D-Lux3 - A real Leica?

wolfpuppies3 said:

Leica says it's a Leica and guaranteed so to me in writing (my
warranty). Designed by Panasonic, you bet, just as the Jaguar XK was
designed by Ford. Welcome to the international world and decide for
yourself whether the minimal price difference (and firmware) is worth
it to you for the appreciative glances, comments, and outright envy
you will be treated with that wouldn't be the case if it didn't have
that red dot (and cool brown leather Leica case).

Whatever you call it, it's a great pocket tool when I can't get my
Canon 1DM3 in that pocket.
--
No wolves, just Irish Wolfhounds around here.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more with your explaination ---- by the way I own the even smaller C-Lux which seems to be getting more use than my Canon 5D -- for the same reason --- the C-Lux fits in my pocket even with the really cool black leather leica case ( yeah --- i love to spend money !!!! )

kman

PhilMarshall said:

I've just sold all my DSLR gear as I simply didn't enjoy lugging it
all around, and am looking for the best compact I can afford.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the Olympus E-[45]10. May be a revelation to you.

For real ... all those re-batched Panasonic are just well re-batched Panasonic. I am not sure about the price difference in other part of the world but Leica charge a hefty premium over here ( and many part of Asia ) and consequently few do get sold ( no sense in paying hundreds for a name only )

But its not these that deter me, its the lack of proper shooting performance in these compact that made them simply beyond being real photographic tool. Namely the inability to shoot RAW properly. Sure they shoot RAW, but between the frame, one need to sit for another several seconds ( for the new GR-Digital II ) or way up to 30 something second ( yes the leica and panasonic ). IMHO the ability to buffer 3 to 6 RAW+JPEg is almost a must for any serious photographer's digital camera, be it a DC or DSLR.

I was hoping the Sigma DP-1 would do better on this and for real its much larger sensor and the Foveon X3F technology sounds promising ... which probably bring on the same question asked over and over again now, with the 4/3 sensor only 18X13 ( roughly ) why can't some of the 4/3 Mfr utilize the same sensor and do us a decent compact

--

• Franka -

Especially ironic because Jim offered an honest and helpful response to the OP, AND he takes truly marvelous photos with the D-lux 3 - photos that stand above the other posts on dpreview, taken with any camera.
--

Franka T.L. said:

For real ... all those re-batched Panasonic are just well re-batched
Panasonic. I am not sure about the price difference in other part of
the world but Leica charge a hefty premium over here ( and many part
of Asia ) and consequently few do get sold ( no sense in paying
hundreds for a name only )

Click to expand...

Leica has always charged a premium. For years, Sony did the same thing with their stereo gear and TVs.. still do, come to think of it. But, you are getting more than the name.. the warranty is 2 years instead of one, the software is different and the build of the camera is much better.

Franka T.L. said:

But its not these that deter me, its the lack of proper shooting
performance in these compact that made them simply beyond being real
photographic tool. Namely the inability to shoot RAW properly. Sure
they shoot RAW, but between the frame, one need to sit for another
several seconds ( for the new GR-Digital II ) or way up to 30
something second ( yes the leica and panasonic ). IMHO the ability to
buffer 3 to 6 RAW+JPEg is almost a must for any serious
photographer's digital camera, be it a DC or DSLR.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree and disagree. I see your point and having a fast buffer for RAW is certainly better than not having one. But some shoot subjects that simply do not require the speed you desire... but trust me, I will take a fast buffer any day over a slow one. I tend to agree more with you than disagree.

Franka T.L. said:

I was hoping the Sigma DP-1 would do better on this and for real its
much larger sensor and the Foveon X3F technology sounds promising ...
which probably bring on the same question asked over and over again
now, with the 4/3 sensor only 18X13 ( roughly ) why can't some of the
4/3 Mfr utilize the same sensor and do us a decent compact

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I have been waiting for the DP1 to come out for over a year now and there is still no firm release date.

I would love to see the sensor and internal processing that Canon uses on their 5D embedded in a high quality body and high quality wide angle/zoom lens of at least f2.5. What a killer camera that would be.

Why no camera company has created such a camera is a mystery to me. I believe they could sell tons of them.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com/dlux3
http://www.image36.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.

