firoze Posted January 27, 2009 Share #1 Posted January 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I own a D-Lux 3 and am considering buying the D-Lux 4 Titan But doing so means a considerable outlay because I'm not likely to get much for the DL3 although it is in mint condition. So my question is, how much better is the image quality of the DL4 over the DL3? Could those of you who own (or have used) both these cameras shed some light on this... I'd use the camera mostly for landscapes and macros, not for low-light photography (where I know the DL4 is much superior). Also, getting the DL4 means I have to give up the longer zoom range of the DL3, which is useful occasionally... For comparison, I downloaded the full resolution sample images from the Pana LX-3 and LX-2 from the dpreview website and can only see the slightest difference in image quality between the images from the two cameras (in those pics takes in good light). So I am wondering if it is really worth upgrading to the DL4... I'd be most grateful for your thoughts on this matter... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Hi firoze, Take a look here D-Lux 4 vs D-Lux 3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
miami91 Posted January 27, 2009 Share #2 Posted January 27, 2009 Firoze, If you're not going to be shooting above ISO 200 very often, and/or don't want to trade the telephoto for the extra wide angle reach, then it probably isn't in your interest to upgrade. The other major benefit of the DL4 is the hotshoe, which will allow you to either use a flash gun or an external viewfinder. For me this is a huge benefit, as I much prefer framing shots in an optical finder. But I know many people really don't mind (or actually prefer) the LCD. I take it eBay India isn't perhaps as mature/popular as the US eBay site? Because I actually made money by selling my D-Lux 3 on eBay. I paid $599.00 USD for it new, and sold it last October for a bit over $600.00 USD. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firoze Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted January 27, 2009 Jeff, Thanks for writing... Im of of those who actually prefers a LCD to a viewfinder and I wonder if I'd ever use an external flash. So really, its down to whether the image quality of DL4 is noticeably better and the 24mm vs the 28mm wide-angle. I've never used 24mm for landscapes - I wonder if that would be useful? You got a great price for your DL3. I will put mine on eBay India, provided I decide to to upgrade... So do you have the DL4 now? How do you find its IQ vs the DL3? And do you use it at 24mm a lot? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgenper Posted January 27, 2009 Share #4 Posted January 27, 2009 One who has used both cameras with great success is Jim Radcliffe, who is a frequent contributor on these pages. He has a website with images and comments from both cameras; here is the D-lux 4 one: Leica D-Lux 4 Photography by Jim Radcliffe (for reasons unknown to me, he doesn´t seem to have a regular start page; to get the D-lux 3 one, just change "4" to "3" in the URL above). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted January 28, 2009 Share #5 Posted January 28, 2009 Jeff,Thanks for writing... Im of of those who actually prefers a LCD to a viewfinder and I wonder if I'd ever use an external flash. So really, its down to whether the image quality of DL4 is noticeably better and the 24mm vs the 28mm wide-angle. I've never used 24mm for landscapes - I wonder if that would be useful? You got a great price for your DL3. I will put mine on eBay India, provided I decide to to upgrade... So do you have the DL4 now? How do you find its IQ vs the DL3? And do you use it at 24mm a lot? Regards Yes, I have the DL4 now. I had the DL3 up to acquiring the DL4 (I've done the "sell old on eBay and buy new model" for every D-Lux model made so far). Well, I don't have any real profound insights on image quality, I'll just repeat what you already have undoubtedly heard. It's a much better camera for low light photography, both because of the slightly faster lens, and because of the better performance at ISO 400 and 800 (or intermediate values if you use the intelligent ISO). I rather like the look of the results at 400 and 800 --- less noise than the DL3, and to my eye, better looking noise (more grain like). I think some of this can be attributed to the marginally larger pixels (its a slightly larger sensor with the same pixel count), and some of it is likely due to Leica/Panasonic taking a less aggressive posture on in-camera noise reduction. Whatever the reason, I'm really impressed with the high ISO performance. As for 24mm, yes, I shoot at this focal length more than any other. Part of this is due to my own preference for wide angle, and undoubtedly part is due to needing to be at this focal length to use the optical viewfinder. To explain, nowhere on the camera display does it tell you what focal length you're at when you use the zoom lever. So you know at the widest setting you're at 24mm (in 35m equivalence). Likewise, with the zoom at max telephoto, you know you're at 60mm. Anywhere in between is guesswork. So for all practical purposes, if you want to use an optical viewfinder, you are limited to either 24mm or 60 mm (which I don't think exist). I'm currently using a 25mm Voigtlander I've borrowed from my Leica M lens, and will be buying the official Leica 24mm finder as soon as its readily available. