D-Lux 7 Vs Q2/Q3?

[Driften]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The D-Lux 7 is nothing like a Q series camera other than you can't remove the lens. It doesn't have the Leica build quality or ease of use. Nothing you learn using it translates to other Leica cameras that you couldn't have learned on a Panasonic, Ricoh, Canon or any other digital camera. You won't learn anything about living with a 28mm lens on the D-Lux 7. It actually has a zoom lens were the Q series is a fixed focal length.

BTW with the Q2/Q3 it's easy to live with the 28mm for me with the crop ability of the sensor. When I had the Q, it felt too limiting.

The CL/Q2/SL2/Q3 all have basically the same menus and interface so it's easy to move between them. The Q was an older design for the menus. The D-Lux 7 menu and controls are more Panasonic than Leica.

If you are looking for a first Leica get a discontinued CL or Q2. I actually liked the CL better than the Q, but its lack of IBIS made it hard for me to use over 50-60mm full frame equivalent from having shaky hands. The Q2 has OIS and really covers 28,35,50 and somewhat 75mm all in one package. With the way prices are dropping on used Q2s I think it's the best entry point into Leica. I love my Q2 Reporter and while there are features I would like from the Q3 I'm not upgrading at this point. Maybe next year when they are more available and all the bugs are worked out.

 

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, Driften said:

The D-Lux 7 is nothing like a Q series camera other than you can't remove the lens. It doesn't have the Leica build quality or ease of use. Nothing you learn using it translates to other Leica cameras that you couldn't have learned on a Panasonic, Ricoh, Canon or any other digital camera. You won't learn anything about living with a 28mm lens on the D-Lux 7. It actually has a zoom lens were the Q series is a fixed focal length.

BTW with the Q2/Q3 it's easy to live with the 28mm for me with the crop ability of the sensor. When I had the Q, it felt too limiting.

The CL/Q2/SL2/Q3 all have basically the same menus and interface so it's easy to move between them. The Q was an older design for the menus. The D-Lux 7 menu and controls are more Panasonic than Leica.

If you are looking for a first Leica get a discontinued CL or Q2. I actually liked the CL better than the Q, but its lack of IBIS made it hard for me to use over 50-60mm full frame equivalent from having shaky hands. The Q2 has OIS and really covers 28,35,50 and somewhat 75mm all in one package. With the way prices are dropping on used Q2s I think it's the best entry point into Leica. I love my Q2 Reporter and while there are features I would like from the Q3 I'm not upgrading at this point. Maybe next year when they are more available and all the bugs are worked out.

 

I find this post hilarious.

It has the same ‘looking down my nose’ that some M owners have for the Q.

If a DLux ( or VLux) has the features that suit a persons needs…and they want it to say ‘Leica’…so what? 😂😂

[Driften]

12 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

I find this post hilarious.

It has the same ‘looking down my nose’ that some M owners have for the Q.

If a DLux ( or VLux) has the features that suit a persons needs…and they want it to say ‘Leica’…so what? 😂😂

I own the Panasonic Lumix LX100 II version of the DLux 7 and am objective in comparing it to the Q series. DLux has its use and ok it says Leica on it, but it's nothing like the Leica's I've own/owned (CL/Q/Q2/SL2-s) and the OP wanted something to grow in to the Leica brand experience. Unless you think the only lesson in buying Leica is paying more, this isn't the camera. If the OP wanted to know if a Dlux could meet photography needs, that's a different question and maybe it would do everything he needs. But that has nothing to do with the brand name on the camera. If I thought the Dlux was a scaled down Q2/Q3 that's just more limited I would be very disappointed when I got it. For me, my Ricoh GR IIIx is a much better camera than the DLux and fits in my front pocket which the DLux won't. They also can't replace my Q2 that I love and can't be without.

