D-Lux3 - A real Leica?

If Leica says it's a Leica, it's a Leica
just like that?

no facts to back it up?

when simon (or phil) commented a long time ago when the question came up, he said it was JUST firmware but there wasn't any talk of actual real hardware changes. if there were, don't you think the story would have been the same?

corroboration - that's all I ask. if its true, that's great and it explains some of the extra cost. if its not true, wouldn't you want to know that as well?

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
Thank you for a complete and informative posting. You helped me decide to purchase the D-Lux 3 and finally cash the check my wife gave me for Christmas for a new camera. I wanted a camera that would shoot raw but be much smaller and lighter than my digital SLR. Your gallery of photographs is awesome!
 
If Leica says it's a Leica, it's a Leica
just like that?

no facts to back it up?
I don't see how you can dispute photography's statement. If the
owners of the Leica brand say it's a Leica camera, then that's what
it is. And that's a fact.
I wasn't asking about the label on the camera, if that's what you are implying.

I'm asking for more indepedant confirmation other than a salesman who clearly has a vested interest in making people think there are actually 2 different lenses and 2 different manuf plants.

I have read a lot about both cams (I own several lx1's, too) but all the engineering sense in me tells me that this is not how manufacturing works.

unless someone has real evidence (a printed or online interview or some data that can be double checked) - I'll just write this off as wishful thinking. but its not how companies build things when they collaborate. it just does not pass the smell test for common sense manufaturing procedures.

I have the repair guide for the lx1 and I've opened mine up a few times - its just the same as any other japanese camera. I could order repair parts from either 'company' and install them just the same. the lens assembly is about $100 (I have a broken lx1 that I bought that way and was going to do a lens replacement myself). its an hour long operation to take it apart and replace the lens and sensor. I have some insight as to what is involved.

once you have seen that there is no 'magic' inside consumer japanese cameras (nothing 'challenging' to have to adjust, nothing requiring you to be any kind of expert at all, no microscopic mechanical things to tune, etc) you'll understand that they are all made on the same line, with the same parts (other than cosmetic color and metal changes here and there) and then they get loaded with 'different' (I wont' say better but I will say different) firmware.

I also don't believe the qc is any different. they are on the same manuf line and are produced IN JAPAN by the same workers. again, this is standard manaufacturing today - in items that profit matters on, you simply do NOT have time to ship across the world (!) and then back again. while that might sound like a plausible reason for why the mark-up is so high, its high because leica choose to mark things up that much - not because their COSTS were that high. the cost of making both is identical.

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

I tend to agree with you. I have a Chevy Tracker. It's the same vehicle as the Suzuki Vitara with a few minor cosmetic differences. Otherwise, they are the same.

I just purchased an LX2 for this very reason. I like the looks of the D-Lux 3, but wasn't willing to pay the difference, which was considerable. I'm not trying to knock the D-Lux 3, it's just a matter of economics in my case.

Good shooting,
Otto...
 
Leica is not owned by Panasonic. Actually the people who own Hermes own a big chunk of it (if not the whole thing).

Look, what he says is true. If Leica says it's a Leica, which they do very clearly at their website and by distributing it through their dealers, then it is a Leica. Who on earth are you to say that it isn't?
--



http://www.massengale.co.uk
 
leica has a vested interest in this 'fable'.

you need dual-source info - else its just one company's sales pitch.

an old news slogan: "if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out" ;)

what's wrong with checking the 'facts'? this isn't religion and we should insist on independant verification before just taking what a manuf marketing person says as gospel truth.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
Leica is not owned by Panasonic. Actually the people who own Hermes
own a big chunk of it (if not the whole thing).
True... but Leica penned a deal with Panasonic to rebadge and repackage some of their existing cameras which were and are clearly Panasonic designs.
Look, what he says is true. If Leica says it's a Leica, which they
do very clearly at their website and by distributing it through their
dealers, then it is a Leica. Who on earth are you to say that it
isn't?
You have to look below the "skin" of the camera.. to it's "genetic" makeup.. which is 99% Panasonic. I have one and love using it but I am under no illusions that it was made by Leica. I accept it for what it is. A good compact camera with a few firmware tweaks (if you believe the press) by Leica.

