In the interest of clarifying what is and is not digital lens correction, here are some links to dpreview's commentary on the subject.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/distortion/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp

For the sake of argument here, allow me to throw in a spanner in the works. Many have compared the Nokton 25mm with the new Leica-Panasonic Summilux, trying to find out which one is better. What many don't realise is that one is traditionally made optics, the other an electronically driven lens. The difference is like night and day, or saying analog is better than digital.

Is analog completely obsolete? Is digital the way of the future? i have shot with both MF and AF lenses and I acknowledge that different lenses and technologies serve different functions. I refuse to be drawn into the useless speculation of which is superior, but I have preferences and favourites. When I make a feature film, or narrative content, regardless of the size and length of the project, i will always opt for old school primes. When i am on the run and gun, I will use the best AF lenses available.

So whether Leica ditches Panasonic, or the other way around, it's purely a commercial matter that has nothing to do with end users like me. At the end of the day, when they make billions of dollars, they are not concerned about whether I have enough money to bank roll my business, or fund my next film. Similarly, i don't quite give two hoots about whether the word "Leica" is missing from the lastest Pany camera body. There will always be alternatives to get round compatibility issues. That's what i like about the m4/3 system - it is an open system that accommodates rather than excludes. Just find the right adaptor and you could be playing with a Wollensak Cine lens on your GH2!

@stonebat I agree, I want Leica-approved HD video optimized m43 lens at an affordable price too. I just don't think it's in the cards anytime soon. Panasonic's relationship with Leica isn't like Sony/Zeiss where Sony sticks the Zeiss name on any POS camcorder or point and shoot no matter how low on the food chain it is. Leica's licensing deal has strict boundaries as I understand, as well it should. I don't know why Zeiss agrees to let Sony put its name on the crappiest little compacts. Well, maybe I have an idea why they do.

I also agree about Samyang. I am eager to pick up the new 24mm f/1.4, as I do prefer purely optical, manual focus lenses for shooting video and stills. The 20mm pancake is the only native m43 lens I've tried that I liked as much as my vintage lenses.

@Brian202020
And if you were nice this year? He he he :-)

Christmas!

I meant for @nomad.

@Shaveblog, I want Leica approved HD video optimized Panasonic m43 lens at affordable price. Is that only a wishful thinking? Panasonic has set clearly that their 'X' pro lens line won't be Leica approved. Somehow that doesn't bother me much. What I care the most is final artifact. I can work with MF only lenses and Panasonic HD optimized lenses with DSP. But those Leicasonic lenses are not HD optimized and still have fly-by-wire focus. I'd rather get Samyang lens. Leicasonic m43 lenses are great for photo, though.

I think there are good reasons why those legacy lenses became legacy.

I like Panasonic m43 lenses except the fly-by-wire. Newly designed MF lenses from Voigtlander and Samyang look great. Eventually the legacy lens bubble price will come down to earth again.

I understand Leica's perspective, and Panasonic's. Each brand serves a different market, with a bit of Venn overlap that benefits both (revenue for little Leica, prestige for big Panasonic).

I have a fair amount of experience with DSP correction in loudspeakers, both at the high and and low end, and I think DSP speakers are loosely analogous to the topic at hand. In both cases, transfer non-linearities are measured for a finite set of metrics at a certain vantage point in space, then their output signal is digitally corrected to reduce those measured distortions.

I find DSP correction is better at bringing low-cost commodity designs up to an acceptable (at times, even surprising) level of subjective quality than it is at improving a well-designed speaker built with high quality drivers. The marketing behind DSP speakers has always been about polishing diamonds but the president of the world's largest speaker manufacturer (Harman) once admitted to me that she loved DSP because it upped the usability of ever-worsening commodity parts sourced from parts of the world that make China seem Swiss. And I agree - it's amazing what a little DSP can do to fool the listener into thinking a cheap set of speakers sounds much better than it should.

As for camera lenses, I think both Leica and Panasonic have it right. Just as a well-designed speaker like the original ARs still sounds good after all these years, purely optical lens designs a la Leica will always look subjectively better overall, and still look as good 50 yrs from now. DSP-assisted lenses like the Panasonics offer unparalleled value and excellent IQ, but over time they will probably not continue to be as well-regarded. Advances in DSP and optical lens technology will undoubtedly show today's DSP lenses to not be quite as good as we think they are. I've seen it happen to DSP speakers that were hailed and heralded as the new paradigm, and it will happen with DSP lenses as well. The technology will trickle down and enable affordable, shockingly good lenses like the Panasonics, but their IQ will never be quite as good as the best purely optical designs like Leica and Zeiss.

I love my Panasonic 20mm pancake, and I feel lucky to live at a time when you can buy a lens for not that much money that looks this good and weighs practically nothing. But I'm pretty confident it won't stand the test of time like my 1960's era Canon FD 35mm F2. Purely optical lens design, when done right, enjoys a subjective quality DSP will likely never surpass. Approach, certainly. Mimic, most definitely. But at the end of the day, Leica is right not to want to swim in those waters if it wants to preserve its brand identity as the most purely beautiful look full stop.

Not allowing digital correction on your optics is a bit purist these days. Especially if you want higher margins on your crap glass :)

@Shaveblog
Actually, I didn't know that Leica-branded Lumix lenses use no digital correction, thanks for making that distinction clear. That alone explains why there is no Leica branding on Lumix Micro Four Thirds lenses. No offense intended, so I changed the thread title accordingly.

It's my understanding that Leica's licensing of its branding for Panasonic lenses prohibits software lens correction. So the Panaleica lenses are designed to be as linear as possible in the physical realm i.e. optically while the non-Leica Panasonic lenses e.g. the 20mm pancake and the new X series glass employ lens correction in the digital realm.

I know LPowell knows all this already.

Wow, bit of a sensationalist title to this thread, don't you think? I read the article, didn't see where you found the bit about Leica saying the X lenses suck. Just because Panasonic uses digital technology to correct for aberrations and Leica doesn't certainly won't make Panny lenses suck. Some of the non-Leica branded Panny m4/3 glass performs on par with the best Canon L lenses. They're two companies, they have different approaches to making lenses. When they can partner, great - when they can't, who cares as long as the results are there?

To be honest, since I got the Leica D 14-50 mm F2.8-F3.5, I am not so convinced about quality of leica branded lenses anymore. This lens has quit some distortion, it has breathing like hell and the electronic translation from the focusing ring to the hardware lenses feels very waggly. Means, the optical scale on the lens is jittering (first lens I got was even jittering in the lens-movement and had to be replaced), and the translation is not fixed, so sometimes the same distance of the ring doesn't mean the same distance on the lens.

So I feel that leica brand is not necessarily a proof of quality.