greater on the Panasonic with an electronic viewfinder? Long shutter lag drives me crazy since I do a lot of dog portraiture. I have read that the Panasonic is fast but that really doesnt tell me anything. A turtle is fast in comparison to a snail but, neither is a speed demon!

The 12 FPS of the Panasonic DMC-FZ200 would be steps above the apparent 2FPS of the Leica; if the snapshot.com comparison is correct regarding the burst modes.. However, I would care less about the built-in flash of the Panasonic or lack thereof in the Leica.

It is quite interesting that there appear to be several Panasonic Lumix flash hotshoe units available and several third party flash units.

My flash questions (which I am sure could be answered by more in depth research) are:

1: What is the sync speed of the camera/flash. Is the camera capable of syncing at high speeds with a hotshoe flash?
2: What kind of off-camera capability does the camera/flash have: off camera cord, wireless trigger etc?
3: Is there any slave capability?
4: What kind of TTL flash exposure control (if any) is there?

A non-flash question which would be the deciding factor for me: Is this camera capable of RAW capture. (answered in the photography review blog below - yes!)

Additionally, would a fussy photographer like me, who shoots with a 7D and 40D + various lenses, including a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS, be happy with the image quality I would get from the Panasonic

I realize that most shooters of this type camera would have no interest in many of the above parameters but, I cartainly would if I were to consider this camera as an adjunct to my DSLR gear.

I really think that these types of cameras might be an excellent mid-point between the bigger, heavier and more expensive DSLR outfits and the little pocket P&S cameras. But, I certainly would not want to preface my photos with, "The reason these images are not as good as the others that I shoot is because they were shot with my little Panasonic!"

NOTE: Many of my above questions have been answered at http://www.photographyblog.com/revie..._fz200_review/

[jcuknz]

All the FZs I have owned synced at all speed because they are not handicapped with focal plane shutters [ that's fighting talk ] Yes I know about HSS which restricts you to Canon flash units ... [or Nikon /Nikon]
As with all cameras with onboard flash one can trigger the remotes with optical or electronic systems
Not sure about TTL Flash becuase I have never had it or needed it [ More fighting talk ] Actually I probably do have it becuase I use the on-board as a fill in daylight and set it to a minus amount which may count as TTL .... never thought of it as TTL

I have 950mm reach with my FZ and telephoto adaptor and have used it occasionally to good purpose and currently have 500mm reach in a similar manner with M4/3. If I wanted to spend I could get it with a lens and get 600mm reach. But with 16Mp I am usually happy with 280mm and cropping.

I gave away the FZ when the FZ100 came out for two basic reasons, the lens trombones and looses a lot of light as it zooms ... the FZ200 has corrected to second problem with a constant f/2.8.
A third reason escapes my senior mind at the moment
It has come back ... the problem with later models is that with the pre-occupation with the 'wide view' they make the zoom from perhaps 28mm AoV which means that the x24 zoom doesn't result in that much reach and you have to go to Canon/Nikon with their x35 and x41 reach to equal my FZ50 with its x12 from 35mm 430 plus x2.2 adaptor reach of 950mm ... [Raynox 2020 or 2025 ]
Another argument against the bridge camera is the wonderful 'freedom' that the bigger sensor gives you to use higher ISO.
But I rarely used other than 100 ISO with film so why would I need faster ISo with digital .... a good question

I would advise that if you want reach at a reasonable price and you are going to shoot in reasonable light then the FZ200 and the 2025 could be a good way to go though I am sure if you can afford it the DSLR option will be better. There is also M4/3 to add variety to the options, which is where I have gone. Though I retain my bridge cameras for when I want reach and know for computer monitor use I can happilly get 2300mm reach with cropping from the 10Mp sensor.

I make no excuses for shooting with a smaller sensor but just try harder ... it is easier to work with a large sensor just as it was to work MF and LF with film against 35mm. After all it is not what you use but how you use it which is important.