I'd have loved to do more testing with the APO Summicron Lens, but I only had it for a week, so I did what I could! Either way, what do you guys think? Worth spending this kind of money on a lens like this?
As an SL owner who shoots primarily 28 mm, this was the lens I was waiting for. But when I saw how much this lens is dependent on digital correction, I was put off immediately. The distortion of the Apo-Summicron is horrible. IMO, these kind of compromises are unworthy of the Leica name and make this lens a rip-off, no matter what Peter Karbe is trying us to tell.
Could you compare the Leica 50mm vs the Lumix 50mm f1.4 S-Pro vs the Sigma 50mm? A comparison of the 50mm for the L-mount alliance would be interesting.
@@alejandroalvarezuribe2173 I started my journey within the full frame L mount alliance with the Lulix S1R (which I still own and adore) paired with the 24-105 Lumix and for 1€ I got the 50mm 1.4 Lumix. It was a superb offer at the launch of the Lumix S1R… The front clutch manual focus system failed two times with a sort of hard point when rotating the ring. After two reparations it failed again so I traded it with an APO 90mm that was in the store in the second hand market and never regretted this big boy The lumix 50 1.4 is optically superb but so ugly in terms of external design with all these steps in the shape, with many different diameters. The Leica is much more simpler (simply a cylinder!)
This has been done a few years back by a german channel. Instead of the current Sigmas, they‘ve used a Sigma 40mm and the 55mm Otus. S-Pro, Otus and Sigma: ruclips.net/video/YiN3qVF5wN8/видео.htmlsi=3gLqgcGsNfujmUpM S-Pro and Summilux-SL ruclips.net/video/HAJH4NiRBJk/видео.htmlsi=4n16RdJ-VKZYSVMJ Basically: The S-Pro tops them. The Summilux-SL ist very similar with little bit warmer tones.
I have several Leica Apo Primes and several Panasonic S primes. You get definitively more microcontrast on the Leica lenses, less color fringing and of course much better build quality. The Leica lenses have some downsides too, especially they stutter a bit when focussing, so they are less usable for video. The value question is relative of what you look for. Some people purposely seek less good lenses for a certain look
I would have loved to see the charts go farther into the corners of the images because that’s where you’ll see a more dramatic difference between the two. The Leica should show even more how bonkers sharp it is into the corners. At the end of the day the price reflects a small company making a lens that is reference-level. There has to exist a lens that shows the best possible performance on full frame and that’s what Leica have set out to achieve. And being a smaller company they can’t get prices down as much as larger companies due to production numbers. It’s not for everyone to buy but it’s so fun to see lenses that are out of this world. Another thing that would be interesting to hear your experience is comparing how files edit between the Leica sensors and other camera brand sensors. I think there might be some more practical value to that difference.
I really enjoyed your video, because it is intellectually honest, but perhaps not entirely exhaustive. I have been shooting with Leica bodies and lenses for about thirty years and I have a fairly precise idea, I think, of what the Leica universe is. As far as the SL bodies in particular are concerned, they are built like tanks, have extraordinary viewfinders, are enjoyable to use, the menus are minimalist and very clear, but the electronic performance is not at the highest levels of the market (I am referring in particular to the autofocus). The SL lenses (I am referring to the fixed focal length APOs, so 21, 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90) are among the most aesthetically beautiful and optically performing lenses of this beginning of the century, but be careful, it is not only the sharpness that characterizes their goodness (even if they are quite sharp, as you have noted) but the precise and careful correction of all the aberrations, distortion and vignetting. Furthermore, and I conclude, the photos taken with the APO SLs have a strong three-dimensional effect, even in difficult lighting situations, accentuated by the pleasant transition from the in-focus areas to the out-of-focus areas. Is this type of design and result worth the abysmal price difference with other lenses? This is an absolutely individual answer. Thanks and keep it up, the search for truth (even in photography) is always important ❤
Well said! There is much more about Leica lenses (and cameras), it can not be reduced to sharpness alone. The 21 is absolutely in a class of its own in my opinion!
To make a fair Lumix VS Leica comparison you should try the Lumix 35mm 1.8 vs Leica Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 ASPH, the Leica is like X4 times the price but if you geek out on the websites and brochures you realize they have the same optical formula, elements and groups, this also happens with the 50mm f/2 ASPH and the Sigma 14-24 / 24-70 VS the Leica versions, of course there are going to be some snobs telling you the Leica glass has some magic which craft that will make them look "better" but I just think is something of "brand name" and paying actual decent salaries on "decent" countries to the people who makes them (Portugal / Japan).
I'd have loved to compare the 35' s together but Leica could only give me the 28mm for testing at the time. I'd have loved to do the 50's too. I just did what I could with the very limited time I had!
Let’s face it, Leica bashing gets views... Leica is a luxury brand with excellent quality. It didn’t look like you were actually looking at the corners of either lens. I think the test chart needs to fill the frame. You didn’t look at flaring, coma, ghosting, or distortion. Focus speed, close focus performance. Resale is another factor. A more complete review would have been better.
4k for one lens. Na that's just illogical. Would rather get all the Lumix L mount prime lens and still have change left over. For a 4k lens I'd expect the lens to take pictures for me without having for me to press anything 😅😅
Thank you for the video. You have to take into account that Panasonic and Leica have been working together so there is knowledge transfer between the two. In terms of colour I saw some obvious difference of skin colour, did you notice that? Also sharpness is not the only quality that Leica is aiming for, they focus a lot of microcontact and how it changes as you move away from the point of focus, i.e. they try to create lenses that have a "pop" lets call it, so a better test would have been with a 3 dimensional object or a portrait etc.
I was reading an article explaining about micro contrast where lenses that have it give images that 3D pop. This is not to be confused with sharpness. A sharp lens without micro contrast will still produce a rather 'flat' image. So that could be the difference in Leica lenses vs others.
Images pop because of the light. If you can't take a good photo with an old rubbish camera, a new bazillion dollar camera will just give you a bad photo with higher resolution.
Guys , remember the 80/20 rule . 20 % of efforts give 80 % of results . And otherwise , to get those remaining 20% you need to spent a lot of effort ( read- money ).
sigma's 35mm f2 dg dn contemporary lens is quite a bit sharper than lumix's 35mm f1.8 lens, so I wonder how the comparison would've turned out if you compared the leica lens with the sigma one
I'm a little confused, because the corners of the chart aren't in the corners of the frame? Interesting that there was already a visible difference that far from the edges, though.
