D Lux 4 Pricing in US

[terrycioni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dave,

 

First off thank you for your always excellent information.

 

My question is related to the external viewfinder from Leica. In the product description there is mention of LED (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/accessories/d-lux_4/5943.html). Have you seen this puppy and if so is there something special about it over any other 24mm viewfinder besides Leica's optics and build, etc.

 

Best regards. Terry.

 

 

 

The D-Lux 4 actually has an entirely different firmware and menu system from the pana. The color rendering has been tweaked and the noise reduction/sharpening algorithms are less aggressive. The D-Lux 4 comes with Capture One v4 sofware ($129) and the RAW files are supported in C1. The Pana's RAW files are not recognized or supported in C1. Of course, the D-Lux 4 comes with a 2 year warranty, and something many people overlook - better resale value. Case in point: we sold certified pre-owned D-Lux 3 cameras on Ebay a few weeks ago. The bidding went higher on these USED cameras than the new prices. How many 2-year old digital cameras do you know that increase in value?!

 

So, while the D-Lux 4 may cost more up front, the overall cost of ownership is less. The value of the longer warrany and included C1 software, plus the other Leica intangibles in styling, accessories, and firmware really help in the value proposition.

 

David

[mishima]

Dear All,

 

Actually i've read thru some of the remarks regarding the D-Lux 4 camera here but im really keen to invest on this new product. I do own a D-Lux 3 at the moment and i thought of giving that to my nephew as she's really into photography. To the point is that i really love the D-Lux 3 picture quality but how much does the spec differ from D-Lux 4?

 

D-Lux 3 as i know will produce "noises" at certain time, but as long as it is snap on a good lighting condition, the results shall contradict. Furthermore, i've reviewed the specs on D-Lux 4 and i realized they had a difference Lens (D.C Vario Summicron) compared to D-Lux 3 (D.C Vario Elmarit).

 

Has anyone here conducted a complete review on this new camera? Really appreciate if you can share as i'm really wondering if it worth the investment (if there isnt much improvement).

 

Thank you all.

[terrycioni]

Just a couple of points, LX3 RAW is a DNG and widely supported by the usual converters such as Lightroom, Aperture, etc, the D-LUX4 RAW is RWL and for the time being will require Capture One to convert raw files. Many M8 shooters will tell you that Capture One does the best job with M8 DNG files (arguable of course).

 

How much different the Leica version of RAW (RWL) is from a standard DNG I will leave to the reviewers, et al. My experience so far with the D-LUX4 is the Capture One and RWL files are an excellent combination - until someone such as Adobe Raw is available for RWL files I won't know if indeed Capture One is contributing to the IQ of the DLUX4.

 

What amazes me is people coming to a Leica forum to complain about the prices of a Leica gear. Leica film point and shoots (not all were made by Leica) were always more expensive. I have little doubt Leica will sell far more D-LUX4s than M8.2 and thank goodness for that - it helps the cashs flow.

 

I can't comment on the D-LUX3 versus the D-LUX4 as I didn't own the D-LUX3. I did however own an LX2 (which is still selling locally). In my very humble opinion the D-LUX4 is a substantial upgrade in just about every function.

 

The 24mm F2.0 Summicron is worth the price - if you like shoot wide you will love the lens and camera. The link below will take you to about 19 photos and 1 video - I have not shot a whole lot with the DLUX4 yet but will as time permits.

 

Terry Cioni's slideshow on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

Best to all. Terry.

[ibogost]

This is quite an impassioned thread! However, there's a question that's still unanswered, even if we bracket the issue of whether or not the price difference is justified:

 

Namely, what exactly are the internal differences between the LX3 and the D-Lux 4? Irrespective of the exterior design, bundled RAW converter, resale considerations, or anything else, I still haven't been able to figure out what distinguishes the hardware firmware. The usual mention of "special" Leica color/sharpness adjustments is described in the marketing, but what are those differences, specifically? And as a previous poster said, do those differences matter for RAW capture anyway?

 

These questions might be rhetorical in this forum; indeed, perhaps it's impossible to tell without a detailed common test of both cameras. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask them, and I feel somewhat disillusioned that it's so difficult to find answers.