[bobtodrick]

18 minutes ago, Driften said:

I own the Panasonic Lumix LX100 II version of the DLux 7 and am objective in comparing it to the Q series. DLux has its use and ok it says Leica on it, but it's nothing like the Leica's I've own/owned (CL/Q/Q2/SL2-s) and the OP wanted something to grow in to the Leica brand experience. Unless you think the only lesson in buying Leica is paying more, this isn't the camera. If the OP wanted to know if a Dlux could meet photography needs, that's a different question and maybe it would do everything he needs. But that has nothing to do with the brand name on the camera. If I thought the Dlux was a scaled down Q2/Q3 that's just more limited I would be very disappointed when I got it. For me, my Ricoh GR IIIx is a much better camera than the DLux and fits in my front pocket which the DLux won't. They also can't replace my Q2 that I love and can't be without.

I feel you prove my point.

Someone trying to figure out what they want to do photographically isn’t doing themselves a favour by limiting themselves to a fixed wide angle…whether it be a Q or a GR.

Something like a DLux (or the Panny equivalent) will let him explore a lot of possibilities at (photographically) modest cost.

He may decide a Q will be perfect…or an SL series…or a Sony A9…but none of them can be had for $1500 (or less).

I’ve been in photographic sales for 39 years…I’d never suggest to a ‘newbie’ they spend thousands right off the get go.

[Driften]

1 hour ago, bobtodrick said:

I feel you prove my point.

Someone trying to figure out what they want to do photographically isn’t doing themselves a favour by limiting themselves to a fixed wide angle…whether it be a Q or a GR.

Something like a DLux (or the Panny equivalent) will let him explore a lot of possibilities at (photographically) modest cost.

He may decide a Q will be perfect…or an SL series…or a Sony A9…but none of them can be had for $1500 (or less).

I’ve been in photographic sales for 39 years…I’d never suggest to a ‘newbie’ they spend thousands right off the get go.

You must have missed the part where he said "I had a succession of SLR & then DSLRs, mostly just low/mid range Canon. Nothing overly fancy."

That is not someone completely new to photography.

[bobtodrick]

44 minutes ago, Driften said:

You must have missed the part where he said "I had a succession of SLR & then DSLRs, mostly just low/mid range Canon. Nothing overly fancy."

That is not someone completely new to photography.

Yes, I missed your earlier post.  In essence I feel that we are in agreement that starting out with a fixed wide angle lens is not going to help the OP figure out where he wants to go.

Entry level DSLR's are one option...I was pointing out that the DLux (or its Panasonic equivalent) are definitely capable picture makers.  I have one client who is a retired photojournalist...winner of the Canadian Press Photographer of the year a while back.  His daily carry camera is a Dlux 109.

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own beside my SL2 a Q3 (before a Q2)  and a DLUX 7. The Q3 is for many purposes able to replace the SL2, as far as focal length from 28 mm to app, 60 mm is concorned, up to 90 mm very nice photos are possible too. It is a professional tool. The DLUX7 us a very nice camera, small and it is possible to make very good photos with it. At some occassions like architecture you may find a bit distortion.  If you want the best, than take a Q3 or if you find a good Q2 at a modest price, this maybe a very good deal for you. If you can live with some compromise and look for a very good price/quality ratio than take a DLUX 7, which is very small and you always can have with you. That is the best advice I can give you. Just to mention it - the Qs are produced in Germany, with exception of the sensor.

 

 

[GaryC]

Thank you all. I'm not sure whether I'm more or less confused than when I first posted. I go from knowing the D-Lux is a perfect step, to knowing the Q2/3 is the one to go for, and back again. Ad nauseam. 

I guess that is the thing about opinions, as Dirty Harry said, they're like assholes....everyone has one. 

Certainly all grist to the mill. Thank you.

[katieg]

On 8/14/2023 at 4:56 AM, GaryC said:

Morning!

 

New member.

 

I used to be a keen low-amateur photographer, nothing amazing, but a real interest. I had a succession of SLR & then DSLRs, mostly just low/mid range Canon. Nothing overly fancy.