@@JoshCameron you’re videos have been super helpful. I picked up both the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 and 35mm F2 for the L mount. New to the SL system and those two lenses have covered everything for me so far. Plus they are super light.
The slightly more magenta tones of the Lumix made the colors look a wee bit richer, which I prefer. At F2.0 you said the Leica was sharper in the center, but on my 32", 4K Samsung monitor I could not tell a difference. I agree that the side of the image looked better on the Leica, almost like the focus was not as good on the Lumix, but the center was in focus so that couldn't be the issue. Overall though, unless you are pixel peeping with a magnifying glass, the images are the same and I would never pay 9x more for the Leica lens, even if I was so rich that it wouldn't affect me financially to buy the more expensive brand. I think you are just paying for the name on the lens.
I've seen a few comparisons between the Lumix S 50 1.8 and the Summicron-L 50 f2 and they look very, very similar too, that extra $$$ amount comes from the build quality and the brand name, that's all. Up to you to decide if you want to spend 5x more on a lens because it is built/looks better and has a Leica logo instead of a Panasonic one lol
Are these jpg or raw? If its raw, it’s not the brands color we’re looking at. The ICC profile in the editing software determines the color output. Its also easy to make your own profiles. How can still people not know this? Also, you have to use greycard to set white balance in post so that the white balance difference isn’t what makes the colors different.
I almost bought an M8 secondhand and decided to try a rental with a summicron-m lens. I shot it for a week against the S9 and loaded one of the RNI kodachrome and the RNI Tri-X LUTs, added a little grain in camera, and did a few in-body adjustments. While shooting at 12mp, I ended up getting pretty much an exact match on the S9 with the Panasonic 50mm f1.8 and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 against the M8's "magic" Kodak CCD. The panny lens was a little less sharp at the corners and the LoCA wasn't as nice but the Sigma was at least neck and neck.
Great comps! There is no way I could ever justify spending 8x’s as much for a Leica camera and lens, unless I was a professional and would be using the camera in my business all day, every day. You nailed it when you said the law of diminishing returns is front and center in this test. Thank you for your videos!
One thing is definition and another one is color rendering. You just tested the first one if I’m not mistaken. I like the content ideas anyways. Looking forward for more SL3 comparisons. TY
I am 100% with you that the price of Leica lenses are not really justfiable in terms of performance which is not really 8 times better, but 5:47 that is not what people usually call "top corner of the image"
I have wondered about getting the Leica L Mount lenses for my S1H for years and this video makes me glad I haven't bought them yet and spent all my savings.
Hi Josh - I truly appreciate your comparisons and the style of your videos; straight to the point with no waffle. They've been useful for me to help make my camera purchase decisions. One age old discussion that often gets heated: a comparison between a Leica M lens on an SL body, versus a Lumix body. Does the Leica SL really render Leica M lenses better? If you ever get the opportunity to compare them, I think it will be a popular and much discussed video.
Having had the s5ii and SL3 bodies for a while, I can safely say a Sony sensor is a Sony sensor. I own all of the APO-summicron-SL lenses and they are spectacular (if not slower in af). I will say that if your plan is to get the Leica glass and a Panasonic S5ii body then you will not miss much in terms of stills and you will definitely gain in terms of video capabilities. I sold my Panasonic S5ii because I can afford the sl3 and prefer the rugged body, shooting experience, profiles with Leica l mount, and the 60mp Sony sensor. The reason to have L mount bodies at all is for the video in Panasonic or the image quality in the Leica APOs, stick to the other manufacturers for value for price. Sometimes it’s not about the cost and sometimes it is. My three favourite lenses overall are the Leica Noctilux 75mm f/1.25, the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.2 1966, and the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8. For me price is no object but I didn’t grow up that way so I do appreciate the value argument. My point is that you will find favourites in all of the price ranges so just buy the glass you want and put a body you can afford behind it, most other things are corrected in editing.
Have you been able to compare the Leica Summicron asph 35 and 50 to the Panasonic versions? They have same lens optical formula with build differences, but many are always hesitant to say they are basically the same lenses. Any thoughts? If I get the Panasonic versions so I basically have the Leica summicrons just without metal and maybe some autofocus tweaks they made on theirs?
Due to your time limit with the lens, sharpness is the only thing you get to test out. But a nice lens not only about sharpness if adding up other aspects, perhaps it’ll worth closer to its price. Anyhow there will be a brand name tax.
Another big difference is how fast the infocus area dropps off to out of focus. it's dramatic for sure. I have the 28mm APO and previously the 28 F1.4 Summilux and the difference in 3D pop is incredible. The 28 Lux is an insane lens, but the 28 APO is just that munchkin better. Lens charts don't really do the lend justice.
Because it's Leica. They can charge premium and most of us viewers are not the target market. I have a well-to-do colleague and bought the Q3 around 2 years ago. I asked him why, and he told me he doesn't have the time to fiddle around with full frame mirrorless bodies from "lower cost" tier brands like Sony or Canon. He knows the downsides of Leica but still chose Leica as it has an "it" factor amongst his peers.
Lumix has more of a pop which i found interesting. The lumix 35mm is a affordable lens, one that i own. What really gets me is how unimpressed i am with the leica lens, my 35mm sony Gmaster literally outperforms it i believe.
I don’t know if I’m the only one who has said this to you but the leica doesn’t seem sharper lens wise. It seems like it’s more contrast after f2. Thing is you should have done the Leica lens on the s5ii to see if it accomplished that same thing. I get that it’s not needed but at least s5 people would see how much they’re getting back in performance
To be at the top of the diminishing of return means no compromise what so ever. If money is not an issue, surely. Nothing wrong with that. If value is what you value, than of course, best arts are always created from restrictions.
This is a great comparison for both lenses, especially for those photographers who have made themself's a lucrative carer by shooting black and white charts on a flat plane.. Love it
I wish I had done the test differently to be honest. I only had a week with this lens and it was during a busy time for other client work, so I did what I could. Appreciate you watching though :)
@@JoshCameron Sorry, Didn't mean to be so full on and sarcastic. I normally just go past and move on from chart tests. Maybe i was having a grumpy day. .Im sure others will find it beneficial. .