Franka T.L. said:

they shoot RAW, but between the frame, one need to sit for another
several seconds ( for the new GR-Digital II ) or way up to 30
something second ( yes the leica and panasonic ).

Click to expand...

I may have misunderstood you but, If you're saying that the raw write time on the D-Lux 3 or LX2 is 30 seconds or more, I think your stopwatch must be running slow. I've found it to be round about 4 seconds. That may not be acceptable in all situations but it isn't half a minute.

Franka T.L. said:

IMHO the ability to
buffer 3 to 6 RAW+JPEg is almost a must for any serious
photographer's digital camera, be it a DC or DSLR.

Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by serious photographer but anyone who chooses a compact digicam for efficient rapid fire burst shooting has probably chosen the wrong tool for the job. In any case, the machine gun approach to photography is a style of shooting that not everyone would call serious photography, however professionally necessary it may sometimes be.

Jim Radcliffe wrote:
"the warranty is 2 years instead of one, the software is different ..."

Sure it is. But isn't the whole point about a Leica that you don't need a warranty? If 12 months extra warranty is contributing to the price difference the camera does NOT have the superior build quality claimed for it because if quality control is good warranty is cheap.

And as for different software ... isn't the only good argument for spending kilobucks on the M8 that the Leica lens is really what matters?

Les Olson said:

Jim Radcliffe wrote:

Click to expand...

"the warranty is 2 years instead of one, the

Les Olson said:

software is different ..."

Sure it is. But isn't the whole point about a Leica that you don't
need a warranty? If 12 months extra warranty is contributing to the
price difference the camera does NOT have the superior build quality
claimed for it because if quality control is good warranty is cheap.

Click to expand...

It's 2008 Les. No one company makes all the parts anymore.. sensor, electronics, circuit boards, etc.. if it is electronic/digital.. a warranty is needed. Would you buy anything electronic without a warranty? I think not. Would you prefer a 2 year warranty to a one year warranty, I think so.

Les Olson said:

And as for different software ... isn't the only good argument for
spending kilobucks on the M8 that the Leica lens is really what
matters?

Click to expand...

Once again, no. You don't appear to have been reading much about these cameras. Any number of pros have and use the M8.. some with more than one copy. It is a different type of camera (tool).

But all that aside... we're not talking about an M8.. We were talking about the D-Lux3 ... rebadged Panasonic. This has all been covered before. A quick search would have answered your questions.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com/dlux3
http://www.image36.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.

I am definitely aware that it is 2008. It has been for some time, according to my watch, and although I can't quite account for how today comes to be the second I am sure it is right. Electronic mechanisms are so much more reliable than mechanical ones, aren't they? (Which is why American Express doubles your warranty for free if you use their card to buy a camera - and anyone who thinks they are not as near to certain as makes no difference that doubling the warranty is not going to cost them a cent has never dealt with American Express).

I am also aware that cameras have lots of different bits in them, and that most of the bits that count have all those little sausagey things with coloured stripes on them and cannot be made on a lathe, unlike the components of an M3, and that was, strange to say, the point I (and, I suspect, the OP) was trying to make.

The fact is that, as several posters have said, buying the D-Lux 3 is just gold-standard Thorstein Veblen conspicuous consumption. Which is fine. All I am disagreeing with is the idea that the warranty duration and the software constitute a real difference: that is like saying it's not true that women can't run in Manolo Blahnik shoes, they can, sometimes three steps even.

hi,

i have this camera (well, the panasonic) and love it. however, if you can afford the leica model (i was pushing my budget with the panasonic at it's reduced price on amazon) then you should perhaps consider the ricoh gx100. the main advantage of the leica/panasonic over the g9 is the wider angle lens - the ricoh goes even wider. i had only used 35mm equiv before, but love the 28mm and wish i could explore 24mm.

apart from that, i have no serious criticisms of this camera (i was surprised how unimportant the noise issue was after reading so many reviews about it). it's really easy to use (especially once you discover that pressing the "joystick" gives you quick access to critical menu items!).

andrew

i have been trying to find a good shot taken with a 4/3 system at low depth of field with good bokeh. is it possible? there's a scale factor of 2 compared to 35mm, so i guess it's pushing it. if it's not possible then do you really buy that much over a p+s?

