D-Lux 5 v. LX5

[jhc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi fellow members,

 

I am about to purchase either one of the above cameras. I would appreciate an honest and unbiased opinion as to to the pros and cons to help me make a final purchase decision. My tiny C-Lux 1 is sadly showing it's age in post processing and I feel it's time to move on (I am almost in tears). Looking forward to your replies.

[Advertisement]

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

[richfx]

I went from shooting with the D-Lux 3 and D-Lux 4 for several years to the LX-5 a year ago. All are very good at what they do, and the LX-5 and D-Lux-5's f/2.0 lens is excellent in low light. I didn't need Lightroom, as I use Aperture for PP, so the choice was easy for me personally. In addition, I have shot RAW with all of these cameras, so the software signature differences were not relevant. As a result, other than the red dot, for me they're identical (although I think Leica's warranty is longer than Pansonic's). Good luck with whichever you choose.

Rich

[jhc]

Many thanks rcerick, I also do not need Lightroom, but do you feel that there is any truth that Leica jpg's are different to the LX5? Some DL5 owners think that Leica has written there own software for jpg's and that they have 'the Leica feel' about them, or is this psychological perhaps?

[richfx]

I have only shot RAW with both Leicas and the Panny, so I can't properly answer your question. Some say there is a difference in the cameras' JPEG images; others say that's not so. Could be active imaginations, and I haven't seen an objective comparison.

Neither camera creates the "Leica look" IMHO, as they're both manufactured on the same assembly line by Panasonic in Japan, have very small sensors and are point and shoots. JPEG image software can be different, as some note. If you'll torture yourself about it afterwards, I'd get the D-Lux 5.