What is the Draw to D-lux4

[rennsport]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your heart says DLux 4, but your head says LX3.

 

I've used and sold the LX3 but not because it is inferior to the DLux 4 which I'm using now. As stated above, they produce more or less the same images with exception of in-camera setting differences.

 

Other than the red dot, you should really think for yourself whether or not the additional warranty is worth it. Panasonic cameras have always been reliable in my experience. The LX3 has a nice built-in grip, and a VF that actually works and doesn't get in the way of the built-in flash.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jsrockit]

Aesthetics...

[Boon113]

from technical point of view is the same camera. yes, leica have a better processing engine for out of the camera jpg but not quite significant differences.

 

from personal point of view u get a leica, you get a warranty of leica and probably you will resell a leica.

and u have a red dot on camera case, and most likely you will smile after every picture taken because you'll enjoy your leica.

 

now, only YOU can decide if you want to pay extra $ for your personal smile. my answer is that I did.

 

+1

so did i.

[Sixstring]

I am struggling because like many have to choose between the D-lux4 or LX3. I have used many cameras in the past such as Contax 35mm, Rollieflex GX and Fuji 645Zi. All which I used Agfa BW film. I loved the contrast it gave me. Then I switched to digital and bought the D200 which I used for three years. Never was happy with it. For years I wanted a M camera but never had one, When the M8 came out it was above my price range but I love the Leica glass. When the D-lux4 came out I read the review Jim Radcliff put out and was impressed with the quality the camera could produce. Now the LX3 is less money but I know many of you chose the D-lux4 instead. I belioeve I will also but would like to know if D-lux is truley a good choice over the LX3. I believe the raw software is better but are the Jpegs better? Monte Johnson.

 

I bought the DL4 about a month ago and I can't leave it alone

It was supposed to be an alternative to my Canon 20D + 17-55/2.8 on those days I don't feel like wearing a concrete block around my shoulder... but I feel it has become more than that...

 

My reasons for choosing DL4 over LX3:

 

Minimal price difference: got the DL4 for 700 euro including it's beautiful brown leather case. LX3 is 430 euro but an extra 100 euro for the original leather case = 700 - 530= 170 euro difference.

 

For 170 euro extra, you'll get:

 

1* Much nicer aesthetics

2* Phase 1 C1 software. I'm impressed with this one, although I'm a die hard LR2+CS3 user.

3* 3 year warranty instead of 1 year for the LX3

4* better resale value

5* the "red dot" feeling. Perfectly ridiculous, I know... But somehow, we're all subject, albeit unconsciously, to the branding effects. I guess the red dot makes you want to make better pictures.

 

Is it worth it? Hell, yes!!

 

As for jpeg straight out the camera and differences with LX3 firmware: I don't bother. I only shoot raw.

Both LX3 and DL4 are subject to nasty noise as from 400 iso and the on board noise reduction can't make up for raw shooting + noise reduction in post production.

 

Conclusion: never try to justify a purchase. If you want it and you can afford it, get it. It will make you happy and that, after all, is what life is about, right?