Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Panasonic DMC-LC5 any good?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:14 pm    Post subject: Panasonic DMC-LC5 any good? Reply with quote
Hi, I have seen one of these cams going for £69 with box, charger and stuff. I know it about 10 years old but looking at the pedigree I wonder if its worth a go. I have seen a couple of moans about the image quality in low light (my old Canon G9 was bad enough) - but it does have an f2 lens!




I just wondered what you guys think.

more details:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/panasonic/lumix-dmc-lc5/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lc5-review.html#b


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not just any f2 lens - a Leica f2 lens. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not sure what to say. It's "only" £69 and it has a Leica designed fast 33~100 equivalent lens which is undoubtedly going to be good. But it's ten years old which is a greater age than we're told we should expect such things to last for. And it's "only" 4mp which means producing those 20x16 inch prints that we all make all the time ( Rolling Eyes ) will be tricky . . .

My suggestion is this: Go to shop, offer 5x £10 notes on the counter and ask for a 7-day money back period if not happy. If it's in a camera shop, they've given £30 for it. If it's in a general secondhand dealer/charity shop then it's really cost them nothing. In either case they make a profit. If they accept your offer, great. If they don't, tell yourself they've done you a favour and take Mrs Philslizzy out for a nice lunch Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maybe the lens is good, but image quality will be lower than todays phone cameras. sensor technology was really in child age back in 2002. don't forget that camera has also other properties - AF speed, operation speed, etc. which all will be pain..


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Not sure what to say. It's "only" £69 and it has a Leica designed fast 33~100 equivalent lens which is undoubtedly going to be good. But it's ten years old which is a greater age than we're told we should expect such things to last for. And it's "only" 4mp which means producing those 20x16 inch prints that we all make all the time ( Rolling Eyes ) will be tricky . . .

My suggestion is this: Go to shop, offer 5x £10 notes on the counter and ask for a 7-day money back period if not happy. If it's in a camera shop, they've given £30 for it. If it's in a general secondhand dealer/charity shop then it's really cost them nothing. In either case they make a profit. If they accept your offer, great. If they don't, tell yourself they've done you a favour and take Mrs Philslizzy out for a nice lunch Wink


berraneck wrote:
maybe the lens is good, but image quality will be lower than todays phone cameras. sensor technology was really in child age back in 2002. don't forget that camera has also other properties - AF speed, operation speed, etc. which all will be pain..


Both are good ideas. It is in a second hand camera shop I dont know about taking it back, but Its not charged and I was unable to get a demo, so perhaps the offer of taking it back may work, lternatively I could take the laptop, leave it as security, take a few shots and look at them on my return. Hmm...

I'm not bothered about the megapixels. My first serious digicam was a Minolta Dimage 500, 5 megapixels. I produced some fine A3 prints with that (from heavily cropped files).

I am interested because its from a reputable maker, seems versatile, looks good and has a fine pedigree. Surely it cant be that bad.

I was hoping someone here had used one and can give me first hand experience.

Thanks for taking the time to look guys. The jury's still out on this one!!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The spec of this camera is very similar to the Sony DSC-S85 made in the same year. I think they share the same lens but re-branded to different labe(may be the coating is different?)l. I owned the DSC-S85 and it is a good camera which still make good pictures when in daytime.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Sony would have a Zeiss or Zeiss-designed lens, not Leica.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basic rule if a Leica is cheap that is maximum avarage, what you pay what you get , don't expect much. If you need quality , put this money to a mirror less camera.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, it took me 5 minutes to find gallery of images taken with this camera:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lc5-review/gallery.html

you can make your judge yourself, but I would say that any todays phone can do better.. some even have Zeiss lens:)


PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
OK, it took me 5 minutes to find gallery of images taken with this camera:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lc5-review/gallery.html

you can make your judge yourself, but I would say that any todays phone can do better.. some even have Zeiss lens:)


I saw that gallery and considering the spec I think it's not bad. Waaaay better than the digicam I had at the time. I like the design, it appeals to me. I think if I could get it (much) cheaper I'd go for it.

But I'll forget it for now.

If anyone is interested, it is at Real Camera in Manchester, thy will post and payment thru paypal.

Thanks for your advice guys.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, in MFL club Fabian has posted new m4/3 camera for 100 Euros, which is not much more expensive than this, but has a m4/3 sensor, 10MP, excellent jpegs, fast AF, can take all your lenses... Get a 14-42 lens for it and you are miles ahead of this Panaleica in all regards. Frankly, 10 quid is maximum I would consider paying for it and then I would probably pass.

As for cheap Leica always being average, well my Summar cost me under 100 Euros, C-Elmar as well, both are among my very favorite lenses...


PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't tell you anything about that camera,
but about fz4 (fz5 is same with 25% more pixels i believe)

This camera makes surprisingly good photos and can be had very cheap, even the non-bargain prices at ebay peter out at 35 bucks or so.

It makes surprisingly good photos because it is so light and versatile, it sports 24-420 i believe Leica lens which actually works well at the long end (not like the f/5.9 nonsense illuminating 16 Mpix)

Really, people underestimate convenience factor. It also does auto-exposure and everything and has image stabilizer.

It's not a DSLR which I would use for serious birding, but about 10 times smaller and lighter.
It beat my sony making sparrow photo however because of the low mfd and vivid colors

Plasticky, the finder/menus may not be to your taste.
Pretty noisy. Low iso usable if you don't stretch your luck too much. High Iso performance seriously sucks (only mitigated by fast lens)


PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, for that info. Its pretty much what I got from the guy selling it. He was honest, but after reading the above comments I have decided not to buy. I'll invest my money in some more 1970's Rokkors, I can get a couple at least for what he wants for the camera.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1