Why no love for the C-Lux??

[firoze]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I notice there seems to be no interest at all in the C-Lux on this forum. No real discussion about it, and I could find only one photo from it posted in the Photos section. Moreover what is most surprising is that even after a year and a half after its release, there is not a single photo from the C-Lux on the LFI.Gallery site. Why is this C-Lux such an unloved model?

I had the opportunity to see first hand some images from it and the colours were very pleasing indeed. Furthermore, the lens at even at 360mm was acceptably sharp. I was pleasantly surprised.

Any thoughts?

[rjans]

There are several thoughts that could apply. I have the C Typ 112 with a smaller sensor etc and at launch in autumn 2013 the price was more than the Panasonic LF-1 but taking into account the design, the included download for Lightroom 5, the warranty, the price difference with the Panasonic was only about 70€. The C-Lux looks nice, love the dark blue, has a bigger sensor etc but I'm satisfied with the C Typ 112. That's a keeper, just like my old D2. I have no need to upgrade. 

I found a good article written by Mike Evans on macfilos.com about the C-Lux and his final choice.

Best

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by rjans

[firoze]

1 minute ago, rjans said:

I found a good article written by Mike Evans on macfilos.com about the C-Lux and his final choice.

Best

 

I read the Macfilos.com articles, which again makes me wonder why the C-Lux hasn’t caught on. Like I said, the images I saw from the camera were lovely.

[wda]

There is this thread ....

... which  has some good material. Nomenclature is confusing.  The latest model has the unique long zoom but it comes at a price; it is quite bulky for a small format camera. Its predecessor is still a good performer and much more pocketable. It depends on the jobs you anticipate for it.

[firoze]

18 minutes ago, wda said:

There is this thread ....

 

Hello David, I actually do follow that thread. But that thread is for the C112, not the C-Lux. My daughter has the C112, it is a lovely camera with a nice form factor. But in this thread I am referring to its successor the C-Lux.

Regarding size, while it is certainly much larger than the C112, but still quite compact. In fact it is a little smaller than the D-Lux7/D-Lux109:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#788,808

Edited December 20, 2019 by firoze

[wda]

30 minutes ago, firoze said:

Hello David, I actually do follow that thread. But that thread is for the C112, not the C-Lux. My daughter has the C112, it is a lovely camera with a nice form factor. But in this thread I am referring to its successor the C-Lux.

Regarding size, while it is certainly much larger than the C112, but still quite compact. In fact it is a little smaller than the D-Lux7/D-Lux109:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#788,808

I have a Leica friend who has the Lumix version, and he likes it very much. I guess there are many satisfied users who just do not dip into this forum. Or if they do, they merely read the postings. I have thought about it for its long reach, but then remind myself that the V Lux also has an even longer reach. The fact is I seldom need a long focal length. 75 mm to 90 mm on the CL gives me better quality and makes use of existing assets.(100 mm to 135 mm equivalent fl) I still use my D Lux T. 109 a lot and seldom find that wanting.,

[firoze]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, wda said:

I have a Leica friend who has the Lumix version, and he likes it very much. I guess there are many satisfied users who just do not dip into this forum. Or if they do, they merely read the postings. I have thought about it for its long reach, but then remind myself that the V Lux also has an even longer reach. The fact is I seldom need a long focal length. 75 mm to 90 mm on the CL gives me better quality and makes use of existing assets.(100 mm to 135 mm equivalent fl) I still use my D Lux T. 109 a lot and seldom find that wanting.,

Over the years, I used my X Vario on many vacations and made do with its zoom range. However the V-Lux 114 has now spoilt me, and now I find myself using longer focal lengths often. My rationale for thinking about the C-Lux was its much smaller size vs the V-Lux; there are times when it is not convenient (or desirable) to carry such a large camera around. Unfortunately the CL is out of my reach.

[wda]

2 hours ago, firoze said:

Over the years, I used my X Vario on many vacations and made do with its zoom range. However the V-Lux 114 has now spoilt me, and now I find myself using longer focal lengths often. My rationale for thinking about the C-Lux was its much smaller size vs the V-Lux; there are times when it is not convenient (or desirable) to carry such a large camera around. Unfortunately the CL is out of my reach.

You make a convincing case. With your proven expertise,  I am sure you will achieve some stunning results with the C-Lux. 

If budget is an issue, consider its Lumix sibling, TZ200.

Edited December 21, 2019 by wda

[jaapv]

I think people still remember the previous C-Lux models which were small compacts with a long zoom and average image quality* compared to the larger models. Leica would have done better to differentiate the name and push the improved image quality a bit in marketing.

 

*have a look at the image examples of this 2008 review - even at the time they were less than impressive
https://www.popphoto.com/gear/2008/12/camera-test-leica-c-lux-2/

[firoze]

56 minutes ago, wda said:

You make a convincing case. With your proven expertise,  I am sure you will achieve some stunning results with the C-Lux. 

If budget is an issue, consider its Lumix sibling, TZ200.

Thank you for the Kind words David 😊

I have not yet decided to buy the C-Lux, still thinking about it vs The Sony RX100 M7. I would prefer to remain in the Leica fold, but The Sony has some compelling aspects, notably a sharper lens, and smaller size. I probably could live with the Sony's more limited zoom range.

[firoze]

56 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I think people still remember the previous C-Lux models which were small compacts with a long zoom and average image quality* compared to the larger models. Leica would have done better to differentiate the name and push the improved image quality a bit in marketing.

 

*have a look at the image examples of this 2008 review - even at the time they were less than impressive
https://www.popphoto.com/gear/2008/12/camera-test-leica-c-lux-2/

You are right Jaap, C-Lux could have done with a "better" name to differentiate it from previous C series models. Also the marketing should have been more aggressive.

[rjans]

firoze, I just took a visit to your website. Excellent pictures and I now understand that you are spoiled by the V-Lux 114. The C-Lux is an attractive smaller package. Marketing is very important. Still remember the one for the mini M that turned out to be the X-Vario (a very good camera) and indeed the marketing for the C-Lux should have been more aggressive. It can be seen as the ultimate travel companion. I hope you can reach a good choice for a more compact long zoom camera.

Roger

[firoze]

19 minutes ago, rjans said:

firoze, I just took a visit to your website. Excellent pictures and I now understand that you are spoiled by the V-Lux 114. The C-Lux is an attractive smaller package. Marketing is very important. Still remember the one for the mini M that turned out to be the X-Vario (a very good camera) and indeed the marketing for the C-Lux should have been more aggressive. It can be seen as the ultimate travel companion. I hope you can reach a good choice for a more compact long zoom camera.

Roger

Roger, thank you, I am glad you liked my website. Pity the X Vario marketing campaign was such a disaster, else the camera would have been much more popular. I am hoping to take a proper "test drive" of the C-Lux soon. Pity there are so few photos from it posted online. Flickr has a few, and they are pretty good. It would have been good to hear from people who actually own and have used the camera, rather that just read the test reports. Having said that, Jono's writeup the C-lux was good to read, and so was the one on Macfileos.

[nicci78]

I really hated the TZ100. My least used camera ever.

Even if it was so small that I always have it with me. 

Poor build quality. Poor lens. Handling nightmare. Useless tiny EVF. 
Never see any interest to buy the second version TZ200/C-Lux with slower but longer lens and slightly better handling. 
 

Just buy Sony RX100. They are so much better. 

[firoze]

Thank you for your comments Nicci. I am seriously considering the Sony. I will try to test both cameras and decide.