DLux4 is the perfect companion to the M8.

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just bought a DLux4 and put it through its paces. I went out for two hours and used it the same way I would normally use my M8, mostly in Aperture priority at f4. I was blown away by the image quality you can get out of this little gadget. My colleagues, all professionals, had difficulty telling a difference between a 17x13 print done from the M8 vs the DLux4. This camera is a perfect companion to the M8, and especially at base ISO, it is phenomenal.

 

Here are two pics from my trip, with a 100% crop. Sorry for posting here, but I think it is relevant to my post.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[peterb]

If you and several professional colleagues can't tell the difference between a 17x13 print from the D-Lux 4 and an M8, why on earth would anyone spend nearly $14 grand or more for the M8 (including the complement of lenses that would provide the D-Lux4 range from 24mm to 60mm which would include such stellar optics as the 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Cron, 28mm Cron, 35mm Cron and 50mm Cron)?

 

I've seen some of the output of the D-Lux4 on several other threads and I have to tell you I was quite impressed, too.

 

If this indeed turns out to be the case, it sounds like D-Lux 4 isn't just a perfect companion to the M8 but, more disturbingly, a perfect replacement altogether.

 

Dontcha just love technology?

 

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[BerndReini]

I do love technology. But as I said, I usually shoot the M8 at ISO320 while I shot the DLux4 at ISO80. Also, the color saturation is better with the M8 since it starts with a bigger chip and it uses an initial 12bit process to make the proprietary DNG conversion.

 

Next, I was shooting the lens at f4 while I shoot a lot of my pictures wide open at 1.4 with my M8, which combined with the bigger sensor gives you a beautiful bokeh and dimensionality.

 

Next is the handling. I am a lot faster with the M8. I know where everything is set and have total control over exposure and focus in a split second.

 

So keep in mind that this test was done in a very specific environment for a specific kind of image.

 

Finally, if you are a professional and use your camera a lot, the price difference should be less of a consideration than if you just take pictures occasionally as a hobby. The best comparison is this: if you go to a hardware store to buy a hammer, you'll see hammers for $5 and hammers for $50. All they both do is hammer in a nail, but the more expensive one may have a better grip, better ergonomics, or it is simply just prettier and more joy to work with. So is it ten times better than the five dollar one? Probably not. But it might be twice as good, and if you use it a lot then maybe that's worth it.

 

Same with the DLux4 and the M8. the M8 isn't ten times better than the DLux4, but when that one fleeting moment happens, I would want to have the M8 to capture it rather than the DLux4.

 

Then again, my friend said it perfectly and I quote: "This is the first point-and-shoot camera that I feel comfortable using for an artistic shot and I don't feel guilty that I din't take it with a better camera."

 

And I do believe that a lot of people probably would take better pictures with the DLux4 than with the M8 since the M8 requires the user to put in some effort and learn its ins and outs, but in return it can reward you with beautiful pictures, pictures you make vs. ones you simply take.

[blakley]

If you and several professional colleagues can't tell the difference between a 17x13 print from the D-Lux 4 and an M8, why on earth would anyone spend nearly $14 grand or more for the M8...?

 

If this indeed turns out to be the case, it sounds like D-Lux 4 isn't just a perfect companion to the M8 but, more disturbingly, a perfect replacement altogether.

 

I've got both (well, actually the Panasonic variant of the D-Lux). The D-Lux 4/DMC-LX3 is good, but I can tell the difference between its output and the M8's even in 8x10 prints. The D-Lux 4/DMC-LX3 is by no means a replacement for the M8, especially if you want to shoot at ISO above 200 or if you want shallow depth of field.

[miami91]

The D-Lux 4/DMC-LX3 is by no means a replacement for the M8, especially if you want to shoot at ISO above 200 or if you want shallow depth of field.

 

Or if you want to compose pictures by holding a camera to your eye, rather than holding it at arms length and staring at a screen. The D-Lux 4 is a significant advancement over its predecessors in having a hot shoe and allowing use of an external viewfinder, but this doesn't come anywhere close to the pleasure and effectiveness of an M or R viewfinder.

 

Jeff.

[peterb]

HI all,

 

Truth be told, I agree with all of you. When Bernard first claimed that under certain conditions (low ISO, f4.0) 17 x 13" prints from the D-Lux4 (or even its Panasonic equiv.) were remarkably close in quality to prints from the M8 it did give me pause.

 

I don't have the M8. But I used to have the M6 and, as you know from using the M8, the way you see the world through its finder and the way you handle the camera are, indeed, quite special. When I was convinced that digital output was now up to par with the best film could do I made the switch and got the Digilux 2. (I regret selling the lenses but when Leitz insisted a digital camera that could utilize the legendary M optics could not be achieved due to sensor/rear element issues I simply folded and sold. BIG mistake.) The D2 is wonderful (albeit big) small-sensor camera with an extraordinary zoom lens of Summicron design that covered the range of lenses I had with the M6. l I used a 35mm and 90mm crons for my walkabout kit and the D2 zoom covered a range that was the equivalent of 28mm to 90mm at f2.0!

 

What's more, the D2 had 'analog' controls like my beloved M6 and its shutter could be utterly silent, even moreso than the M.

