Absolutely none is my guess
Absolutely none is my guess
extra warranty. some design. i bought the d-lux 2 instead of the lx1 and i wouldn't pay the extra again.
think the idea of a nice high performance f2.0 -f2.8 with wide angle 24mm would be the leica part. other than that I would imagine the rest is Panasonic. And I have to say Panasonic seems to have done is good job in this area for the first time.
evidently there are some firmware differences with the DLux3 vs. the LX2 (supposedly with the in-camera jpg processing). Other than that, warranty and red dot.
The price difference is absolutely worth it if you're a sucker for design like me. My D-Lux 3's skin feels so smooth and sexy, just like my Powerbook 12-inch. Love the clean, minimalist lines, too. Wish I'd gotten the silver one, though... on hindsight, it looks a lot more classic than the black.
Other than that, I've read that Leica tweaks the firmware differently. Dunno if that's true; the yellows and blues still pop with a little too plasticky look to me. Not like the Digilux 2 at all, I must say, although it does appear close to those from Minilux samples I have come across.
Expensive Red dot! and expensive extra hand grip addon! Like other have said, only for JPG images, will you most likely notice the difference between LX3 and D-Lux4.
Also design wise, the D-Lux4 looks a whole lot cleaner than the LX3. One has to wonder, whether anyone has made knock off external cases for the LX3. Since the button positions, and LCD, and lens are in exactly the same position, there would be no reason why we could not retrofit a LX3 to look like a D-Lux 4.
Well they may be different cameras.
Apparently, according to respected UK magazine AP, Leica has said the D-Lux 4 has a different processing engine to its Panasonic counterpart and has a "unique colour matching, contrast and picture definition profile" capable of delivering images comparable to those produced by M-series film models. Some statement.
AP recently tested the LX-3 and gave it 34/40 for picture quality against 25/40 for the Ricoh GX200.
Then there is the price. Typical LX-3 prices are around £320 in the UK whereas the D-Lux 4 is going to be £590.
I have several Panaleicas but this time I'm probably going for The D-Lux.
think the "unique color matching ... etc" only applys to JPGs, and so if you are a RAW shooter this advantage over the LX3 may be omitted.
But the D-Lux4 does look real good and much more distinguished and classy, whereas the Panasonic has advertising all over the camera showing off Mega OIS, etc, and the built in hand grip looks a bit cheap and tacky.
IMHO, all Leica branded Panasonic cameras are a rip-off (not that the other Leica cameras are any more realistically priced ).
But at least the others are leica products,people actually think they are buying a leica product with the d-lux which it isnt,its the start of a franchise where leicas only contribution has been a tick to approve a design change.All a con trick if not explained to the general public in full.
The firmware is indeed different. The menus in the D-Lux 4 actually look like the menus in the M8, not a panasonic. The color rendering is different as is the noise reduction, which is less aggressive on the D-Lux 4. The warranty is 2 years versus 1 year. The D-Lux 4 comes with Capture One v4.1, the panasonic does not. Additionally, the RAW files are different. C1 will read and convert the D-Lux 4 RAW file, but will not recognize the Pana file (and never will).
So there are your differences. FWIW I've played with the D-Lux 4 and like it better than the G10 or the P6000, both of which I handled today.
Hope this helps.
Im sure youre correct,my point is that panosonic do all of this,leica just says ok and rakes in the money,its a franchise not a product.I have no idea if this is true,its just what I think. regards Neil.
p.s.I honestly hope that Im wrong.
Last edited by nei1; 25th September 2008 at 09:53.
Wow dfarkas. did not know that Pany RAWs are different from Leica RAW. interesting though that capture one will not be supporting LX3 RAW files. Does Bibble Pro support LX3 RAW?
I always shoot raw, so the jpeg engine means nothing to me. I had a D-Lux3 and still have an LX-2. I did appreciate the design of the D-Lux3 and when I sold it, it was worth more than the LX-2 was. I saw no difference in my Raw files.
I am going for the LX-3 this time. If money was no object, I'd go for the pretty body with the red dot.
You brought up a very valid point that I forgot to make.
The D-Lux 3 was an anomaly in digital cameras. The camera was introduced last Photokina, 2 years ago. In our store, demand stayed consistent for the camera over two years and still continued after the replacement was announced. We sold off some used D-Lux 3 cameras (with Leica CPO warraties) on Ebay and were quite shocked when the bidding ended up being higher for the used cameras than new ones.
The Leica compact cameras hold their value much better than the Pana equivalents. So, you may pay more up front, but you will end up paying less over the long run. Does this make sense?
I totally agree with you David. The cost of ownership over the long run is probably not more and you get the benefit of the more stylish body and the more robust software. I will probably move up to the Leica version at some point in the cycle, but at the moment, I've got some other irons in the fire, and I would rather have the panny than no P+S (in my purse) at all. If this was my only camera, I would go for the red dot.
I understand that Leica's role in the Panosonics is to have each one as it comes off the assembly line for an asperger with water from the river Lahn to be shaken over it .
Last edited by johnastovall; 27th September 2008 at 11:14.
"The market wants a Leica to be a Leica: the inheritor of tradition, the subject of lore, and indisputably a mark of status to own."
David you are quite rightly looking at this from a sellers point of view,but from a buyers viewfinder its not quite cricket,all thats rosy,Neil.
Last edited by nei1; 27th September 2008 at 11:53.