Can someone talk me out of buying a D-Lux 7 ?

[colonel]

It’s so cool and I need (well!!!) a coat pocket size camera

 

[ChrisRL]

Talk you out of buying a D-Lux 7?

Sure thing.

Buy two. One for yourself and one for the Admiral in your life.

 

[wda]

The fact that you have asked suggests you have already decided.

[Le Chef]

Unless you already have a DL-109 I would say you are doomed. The only reasonable alternative is to ask your tailor to enlarge all your pockets to fit an X or a TL...

[colonel]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

Unless you already have a DL-109 I would say you are doomed. The only reasonable alternative is to ask your tailor to enlarge all your pockets to fit an X or a TL...

Funnily enough I was looking at a CL with a 18mm, but not sure the marginal extra IQ justifies the triple price, not to mention the zoom is quite useful

i am hoping that 1600 on the d-lux 7 is quite useful. 

[Le Chef]

I have a 109 and was set to upgrade to the 7 when I was offered a lightly used CL and 18-56 for a price that bridged the gap between a new 7 and a new CL. You can guess what happened...My tailor is now busy making money out of me...

[lct]

I did not buy the DL7 but developed a dozen raw files from it. Compared to my Pana LX100 and Leica digital CL i would say that the DL7 files have a bit less acutance at high isos due to slightly more NR i suspect but 1600 iso remains the limit vs also 1600 for the LX100 and 3200 for the CL. Sharpening in PP enhances acutance but increases digital noise as well so i have decided to keep my LX100 for now. I don't crop much though so the latter's resolution is enough for me.

[colonel]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I did not buy the DL7 but developed a dozen raw files from it. Compared to my Pana LX100 and Leica digital CL i would say that the DL7 files have a bit less acutance at high isos due to slightly more NR i suspect but 1600 iso remains the limit vs also 1600 for the LX100 and 3200 for the CL. Sharpening in PP enhances acutance but increases digital noise as well so i have decided to keep my LX100 for now. I don't crop much though so the latter's resolution is enough for me.

very useful, thanks

you using light room or something else ? seems odd that they have applied NR for raw

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by colonel

[lct]

Not that odd if you follow the thread about comparative DR of CL and TL2 cameras but it's just a guess from my part when comparing raw files out of my CL and LX100. I don't use LR anymore but i understand that it supports the DL7 now. I used an excellent albeit basic raw converter called RawDigger in its "Research" edition (link below). It does not correct for the native distortion of the camera though so there is some work to do with PS or same on the tiff files produced by RawDigger. 
https://www.rawdigger.com/purchase#compare

 

[i-Leica]

I got the D-Lux 7 now and I am really impressed

[andrewteee]

It has replaced my SL. Well, no it hasn’t, but I’m taking it more often than the SL on my woodsy walks. For scouting pictures and when the woods are more important than the photographs. Still, IQ is very very good! Honestly. 

[harryzet]

fuji x100f - and for the rest of the money a nice holiday. 

[stuny]

The zoom is even better than some users think (In the 109, the 7 and the V-Lux 114):  there's a menu option that doubles the long end of the zoom (to 150mm equivalent) through a very effective, minimally invasive algorithm.

[colonel]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:02 PM, harryzet said:

fuji x100f - and for the rest of the money a nice holiday. 

I had one and its excellent

However its not a zoom and is bigger. I think if a fixed lens camera is desired and one can't stretch to a RX1ii or Q then its a great option, unless you can deal with 28mm and Ricoh GR

 

[Trivette]

I can't advise anyone what to do, as we all have our individual preferences, but I can share my own experience regarding the D Lux series.

When the digital revolution got into full swing I decided not to rush into the craze for the latest and greatest digital wonder from Leica or any other manufacturer. Consequently most of my equipment is obsolete, but as long as I am enjoying taking photographs and manage to approach the excellence results  of which my cameras are capable, I am happy. 

I have enjoyed my D Lux 4 for several years, and I bought the D Lux 109 mainly in order to have a "pocket" camera with a  built in EVF. If I did not already have the 109, I would be thinking seriously about the lovely D Lux 7. It is, however, somewhat perturbing that these little cameras are so easy to carry around and produce such good photographs that my "better" cameras tend to get neglected.

 

[Merv-O]

The D-Lux typ 109's primary difference is in linear resolution (12.7 v. 16.8mm pixels). However, new typ 109's (at B&H/Adorama, e.g.) are about $900 versus the $1,200 difference for the DL7. I chose the 109 because the $300 allowed me to purchase a case, a hood and UV filter effectively completing my kit for less than a new base DL7. 

The DX numbers for both are quite similar. Both max out at 25600 ISO, both have the 150 electronic extra telephoto and most importantly, the identical and excellent f1.7-2.8 sum micron Vario-Summilux lens. I see little difference between the 13mp and the 17 mp for most prints up to 11 x 14. I use my CL or M series for the large crops as the little Leica is a tag along for non-obtrusive events. I have "snuck" it in to concerts on occasion where cameras are disallowed (it is after all the size of a phone)....nice little kit.

[farnz]

Hi, Harold,

I had the DL-109 some time ago but couldn't get on with the menu system and trying to find how to switch something on that I'd accidentally switched off or vice versa.  I'd had the DL2, DL4, and DL5 so I'm no noob to comprehensive menu systems but I found the DL-109's menu system to be just plain unintuitive.  The picture were very good but after 6 months endurance I found the menu system just too frustrating and released the DL-109 back into the wild.  I assume that the DL7's menu system etc would be basically the same so I won't be buying one.

Does that help?

Pete.

[ropo54]

How about a pre-owned T with the 18mm pancake?  (Always expandable should you choose to do so). Rob

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.

Edited January 31 by ropo54

[nicci78]

I've got exactly this combo : T + Elmarit-TL 18mm (mine is black though). Way better than plasticky fake Leica D-Lux 7. And I got the two for less than the D-Lux 7 (T was brand new in box, and Elmarit-TL 18mm was a used one, but barely touch before me) I did not use any strap at all, for maximum compactness. 

T user interface is really easy, and very Leica. D-Lux 7 has a real Japanese Panasonic menus and loads of tiny buttons spread around the camera. And the worst touch screen interface with several small drawers only prone to unset easily your camera

T has only 1 shutter, 1 button and 2 dials. And a touch screen interface that makes sense. That's it. And it's genius.

My advise, if you want a Leica, just buy the real deal, Leica cameras made in Germany : APS-C range ( X, TL & CL ) + M cameras + Professional lines ( S & SL ). 

V-Lux, D-Lux and C-Lux are only Panasonic cameras with a red dot. Really. Nothing Leica inside. German did not even partake in development.

Real Lumix/Fake Leica build quality is poor. EVF is sequential, which is really bad. Build-in lenses has sample issue. It is now made in China. FWIW

Edited February 1 by nicci78

[lct]

My Pana LX100 is well made and works fine i must say. Can do things that are impossible for my M and CL cameras. And EVF blackouts are negligible with it. More a tool than a toy though.