FYI. I have observed vintage, glass lenses (not mine) whose multi-coat coating was degraded by what I presume was excessive cleaning.

The front elements were otherwise unscratched.

OMG!

FYI. It was not his opinion but rather the TONE of his remark which makes him a Troll.

It's apparently necessary to repeat that CHOLLY claims to be a "scientist" ...

Apparently, I have to reiterate what the Troll who claims to be a "scientist" said that "even the CHEAPEST plastic lens is harder than the best protective filter."

Apparently, YOU believe that his flawed premise is a good foundation for making an argument.

I think not.

As I stated, those who are anti-filter are making an apples-and-orange comparision ...

That's your prerogative, but it is a hollow argument ...

....... oh, and it certainly seems to be an un-scientific one for a self-proclaimed "scientist" to have made.

BTW. YOU can read my above-reply for a portion of my opinion about plastics ...

Let me expand my remarks by observing that some unbreakable "plastic" becomes fairly brittle in only mildly cold temperatures AND extremely brittle in below-freezing temps.

Many so-called unbreakable plastics also becomes brittle with age.

WAIT!

.....WHAT?

Well, YOU are changing the discussion from what the Troll had suggested ...

I am not saying that there may not be as-great-or-greater benefit from using a lens hood at times ...

Perhaps I have to reiterate what the Troll who claims to be a "scientist" said that "even the CHEAPEST plastic lens is harder than the best protective filter."

Beginning an analysis with an inaccurate premise seems UN-scientific ...

So, while you may not feel that invalidating the Troll's premise is a valid point for me/someone to make, I feel that it was.

FWIW. It seems that people who are anti-filter often like to introduce an apples-and-oranges comparison ... that is, catastrophic vs. non-catastrophic ...

To counter your close-to-non-sequitar "hammer" example, let me ask you if you have ever known an adult St. Bernard?

If you have never encountered an adult St. Bernard then let me advise you that MY observation is that an adult St. Bernard will generally move through space as if it were still a puppy ...

While having an adult St. Bernard brush past you is certainly not as hard an impact as being hip checked while playing hockey, if you aren't expecting it then you may be momentarily thrown off balance.

Similarly (?), is it not possible to bump the front of a lens whose length is extended by a hood on an occassion when a hoodless lens might not receive a lateral impact?

Of course it is.

I believe the issue of using a "clear" filter (beyond color filters with panchromatic B&W film) is to protect the lens from scratches and/or unnecessary wiping of the lens's outer surface -- that is, NON-catastrophic contact.

Now, I have not done a "Snell" impact test on a lens filter (and, the filter's diameter will certainly have an effect on the "results"), but I reckon that if you want to compare a catastrophic event which can shatter a lens filter (say a 49mm-or-52mm filter) enough so that there are shards then you will have also shattered most plastic lens hoods to the point where SOMETHING would have then possibly made contact with the front element and/or minimally damaged the lens's threaded collar.

For the record, have you tried your hypothetical "hammer" test?

I would guess not.

So, why don't you actually try YOUR "hammer" TEST on both a glass filter & a lens hood AND THEN report back rather than shooting-from-the-hip what you think might occur?!?


WOW!

..... WELL, LUCKY YOU?!?

I cannot speak for John_F, but ...

I have certainly seen lenses which would have been protected from being badly scarred (i.e., scratched) ...

And, filter rings which have been bent severely enough that a plastic collar would probably have been cracked ... but, FYI, the glass inside the filter ring was undamaged.

And, I have certainly seen lenses whose coating has been degraded by repeated cleanings.

BTW (I'm adding on because YOU added on to your original reply). I do not know how Canon's current Zoom lenses compare with Nikon's current Zoom lenses, but I can tell you from first hand experience that Nikkor lenses were generally sharper than their Canon FL/FD counterparts ...

.........................THAT is just my personal experience, and your's may be different
.........................AND the remark is NOT meant to start a Nikon-Canon/-whatever argument ...

.........................There are many great lenses from many lens manufacturers.

Regardless, as I previously indicated, one would think that if YOU-or-anyone-else were trying to achieve superior Image Quality and if YOU were truly concerned about the possible negative effects of having ANY filter in front of your lens, then you would NOT be using ANY of your Zoom lenses (regardless of how sharp you think they may be) & YOU would rarely-if-ever use the camera's auto-focusing capabilities RATHER THAN worry so much about an extra piece of glass in front of the camera's lens whose possible negative effect is considered to be negligible by almost everyone else.

OY!

Okay, Troll ...

.... I'll reply to your remarks ...

Yes, Troll, the topic seems to have been discussed before ...

And, I believe that YOU (or, perhaps you are simply parroting someone else's remark) have made this prior East Anglian-like misleading declaration (ad nauseum) "that the filter is NOT protecting the lens, but it IS increasing flare and ghosting and decreasing contrast in the process" as if it were a truth to be accepted-and-embraced by everyone without question ...

....Oh, I'm not a scientist ...

.........Let's just say that I'm a former buggy whip maker ...