As one who has migrated to the L mount, and owning a TL2 & SL - I'd argue there is 'some' differential (when compared to my S1 panasonic - and for adapted lenses - compared to both XT2 and XT4) in the body. As for lenses - I'm a used buyer - so only limited M class lenses - HOWEVER, on my 90/2.8 there is a difference on the SL vs the S1 - but its not something that jumps out and bites you in the nose. FTR - there is a difference between the TL2 and the SL (but crop v full). ALL said - most of those I know who purchase Leica - are the top 1% (financially) of the market - and if not in a Leica, they would likely be buying Hasselblad vs Fuji (call them the wealthy PURISTS). I think for the rest of us - two comparisons make sense - get some of the revered M glass and slap it on an M, and on an SL2/3 and throw it on a Sony and Panasonic as well. Then put it up against a revered lens from MD, TAK, or even Canon/Nikon in the same. NOW you have something of 'usable' interest. I enjoy your content, but this was a bit of click bait (FOR ME) as the likeliness that I'm plunking down 4500 on SL glass - isn't' going to happen - way too many other options and for me (and I'd guess most of your crowd). I will SECOND, THIRD, and FOURTH the vote for the ULTIMATE shootout between a Sig 50/1.2, the Pana 50/1.4 (told that one is special), and a Lux 50 as well. Might as well throw in the Voigt APO 50 - I'd watch that at least a dozen times as I've toyed with those purchases for a year now (and Sigma ruined it by brining out a 1.2 of stellar size), and the used Leica is only about double - so its in 'range'...
Great video. Firstly I did find myself genuinely leaning towards example A. Secondly I think the lens test was great, and I do get your point about diminishing returns but I wonder if that price value is more about its quality for video as well as its quality for cinematography given how sharp it performs at wide open compared to the 35mm? Not trying to justify it, both lenses perfectly capable of video and photography; but having been around ridiculously costly cinema lenses I can kind of see why the price point is so high. I'd love to see more test with less variables though as your analysis was superb
You are right it cant be justified, but that said😅… I have the Elmarit 24-70 and it is amazing compared to anything I’ve ever owned. Bokeh is better at 2,8 than my Sony 55:1,8 @ 1,8. But it is GAS, no client would care. It comes down to nerding. Great video.
So, I am fully committed to L mount. I own one Leica lens, being the 90-280 which I find a wonderful lens, easily one of my favorite lenses of all time of any mount, however I don't think most Leica lenses are worth their price tag simply because there are great Panasonic and Sigma options for a fraction of the price and really the only thing you get with the Leica lenses is all metal bodies and some features that really don't make much of a real world difference. So while I love my 90-280, I do not plan to buy any other Leica SL lenses from their current lineup.
I have the 28, 35 and 75 APO lenses. I have the 50 Summilux and it is amazing. Have to make prints to really see the difference. I have shot with the Panasonic 1.4 and for social media it is fine. Prints up to 13"x19" are really close. Wide open corner sharpness and fall off is different when prints from 17" and on up. Until you start printing and printing larger prints, no reason to spend the money. i generally print my images at 24"x36 and 40"x60" huge difference when printed at this size.
I've actually never printed my work, so the experience of printing is completely new to me. Thanks for sharing that insight, I guess that's an application that I'd never have thought of !
I came here fully ready to say that it's all just rich people justifying stupid rich people decisions, but I was actually impressed by how sharp that Leica lens was. Of course I don't think it's worth an extra 4000 pounds... better off buying flights to somewhere interesting enough to take photos, but still... it is a very sharp lens. I think the Leica Summicron stuff gets even more ridiculous when you compare it to a GOOD mid-budget lens though. The S prime range is fine (I have all but 2 of them), but they're just that... fine. The Sigma 40mm f1.4 basically breaks tests charts... the new 50mm f1.2 is insane, the 85mm f1.4... the 135mm f1.8... It'd be really interesting to see some of those test comparisons.
Lumix S primes are good, cooking quality lenses with benefits for video. It would be interesting to see an equivalent Leica pitched against the Lumix 50mm 1.4, or the latest Sigma prime lenses.
Thanks for doing the test - interesting result. From what I've been told by others (I personally have never used the Leica lenses on my S1R), going to the extreme corners would have been even more revealing. And, if I you really want to see the difference, test the lenses in hi-res mode. I realize you only had a week, and I'm not criticizing, but it's in those extreme conditions (landscape shot printed very large) is where HR mode + the Leica APO primes really pay off. Again, I'm just relating what I've heard from others (who have a lot of experience printing large) and most of us won't ever print that large. And yes, it's a TON of money. Again, thanks for the test!
If Lumix can make a lens that is comparable to the Leica APO lens in resolution performance but charges only $1000, won't they have done it and the lens will sell like hot cakes? How about $2000? The answer is it's not possible, or else they would have done it. Also we buy a f/2 lens because we want to use it at f/2, not f/8. It's the light rendering characteristics, the bokeh, the behavior under adverse lighting condition at wide opening apertures that differentiates the lenses. If we use f/8 all the time, we should just stick with an iPhone. Now, a more worth while comparison will be between a Leica APO vs non-APO lens and ask whether it's worth paying the extra money for it, to do that, you'll have to do more in depth testing.
Hello Josh Good starting point to try and see the difference between an APO Leica Lens and any other but you need to go out on the field to really appreciate the incredible background separation the F/2 are able to achieve due to their specific design that concentrate on the micro contrast. Also, chromatic aberrations are non existing at all… the 3D pop up effect is also something you have to experiment… I bought all my Leica SL lenses on the second hand market … it’s still expensive but half the price 😊 is more acceptable 😢
I'd have loved to shoot more with this lens! I only had it for a short period of time though unfortunately, but maybe in the future I'll get back in touch with Leica to see if I could test the 35 or 50 :)
@@JoshCameron I wish you can find one on second hand market that you can afford. The 50 SUMMILUX is a marvelous lens. The 90 APO is one of the best portrait lens ever If 90 is too long, the 75 is amazing too. I’d love to trade my APO 35 with a APO 28
Oh here we go. "A test chart doesn't work... You need to take the million dollar 50 kilogram lens out into the field..." Or maybe some people just need to acknowledge that a lot of gear is just a bunch w*nk.
All in standard, WB set to 5500K on both cameras :) Shooting JPG and RAW, but what you're seeing is the RAW image ran through LR with no edits, and then exported to JPG
@@JoshCameron so is Adobe changing the picture profile to Adobe color or are you switching both cameras to camera standard? The similarity seems odd if both are set to camera standard in lightroom as well.
