Why the Leica D-Lux 8 matters

[Jeff Biscuits]

A bit off-topic? Maybe. I mention this camera because it relates to a subject that’s cropped up in a few threads recently.

I see the D-Lux 8 as a very significant camera. Not so much for what it is, but for the message that Leica is sending by bringing it to the market.

In case you’re unfamiliar, the D-Lux 8 is based on pretty much the same hardware as the D-Lux 7 and the Panasonic LX100 II. I’ve never used a Leica but I have used the Panasonic: I bought a used one some time ago and returned it. It was a very competent camera, but the EVF was miserable, its controls were somewhat excessive, and I’ve never really liked power zooms (though it did at least have step zoom, which for me is the feature that’s vital for the phrase “a bag of primes” to make any sense).

The thing is, those cameras came out six years ago. Why would Leica release a 6-year old camera with a facelift? The answer begins with the fact that it fixes two of the reasons I didn’t enjoy the LX: the viewfinder and the controls—the contact points. This isn’t a facelift, it’s a major re-engineering the camera—but its surface rather than its insides.

And that’s where we get to what I believe the existence of this camera says:

Cameras were technically good enough at least six years ago. But the user experience was wrong. By improving the user experience (simplifying it by keeping exposure controls immediately accessible and minimising the interface for secondary interactions) it is possible to sell a camera which represents minimal progress in terms of technology, but great progress in terms of ease and enjoyment of use, and to sell it at a premium. In other words, technology has reached a point where it is now the user experience that is the marketable feature.

Spec sheet surfers look elsewhere: Leica believes the market for premium rangefinder-style cameras is driven by experience, not technology, and that the desired experience is one that is pared back from the usual powerhouses bristling with buttons. Carefully streamlining the experience, making a camera more aesthetically attractive, believing that less is more, and reminding people that they don’t actually need a lot of technical wizardry for most applications—these are things that Leica thinks sell to this segment of the market. And I think they’re right.

Am I going to buy a D-Lux 8? It’s unlikely—I’ve contemplating returning to the X100V—but it’s possible. Either way, it’s certainly got my interest and I will see if I can get my hands on one. But mostly I’m just optimistic for the future of cameras if this one is a success.

 

[Minolta TC-1]

I see the D-Lux 8 as a very significant camera. Not so much for what it is, but for the message that Leica is sending by bringing it to the market.(...)

Carefully streamlining the experience, making a camera more aesthetically attractive, believing that less is more, and reminding people that they don’t actually need a lot of technical wizardry for most applications—these are things that Leica thinks sell to this segment of the market. And I think they’re right.

I agree. People that I know who are still using cameras seem to exist in two categories. Either they come from do-it-all superzooms on their (d)SLRs and they're moving towards their phones, increasingly reluctant to lug the SLR with them just for some ultrawide or ultratele use.

The others are deliberate photographers who want a photo machine, not yet another distracting collection of screens and buttons. The value is in the experience, not the technology. In that sense, the CEO of Fujifilm is right that the approach to market is different from when it was a technology driven sale, where stocks and availability is everything. If you know you want that camera because of the experience, it's worthwhile even if you have to wait a bit.

The main issue I have with the D-Lux 8 is this (from the initial review):

At the end of my week with the camera, I found myself hit with an enthusiast-camera conundrum: 'given the similarity of its control layout, why didn't I enjoy it as much as I do the X100 models?' (...)

Or is it, as a insightful friend suggested, that it doesn't share the Fujifilm's attractive color modes, such that the EVF doesn't hold the same promise that its photos will look really good?

The biggest error I ever made in photography, was buying a Fuji because of the film simulations. Now my choice of cameras is limited to Fuji only ;-)

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

The value is in the experience, not the technology. In that sense, the CEO of Fujifilm is right that the approach to market is different from when it was a technology driven sale, where stocks and availability is everything. If you know you want that camera because of the experience, it's worthwhile even if you have to wait a bit.

Hm, I’m not sure “the value is not in the technology” translates to “it’s worth the wait”. Technology may equally be worth the wait.

I think Fujifilm need to be careful. Leica now have an experience-focused camera at the same price as the X100VI. And I’ll bet that once it hits retailers it’s going to be easier to get hold of than the X100VI. Does Fujifilm, with their “normal inventory situation” as they see it, really have the apples to meet Leica on price and compete on… scarcity?