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firoze Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted January 28, 2009 Per, Thanks, yes I have seen and admired Jim Radcliffe's photos,. Both his DL4 and DL3 images are fantastic... but like someone commented about his abilities, he could do miracles even with a cell phone camera Jeff, Maybe I have not explored low light photography much because of the DL3's limitations there.... Would be interesting to do so with a camera that is more capable in that area... Two questions: Do you not find 24mm for landscapes too wide? Would you rather use 28mm (supposing your optical finder allowed you to frame accurately at that setting) Does the upper zoom limit of 60mm bother you much? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted January 28, 2009 Share #7 Posted January 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Per,Thanks, yes I have seen and admired Jim Radcliffe's photos,. Both his DL4 and DL3 images are fantastic... but like someone commented about his abilities, he could do miracles even with a cell phone camera Jeff, Maybe I have not explored low light photography much because of the DL3's limitations there.... Would be interesting to do so with a camera that is more capable in that area... Two questions: Do you not find 24mm for landscapes too wide? Would you rather use 28mm (supposing your optical finder allowed you to frame accurately at that setting) Does the upper zoom limit of 60mm bother you much? Regards I don't really lock in on a particular focal length for landscapes. I've got a couple of ultrawide lenses for my Leica Ms if I really want to go for a panoramic look (the CV 12mm and CV 15mm), and I've also taken some nice landscapes with normal length lenses like a 50mm. So I don't see that as a problem. But keep in mind: If you're a person who sees landscapes through a 28-35mm prism (so to speak), you can certainly do this with the D-Lux 4 as easily as with the D-Lux 3 --- you just frame with the LCD as before. As to the upper limit of the zoom, I don't miss 60-100mm at all! But like most things, this is just a matter of individual comfort and style. Because most of my shooting is with M cameras, I'm not used to long lenses. The longest lens I own is a Summarit 75mm, and I hardly use it. I almost exclusively use a 50mm Summilux, various 35mm lenses, a 28mm cron, and the ultrawide CVs. I do have a Digilux 3 (with Olympus 50-200mm lens) if I need a telephoto solution, and I plan on getting into R photography as soon as the R10 is available (maybe earlier than that actually --- been eyeing the R9 starter set!). I've commented in other threads about the D-Lux 4 that I think it's a very welcome development for people who like/own Leica Ms. The focus on low-light capabilility, ability to use an optical viewfinder, and orientation to wide angle and normal focal lengths (at the expense of telephoto) make it a very comfortable and familiar alternative to an M7 or M8. At least that's the way I see it. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spronic Posted January 28, 2009 Share #8 Posted January 28, 2009 I may not be of much help. But since I at one time owned a d-lux 3 and now own a pana lx-3, I thought I would chime in. I really love the lx-3 and haven't really seen a glaring issue with it so far. The d-lux 3 on the other hand had, in my eyes, many issues. Jpegs were not always usable and obviously noise. I don't really shoot past wide-angle, since I like cramming as much as possible into a photo, but I will say, that I also much perfer the macro on the lx-3. Images also seem sharper, which is one of the most important things I look for in a camera. I am no camera professional, just a musician who loves photography. So don't take my comments too seriously. The best option for you is to find one to try out. If that's not possible then I guess weigh out the advantages. I think it's safe to say the lx3/dlux4 is a better camera then the lx2/dlux3. But the price/value ratio does become a factor. It's funny when I think back, and how I use to drool over the dlux2, boy have things changed. Hopefully, I put some things in perspective and made it easier for you, and didn't make it more complicated. Either way, happy shooting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr_in_dallas Posted January 28, 2009 Share #9 Posted January 28, 2009 I own a D-Lux 3 and am considering buying the D-Lux 4 Titan But doing so means a considerable outlay because I'm not likely to get much for the DL3 although it is in mint condition. So my question is, how much better is the image quality of the DL4 over the DL3? So I am wondering if it is really worth upgrading to the DL4... I'd be most grateful for your thoughts on this matter... You should be able to get about $450 for the D-Lux 3. Yes, Yes, Yes.... the quality of the D-Lux 4 images is better than the 3. With the 3 I rarely shot at ISO 400 due to noise.. with the 4 I have actaually ventured into ISO 800 on occasion. Macro is superb by the way. I have not touched my D-Lux 3 once since getting the 4... except to put it back in the box it came in. Jim Radcliffe Leica D-Lux 4 Photography by Jim Radcliffe Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firoze Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted January 28, 2009 Thank you so much for your most helpful comments Jeff, Spronic and Jim... I've decided to get myself a D-Lux 4, hopefully a Titan. Hope I can get a good price for my DL3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.