@@jimiernola8540 even the untouched JPGs out of camera look very similar. Everything was done the exact same on both, same profile, same settings, everything :)
Thanks for the video, Josh. Interesting stuff. Out of curiosity, which Comica mic are you using? It sounds pretty good. Do you use it for ALL your A Roll???
Far for me to be disrespectful but your comparison seems to came out from the series '' the grapes are sour anyway'' aka in scientific language, the concept of ''cognitive dissonance'', where people tend to devalue something they can’t obtain in order to feel better about not achieving it.
Yeah the images from Leica lens is to my eyes better. The s line lens cause my camera body freeze a lot and the plastic built is not as tough as leicas. I do love my s lenses and their light weight but I do think the price difference makes sense.
I think that 99% of clients can't see the difference, especially if the photos are for social media. Only if you have very special needs it's worth paying extra for the Leica hardware.
Could easily tell leica from the photos. They just look livelier. While I definitely agree that leica lenses are overpriced, I think you failed to show all of the positives. You mentioned the APO naming, but failed to show what it means I'm terms of actual image quality. There's a lot of things that add up in comparison to the Lumix lens (which btw I think is overpriced for what it delivers) that makes the leica a much better lens. It's definitely not £4000 better, but image quality wise and build wise there's no comparing them.
"I mean realistically, all a client cares about is a blurry background, and things being in focus." Ouch. I would actually like to see the focus fall off compared, as well as the "blurry background" out of focus bokeh character, although even as a photographer, one has to laugh when the out of focus elements are why one chooses a lens over another, and pays thousands of dollars more.
I wish you actually compared the Leica 28 with a Lumix 28. Or even with the 35, but in a real world situation. It makes no sense to compare the same lens on different bodies as it's no longer about the lens, but about the sensors and the in camera processing/color science. Leica lenses have no rival when it comes to rendering, highlight rolloff and out of focus transition areas. No one buys a Leica lens for the sharpness, really. All lenses are sharp nowdays. But few flare as beautifully as the Leica ones. For video work I have yet to see a lens as beautiful as the Elmarit-R 28 and Summicron-R 35 from 1980. Beats any modern glass in the same price range. And I'm not talking about sharpness... No one really wants super sharp lenses for video work.
Have you seen my Leica vs Lumix colour science video? This was a follow up to that because people specifically said that using a Leica with a Leica lens will give you different results from a Leica with a Lumix lens, and a Lumix with a Leica lens - so that's what I was testing mainly :) Lumix doesn't make a 28mm and I asked for either the 35 or the 50, but Leica could only give me the 28!
@@JoshCameron in that case the title is confusing. Because this is not about if a Leica lens is worth it, it’s about if a camera is worth it together with a certain lens brand.
Who's to say that the 28mm is sharper because it's closer to the target chart? That's crazy either way. A price ratio of 8:1 is bonkers. We're all just masterb8ing chasing after such miniscule improvements and specs. I'll stick to my 1.8 primes.
So much effort in testing, but ... Sorry, you are not comparing the corners at all. Your test charts are in the middle. Your "corners" are actually closer to the center than to the corners captured by camera :(
Yeah I agree, I wish I had done the test differently to be honest. I only had a week with this lens and was up against a busy work schedule, so I did what I could. Appreciate you watching though :)
Sigma and panasonic both bring great value and performance. Leica is pricing themselves out of relevance, imho. Most people who will spend 10k+ on a body and lens are shooting medium format...
I mean yes and no…Leica made the L system with the SL1 before the L Mount Alliance… Now days though Lumix and Leica have the L^2 partnership so yes now there is very little difference between the 2. Leica is a luxury brand, like Josh’s new Benz, so in that mindset luxury anything is a grift as it’s not value for money but rather brand for money.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd have loved to do more testing with the APO Summicron Lens, but I only had it for a week, so I did what I could! Either way, what do you guys think? Worth spending this kind of money on a lens like this?
As an SL owner who shoots primarily 28 mm, this was the lens I was waiting for. But when I saw how much this lens is dependent on digital correction, I was put off immediately. The distortion of the Apo-Summicron is horrible. IMO, these kind of compromises are unworthy of the Leica name and make this lens a rip-off, no matter what Peter Karbe is trying us to tell.
Could you compare the Leica 50mm vs the Lumix 50mm f1.4 S-Pro vs the Sigma 50mm? A comparison of the 50mm for the L-mount alliance would be interesting.
This 👍🏻
This definitely has more sense
@@alejandroalvarezuribe2173
I started my journey within the full frame L mount alliance with the Lulix S1R (which I still own and adore) paired with the 24-105 Lumix and for 1€ I got the 50mm 1.4 Lumix. It was a superb offer at the launch of the Lumix S1R…
The front clutch manual focus system failed two times with a sort of hard point when rotating the ring. After two reparations it failed again so I traded it with an APO 90mm that was in the store in the second hand market and never regretted this big boy
The lumix 50 1.4 is optically superb but so ugly in terms of external design with all these steps in the shape, with many different diameters. The Leica is much more simpler (simply a cylinder!)
This has been done a few years back by a german channel. Instead of the current Sigmas, they‘ve used a Sigma 40mm and the 55mm Otus.
S-Pro, Otus and Sigma:
ruclips.net/video/YiN3qVF5wN8/видео.htmlsi=3gLqgcGsNfujmUpM
S-Pro and Summilux-SL
ruclips.net/video/HAJH4NiRBJk/видео.htmlsi=4n16RdJ-VKZYSVMJ
Basically: The S-Pro tops them. The Summilux-SL ist very similar with little bit warmer tones.
Very interesting indeed. I genuinely prefered A
Same. And even if you didn't, there are enough people who have presets you can buy to achieve different Leica body colors that it's a moot point now.
Lumix generally tends to be more punchy while Leica is more “subdued”
@@JoshCameron A didn't even appear overly punchy to me, just better 'balanced' for lack of a better word
Big oof😂 felt like camera A was more vibrant and rich while B was slightly more subtle
And sharper
Same!!
I have several Leica Apo Primes and several Panasonic S primes. You get definitively more microcontrast on the Leica lenses, less color fringing and of course much better build quality. The Leica lenses have some downsides too, especially they stutter a bit when focussing, so they are less usable for video. The value question is relative of what you look for. Some people purposely seek less good lenses for a certain look
Great video. Ultimately the people who are lucky enough to afford a Leica lens will pay the premium, even though the differences are minor.
