Moving from CL to D-LUX 7

[d_w_wolves]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cheerio  folks,

i’m moving from CL to D-LUX 7.

Why:

I work out daily in mother nature with my „Electra Beach Cruiser“ for approx. 1 hour. Of course depending on weather conditions. Having always my LEICA with me around the neck. First SL to heavy, second CL coming to my age of 73 to heavy. So i decided to change to D-LUX 7. And i tell you something, this little toy is for my needs terrible fantastic.

But by  the way, i’m not gonna stop to look your fantastic pictures.

[Advertisement]

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

[Le Chef]

I can totally understand where you're coming from, and heading to. I have a CL + a few lenses, but I still grab my DL-109 for walkabouts and thoroughly enjoy using it. Enjoy and remember to post here.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Le Chef

[Einst_Stein]

On 5/28/2020 at 11:54 AM, d_w_wolves said:

Cheerio  folks,

 

i’m moving from CL to D-LUX 7.

 

Why:

 

I work out daily in mother nature with my „Electra Beach Cruiser“ for approx. 1 hour. Of course depending on weather conditions. Having always my LEICA with me around the neck. First SL to heavy, second CL coming to my age of 73 to heavy. So i decided to change to D-LUX 7. And i tell you something, this little toy is for my needs terrible fantastic.

 

But by  the way, i’m not gonna stop to look your fantastic pictures.

 

I am seeing myself in a few years.

 

[Le Chef]

You’ve not gone, merely moved to another branch of the family. It’s a very good choice and don’t let anyone make it feel any different!

Edited June 5, 2020 by Le Chef

[Gregm61]

Having used D-Lux models, the minimal image quality is simply not there for the nominal size savings in my opinion.
 

I’d  rather just go to an 18mm f2.8 or 23mm f2 (digital equivalent of a great film-based Konica Hexar to me) on my CL and leave the zooms or 35/60 primes at home than try and say/talk myself into believing the difference is worth a d-Lux. The difference is obvious and moves quickly to stark not far above base ISO.

I’ve had my play with premium compacts and would not waste my money on one today, even a Panasonic LX100 variant for which the d-Lux is a blinged-up copy.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Gregm61

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, Gregm61 said:

Having used D-Lux models, the minimal image quality is simply not there for the nominal size savings in my opinion.
 

I’d  rather just go to an 18mm f2.8 or 23mm f2 (digital equivalent of a great film-based Konica Hexar to me) on my CL and leave the zooms or 35/60 primes at home than try and say/talk myself into believing the difference is worth a d-Lux. The difference is obvious and moves quickly to stark not far above base ISO.

I’ve had my play with premium compacts and would not waste my money on one today, even a Panasonic LX100 variant for which the d-Lux is a blinged-up copy.

I guess you have to be there to appreciate why.

Eventually, AF, Zoom, light, small body with big buttons, etc., will be waiting!

Sometimes, photography is about making a statement, but sometimes it is about making a memory.  There could be different requirements and criteria. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed i can do things with my Lx100 that i cannot with my CL and vice-versa. IQ wise they don't play in the same league but the Lx100 is the best P&S camera i've used so far. I have no experience with lx100ii or D Lux 7 but i don't like much their somewhat softer rendering at high isos. I would be more interested in a larger EVF a la CL. Will be for the Lx100iii or the D-Lux 8 hopefully. YMMV.