The biggest error I ever made in photography, was buying a Fuji because of the film simulations. Now my choice of cameras is limited to Fuji only ;-)

Yeah, I kind of agree, but Fujifilm’s change to the custom settings behaviour means all the recent cameras are (for my money, at least) raw-only, so that’s no longer a problem (or, rather, it means my yardstick for moving brand is now frozen at Fuji’s 5+ year old models).

 

[DirkPeh]

I hope both - Fuji and Leica - are afraid.

They seem to think “if we only give them the look and user-experience, we can sell them overpriced half-cocked face lift old tech!”

Like the X100IV with the same slow lens motor and the AF issues, or a 6 years old Lumix with a face lift.

What if another manufacturer takes their potential customers serious and offers a well thought off camera for a realistic price that is even deliverable?

I hope a chinese manufacturer, maybe DJI, does to the camera market, what Godox has done to the flash market, and gives the dinosaurs some nightmares

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

They seem to think “if we only give them the look and user-experience, we can sell them overpriced half-cocked face lift old tech!”

But getting the look and user experience right (a) costs money and (b) is valued by customers.

The market is varied. At one end are people like me, who would go out tomorrow and buy a camera with inpeccable aesthetics and experience even if* it used 20 year old technology; and at the other end you have people who will buy any old brick as long as they can wave it around and fire off a bazillion perfectly-focused shots every second.

(* possibly even especially if, if that meant it’d be a lot cheaper than one using the latest technology)

 

[Le Chef]

As I’ve said elsewhere I think this is a significant test move by Leica. While the underlying technology is basically unchanged (barring an OLED EVF, USB-C, and DNG) the UI now lines up the camera with the Q and SL lines. While it’s a big price leap that common UI might keep an upgrading DL-8 owner within Leica.

If successful it might mean Leica turns to L2 partner Panasonic to see what next generation MFT camera might be adapted to Leica’s UI.

In addition the MFT partnership and Leica branded lenses means Leica might have a future in MFT. Maybe for them it could be MFT and Ff, while Fuji is APSC and Medium Format.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

My mother uses an LX100. The first version.

She barely uses it, finding her smarphone to be more practical and less cumbersome to carry (I can't blame her).

But as a result, I've used it for a long time in conjunction to my X100 and once I sold it, now my X100S.

And I will admit, there is some charm about the LX100 / D-Lux series. The lens is pretty good, you have a viewfinder, full manual controls with a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring, even a few custom buttons. And all of that in a very small package, paired with a 24-75 equivalent lens with wide apertures throughout the range.

Is it a good camera? Yep. Lens is good, autofocus is good, burst rate is good, sensor has surprising amounts of DR for a smaller-than-MFT sensor, and it's very versatile.

Do I use it more than my X100S though? Absolutely not. The power zoom is the fatal flaw in that camera : it takes too damn long to open, and once it's opened it's huge. Meanwhile even the old 2013 X100S turns on almost instantly with no lens to extend or zoom to adjust.

Something in Richard Butler's review of the D-Lux 8 also is similar to my experience with the LX100 : the fact that it's a zoom camera.

With the X100S, when I have it around my neck and want to get a shot, my mind already thought it through with the FOV of the lens in mind. When I'm turning the camera on to take a shot, I already stand where I need to be to have the composition I want to have.

With the LX100, I need to think more about the kind of shot I want. I need to take a second and choose between wide angle, standard view or telephoto. I often find myself needing to move around to recompose my shot because my brain simply just didn't see the scene in the focal length that I ended up choosing.

This is what makes me like the X100 formula so much more than the LX100 / D-Lux one. I don't care about sensor performance, I don't care about AF speed or anything like that. But the lack of enjoyment I was getting when using the LX100 just made me run back to the X100S as quickly as I could, even if I'm generally a "50mm and up" kind of guy and don't particularly enjoy the 35mm FOV.

Those cameras are everyday camera, street cameras. Time is always of the essence. You see something that interests you when walking back from work? Camera is around your neck, turn it on, snap, continue walking. I simply can't do that with the LX100.

The LX100 proved itself to be a terrific travel camera however : when you're not in a rush, when you can take your time for the composition. Having the 24-75mm range allows to have everything in one package, from landscapes to portraits without much limits. And this is something the X100 just can't do (35mm being not that wide for landscapes, and not that tight for portraits)

We keep comparing them, but to me the LX100 / D-Lux cameras and the X100 series are cameras made to do completely differnet things, yet people seem to try doing the things that one camera is good at with the other.