 

Then I got lazy, stopped lugging around a large camera & just relied on my iPhone to take pictures of holidays, trips, families etc. mostly for digital use and the odd print & photobook, plus video footage. The results have been good, always the latest iPhone pro, even the more ‘arty’ close ups.

 

But a recent holiday to Florence made me hanker to get back to proper photography and impure thoughts of a Leica.  

 

I quick look around the Leica store in Florence made me nearly take advantage of tax-free saving and take the plunge there & then, but I resisted pending further investigation & analysis.

 

So, my question.

 

The D-Lux 7 looks a great cheap (comparatively) option, especially in oh so cool old school half chrome, but the Q2/Q3 is giving me lustful twinges.

 

Is the Q2/Q3 worth the extra for low amateur/returning newbie use? The lack of optical zoom concerns me, is the digital zoom with higher resolution really as good? Better?

 

Anyone had experience of both?

 

Any other tips?

 

Thanks in advance, I look forward to being a regular contributor!
 

Gary

Right off the bat, I would start by asking yourself if a zoom is important to you or not. Based on your write-up, it appears carrying weight and size are a big factor to you wanting to bring along a camera. What is your potential use case for this? Daily snaps? Artistic pursuits? Genres? Will you print photos taken often? What size? Without knowing some of your answers, I could argue a case for either. Were you able to use both cameras in the store? 

I have used both. The DLux 7 is definitely a capable camera, I’ve been happy with many images made from it. I primarily photograph family life and for me personally, the autofocus struggled in certain situations that became frustrating for me as I have 4 children 10 and under. That being said, if size and weight are a big deciding factor for you (considering you said you have been using a camera phone for some time), maybe it is a good entry into getting back into using a non-phone camera. 

That being said, the Q2 and now Q3 came into my hands and I haven’t really looked back. I did not learn on zooms so perhaps I don’t miss that aspect. Knowing I just have one lens to work with made it easier to “see” photographs. I’ve been really happy with the Q series because it can really be versatile across many use-cases, from casual to serious photography. I have used it for casual family snapshots and yet I still have images in my portfolio taken from the Q2 and even now Q3 already that have been featured in fine art exhibitions and printed large. That’s what I really appreciate from the camera specs. 

[LarsOtium]

Life's short. Skip the DLux step and go for a Q3. And if you cannot justify the increase in price then compromise. Get a lightly used Q2. That is what I would do having read your comments. My guess is you will second guess a DLux purchase, but not a Q2 or Q3. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, LarsOtium said:

Life's short. Skip the DLux step and go for a Q3. And if you cannot justify the increase in price then compromise. Get a lightly used Q2. That is what I would do having read your comments. My guess is you will second guess a DLux purchase, but not a Q2 or Q3. Good luck with whatever you decide.

I would assume that "life is short" is followed by "get both" :).

[Le Chef]

You could simply buy a lightly used DL and get used to that. If you feel you’ve outgrown it then you can either trade it for something that better fits your purpose or keep it as a backup.

[bobtodrick]

5 hours ago, Le Chef said:

You could simply buy a lightly used DL and get used to that. If you feel you’ve outgrown it then you can either trade it for something that better fits your purpose or keep it as a backup.

This!!

Minimal outlay of cash.

Most of us can’t really afford, say a lightly used Q2 at $5000 to find our we boo-boo’d 😂

But a used DLux can be had for $1000.

And as much as I love my Q…my DLux 109 was definitely more versatile.

[Phil75]

If you need a zoom - I'd recommend a used CL with standard zoom lens. If not a Q2.

Buying from a trustworthy, official dealership will result a bit more expensive, but you get warranty.

IMO the surcharge for a re-branded Panasonic isn't worth being spent in the case of the DL.

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, Phil75 said:

If you need a zoom - I'd recommend a used CL with standard zoom lens. If not a Q2.

Buying from a trustworthy, official dealership will result a bit more expensive, but you get warranty.