[miami91]

Just a couple of points, LX3 RAW is a DNG and widely supported by the usual converters such as Lightroom, Aperture, etc, the D-LUX4 RAW is RWL and for the time being will require Capture One to convert raw files. Many M8 shooters will tell you that Capture One does the best job with M8 DNG files (arguable of course).

 

Terry,

 

Where have you read that the LX3 RAW format is DNG? I don't think this is true. I've read several reviews of the camera, which all indicate it has a proprietary RAW format. I've also read some threads on DPR where people tried to rename the extension on the Pana RAW file into a .RWL to see if it would open in Capture One (which didn't work). So their RAW file is different than Leica's implementation, but I don't think it's a DNG.

 

I agree with you on the silliness of complaining about Leica's pricing. Often the people that complain the most vehemently also insist that the cameras are identical except for a red dot. If they really believe this, then who cares what the price difference is? Buy the Panasonic and be happy! If, on the other hand, you do acknowledge that there are differences, then each person needs to decide if the differences are worth the extra money. I have always purchased the Leica versions (including the new D-Lux 4) and never regretted it.

 

Jeff.

[terrycioni]

Terry,

 

Where have you read that the LX3 RAW format is DNG? I don't think this is true. I've read several reviews of the camera, which all indicate it has a proprietary RAW format. I've also read some threads on DPR where people tried to rename the extension on the Pana RAW file into a .RWL to see if it would open in Capture One (which didn't work). So their RAW file is different than Leica's implementation, but I don't think it's a DNG.

 

I agree with you on the silliness of complaining about Leica's pricing. Often the people that complain the most vehemently also insist that the cameras are identical except for a red dot. If they really believe this, then who cares what the price difference is? Buy the Panasonic and be happy! If, on the other hand, you do acknowledge that there are differences, then each person needs to decide if the differences are worth the extra money. I have always purchased the Leica versions (including the new D-Lux 4) and never regretted it.

 

Jeff.

 

Jeff, let me put it this way - I thought I read the LX3 was DNG, so take that for what it is worth. I have no doubt that it would be much wiser for Panasonic to have it's own raw format - and was surprised (when I think) I read this somewhere but for the life of me can't remember exactly where.

 

Mea Culpa....

 

Best Regard. Terry

[nostatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jeff, let me put it this way - I thought I read the LX3 was DNG, so take that for what it is worth. I have no doubt that it would be much wiser for Panasonic to have it's own raw format - and was surprised (when I think) I read this somewhere but for the life of me can't remember exactly where.

 

Mea Culpa....

 

Best Regard. Terry

 

LX3 is .rw2, not dng. DLux4 is .rwl. I'm willing to bet that there is little different other than extension and some header information.

 

I think people come to complain because they are frustrated. I bought a DLux3 and did not regret it. But is was not 2x the price of the Panasonic equivalent. It seems rather excessive that Leica things their one year of extra warranty and red dot are worth $400+ US. As for the technical differences, afaik there is *one* report of the raw files being "different" (Farkas' blog), but my guess is that comment was triggered by the different extensions and lack of cross compatibility rather than the fact that there is any significant difference between the hardware or software. I have no doubt that the Leica variant has different curves for processing jpg in-camera. But I bet that is it. If there was a significant improvement then Leica would be touting it.

 

As for the "summicron lens", evidently is has significant barrel distortion wide open that is quietly "fixed" by software. Another point of frustration...they didn't build a great low distortion lens, they just fixed it in post.

[mishima]

Hei Terri !

 

Thanks for the info. Truly appreciate that, but any idea on the lens diff ? Significantly would it differ much in terms of lens "name" (D-lux 3 and D-lux 4)?

 

Thanks ye!

[ibogost]

I have no doubt that the Leica variant has different curves for processing jpg in-camera. But I bet that is it. If there was a significant improvement then Leica would be touting it.

 

I'd like to believe that, but Leica is so retarded sometimes when it comes to marketing, it occurs to me that they may not be capable of communicating the differences between the two models. Maybe that's too generous a sentiment, though. Thinking logically, from a business perspective, Leica has no incentive to do a side-by-side comparison on a kit they sell versus one they don't. So it's hard to come to a conclusion other than yours: if there really were a significant difference in operation, there would be reason to talk about it.