I would have loved to see the charts go farther into the corners of the images because that’s where you’ll see a more dramatic difference between the two. The Leica should show even more how bonkers sharp it is into the corners. At the end of the day the price reflects a small company making a lens that is reference-level. There has to exist a lens that shows the best possible performance on full frame and that’s what Leica have set out to achieve. And being a smaller company they can’t get prices down as much as larger companies due to production numbers. It’s not for everyone to buy but it’s so fun to see lenses that are out of this world.
Another thing that would be interesting to hear your experience is comparing how files edit between the Leica sensors and other camera brand sensors. I think there might be some more practical value to that difference.
I really enjoyed your video, because it is intellectually honest, but perhaps not entirely exhaustive. I have been shooting with Leica bodies and lenses for about thirty years and I have a fairly precise idea, I think, of what the Leica universe is. As far as the SL bodies in particular are concerned, they are built like tanks, have extraordinary viewfinders, are enjoyable to use, the menus are minimalist and very clear, but the electronic performance is not at the highest levels of the market (I am referring in particular to the autofocus). The SL lenses (I am referring to the fixed focal length APOs, so 21, 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90) are among the most aesthetically beautiful and optically performing lenses of this beginning of the century, but be careful, it is not only the sharpness that characterizes their goodness (even if they are quite sharp, as you have noted) but the precise and careful correction of all the aberrations, distortion and vignetting. Furthermore, and I conclude, the photos taken with the APO SLs have a strong three-dimensional effect, even in difficult lighting situations, accentuated by the pleasant transition from the in-focus areas to the out-of-focus areas. Is this type of design and result worth the abysmal price difference with other lenses? This is an absolutely individual answer. Thanks and keep it up, the search for truth (even in photography) is always important ❤
Well said! There is much more about Leica lenses (and cameras), it can not be reduced to sharpness alone. The 21 is absolutely in a class of its own in my opinion!
Next video - Are Mercedes Benz cars worth it?
@@JB_inks 😂😂😂
To make a fair Lumix VS Leica comparison you should try the Lumix 35mm 1.8 vs Leica Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 ASPH, the Leica is like X4 times the price but if you geek out on the websites and brochures you realize they have the same optical formula, elements and groups, this also happens with the 50mm f/2 ASPH and the Sigma 14-24 / 24-70 VS the Leica versions, of course there are going to be some snobs telling you the Leica glass has some magic which craft that will make them look "better" but I just think is something of "brand name" and paying actual decent salaries on "decent" countries to the people who makes them (Portugal / Japan).
I'd have loved to compare the 35' s together but Leica could only give me the 28mm for testing at the time. I'd have loved to do the 50's too. I just did what I could with the very limited time I had!
Let’s face it, Leica bashing gets views... Leica is a luxury brand with excellent quality. It didn’t look like you were actually looking at the corners of either lens. I think the test chart needs to fill the frame. You didn’t look at flaring, coma, ghosting, or distortion. Focus speed, close focus performance. Resale is another factor. A more complete review would have been better.
@@sromrell I had the lens for a week, I did what I could. Sorry dude
LOL, Leica owner sad he paid 15,000 pounds for some nice paperweights.
4k for one lens. Na that's just illogical. Would rather get all the Lumix L mount prime lens and still have change left over. For a 4k lens I'd expect the lens to take pictures for me without having for me to press anything 😅😅
Thank you for the video. You have to take into account that Panasonic and Leica have been working together so there is knowledge transfer between the two. In terms of colour I saw some obvious difference of skin colour, did you notice that? Also sharpness is not the only quality that Leica is aiming for, they focus a lot of microcontact and how it changes as you move away from the point of focus, i.e. they try to create lenses that have a "pop" lets call it, so a better test would have been with a 3 dimensional object or a portrait etc.
I watched this whole video and decided to take up painting. Cheaper.
Paint gets expensive too, especially if you use the good stuff 😂😂
@@JoshCameron 🤦♀️
I was reading an article explaining about micro contrast where lenses that have it give images that 3D pop. This is not to be confused with sharpness. A sharp lens without micro contrast will still produce a rather 'flat' image. So that could be the difference in Leica lenses vs others.
Images pop because of the light. If you can't take a good photo with an old rubbish camera, a new bazillion dollar camera will just give you a bad photo with higher resolution.
Guys , remember the 80/20 rule . 20 % of efforts give 80 % of results . And otherwise , to get those remaining 20% you need to spent a lot of effort ( read- money ).
sigma's 35mm f2 dg dn contemporary lens is quite a bit sharper than lumix's 35mm f1.8 lens, so I wonder how the comparison would've turned out if you compared the leica lens with the sigma one
I'm a little confused, because the corners of the chart aren't in the corners of the frame? Interesting that there was already a visible difference that far from the edges, though.
SL3 w/ Sigma Glass that's the way to go. Good to see the comparison of the Lumix Colors vs. Leica.
Sigma Art lenses are phenomenal, and priced very well considering!
@@JoshCameron you’re videos have been super helpful. I picked up both the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 and 35mm F2 for the L mount. New to the SL system and those two lenses have covered everything for me so far. Plus they are super light.
The slightly more magenta tones of the Lumix made the colors look a wee bit richer, which I prefer. At F2.0 you said the Leica was sharper in the center, but on my 32", 4K Samsung monitor I could not tell a difference. I agree that the side of the image looked better on the Leica, almost like the focus was not as good on the Lumix, but the center was in focus so that couldn't be the issue. Overall though, unless you are pixel peeping with a magnifying glass, the images are the same and I would never pay 9x more for the Leica lens, even if I was so rich that it wouldn't affect me financially to buy the more expensive brand. I think you are just paying for the name on the lens.
I've seen a few comparisons between the Lumix S 50 1.8 and the Summicron-L 50 f2 and they look very, very similar too, that extra $$$ amount comes from the build quality and the brand name, that's all.
Up to you to decide if you want to spend 5x more on a lens because it is built/looks better and has a Leica logo instead of a Panasonic one lol
For the price, you could just buy multiple Lumix 50's and trash them once a year🤣
Are these jpg or raw? If its raw, it’s not the brands color we’re looking at. The ICC profile in the editing software determines the color output. Its also easy to make your own profiles.
How can still people not know this?
Also, you have to use greycard to set white balance in post so that the white balance difference isn’t what makes the colors different.
