New Panasonic kit lens a cynical experiment in cost-cutting

[RichA]

Boo, Panasonic. Up to now, you'd done just about everything right. For the users, grab a 14-45mm (Japanese) while you still can!!

Dpreview: (G2 review)

Finally, it's worth mentioning that the new cheaper kit lens is a step backwards compared to its predecessor. Stopped down it's as least as good as any kit lens on the market, but wide open it just isn't very impressive at all. At normal print sizes you're unlikely to be troubled by the change - and of course there are plenty of excellent MFT lenses available (not least the lovely 20mm pancake) - but its a real disappointment to see corner cutting like this having a negative impact on image quality.

 

[Jack]

Actually I found mine not all that bad performance-wise, being about equal to the predecessor 14-45. The new lens also focuses dead silent with no noise. However it does feel "cheaper," being mostly plastic and lighter weight relative to the older version.

 

[Brian Mosley]

Could it be sample variation? I know Sony send dpreview their rejects :ROTFL:

Cheers

Brian

 

[RichA]

Actually I found mine not all that bad performance-wise, being about equal to the predecessor 14-45. The new lens also focuses dead silent with no noise. However it does feel "cheaper," being mostly plastic and lighter weight relative to the older version.

They shifted production from Japan to China of the camera and the lens, they cheaped-out on lens construction and optics. There is no higher ground available, like getting a 14-54mm II or 12-60mm like Olympus has for it's DSLRs. Where has the consumer not gotten screwed here? Saved a couple grams in weight? What are we, 100 years old? Video added? I could care less. If I want video, I'll use a dedicated camera like the GH1 or a real video camera. Meanwhile, they reduced the value and quality of the camera overall. Not that migrators from P&S's will ever notice. It's just depressing that cameras are made mostly for an increasing impoverished American audience who demand price and or cost-cutting at every turn.

 

[Vivek]

Hi Rich, I would like to disagree with your initial post.

The 14-42 is a fitting tribute for the G2. Match made in Pana heavens (wherever they are located).

 

[Brian Mosley]

Well, we can always migrate to Leica... that'll teach 'em for cheaping out on us!

Seriously, I love the look and feel of the Pen (still haven't seen a GF1 in a real shop) - hopefully we'll see the high spec m4/3rds body next from Olympus.

Cheers

Brian

 

[monza]

Competition drives costs down, they have to get the costs out of it somewhere. These cameras are only in use for a short time until new ones come out, no one is going to be using a 70 year old G2 like I use my 70 year old Leica IIIc. So why bother adding to the cost with higher build quality at this segment of the market?

 

[Brian Mosley]

I think you're right monza - but there's nothing to stop them making high quality disposable cams too.

I'm sure the next big thing for m4/3rds bodies will be to lose the focal plane shutter and go to an all electronic global shutter. That will drive costs down.

Cheers

Brian

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Side by side comparison of the 14-45 to 14-42 on dpreview shows the new lens is pretty bad, especially near wide open. Now it's the time for Panny to announce the lens sent to dpreview as "pre-production" model...

 

[Vivek]

Come on folks, can't you see that the touch screen and the silent zoom are an order of magnitude improvement over the previous things?

 

[monza]

I can't really hear the zoom on my 14-45 Maybe it's time for a hearing test...

 

[Vivek]

Competition drives costs down, they have to get the costs out of it somewhere. These cameras are only in use for a short time until new ones come out, no one is going to be using a 70 year old G2 like I use my 70 year old Leica IIIc. So why bother adding to the cost with higher build quality at this segment of the market?

Robert, The self destruct button has not kicked in on any of my G1s yet. May be you are right, it would in 6 months and I will be forced to buy a G2?

 

[monza]

Isn't planned obsolescence part of the feature set?

 

[Godfrey]

I don't use any of the kit lenses. They're simply too slow for my uses. And I never really like using "normal zooms" anyway, even the excellent ones.

 

[bcostin]

Isn't every kit lens an excercise in cynical cost cutting? These aren't price-is-no-object L-series glass. The goal is to make an adequate lens at an acceptable price. Discriminating buyers have the option to buy a body and lens separately.

 

[RichA]

Well, we can always migrate to Leica... that'll teach 'em for cheaping out on us!

Seriously, I love the look and feel of the Pen (still haven't seen a GF1 in a real shop) - hopefully we'll see the high spec m4/3rds body next from Olympus.

Cheers

Brian

Hopefully, because we know where people migrate when things get worse with the second-tier cameras, they go to Nikon and Canon. They already have enough market share.

 

[RichA]

Isn't every kit lens an excercise in cynical cost cutting? These aren't price-is-no-object L-series glass. The goal is to make an adequate lens at an acceptable price. Discriminating buyers have the option to buy a body and lens separately.

Not in terms of progression. Canon's original 18-55mm was lousy, it's gotten better. So has Nikon's 18-55mm. The Olympus 14-45mm became the 14-42mm (DSLR lens)which was more cheaply made, but that made sense because the weight reduction was substantial and the optics improved. Sony sensibly canned the terrible 18-70mm and replaced it with a more conservative 18-55mm with much better optics. So, going backwards in optical quality really is a stupid thing to do.

 

[RichA]

Competition drives costs down, they have to get the costs out of it somewhere. These cameras are only in use for a short time until new ones come out, no one is going to be using a 70 year old G2 like I use my 70 year old Leica IIIc. So why bother adding to the cost with higher build quality at this segment of the market?

They cut their labour costs 5-10x by going to China and didn't pass any savings on to the customers. Isn't that enough of a savings, they have to cheapen the equipment too?

 

[biglouis]

It seems to me that a lot of posters in this forum are serious snappers. The fact that we are using m4/3rds at all is counter intuitive. I've never owned a kit lens and even if I do ever buy a G2, I would attempt to do so without the kit lens. With the 7-14, 40/1.4 and 45/2.8, I would argue that serious use of the m4/3rd format is covered.

Now flame me!

LouisB

 

[monza]

They cut their labour costs 5-10x by going to China and didn't pass any savings on to the customers. Isn't that enough of a savings, they have to cheapen the equipment too?

Capitalism. They will either succeed with the G2 at the price point they have it, or they will have to lower the price.