 

As for the "summicron lens", evidently is has significant barrel distortion wide open that is quietly "fixed" by software. Another point of frustration...they didn't build a great low distortion lens, they just fixed it in post.

 

The barrel distortion is indeed significant, but that's not surprising given the absurdly wide angle necessary for a 24mm EFOV. At least the lens is the same on both cameras.

[nostatic]

Hei Terri !

 

Thanks for the info. Truly appreciate that, but any idea on the lens diff ? Significantly would it differ much in terms of lens "name" (D-lux 3 and D-lux 4)?

 

Thanks ye!

 

Lens is the same on the Panaleicas (DLux3 and LX-2, DLux4 and LX-3). Between the generations:

 

Dlux3 - 28-112mm equivalent, f2.8/4.9

 

Dlux4 - 24-60mm equivalent, f2.0/2.8

 

Also, the Dlux3 has a native 16x9 chip, Dlux4 is native 3x2.

[miami91]

I think people come to complain because they are frustrated. I bought a DLux3 and did not regret it. But is was not 2x the price of the Panasonic equivalent. It seems rather excessive that Leica things their one year of extra warranty and red dot are worth $400+ US.

 

There's no right or wrong answer to the pricing issue, of course. And while I can appreciate your viewpoint, I just don't share it. To me, the issue is one of absolute price difference ($400.00 USD), not relative price difference (2x). Being an owner of many pieces of Leica gear (cameras, lenses, scopes, binoculars), $400.00 just doesn't seem like a lot of money, not when one spends $3500.00+ for a single lens, $4000.00 -- $6000.00 for an M body, or $800.00 for an accessory viewfinder. Maybe I've "dranken the Kool Aid", but it's pretty tough for me to get worked up over $400.00.

 

Another thing to consider is resale value and/or depreciation. If like myself, you'll keep the D-Lux 4 only until a better model comes along (which is almost a certainty given the advancement of technology), then rest assured that the red dot will bring you a higher return on the second hand market. I recently sold my D-Lux 3 on eBay to make room for the D-Lux 4, and it netted me in excess of $600.00. I bought it new for $595.00!!!! Now, this is an extreme example --- I bought mine before Leica's across the board price increases, so the $595.00 I paid when it was first released became a higher price later on. But the point is, the Leica compacts retain their value to a remarkable degree. I've experienced this time after time after time (I've sold a Digilux 1, Digilux 2, D-Lux, D-Lux 2, and D-Lux 3 second hand in the past few years, and each time I've recovered a significant proportion of my purchase price).

 

Conversely, if one plans on keeping the camera long-term and not selling off when the replacement model comes, then the additional $400.00 is depreciated over an ever greater time period, and becomes rather negligible on a per week, per month, or "per snap" basis.

 

So if a person doesn't care for the Leica differences (warranty, C1, external design), buy the Panasonic and consider it the more intelligent purchase. But if someone likes the looks of the Leica model better, he/she shouldn't need a laundry list of technical differences to rationalize the purchase.

 

Jeff.

[ibogost]

Jeff, I appreciate your logic and find it persuasive enough. Prior experience suggests that Leica equipment retains more value.

 

But my fundamental question has nothing to do with money; rather, I what I really want to know is what (if any) actual hardware (unlikely, save the casing), firmware, and software differences exist between the D-Lux 4 and LX3. So far, we've established that the look of the firmware menus is different (unclear on the functions), the in-camera jpeg rendering algorithm is different, the RAW files are different in some mysterious way, but that's about all. Is there anything else? I'm not "searching" for some specific feature, or even some random one to "justify" the Leica over the Pana. I'm just trying to comprehend the differences between these two very similar products. All evidence seems to point to the likelihood that the differences are entirely cosmetic, save the RAW converter and the warranty.

[nostatic]

There's no right or wrong answer to the pricing issue, of course. And while I can appreciate your viewpoint, I just don't share it. To me, the issue is one of absolute price difference ($400.00 USD), not relative price difference (2x). Being an owner of many pieces of Leica gear (cameras, lenses, scopes, binoculars), $400.00 just doesn't seem like a lot of money, not when one spends $3500.00+ for a single lens, $4000.00 -- $6000.00 for an M body, or $800.00 for an accessory viewfinder. Maybe I've "dranken the Kool Aid", but it's pretty tough for me to get worked up over $400.00.