Franka T.L. said:

photographic tool. Namely the inability to shoot RAW properly. Sure
they shoot RAW, but between the frame, one need to sit for another
several seconds ( for the new GR-Digital II ) or way up to 30
something second ( yes the leica and panasonic ). IMHO the ability to

Click to expand...

where did you get that from? i just took a shot of the corner of the room in raw, at max resoln, and it took 3 secs, not 30. i may be off by a second (i counted on thousands), but 30 seconds seems very odd. are you just bullshitting?

andrew

andrew cooke said:

i have been trying to find a good shot taken with a 4/3 system at low
depth of field with good bokeh. is it possible?

Click to expand...

Yes, you just have to use big aperture. The Leica 25mm f1.4 comes to mind, as does the Zuiko 50mm f2 or all the super high grade (top pro) f2 zooms.

thanks!

The D Lux 3 is without doubt a great compact camera.It's shortcomings are handling and lack of viewfinder in my opinion.I owned one but never warmed to it, then got the GRD and for me it was worlds better, particularly the ergonomics, full fast control setting and a stunning 28mm lens.
Each to their own but for me the GRD had what the D Lux didn't.....

I have however seem many great images made with the DLux, from posters on this thread..Is it a Leica?..no but who cares actually as long as it meets your needs.

good shooting

andy

andrew cooke said:

hi,

i have this camera (well, the panasonic) and love it. however, if
you can afford the leica model (i was pushing my budget with the
panasonic at it's reduced price on amazon) then you should perhaps
consider the ricoh gx100. the main advantage of the leica/panasonic
over the g9 is the wider angle lens - the ricoh goes even wider. i
had only used 35mm equiv before, but love the 28mm and wish i could
explore 24mm.

apart from that, i have no serious criticisms of this camera (i was
surprised how unimportant the noise issue was after reading so many
reviews about it). it's really easy to use (especially once you
discover that pressing the "joystick" gives you quick access to
critical menu items!).

andrew

Click to expand...

The wide angle of the D lux 3 is really about a 26mm
--
photoman

I used this camera in my vacation. The result is not as good as i expect. May be I get use to DSLR too much. When I view the image in 100%, the IQ just not acceptable. The detail is not clear at all. The noise is very noticable even at IS0 200. The AF speed is not as fast as Canon S3 or G9. For $599... I would go for something else.

Overall, I am very disappointed about this camera. I love this camera design, I love the Lecia logo, the feature is awesome. But when I view the picture in 100%, the IQ just totally turn me down.

I am still waiting for the next model. If Leica have the next D Lux3 come up, I will give it a try again.

Leica would have replaced it under warranty (2 years) if it was faulty. Mine works great. It is not a DSLR, I have a lot of that equipment as well. It is a pocket camera. Don't expect the same results from two totally disimilar designs and purposes.
--
No wolves, just Irish Wolfhounds around here.

Rick Lade said:

But it does go beyond that. Per my dealer who relayed this to me
from the Leica rep, the process goes like this...the lens, as we all
know is made by Leica.

Click to expand...

can you provide substantiated proof of this? I have always been curious about the REAL diff but the actual factual info is elusive. excuse me, but I don't believe salesman when it comes to this and your dealer is just a salesman and not even part of the pany/leica design and engineering org. no offense, but dealers have a LOT of misinformation or intentionally relay that just to continue the 'aura' of the red dot.

if you have facts to support this, I'd love to see them.

Rick Lade said:

But for the Leica version, the lens is
shipped to Panasonic, assembled to the body, shipped back to Leica,

Click to expand...

that makes zero sense. who would design such a process? I call BS. sorry.

Rick Lade said:

and at that point there are firmware tweaks to the sharpness, noise
reduction, and color settings that are not in the Panasonic version.

Click to expand...

differences but only in the jpg engine. raw should be identical (and all tests I've seen show they are identical in raw).

if you PP your images, even from jpg - the diffs are not significant direct from the camera and can be done just as easily at PP.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

If Leica says it's a Leica, it's a Leica
--
photoman