I almost bought an M8 secondhand and decided to try a rental with a summicron-m lens. I shot it for a week against the S9 and loaded one of the RNI kodachrome and the RNI Tri-X LUTs, added a little grain in camera, and did a few in-body adjustments. While shooting at 12mp, I ended up getting pretty much an exact match on the S9 with the Panasonic 50mm f1.8 and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 against the M8's "magic" Kodak CCD. The panny lens was a little less sharp at the corners and the LoCA wasn't as nice but the Sigma was at least neck and neck.
I never understood that corner sharpness thing, it's usually out of focus anyway, so who cares if it's a little sharper
Great comps! There is no way I could ever justify spending 8x’s as much for a Leica camera and lens, unless I was a professional and would be using the camera in my business all day, every day. You nailed it when you said the law of diminishing returns is front and center in this test. Thank you for your videos!
One thing is definition and another one is color rendering. You just tested the first one if I’m not mistaken.
I like the content ideas anyways. Looking forward for more SL3 comparisons. TY
The 50mm f/1.4, L-Mount shootout is what we need. Leica vs Lumix vs Sigma... At least Leica vs Lumix if you cant get the Sigma.
When is lumix with Linux lens vs Leica with Leica lens and Leica with lumix lens and Lumix with Leica lens videos coming out?
This killed me🤣
Sounds like the kind of video Lumix Tech Tips would do 😂
I am 100% with you that the price of Leica lenses are not really justfiable in terms of performance which is not really 8 times better, but 5:47 that is not what people usually call "top corner of the image"
I have wondered about getting the Leica L Mount lenses for my S1H for years and this video makes me glad I haven't bought them yet and spent all my savings.
Hi Josh - I truly appreciate your comparisons and the style of your videos; straight to the point with no waffle. They've been useful for me to help make my camera purchase decisions. One age old discussion that often gets heated: a comparison between a Leica M lens on an SL body, versus a Lumix body. Does the Leica SL really render Leica M lenses better? If you ever get the opportunity to compare them, I think it will be a popular and much discussed video.
Would love to see the 70-200 f/2.8 between Leica, Sigma and Pansonic.
I can definitely try to make that happen :)
Having had the s5ii and SL3 bodies for a while, I can safely say a Sony sensor is a Sony sensor. I own all of the APO-summicron-SL lenses and they are spectacular (if not slower in af). I will say that if your plan is to get the Leica glass and a Panasonic S5ii body then you will not miss much in terms of stills and you will definitely gain in terms of video capabilities. I sold my Panasonic S5ii because I can afford the sl3 and prefer the rugged body, shooting experience, profiles with Leica l mount, and the 60mp Sony sensor. The reason to have L mount bodies at all is for the video in Panasonic or the image quality in the Leica APOs, stick to the other manufacturers for value for price.
Sometimes it’s not about the cost and sometimes it is. My three favourite lenses overall are the Leica Noctilux 75mm f/1.25, the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.2 1966, and the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8. For me price is no object but I didn’t grow up that way so I do appreciate the value argument. My point is that you will find favourites in all of the price ranges so just buy the glass you want and put a body you can afford behind it, most other things are corrected in editing.
Have you been able to compare the Leica Summicron asph 35 and 50 to the Panasonic versions? They have same lens optical formula with build differences, but many are always hesitant to say they are basically the same lenses. Any thoughts? If I get the Panasonic versions so I basically have the Leica summicrons just without metal and maybe some autofocus tweaks they made on theirs?
I would be great if you could compare Lumix s 35 1.8 and Leica SL 35 F2 Asph Non Apo. It's almost the same lens.
Due to your time limit with the lens, sharpness is the only thing you get to test out. But a nice lens not only about sharpness if adding up other aspects, perhaps it’ll worth closer to its price. Anyhow there will be a brand name tax.
Another big difference is how fast the infocus area dropps off to out of focus. it's dramatic for sure. I have the 28mm APO and previously the 28 F1.4 Summilux and the difference in 3D pop is incredible. The 28 Lux is an insane lens, but the 28 APO is just that munchkin better. Lens charts don't really do the lend justice.
Because it's Leica. They can charge premium and most of us viewers are not the target market. I have a well-to-do colleague and bought the Q3 around 2 years ago. I asked him why, and he told me he doesn't have the time to fiddle around with full frame mirrorless bodies from "lower cost" tier brands like Sony or Canon. He knows the downsides of Leica but still chose Leica as it has an "it" factor amongst his peers.
Lumix has more of a pop which i found interesting. The lumix 35mm is a affordable lens, one that i own.
What really gets me is how unimpressed i am with the leica lens, my 35mm sony Gmaster literally outperforms it i believe.
I don’t know if I’m the only one who has said this to you but the leica doesn’t seem sharper lens wise. It seems like it’s more contrast after f2. Thing is you should have done the Leica lens on the s5ii to see if it accomplished that same thing. I get that it’s not needed but at least s5 people would see how much they’re getting back in performance
Leica sl3 is 60 mp compare to 24 mp can that have made a difference?
To be at the top of the diminishing of return means no compromise what so ever. If money is not an issue, surely. Nothing wrong with that. If value is what you value, than of course, best arts are always created from restrictions.
This is a great comparison for both lenses, especially for those photographers who have made themself's a lucrative carer by shooting black and white charts on a flat plane.. Love it
I wish I had done the test differently to be honest. I only had a week with this lens and it was during a busy time for other client work, so I did what I could. Appreciate you watching though :)
@@JoshCameron Sorry, Didn't mean to be so full on and sarcastic. I normally just go past and move on from chart tests. Maybe i was having a grumpy day. .Im sure others will find it
beneficial. .
As one who has migrated to the L mount, and owning a TL2 & SL - I'd argue there is 'some' differential (when compared to my S1 panasonic - and for adapted lenses - compared to both XT2 and XT4) in the body. As for lenses - I'm a used buyer - so only limited M class lenses - HOWEVER, on my 90/2.8 there is a difference on the SL vs the S1 - but its not something that jumps out and bites you in the nose. FTR - there is a difference between the TL2 and the SL (but crop v full). ALL said - most of those I know who purchase Leica - are the top 1% (financially) of the market - and if not in a Leica, they would likely be buying Hasselblad vs Fuji (call them the wealthy PURISTS). I think for the rest of us - two comparisons make sense - get some of the revered M glass and slap it on an M, and on an SL2/3 and throw it on a Sony and Panasonic as well. Then put it up against a revered lens from MD, TAK, or even Canon/Nikon in the same. NOW you have something of 'usable' interest. I enjoy your content, but this was a bit of click bait (FOR ME) as the likeliness that I'm plunking down 4500 on SL glass - isn't' going to happen - way too many other options and for me (and I'd guess most of your crowd). I will SECOND, THIRD, and FOURTH the vote for the ULTIMATE shootout between a Sig 50/1.2, the Pana 50/1.4 (told that one is special), and a Lux 50 as well. Might as well throw in the Voigt APO 50 - I'd watch that at least a dozen times as I've toyed with those purchases for a year now (and Sigma ruined it by brining out a 1.2 of stellar size), and the used Leica is only about double - so its in 'range'...