.

 

I agree to a point. LIke I said, I do not regret my DLux3 purchase one bit. Let me offer a counterpoint. How would you feel if your $3500 lens was a rebadged Nikon rather than "real" Leica? Or if the M8 Body were actually a rebadged 5D? In the end, if one keeps the camera for many years then the $400 averages out and is not a big deal financially. But it might be a big deal philosophically.

 

I drink BMW motorcycle koolaid and there are the same arguments in that world. V-Storm owners always taking the piss out of GS owners, saying the BMW is over priced for the performance, VStorm is as good, etc. I don't agree and am willing to pay the premium for what I consider to be a superior machine. But again, my GS is not a rebadged Suzuki. That is the core point. I do appreciate the aesthetic of the Leica version, but at some point the premium becomes somewhat of an insult...

[miami91]

Jeff, I appreciate your logic and find it persuasive enough. Prior experience suggests that Leica equipment retains more value.

 

But my fundamental question has nothing to do with money; rather, I what I really want to know is what (if any) actual hardware (unlikely, save the casing), firmware, and software differences exist between the D-Lux 4 and LX3. So far, we've established that the look of the firmware menus is different (unclear on the functions), the in-camera jpeg rendering algorithm is different, the RAW files are different in some mysterious way, but that's about all. Is there anything else? I'm not "searching" for some specific feature, or even some random one to "justify" the Leica over the Pana. I'm just trying to comprehend the differences between these two very similar products. All evidence seems to point to the likelihood that the differences are entirely cosmetic, save the RAW converter and the warranty.

 

Yes, I think you've got it covered. It's true --- it's largely guesswork. And we've been guessing at this for the past few years Leica has collaborated with Panasonic, and we guessed at differences when Leica collaborated with Fuji on the original Digiluxes.

 

My impressions are pretty much identical to what you've laid out: External design differences, Capture One instead of Silkypix, tweaks to jpeg rendering (thought to be less sharpening, less noise suppression, and less saturation), more "M8 like" menu appearance, different RAW file format (but likely no significant differences in file makeup), longer warranty, and higher price. I think it's safe to say that the electronic components (sensor, image processor, etc) and the lens are identical.

 

Jeff.

[miami91]

I agree to a point. LIke I said, I do not regret my DLux3 purchase one bit. Let me offer a counterpoint. How would you feel if your $3500 lens was a rebadged Nikon rather than "real" Leica? Or if the M8 Body were actually a rebadged 5D? In the end, if one keeps the camera for many years then the $400 averages out and is not a big deal financially. But it might be a big deal philosophically.

 

I drink BMW motorcycle koolaid and there are the same arguments in that world. V-Storm owners always taking the piss out of GS owners, saying the BMW is over priced for the performance, VStorm is as good, etc. I don't agree and am willing to pay the premium for what I consider to be a superior machine. But again, my GS is not a rebadged Suzuki. That is the core point. I do appreciate the aesthetic of the Leica version, but at some point the premium becomes somewhat of an insult...

 

I think we more or less agree. And certainly, were the price difference much more than $400.00 (if it were $1000.00 say!), it would become harder and harder to justify. Same for your theoreticals about the M8 body or a lens. If an M digital body of the future were to have a cheaper alternative, and the tech specs were more or less the same, it would indeed (for me anyway) come down to similar comparisons: which one do I like more based on design, appearance, perceived quality (aka longer warranty), included accessories, etc., and are these differences worth the price delta.

 

Regards,

 

Jeff.

[terrycioni]

Greetings,

 

I hope I did NOT leave the impression that the lenses are different between the two - LX3 - D-LUX4. They are not - at least not according to the available specs from both companies. I was merely commenting on how much I like the 24mm (barrel distorting) F2.0 Summicron.

 

I want to stress this again because some frustrated people have spun this another direction, the combination of Capture One and the D-LUX4 raw (RWL) files make an excellent combination. I don't have an LX3 won't be buying an LX3 and this I think is a forum dedicated to Leica. For all I know the LX3 and Sillypix make an excellent combination... I don't care if they do - not my worry.