BUT, I have heard of the "Rockwell (hardness) Scale" (whatever they call it), and there is no way on God's-green-Earth (but, maybe in YOUR world!?!) that a piece of plastic has a harder Rockwell index hardness than any piece of glass ...

IF you believe what you errantly declare is the case, then take any piece of glass & run its edge against any piece of plastic ... OOPS ... there's a scratch!

Now run the edge of any piece of plastic against any piece of glass ... WHOA ... is there a scratch?!?

If you will pardon my French, only a douche will point his-or-her camera at a bright light source and complain-or-lament about flare OR added (!?!) "degrading (of the) image quality" in one manner or another OR about the IQ of the lens's performance in general ... with our without ANY filter attached.

I believe that if YOU/anyone really cared about optical performance then ZOOM lenses would be unacceptable compared to the optical performance of a quality PRIME lens ... particularly if you are prone to shooting in situations where flare will occur!

Heck, as good as auto-focusing may-or-may-not be, YOU-and-others would only be using MANUAL focusing, too!

And perhaps, THOSE should probably be your true concerns if "image quality" is truly such a big concern vs. whatever degradation may-or-may-not occur when a filter is placed in front of a lens.

BTW. If you haven't heard of the "Rockwell Scale" then perhaps you should return your Degree(s) to whatever school(s) issued it-or-them.

FWIW. I certainly do not know who uses what ...

And, this may seem like an off topic remark ...

But, I find it interesting that there are (probably) some people who believe that adding a filter to the front of a lens is damaging to IQ while they happily use a Zoom lens with-or-without the autofocus active rather than a Prime lens which is being focused manually ...

....I don't want to seem like the Luddite that I probably am ...

.........but, IMO, if ANYONE is not using a Prime lens which is being focused manually
................but decrying the use of a front filter,

.........then they should possibly think about the potential inconsistency.

FYI. I am well aware of & understand the construction technique of ramming dirt into old tire casings for the so-called "earthships" which were popular in Taos.

BTW. I am NOT saying that Dennis Weaver's death was a result of his "earthship" home ...

Regardless, YOU need to know that concrete & stucco & plaster are materials which "breath" and YOU-or-anyone-else who thinks it is a safe construction technique to use old tires need to do your so-called "due diligence" & do your own research to ensure that you are not putting yourself or others in potential danger.

FWIW. While the type of construction you describe may provide excellent insulation, I have read that a serious, potential problem with the homes built with old car tires is that the tires out-gas a hazerdous-to-your-health toxic compound.

Those are some GREAT pictures, BTW ...

And, thanks to the range of pictures which you posted, I finally decided to read the manual (what a concept after all this time!!) and found that one-of-my-three minor disappointments with the camera was due to my self-inflicted ignorance ... and, it is indeed possible to take close-up pictures with my comparatively ancient Panasonic Z15 camera, too!

.....It's almost like getting a new camera!

I guess that if I ever "glue" a filter adapter into the threadless front of the camera's lens, then I will only have to worry about the modest amount of barrel distortion under certain, known/(i.e., easily avoidable) circumstances.

.

WHOA!

I was looking for the post where we were "regale(d) ... (with) the glorious history of Leitz lens making prowess" and then when I couldn't find it, I realized that you were possibly referring to MY post!

.....Really?

..........WTF!

...............What are you, a hater?

Presuming that you were referring to MY post where I recounted how pleased I was with two pre-War Leitz lenses + a vintage Canon Serenar lens, I don't know how you can extrapolate THREE lenses as being what you refer to as a remark which was made "snobbily" OR made by someone who "snobbily" discounts the image quality possible by other lenses if I also mentioned wondering about the potential of Russian copies of vintage German lenses ...

OR, how mentioning a few pre-War lens designs even counts as having been "regale(d) ... with the glorious history of Leitz lens making prowess."

I think that the only thing which can be extrapolated is that the post-War Leitz lenses are probably also excellent; but, I qualified MY statement by indicating that some of the precision may be from the focusing of the lens by the end user ...

FYI. The point of the materials with which the Leitz/Leica lenses which are designed for their 35mm film cameras vs. the materials used in modern lenses can be be considered to be anachronistic OR a marvel of old world craftsmanship OR otherwise as the end user sees fit ...

The nice thing about the Russian copies is their lightweight aluminum barrels ...

REGARDLESS, if the OP (who seems to have dropped out) has reservations about contemporary lenses which have the Leica name, then he can easily use his Leitz/Leica lenses on a a variety of mirrorless digital camera bodies sold by a variety of camera manufacturers.

FWIW. Here is a snapshot (my first "test shot" with the Jupiter 8 lens on a plebeian Olympus PL1 ... the Jupiter 8 is based on the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f2.0 lens ... but, pahtaetoe-poetahtoe) taken under less than ideal conditions (breezy with gusts, no tripod, f5.6 @ ~1m, resampled to 1920x1440) a few minutes ago ... so excuse the subject & composition.