Love the little mercedes flex ;)
A flex that wasn’t intentional, just the only thing I could compare price wise 😂😂
The blacks on the Lumix appear more faded than the Leica lens.
6:38 is it worth it for that upgrade in sharpness? (i don't k)no(w)
Great video. Firstly I did find myself genuinely leaning towards example A. Secondly I think the lens test was great, and I do get your point about diminishing returns but I wonder if that price value is more about its quality for video as well as its quality for cinematography given how sharp it performs at wide open compared to the 35mm?
Not trying to justify it, both lenses perfectly capable of video and photography; but having been around ridiculously costly cinema lenses I can kind of see why the price point is so high. I'd love to see more test with less variables though as your analysis was superb
You are right it cant be justified, but that said😅… I have the Elmarit 24-70 and it is amazing compared to anything I’ve ever owned. Bokeh is better at 2,8 than my Sony 55:1,8 @ 1,8. But it is GAS, no client would care. It comes down to nerding. Great video.
Leica APO lens on Lumix body - yes please!! 😋
So, I am fully committed to L mount. I own one Leica lens, being the 90-280 which I find a wonderful lens, easily one of my favorite lenses of all time of any mount, however I don't think most Leica lenses are worth their price tag simply because there are great Panasonic and Sigma options for a fraction of the price and really the only thing you get with the Leica lenses is all metal bodies and some features that really don't make much of a real world difference. So while I love my 90-280, I do not plan to buy any other Leica SL lenses from their current lineup.
I have the 28, 35 and 75 APO lenses. I have the 50 Summilux and it is amazing. Have to make prints to really see the difference. I have shot with the Panasonic 1.4 and for social media it is fine. Prints up to 13"x19" are really close. Wide open corner sharpness and fall off is different when prints from 17" and on up. Until you start printing and printing larger prints, no reason to spend the money. i generally print my images at 24"x36 and 40"x60" huge difference when printed at this size.
I've actually never printed my work, so the experience of printing is completely new to me. Thanks for sharing that insight, I guess that's an application that I'd never have thought of !
Oh now you have to make prints...
Hmm interesting. And when no one gives a s*** how much the camera you took your print with cost?
My 50mm S Pro was sharper than my Summimux SL and I could see it without printing ...
I came here fully ready to say that it's all just rich people justifying stupid rich people decisions, but I was actually impressed by how sharp that Leica lens was. Of course I don't think it's worth an extra 4000 pounds... better off buying flights to somewhere interesting enough to take photos, but still... it is a very sharp lens.
I think the Leica Summicron stuff gets even more ridiculous when you compare it to a GOOD mid-budget lens though. The S prime range is fine (I have all but 2 of them), but they're just that... fine. The Sigma 40mm f1.4 basically breaks tests charts... the new 50mm f1.2 is insane, the 85mm f1.4... the 135mm f1.8... It'd be really interesting to see some of those test comparisons.
Lumix S primes are good, cooking quality lenses with benefits for video. It would be interesting to see an equivalent Leica pitched against the Lumix 50mm 1.4, or the latest Sigma prime lenses.
Seriously tho, I have an S5M2 and am about to pick up a used SL2. Please tell me not to!!!!!
It has much worse AF and is heavier. However owning both I always reach for the SL2 when I am doing anything slower paced
Buy an s1r.
@@geoffreybassett6741 hi thanks for replying! Do you think the AF on the SL2 is good enough for talking head video?
@VynZography you have an S5m2. Use that talking head videos
you should test leica SL1, not SL2s, SL1 have diffrent cmos.
Thanks for doing the test - interesting result. From what I've been told by others (I personally have never used the Leica lenses on my S1R), going to the extreme corners would have been even more revealing. And, if I you really want to see the difference, test the lenses in hi-res mode. I realize you only had a week, and I'm not criticizing, but it's in those extreme conditions (landscape shot printed very large) is where HR mode + the Leica APO primes really pay off. Again, I'm just relating what I've heard from others (who have a lot of experience printing large) and most of us won't ever print that large. And yes, it's a TON of money. Again, thanks for the test!
I would love to see leicas lenses compared to other brands like the g-masters or against new canon glass! ❤
If Lumix can make a lens that is comparable to the Leica APO lens in resolution performance but charges only $1000, won't they have done it and the lens will sell like hot cakes? How about $2000? The answer is it's not possible, or else they would have done it. Also we buy a f/2 lens because we want to use it at f/2, not f/8. It's the light rendering characteristics, the bokeh, the behavior under adverse lighting condition at wide opening apertures that differentiates the lenses. If we use f/8 all the time, we should just stick with an iPhone. Now, a more worth while comparison will be between a Leica APO vs non-APO lens and ask whether it's worth paying the extra money for it, to do that, you'll have to do more in depth testing.
Hello Josh
Good starting point to try and see the difference between an APO Leica Lens and any other but you need to go out on the field to really appreciate the incredible background separation the F/2 are able to achieve due to their specific design that concentrate on the micro contrast. Also, chromatic aberrations are non existing at all… the 3D pop up effect is also something you have to experiment…
I bought all my Leica SL lenses on the second hand market … it’s still expensive but half the price 😊 is more acceptable 😢
I'd have loved to shoot more with this lens! I only had it for a short period of time though unfortunately, but maybe in the future I'll get back in touch with Leica to see if I could test the 35 or 50 :)
@@JoshCameron
I wish you can find one on second hand market that you can afford.
The 50 SUMMILUX is a marvelous lens.
The 90 APO is one of the best portrait lens ever
If 90 is too long, the 75 is amazing too.
I’d love to trade my APO 35 with a APO 28
Oh here we go. "A test chart doesn't work... You need to take the million dollar 50 kilogram lens out into the field..."