 

As for RAW files differences - you can guess all you want, but no ones knows at this point - if it is (just) header info or other significant changes.

 

As for frustration - well I am sorry that some are frustrated with Leica - the simple thing to do is move-on or buy an LX3. The logic seems to be it is the same camera as the D-LUX4 so way we go, happy happy. No need to be frustrated if you don't like the specs, then better yet don't buy either of them and get a Canon G10....or some other similar beast.

 

That all said, I think the attack mentality in this thread reminds me of the M8 forum, honestly I had hoped this might be a kinder gentler place - in the hopes of changing my bad behavior on the M8 forum, etc.

 

Best regards. Terry.

[terrycioni]

LX3 is .rw2, not dng. DLux4 is .rwl. I'm willing to bet that there is little different other than extension and some header information.

 

I think people come to complain because they are frustrated. I bought a DLux3 and did not regret it. But is was not 2x the price of the Panasonic equivalent. It seems rather excessive that Leica things their one year of extra warranty and red dot are worth $400+ US. As for the technical differences, afaik there is *one* report of the raw files being "different" (Farkas' blog), but my guess is that comment was triggered by the different extensions and lack of cross compatibility rather than the fact that there is any significant difference between the hardware or software. I have no doubt that the Leica variant has different curves for processing jpg in-camera. But I bet that is it. If there was a significant improvement then Leica would be touting it.

 

As for the "summicron lens", evidently is has significant barrel distortion wide open that is quietly "fixed" by software. Another point of frustration...they didn't build a great low distortion lens, they just fixed it in post.

 

I am not sure what your point is but with respect I am missing it. Can I assume you will be passing on this version of the LX3 and or D-LUX4 for the above reasons.

 

I assume you haven't handled or shot with either camera? I missing something and am not trying to be difficult. You don't care for the Leica price, you don't like the lens (that is on both cameras), etc. It is as simple as just not buying either camera and carrying on with your 16:9 native sensor D-LUX 3.

 

I will assume you are not here just to rain on people's parade

 

Help me understand your point.

 

Best regards. Terry.

[nostatic]

I am not sure what your point is but with respect I am missing it. Can I assume you will be passing on this version of the LX3 and or D-LUX4 for the above reasons.

 

I assume you haven't handled or shot with either camera? I missing something and am not trying to be difficult. You don't care for the Leica price, you don't like the lens (that is on both cameras), etc. It is as simple as just not buy either camera and carrying on with your 16:9 native sensor D-LUX 3.

 

I will assume you are not here just to rain on people's parade

 

Help me understand your point.

 

Best regards. Terry.

 

I'm not sure yet about my purchase plans. I have had very good luck with the D-Lux3, but like most I'm always on the lookout for some incremental improvement in the tools (to go along with hopefully an accompanied better eye). For instance most of these photos were taken with the D-Lux3: hk08 - Page 1

 

I have handled the DLux4, the LX-3 was out of stock. Truth be told the only reason I was seriously considering an upgrade was that my g/f lusts after my DLux3 so I was going to give her that if I got a new P&S. I do grok the Leica vibe and appreciate it...it is just the principle of the pricing is frustrating. Since this is a thread on pricing, I think it is fair to discuss the pluses and minuses of the camera wrt it's cousin, especially in light of the costs.

 

If you are happy with the DLux4, then that is great, and my comments shouldn't sway you. I do however believe that people should be informed and not make assumptions. Frankly I was somewhat put off by Farkas' blog comments regarding the "differences." Unless he was deftly avoiding NDA restrictions and knows more than we do, the language was misleading. Of course he is in the business of selling cameras, so one needs to take that into account as well.

 

Panaleica in fact did something with the LX3/DL4 that I totally applaud - step back from the mp race and concentrate on noise and the processing engine. I also really like the fact that they tried to create a fast lens. Kudos to them. But then they chose to fix barrel distortion at the wide end in post (even in raw photos), go with a proprietary raw format, and Leica essentially doubles the price for the red dot. I usually try to avoid sounding like the bitter consumer, and I do get the premium aspect of the brand, etc. But it just feels excessive, and my guess is that the hype around the raw file differences is in fact amplification of a single blog post that gets passed around and then taken as gospel. It would just be a lot easier if there was some transparency about what is going on under the hood. It is much easier when competing brands are in fact that - competing brands with significantly different products and specifications. But rebranding is a tricky business, and imho the "value added" needs to back up the price. That to me is an essential point of discussion wrt price and value. It is up to the individual to determine that...and the individual should be as informed as possible.