IMO the surcharge for a re-branded Panasonic isn't worth being spent in the case of the DL.

On one hand I’ll agree.

On the other if someone wants their camera to have the red dot…is that not their business?

For one thing, Leica’s repair service is so far ahead of Panasonic’s that alone would (and did) sway me.

Edited August 15, 2023 by bobtodrick

[colonel]

I would echo some thoughts

The Q and D-Lux 7 are very different:

1. Q better: IQ (sharpness, micro-contrast, colour depth, etc.) and much better for low light. Battery lasts longer. Cool macro mode. Build quality. Lens doesn't extend when switched on like D-Lux 7 - which precludes me using D-Lux 7 for street photography

2. D-Lux 7 better: Weight, size, zoom range, video, price

best rgds

 

[GaryC]

20 hours ago, katieg said:

Right off the bat, I would start by asking yourself if a zoom is important to you or not. Based on your write-up, it appears carrying weight and size are a big factor to you wanting to bring along a camera. What is your potential use case for this? Daily snaps? Artistic pursuits? Genres? Will you print photos taken often? What size? Without knowing some of your answers, I could argue a case for either. Were you able to use both cameras in the store? 

I have used both. The DLux 7 is definitely a capable camera, I’ve been happy with many images made from it. I primarily photograph family life and for me personally, the autofocus struggled in certain situations that became frustrating for me as I have 4 children 10 and under. That being said, if size and weight are a big deciding factor for you (considering you said you have been using a camera phone for some time), maybe it is a good entry into getting back into using a non-phone camera. 

That being said, the Q2 and now Q3 came into my hands and I haven’t really looked back. I did not learn on zooms so perhaps I don’t miss that aspect. Knowing I just have one lens to work with made it easier to “see” photographs. I’ve been really happy with the Q series because it can really be versatile across many use-cases, from casual to serious photography. I have used it for casual family snapshots and yet I still have images in my portfolio taken from the Q2 and even now Q3 already that have been featured in fine art exhibitions and printed large. That’s what I really appreciate from the camera specs. 

Thanks Katie, I used to use zoom a lot with SLR & DSLR, but in the wilderness years of being lazy with an iPhone, mostly use my legs to 'zoom'.

Use will be mainly to capture life, family & travel. I'm unlikely to print beyond phonebooks to remember trips/family milestones etc. The rest will be digital and for sheer enjoyment. As for artistic pursuits, that's probably an area I'm interest to further explore. 

I wasn't able to use the cameras in store, they offered but time limitations prevented - I do have a Leica store near me in the UK though, so perhaps a chance to try if they are as accommodating.

 

Thanks again....and 4 kids under 10. Wow. I have one 14yr old daughter and that is tough enough 😉

 

[GaryC]

19 hours ago, LarsOtium said:

Life's short. Skip the DLux step and go for a Q3. And if you cannot justify the increase in price then compromise. Get a lightly used Q2. That is what I would do having read your comments. My guess is you will second guess a DLux purchase, but not a Q2 or Q3. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Thanks Lars, I'm fortunate that price isn't a major consideration. Maybe the choice would be easier if it were 😉

[GaryC]

18 hours ago, Le Chef said:

You could simply buy a lightly used DL and get used to that. If you feel you’ve outgrown it then you can either trade it for something that better fits your purpose or keep it as a backup.

Thanks LeChef - used DLs seem to be few and far between in the UK, and most offer minimal saving over new - I guess that is a vote FOR the DL in itself.

Where in Chicago? I get there twice a year normally - my brother lives in Evanston. Beautiful city, great photo ops. I'm also a cyclist and rode down to capture a deserted downtown Chicago early one sunny summer Sunday morning - very 'Vanilla Sky'

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Phil75]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

On one hand I’ll agree.

On the other if someone wants their camera to have the red dot…is that not their business?

For one thing, Leica’s repair service is so far ahead of Panasonic’s that alone would (and did) sway me.

Fully agree with the quality of Leica's CS.