The M8, in my opinion, is a true Leica creation. All of the other "consumer level" digital cameras from Leica are rebadged Panasonics with Leica cosmetics.

Is it a Leica if Leica sells it under their brand and logo? Yes and no... but the red dot does not mean that Leica manufactured the camera. The Manufacturer is Panasonic.. as the sticker on the bottom clearly states.. Made In Japan.

--
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.
 
Is it a Leica if Leica sells it under their brand and logo?
the advertising and sales guys want you to think this.
Yes and
no... but the red dot does not mean that Leica manufactured the
camera. The Manufacturer is Panasonic.. as the sticker on the bottom
clearly states.. Made In Japan.
I'm really curious where the rumor started about 'germany making the lens'. this just is not sensible by any manuf standards.

all the text I've seen says that leica has 'approved' the QC and manuf process and helped in the design. leica even rejected some earlier pany designs (not clear which cameras this was about, though) and 'made them do it over'. there is a printed article for this and so at least its multiply sourced as information.

I can find no information other than hearsay that the lens is made in a different plant, has different coatings or is at all different from the pany part, micron for micron.

the diff is not in hardware. its ONLY in the firmware settings (and not even in the logic but just some constants whose values are slightly different).

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
All I did was google Panasonic and Leica and this came up...
to be fair, that sits on a panasonic.com site and its called 'LeicaLensExplained'. its to pany's advantage to give the right parties credit but still make themselves out to look better.

I would expect the same from a leica.de (etc) site. each company is going to 'sing their song' and hope we buy it.

I'd really like something a bit less biased. this argument has been going on for a few years, now; and there is no trustable (non-biased) answer.

I think all we can say is - "here is what company A is telling us and here is company B's story. you decide."

its just he said/she said, so to speak ;)

I was hoping phil/simon would really close the loop on this (one of them did strongly imply they would investigate this more closely and report back) - but I'm thinking this is a strategic thing done between both companies (pany and leica) and neither ONE of them wants the actual truth to come out. the mystique is more useful to both. let the customers wonder. its NOT in their advantage to have the marketing be transparent.

so, while this is a really neat link - it can't be considered unbiased.

'the truth is out there'. but I don't think any of us non-company people have it, to be perfectly frank.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
cnet.com? hmmm. not good enough ;)

the text says:
Aside from minor cosmetic changes, such as the distinctive Leica circular red badge and, in the case of the D-Lux 3, the elimination of the small protruding grip on the right hand side of the camera front, these new Leicas also use different processing algorithms than their Panasonic brethren.
now, do we take that as an exhaustive list? if you go to the bother of a list, why would you NOT include such key things as coatings (I've heard the leica versions of the panys have different coatings) and lens build and this ship back and forth stuff.

why would you exclude such key things?

anyway, cnet.com just rewrote some ad copy. nothing new here.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
the title is 'the-leica-c-lux-2a-glorified-panasonic' or 'Shelton Muller looks at the Leica C-Lux 2 and asks ‘is it just a badge'.

THAT seems, by title, to get to the heart of it.

so, I just read thru and his diffs are:
  • color is diff
  • auto-iso doesn't choose 800
  • included software
in fact, didn't he also leave out things like longer warranty?

but NOTHING about coatings or lens shippy-shippy to and fro - none of that.

granted, this was the fx series of cam. its a fully pocket cam. what you say about this may or may not translate to the lx series or fz or even lc/l.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
I bought the D-Lux 3 because I liked it, better warranty, better build. I buy tools the same way and the camera is just a tool.

It makes no difference to me whether the lense was built/desgined to Leica standards in Japan or Germany.. it makes no difference to me whether the lens was shipped from A to B or whether there is a mysterious coating...

I like the Leica better than the Panasonic. Could I really tell if an image came from a D-Lux 3 or its Panasonic brother? Probably not and anyway, I am never content with the image straight out of the camera.. and that goes for images from my Canon 5D as well.

Not sure why you are so much into the minute details of the camera but if you have doubts, don't buy it. It's really that simple.
--
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.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top