I hope that it will suffice as the first of many "pictorial examples" taken with a Leitz (or, "equivalent" ... if there is such a thing ... kidding!!!) lens which which will find its way to the UHH Forum made by users of Leica equipment ...

"test shot" with Jupter 8 lens @ f5.6

Thanks ...

Obviously, someone at Panasonic must have realized some of the limitations which I cited as soon as those early generations of FZxxx cameras left the loading docks ...

BTW/errata. The "slight pin-cushioning" which I noted should have read "(very) slight barrel distortion" ...

Think about it ...

Ignoring the material selection (polycarbonate vs. glass & nickel-plated brass) AND that one is for a full frame format vs. a half-frame (4/3) sensor AND that one lens costs several times more than the other despite NOT having any electronics ...

Few lenses compare with Leitz/(Leica) lenses, new or vintage ...

I had a pre-War Summarit (50mm 1.5, uncoated) which was excellent (i.e.,better than their apparent reputation suggests) & probably as sharp as a Summar (50mm 2.0, uncoated) which I still have ...

The vintage Canon Serenar lenses are sharp when mounted on a digital camera body ...

.....I have been meaning to test a couple of Russian lenses to see how well they compare ...

Some of how sharp the rangefinder lenses are when mounted on a digital camera body may be due to the fact that I was manually focusing the lens.

That isn't to say that there is a problem with auto-focusing lenses, but even if you "spot" focus, I've got to believe that there may be some compromise when you allow the camera's firmware to focus the lens for you ...

But, maybe not.

If you are currently using an M-series Leica digital camera body + Leitz/(Leica) lenses, then it is probably pointless to use something else unless you want a "field" camera which may become abused or lost/stolen.

If you are currently, only using 35mm Leica cameras & lenses and are asking about getting a digital camera body, then you will be happy to know that you can put-your-toe-in-the-water by using your Leitz/(Leica) lens(es) on many mirrorless camera bodies (both "Full" & "Half" frame) ... included the ones which Leica offers ...

And, you will be able to create B&W images as readily as you can create color images.

FWIW. I have the very vintage LUMIX DMC-FZ15 (c2005) which has the same faux-SLR appearance as the DMC-FZ200.

Of course, I was pretty delighted with it when I first got it ...

.....Nice Controls ...

.....Loved the now-primitive EVF ...

.....Good 6mm-72mm 12x zoom (35mm-420mm equivalent) lens with a little finger's nail size sensor ...

I presume that due to the vintage, the FZ15 preceded the APS sized sensors. It is not clear to me what size senosr the FZ200 has -- perhaps, it's still a comparatively minuscule sensor.

The complaints which I have are:

* some pin-cushioning is evident when the zoom's wide angle aspect is used and a known-to-be horizontal-or-vertical line is not crossing the middle of the frame

* the front of the lens is NOT threaded to accept normal filters/hoods/etc.

* AFAIK, semi-close-up images are not possible without a close up lens ... I can zoom in on an object, but the lens won't focus when on the optically magnfied object) so, the close image size capability is probably about the equivalent to what one can get with a standard 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR camera whose close focusing limit is of about 18" ...

.....ediesaul has demonstrated that the FZ200 can focus more closely than my vintage FZ15 can ...

* it is seemingly tedious to change the exposure (this could definitely be due to MY ignorance of the camera's controls which is undoubtedly due to my acceptance of the camera's automatic exposure 99% of the time!!!) ...

.....Perhaps, this has also been resolved sometime in the past 10 years!

Most of the limitations are undoubtedly due to the vintage of my camera's integrated, auto-focusing lens AND my inability to work around them ... out of ignorance, I will suggest that some of the limitations which I have encountered (other than the pin cushioning & lack of a threaded front) are the same that I anticipate that I might nonetheless encounter with almost any autofocus lens on a high-zoot DSLR (or, not!?!).

The bottom line is that I would say that the FZ200 is probably a very good for many types of picture taking as long as one does not feel that the few, stated obstacles which I cited will also be obstacles for the prospective user.

BTW. My current use-most-of-the-time digital camera is an m4/3 body + a prime lens designed for a full frame 35mm camera which I can (must!) focus manually and whose aperture I can (must!!) adjust manually.

You did NOT indicate what ISO you are shooting at ...

. The higher the ISO, the greater the noise ... and, vice versa.

OR, even what the subject is ("properly lit" vs. not-so-much-so).

I do NOT know what the limits are of your camera or its sensor, but I suspect that if you try shooting at an ISO of 100 that you will probably be able to make 8x10 prints which have an acceptable resolution.

FWIW. I believe you have indirectly answered the question, yourself ...

My recollection is that the film-to-flange distance is GREATER for an m4/3 camera body than for an EOS camera body ...

So, you will probably not be able to focus at normal distances AND you will be limited to doing close-up work.

I believe that there is a Pentax-to-Nikon adapter which has a compensating lens ...

You could use THAT with a Nikon-to-m4/3 tilt adapter.

FWIW. In the past, most 105mm lenses had a closer focusing limit than a typical 135mm lens would have ...

I would think THAT, alone, should be a good reason to choose the 105mm lens.