Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 11/8/2018 at 7:57 PM, carbon_dragon said:

Ok, I see. The Lumix has a grip in front and a slightly different shape for the thumbrest in back and all the buttons are a different shape. 

The LX100 II has a touchscreen and more resolution but is basically the same camera otherwise. Since Leica seems to have discontinued the X1 and X2, I'm guessing there will be a later version of the D-Lux based on the new LX100 II ... eventually. This kind of reminds me of the old Leica/Minolta CL. Basically a Minolta camera with Leica design influence and a Leica lens mount and Leica designed lenses. This is a Panasonic camera with Leica design influence with a Leica designed fixed lens. Pretty close to the same size too. The control layout seems very Leica like, which is why it works as a Leica.

Looks like a great camera, in any of the three versions (I, II, or 109).

The Leica and Panasoninc versions of the 'same' camera are essentially the same, apart from some differences in the body styling and - some say - differences in the jpeg output.

The lens is the same on both cameras. How much input Leica have into the lens design is another matter. It's made by Panasonic. It might be a Leica design but given the price point of these cameras it's doubtful. It's more likely a Panasonic design that Leica have looked at and said yes, that's fine.

The lens on the Digilux 1 was used on the Panasonic version of that camera, as well as appearing on Olympus and Canon models of the time. Strange that!

I once bought a new Panasonic C Lux 2 version for £99, which also had a Leica lens. Sure, a real Leica lens plus the camera and battery and charger etc for £99......

However, for the price they are fine cameras and capable of excellent results, which is what matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth thinking about what Leica contributes to a camera that makes us like it and want to shoot with it. Looks? Feeling of quality? Ergonomics? Menu design? Lens design? The ability to empty our bank accounts?

I guess the equation gets complicated in joint ventures. Other companies are obviously capable of most of these too, so what separates the Leica part of a joint venture? I'm guessing that even the Panasonic version has profited from Leica ergonomics and lens design for instance -- AND the Leica side has benefited from cost and performance features from Panasonic. Essentially both cameras are combinations of both companies.

I wonder if anyone would like to comment on their repair experiences when they needed to get it fixed (both the leica version and the panasonic version). Did you have a good experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differences can be important for jpeg users: Aesthetics, ergonomics, OOC image quality. For raw users it's mainly ergonomics i suspect. This is at least the reason why i preferred the LX100 to the DL109 personally. But when i preferred the Digilux 1 to the LC5 in 2002 it was aesthetics and image quality then since ergonomics were very close and the raw format was not available on those cameras. BTW do you know why earleygallery says "some say - differences in the jpeg output" above? Because he bought an LC5 if memory serves and he was jealous of my Digilux 1! Just kidding but sooo true :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a weird looking little camera. I often wonder how much lenses labelled Leica (and Zeiss too) really are what Zeiss and Leica would use on their own cameras. Does it generally mean that it's actually a Leica design (and/or build) or does it just mean a brand name? I used to wonder the same thing about the original Leica CL with it's 40/2 Summicron C. I have that lens and it's great, but is it Minolta or Leica that I should really thank?

The 109/LX100's zoom lens doesn't seem to physically resemble Leica's previous zoom lenses either. Is it an actual Leica lens design, or a Panasonic lens design, or a joint venture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any of it matter? It becomes a little like dissecting a joke: it stops being funny. Dissecting the origins of individual components misses the point about how nice it is to shoot pictures with it. At the end of the day accept it’s a joint venture with blurred join lines.

More importantly it’s a compact camera with a good lens, and easy functionality that encourages you to take it everywhere and be prepared to shoot something on the off-chance. The images for a crop sensor are not bad at all. Enjoy it for what it is and not worry about what it’s not.

Edited by Le Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to check if the new D-Lux 7 has the same IQ as the LX100-II. Never been the case in jpeg mode so far. In raw mode i would like more acutance than the LX100-II but i don't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lct said:

BTW do you know why earleygallery says "some say - differences in the jpeg output" above? Because he bought an LC5 if memory serves and he was jealous of my Digilux 1! Just kidding but sooo true :D.

 

You have a good memory LCT! Yes I bought an LC5 - I still have it somewhere but haven't used it for years, I think I mis-placed the battery charger too. I was jealous though, I still love the look of that Digilux 1!

I remember seeing some comparisons between the two cameras and it did appear that the Leica jpegs were less saturated in colour. I think there was even reference to a Leica bod who said they had set their own parameters in the Digilux 1.

I'm not sure that they ever said that about any of the other cameras that followed however. As an aside I also remember that someone here owned several Digilux 2 cameras at the same time and posted the same scene taken with each camera to show how there were slight variations between them in how they rendered the jpeg files (same settings). Of course any differences could be replicated in post processing and further with RAW files in the later cameras it was irrelevant anyway.

Another thing to remember about the 'PanaLeica' cameras were that they pretty much saved the company at a time when they were the only digital offerings Leica had. The brought in far more money that the M and R lines at the time. They were affordable and sold very well no doubt in part due to the Leica being attached to them (Leica branded lenses also appear on other Panasonic models such as their video cameras).

The PanaLeica's - whichever flavour you choose - have always been regarded as very good cameras.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Does any of it matter? It becomes a little like dissecting a joke: it stops being funny. Dissecting the origins of individual components misses the point about how nice it is to shoot pictures with it. At the end of the day accept it’s a joint venture with blurred join lines.

More importantly it’s a compact camera with a good lens, and easy functionality that encourages you to take it everywhere and be prepared to shoot something on the off-chance. The images for a crop sensor are not bad at all. Enjoy it for what it is and not worry about what it’s not.

It matters to me because I'm trying to decide what to buy. 109? LX100? LX100 II? X2? X 114? X Vario? It seems reasonable to try to do my research and ask questions before sinking something like a grand into a purchase. In the old days I could have gone to my local store and played with the various options. Alas I don't live in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

46 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

[...] I remember seeing some comparisons between the two cameras and it did appear that the Leica jpegs were less saturated in colour. I think there was even reference to a Leica bod who said they had set their own parameters in the Digilux 1. [...]

Just for fun, LC5 vs Digilux 1 jpegs below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, carbon_dragon said:

It matters to me because I'm trying to decide what to buy. 109? LX100? LX100 II? X2? X 114? X Vario? It seems reasonable to try to do my research and ask questions before sinking something like a grand into a purchase. In the old days I could have gone to my local store and played with the various options. Alas I don't live in New York.

The LX100 II/DL-7 have more pixels than the X's, have a faster maximum aperture, a built in EVF, and better support technology in FOTO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the IQ of the Lumix LX ii!  But I am returning it, because of the announcement of the Leica D-Lux 7 which is essentially the same camera but better aesthetics. Couple photos from Lumix LX 100ii




 

 

Edited by djinn415

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×