Or maybe some people just need to acknowledge that a lot of gear is just a bunch w*nk.
"All the client cares about is a blurry background." And if that ain't the TRUTH
sorry dont know if i missed this detail but you shot everything in standard picture profile jpg on both and manual settings were the same, wb mainly?
All in standard, WB set to 5500K on both cameras :) Shooting JPG and RAW, but what you're seeing is the RAW image ran through LR with no edits, and then exported to JPG
@@JoshCameron so is Adobe changing the picture profile to Adobe color or are you switching both cameras to camera standard? The similarity seems odd if both are set to camera standard in lightroom as well.
@@jimiernola8540 even the untouched JPGs out of camera look very similar. Everything was done the exact same on both, same profile, same settings, everything :)
@@JoshCameron alright thanks, then I have to believe it! Thanks
Thanks for the video, Josh. Interesting stuff. Out of curiosity, which Comica mic are you using? It sounds pretty good. Do you use it for ALL your A Roll???
Thank you! The Mic is the Comica CVM-VM30 - I have it going into the Rode Wireless Pro Transmitter and recording 32 Bit Float :)
Go to 5:40 and close the video
The Leica Lens is incredible. But the Lumix 35 is superb for video.
Far for me to be disrespectful but your comparison seems to came out from the series '' the grapes are sour anyway'' aka in scientific language, the concept of ''cognitive dissonance'', where people tend to devalue something they can’t obtain in order to feel better about not achieving it.
Yeah the images from Leica lens is to my eyes better. The s line lens cause my camera body freeze a lot and the plastic built is not as tough as leicas. I do love my s lenses and their light weight but I do think the price difference makes sense.
Well, I think Leica gives a high prestige more than functionality. I would love to let people see that I have a Leica camera in my hand.
I think that 99% of clients can't see the difference, especially if the photos are for social media. Only if you have very special needs it's worth paying extra for the Leica hardware.
Agree totally !
And isn’t it great that if one has those needs that the Leica lenses exist.
Damn that's a beautiful lens. I will have "made it" when I can afford one lol
"sooo can you tell the difference?"
".... nope"
If sonys AF wasnt so good id be 100% team Lumix.
What an interesting Video very cool.
Thank you!
Could easily tell leica from the photos. They just look livelier. While I definitely agree that leica lenses are overpriced, I think you failed to show all of the positives. You mentioned the APO naming, but failed to show what it means I'm terms of actual image quality. There's a lot of things that add up in comparison to the Lumix lens (which btw I think is overpriced for what it delivers) that makes the leica a much better lens. It's definitely not £4000 better, but image quality wise and build wise there's no comparing them.
Then make your own video, special friend.
"I mean realistically, all a client cares about is a blurry background, and things being in focus." Ouch.
I would actually like to see the focus fall off compared, as well as the "blurry background" out of focus bokeh character, although even as a photographer, one has to laugh when the out of focus elements are why one chooses a lens over another, and pays thousands of dollars more.
I'd love to do a video like this in the future , thanks for watching!
I wish you actually compared the Leica 28 with a Lumix 28. Or even with the 35, but in a real world situation. It makes no sense to compare the same lens on different bodies as it's no longer about the lens, but about the sensors and the in camera processing/color science. Leica lenses have no rival when it comes to rendering, highlight rolloff and out of focus transition areas. No one buys a Leica lens for the sharpness, really. All lenses are sharp nowdays. But few flare as beautifully as the Leica ones. For video work I have yet to see a lens as beautiful as the Elmarit-R 28 and Summicron-R 35 from 1980. Beats any modern glass in the same price range. And I'm not talking about sharpness... No one really wants super sharp lenses for video work.
Have you seen my Leica vs Lumix colour science video? This was a follow up to that because people specifically said that using a Leica with a Leica lens will give you different results from a Leica with a Lumix lens, and a Lumix with a Leica lens - so that's what I was testing mainly :) Lumix doesn't make a 28mm and I asked for either the 35 or the 50, but Leica could only give me the 28!
@@JoshCameron in that case the title is confusing. Because this is not about if a Leica lens is worth it, it’s about if a camera is worth it together with a certain lens brand.
Who's to say that the 28mm is sharper because it's closer to the target chart? That's crazy either way. A price ratio of 8:1 is bonkers. We're all just masterb8ing chasing after such miniscule improvements and specs. I'll stick to my 1.8 primes.
Same bro, s primes are enough
Yes but do consider dentists need something to look forward to while they're placing your fillings 😂
So much effort in testing, but ... Sorry, you are not comparing the corners at all. Your test charts are in the middle. Your "corners" are actually closer to the center than to the corners captured by camera :(
Yeah I agree,
I wish I had done the test differently to be honest. I only had a week with this lens and was up against a busy work schedule, so I did what I could. Appreciate you watching though :)
Sigma and panasonic both bring great value and performance. Leica is pricing themselves out of relevance, imho. Most people who will spend 10k+ on a body and lens are shooting medium format...
I would say yes they are..if you have the money.
I can't afford a Mercedes but I have APO SL lenses 😂 and there are more expensive lenses with chromatic aberration...
dude your video is awsome, because i thought really go from lumix s lenses to Leica but your videos helps me to say NO! :D
It doesn’t matter what lens you use in the real world. Leica is a fraction better but at a high price.
I truly liked A better 👀👀
Camera A looks much better to me.
Leica is the Apple of photography, way overpriced
and I own a macbook pro and an iphone
nah the apple of photography is def canon
are we still comparing colors in 2024
It would seem that way
So yes. It proves that its not worth it.
the whole leica L system is a grift, repackaged panasonic
Yup
I mean yes and no…Leica made the L system with the SL1 before the L Mount Alliance… Now days though Lumix and Leica have the L^2 partnership so yes now there is very little difference between the 2.
Leica is a luxury brand, like Josh’s new Benz, so in that mindset luxury anything is a grift as it’s not value for money but rather brand for money.
I feel like you just need to put a little red sticker on your panny product and it becomes a leica
The build quality is a massive difference, and that’s not to say lumix products aren’t well made, it’s just Leica’s are TANKS
Calling it before the video starts: "FUCK NO"
I was right, lumix is just leica without the red circle tax
Please never make this kind of video. I love how you show day to day use
I was like « bro, obviously the camera got that Leica Look »
Well, looks like I’m buying a LUMIX !