 

That said, I'll likely end up buying the damn Leica because I like the aesthetic - even though I dropped my DL3 in the first week because the black body was so damn slippery

[terrycioni]

I'm not sure yet about my purchase plans. I have had very good luck with the D-Lux3, but like most I'm always on the lookout for some incremental improvement in the tools (to go along with hopefully an accompanied better eye). For instance most of these photos were taken with the D-Lux3: hk08 - Page 1

 

I have handled the DLux4, the LX-3 was out of stock. Truth be told the only reason I was seriously considering an upgrade was that my g/f lusts after my DLux3 so I was going to give her that if I got a new P&S. I do grok the Leica vibe and appreciate it...it is just the principle of the pricing is frustrating. Since this is a thread on pricing, I think it is fair to discuss the pluses and minuses of the camera wrt it's cousin, especially in light of the costs.

 

If you are happy with the DLux4, then that is great, and my comments shouldn't sway you. I do however believe that people should be informed and not make assumptions. Frankly I was somewhat put off by Farkas' blog comments regarding the "differences." Unless he was deftly avoiding NDA restrictions and knows more than we do, the language was misleading. Of course he is in the business of selling cameras, so one needs to take that into account as well.

 

Panaleica in fact did something with the LX3/DL4 that I totally applaud - step back from the mp race and concentrate on noise and the processing engine. I also really like the fact that they tried to create a fast lens. Kudos to them. But then they chose to fix barrel distortion at the wide end in post (even in raw photos), go with a proprietary raw format, and Leica essentially doubles the price for the red dot. I usually try to avoid sounding like the bitter consumer, and I do get the premium aspect of the brand, etc. But it just feels excessive, and my guess is that the hype around the raw file differences is in fact amplification of a single blog post that gets passed around and then taken as gospel. It would just be a lot easier if there was some transparency about what is going on under the hood. It is much easier when competing brands are in fact that - competing brands with significantly different products and specifications. But rebranding is a tricky business, and imho the "value added" needs to back up the price. That to me is an essential point of discussion wrt price and value. It is up to the individual to determine that...and the individual should be as informed as possible.

 

That said, I'll likely end up buying the damn Leica because I like the aesthetic - even though I dropped my DL3 in the first week because the black body was so damn slippery

 

Understood now and thank you for taking the time. In my case the Panasonic was not and still isn't readily available and the DLUX4 is. I paid the Leica tax, and somewhat willingly so I can't complain

 

Transparency would be nice but this has been going on for a long time. I can remember the heated discussions around the LC1 and Digulux 2 - seems they have not gone away.

 

No matter what you decide if I can just add the D-LUX4 is a bit of gem!

 

Best regards. Terry.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[miami91]

But it just feels excessive, and my guess is that the hype around the raw file differences is in fact amplification of a single blog post that gets passed around and then taken as gospel. It would just be a lot easier if there was some transparency about what is going on under the hood. It is much easier when competing brands are in fact that - competing brands with significantly different products and specifications. But rebranding is a tricky business, and imho the "value added" needs to back up the price. That to me is an essential point of discussion wrt price and value. It is up to the individual to determine that...and the individual should be as informed as possible.

 

Your comments on competing brands and rebranding are very insightful. And I agree that the price and discussion of differences is a legitimate exchange to have on this forum.

 

That said, I'll likely end up buying the damn Leica because I like the aesthetic - even though I dropped my DL3 in the first week because the black body was so damn slippery

I agree. The aesthetic was enough for me as well. Other differences, whether real (C1, warranty, resale value) or possibly imagined (RAW improvements) are the icing on the cake.

 

As for slippery grip, you may need to fork over anohter $100.00 USD for the Leica grip, or treat yourself to a Luigi case!

 

Best,

 

Jeff.