 

[Night Pixel]

The value is in the experience, not the technology. In that sense, the CEO of Fujifilm is right that the approach to market is different from when it was a technology driven sale, where stocks and availability is everything. If you know you want that camera because of the experience, it's worthwhile even if you have to wait a bit.

Hm, I’m not sure “the value is not in the technology” translates to “it’s worth the wait”. Technology may equally be worth the wait.

I think Fujifilm need to be careful. Leica now have an experience-focused camera at the same price as the X100VI. And I’ll bet that once it hits retailers it’s going to be easier to get hold of than the X100VI. Does Fujifilm, with their “normal inventory situation” as they see it, really have the apples to meet Leica on price and compete on… scarcity?

The biggest error I ever made in photography, was buying a Fuji because of the film simulations. Now my choice of cameras is limited to Fuji only ;-)

Yeah, I kind of agree, but Fujifilm’s change to the custom settings behaviour means all the recent cameras are (for my money, at least) raw-only, so that’s no longer a problem (or, rather, it means my yardstick for moving brand is now frozen at Fuji’s 5+ year old models).

I wonder. since the D-Lux 8 is made by Panasonic, will the LX100II be upgraded to match the D-Lux at a more reasonable price?

I believe this has been the pattern in the past versions of Leica labeled Panasonic cameras.

--
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." - Diane Arbus

 

[Le Chef]

Simply answer is No. Panasonic have publicly declared they will not build an updated LX100 to match the DL-8.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Simply answer is No. Panasonic have publicly declared they will not build an updated LX100 to match the DL-8.

Well, it wouldn’t make sense anyway: if they took the LX100 II and replaced the body, controls and software with their own (which is what the DL8 is), what they’d end up with is exactly the LX100 II.

 

[davida21]

I have the same opinion as you

My blog: https://tuannguyenmobile.com

Review Tuan Nguyen: https://iaa.uk.net/top-tiem-thu-mua-may-anh-cu-gia-cao-tai-tphcm/

 

[Minolta TC-1]

They seem to think “if we only give them the look and user-experience, we can sell them overpriced half-cocked face lift old tech!”

Like the X100IV with the same slow lens motor and the AF issues

I haven't used it but the review states: "The 8's autofocus is also improved, with the AF tracking showing impressive tenacity, which again makes the camera nicer to use."

Something in Richard Butler's review of the D-Lux 8 also is similar to my experience with the LX100 : the fact that it's a zoom camera.

I had the LX-3 for quite a while. Gave it to my dad who uses it until this day. It's in many ways the grandfather of the LX-100 series and thus the D-Lux 8. Which is also why I'm interested. I got rid of the LX-3 because it didn't have a viewfinder. That problem's been solved for a long time. When I thought my X-Pro2 was too big, I looked long and hard at the X-100 II. Decided to go for an X-E4 in the end, with prime lenses.

But that's precisely why I would get this D-Lux 8 (if I'd have €1500 burning in my pocket...)! It's very complementary. And that's precisely because of the zoom. The X-E4 and the D-Lux 8 are about the same size, but the X-E4's lens will stick out more except for a few pancakes. That, plus the fact that it's many lenses in that small package, makes it an easier camera to grab along e.g. in the evenings during a holiday when you're going out for dinner.

But yeah, for the argument of the quality experience, I agree that the zoom is a factor.

We keep comparing them, but to me the LX100 / D-Lux cameras and the X100 series are cameras made to do completely differnet things(...)

Exactly!

 

[Night Pixel]

Simply answer is No. Panasonic have publicly declared they will not build an updated LX100 to match the DL-8.

Well, it wouldn’t make sense anyway: if they took the LX100 II and replaced the body, controls and software with their own (which is what the DL8 is), what they’d end up with is exactly the LX100 II.

I did a side-by-side compare using the tool here on DPReview.

The only hardware differences I noticed the D-Lux supports USB-C and UHS-2 cards. Oh, and the LX100II has a higher resolution viewfinder.

 

[DirkPeh]

Simply answer is No. Panasonic have publicly declared they will not build an updated LX100 to match the DL-8.

Well, it wouldn’t make sense anyway: if they took the LX100 II and replaced the body, controls and software with their own (which is what the DL8 is), what they’d end up with is exactly the LX100 II.

I did a side-by-side compare using the tool here on DPReview.