 

The new M8 (and now M8.2), for all its vaunted achievement in getting all that digitalia in an M body was somewhat of a disappointment for me. While I had high hopes, the price tag which was nearly DOUBLE that of an M6 gave me pause. Plus, when word came out that because of the decision to not have an anti-aliasing filter, no matter how thin, for fear of compromising the legendary optics (or so I think that's what happened) meant the legendary optics now had to sport IR filters to counter the optical effects the decision was, in my opinion, nullified. Also, the M's were legendary for their ruggedness and while I never had the opportunity to test the mettle of their carved brass metal in extreme conditions I was confident when I used the camera when the elements weren't so nice out. I was also surprised to hear that the M8 did not have weather seals. I had bought Ricoh's quite impressive fixed lens GR Digital camera and it was 'fried' when I brought it along on a Heli-hiking trip in the Canadian Rockies and got wet from a light drizzle. With $600 loss I was majorly bummed. Had I spent $5500 I would have had a stroke! I was hoping the M8.2 would have corrected this but was again disappointed when it did not. As some members on this site have pointed out, at the price of an M8, to not be protected against the scourge of anything electronic is, simply, inexcuseable.

 

That aside, the results I've seen on the other pages of the forum here are, in short, utterly breathtaking. And, for me, ENVIABLE. The M8 has given the legendary M optics new life in the digital age (and another camera on the horizon, Pansonic's G1 may appear to continue this trend). In many cases the images are beyond what one saw in film. And Leitz, to their credit, has redesigned some of their optics to make them even better than they ever were. The WATE is brilliant. And the Noctilux, yet to come out, is simply to die for. All in all, earnest attempts to insure anyone using an M8 will have all that's technically feasible to shoot with as low an ISO as is possible under the most challenging lighting.

 

The D-Lux series which was plagued with noise issues beyond low ISO has been a model of steady advancement in the art of digital. The first camera (which I bought the Panasonic counterpart) had an amazing sensor that had a 16:9 aspect ratio FULL SIZE. The lens was a super sharp Leitz-designed optic that covered the equivalent of 28mm to 105mm in 35mm. My interest, aside from the cool zoom and sensor, was reports that it could shoot RAW with considerable speed. The D2 while it created wonderful images at low ISO was horrid as you dialed up the ISO. One solution was to shoot RAW and then take care of the noise in photoshop or equivalent. THe problem was, when you shot Raw it was like making daguerrotypes as the writing speed was painfully slow. So the LX-1 became my new portable buddy after the GR-D died.

 

As I mentioned the LX- and D-Lux series kept improving with age and from the point made by the opening volley of this thread seems to indicate that with the D-Lux 4, now, the series may at last be hitting its stride. Panasonic now appears to have a good grasp of developing a good processing engine and Leitz is confident enough in this new version that they're now supplying eager fans with things like fancy leather cases, grips and titanium finishes. Usually a good sign of their confidence (just think of all the ostrich skin and other editions of the film M's that Leitz offered over the years).

 

Finally there was one other member who posted some shots from his D-Lux 4 that as I mentioned above, were REALLY impressive. And they were just jpegs and not RAW shot at various ISO's. Offering further proof beyond what Bernard had suggested when he said that colleagues of his had difficulty telling 17x13" prints apart.

 

Still the D-Lux 4 is a small sensor device while the M8 is a large one. Physics dictates that, handling aside, it should produce better images with lower noise and other artifacts than the DLux 4. But technology marches on and the D-Lux 4 is clearly a winner.

 

Is the D-Lux 4, ultimately, a substitute for the M8? For some I think think the answer is "yes" and I suspect as I've seen they will be quite happy with it.

 

But for those who've also invested in an M8, to enjoy all its special qualities, I certainly agree with everyone else here that the D-Lux 4 which is not only a great photographic device but a terrific example of clean industrial design on Leitz part, is most definitely a superb complement to the fine machine you already have in your enviable possession!

 

Enjoy your cameras guys. Make the most of their capabilities.

 

Peter

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very nicely summed up, Peter. Now go get yourself one and have fun with it. Btw. I also tried out a GRX 200 and while the image quality above base ISO cannot touch the DLux4, Ricoh put some extremely useful features for people who are used to rangefinder photography into this little gem.

[Gift]

I have both cams and really new with the two.

For now on, the only I can say, it's that sometimes we forget that what makes a good photo it's not just the cam, but the photographer takes a big part of all of it.

 

I've seen really marvellous pics here with D-Lux 4, and of course, some not so good. D-Lux 4 it's just a P&S cam, but in experienced hands it deserves really great works that not all the P&S cams can offer today. As the M8 is an excellent cam but not everybody (at least me) can get those beautifull pics that we enjoy over the forum everyday.

 

So that's the way to reach happiness, learn a little day by day to get closer to what we would like to reach.

[blakley]

I like both the M8 and the DMC-LX3 (Panaleica D-Lux4) a lot; I use both and am happy with the results. On a recent trip to Europe I used both and got shots I was very happy with out of both of them, but the files from the M8 are much cleaner and the fine detail is much better. If you compare the sky texture and detail resolution in the "original size" version of this picture taken with the LX3 and this one taken with the M8 you can see the difference.

 

This M8 photo from a previous trip shows even more clearly what the M8 can do; check out the detail of the netting at bottom center and the airliner at top center.

 

The LX3 also feels awkward for portraiture to me; I use the M8 for portraits all the time, but something about the LX3 makes using it for portraits at 60mm equivalent feel unnatural - I think it has to do with looking at the LCD instead of through an optical viewfinder but I'm not sure. Because of this I've not yet tried to use it for "serious" portraiture; I'll be surprised if it can reach the sorts of results I get from the M8, as here.

 

This shouldn't be taken as a knock on the LX3 by any means; I'm very happy with the results I've gotten with it so far; many of them (as well as a few M8 b&w shots) are in this set (which you can view as a slideshow).

[vdb]

I agree, the D-Lux 4 is the perfect companion. I take it everywhere so as not to miss a moment. But the M8 is a bit more special in every way.