The only hardware differences I noticed the D-Lux supports USB-C and UHS-2 cards. Oh, and the LX100II has a higher resolution viewfinder.

You’re wrong about the VF. Read the DPR review.

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

A couple of thoughts come to mind… the way the XE4 was streamlined didn’t go over well, mostly with prior version owners, but I have really enjoyed mine. And I think Leica has done a nice job with this camera. Especially the menu system. I hope it’s well received.

And I’ll say again that the resolution war ended around 13-14 megapixels for me. I don’t print large and most of my output ends up online. So the tech in this camera is more than enough, although I’ve been spoiled by the cropping ability of the new Fujifilm sensors.

I’ve been entertaining the idea of M43 again just to go smaller. But this camera isn’t the one. I could probably get past the power zoom, but not the fixed screen.

 

[Northern_Amateur]

The original X100 remains a very enjoyable camera to use. I miss mine, but it was too valuable to pass over the opportunity to trade. I don’t think everybody needs a camera with the latest software and the fastest motors.

It’s very difficult to describe what makes a really good user experience, and most of use will each want something slightly different.

 

[deednets]

I used the original LX100 alongside the X-T1 in Nepal in 2015 and found it capable for mid-range to landscapes but no subject isolation to speak of. Kind of yeah/nah ok ...

I wanted to shoot 4K time lapse videos in the mountains, but because of the earthquake it never came to that.

I used the camera for unobtrusive shooting and was surprised to see that for landscapes the camera was actually quite good. One could consider a Fuji for longer focal lengths and the D_Lux 8 as an F4 lens.




Taken from the back of an elephant ;-)




LX100




Fuji X-T1

Only posting here as the lens I believe is still the same. I used an LX100 II briefly last year and sold it again after a little - disappointing - dabbling with it as the IQ gains over the last 9 years had left the new 22Mpx sensor in the dust.

Excellent styling though, my guess is that a lot of people might have a play with it, maybe keep it, maybe sell it, who knows, but ultimately it will be the IQ that is important.




LX100 II

I guess I would rather take a Q2 or an X100VI than the D-Lux 8 although for prints at 12" (30cms) it would be just fine. The D-Lux 8 rectifies a few issues with the LX100 series: the rather difficult to maneuver user interface, it took me 20 minutes to find the ISO "dial" ... and if the Q2 I own is anything to go by, they might have implemented the EC wheel button where a long-press brings up various menus including ISO where you can then change it quickly ...

Deed

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Oh, and the LX100II has a higher resolution viewfinder.

Marginally higher resolution, but a bit smaller, and most importantly horrible to use due to the RGB sequence constantly tearing and flickering.

 

[DirkPeh]

The original X100 remains a very enjoyable camera to use. I miss mine, but it was too valuable to pass over the opportunity to trade. I don’t think everybody needs a camera with the latest software and the fastest motors.

It’s very difficult to describe what makes a really good user experience, and most of use will each want something slightly different.

True, but my problem with Fuji and other manufacturers is, that they don’t release really improved cameras, don’t improve their shortcomings, but instead just put some new features or tech into it, increase their prices and get away with it, praised by reviewers and “influencers” for doing so. It’s one thing if I need the latest autofocus, but it’s 100% evident that many if not most users complain about it, not few leaving Fuji because of it. If you would have asked users, if they want an AF on par with the competition or prefer a 40MP sensor, I assume most would have prefered a better AF. Or both

 

[Northern_Amateur]

The original X100 remains a very enjoyable camera to use. I miss mine, but it was too valuable to pass over the opportunity to trade. I don’t think everybody needs a camera with the latest software and the fastest motors.

It’s very difficult to describe what makes a really good user experience, and most of use will each want something slightly different.

True, but my problem with Fuji and other manufacturers is, that they don’t release really improved cameras, don’t improve their shortcomings, but instead just put some new features or tech into it, increase their prices and get away with it, praised by reviewers and “influencers” for doing so. It’s one thing if I need the latest autofocus, but it’s 100% evident that many if not most users complain about it, not few leaving Fuji because of it. If you would have asked users, if they want an AF on par with the competition or prefer a 40MP sensor, I assume most would have prefered a better AF. Or both

I’d highly value more AI assistance with light metering, especially for the challenges in the UK with the way the light can work in hills with water. Yes to focussing as well, although I’m not at the skills standard of others so not in a position to judge when I could have done better vs the camera.