Hello from SoCal - question about DL 4

[geoffmalter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a newbie to Leica, I'm interested in the Leica DL 4. Its features fit my needs, and I'm not at a point where I want to commit the bucks necessary to move up to better Leicas.

 

Researching the internet, as everyone knows, there are a lot of comparisons of the DL 4 to the LX 3. Leica fans of course back their brand, as do the Panasonic fans theirs. Looking at pics on both sides of the fence, I cannot tell the difference between comparison shots. Maybe that's due to my untrained eye. I have not yet made prints from digital images, but may want to in the future.

 

My question today is to ask are there specific technical reasons to buy Leica over Panasonic? I've read about claims that Leica has a better lens coating, Leica furnishes Panasonic with German-made optical motors to make the DL 4, etc. Panasonic fans say there's no truth to those claims.

 

So my bottom line is that other than the Leica name and three-year warranty, why would one spend 35% more for the DL 4? Thanks in advance for reading this and responding.

 

Geoff

[Advertisement]

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

[hjfischer]

One reason buyers choose the Leica over the Panasonic is that they can. Those who can't are probably getting a camera that's just as good.

[CatWorthy]

Hi from Norcal,

Been on the same boat you are now, and ended up buying DL-4 a few weeks ago. This is my first Leica.

 

While I love the DL-4, I didn't have any hesitation to buy an LX3. Actually, the LX3 was my first choice. I couldn't find one anywhere, however. Waited a month and it still was out of stock on backordered status. When I found from Amazon that it was going for $600+, I bought a Leica that same day. My trip is coming up and I can't wait any longer. What good is something when it isn't available?

 

What you get for paying more for DL-4 is:

- Firmware to render jpeg (internal to the camera) are different, and DL4 jpeg quality is the best I've ever seen. Don't know how similar the LX3 is to DL4 in this regard, and whether it makes a difference. Check out the test shot I attached, just winging it in the backyard. I didn't expect this little thing to give me the bokeh, and this is straight off the camera.

- PP software are different if you shoot RAW. Again, can't comment whether it makes a difference in the end. JPEG quality is very satisfactory for me that I don't shoot RAW with DL4.

- You know about the longer warranty.

- Although I haven't drunk the Leica cool-aid, I have to say that there is a certain something called "Pride of Ownership" involved in owning a Leica camera. Its capability aside, it is a beautiful camera, especially when I have Richard F's custom grip on it and a brown Leica case to put it in.

 

You can't go wrong either way. Hope this helps.

[d2mini]

MY reasons.

 

1. Looks. I think the Leica looks more like an old skool rangefinder. It's sexier than the panny.

 

Bonus:

2. Internal software

3. Longer warranty

4. Higher resale value.

[gtravis]

I don't believe there is any material difference between the DL-4 and the LX3 except for aesthetic differences in the camera case. I don't believe there is difference quality control, I don't believe the lens coatings are different, I don't even believe that the in-camera JPEG processing is different.

 

In the end, I bought the DL-4 because:

 

1. I couldn't get an LX3

2. I liked the styling of the DL-4 more than the LX3

3. I couldn't get an LX3

 

There are four qualitative differences between the LX3 and the DL-4. One is that the LX3 has a one-year warranty. The DL-4 has a three year. The second is that the LX3 comes with SilkyPix for RAW processing, the DL-4 comes with Camera One. Not having used SilkyPix I can't say whether it's better or worse than Camera One. Like other posters here, I shoot straight to JPEG 99% of the time anyways.

 

Third is that the Panasonic manual is better than the Leica manual. Fourth is that the Panasonic firmware gives you more options and control over the camera hardware than the "Leica" firmware. I do not know if you can load the Panasonic firmware into the DL-4 and I'm not going to try.

 

The camera is an absolute marvel. I do not appear to be able to take a bad picture with it and, believe me, I am not a great photographer.

 

As I said before, the only difference between the LX3 and the DL-4 are styling, warrantee, included software, the manual, and slightly different camera firmware. Oh, and the price.

[tvBilly]

Fourth is that the Panasonic firmware gives you more options and control over the camera hardware than the "Leica" firmware.

 

Can you save me the trouble of trying to compare the two manuals and tell me what options and controls the LX3 offers that the D-Lux4 doesn't?

 

Thanks!

[gtravis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can you save me the trouble of trying to compare the two manuals and tell me what options and controls the LX3 offers that the D-Lux4 doesn't?

 

Thanks!

 

No, not really. It's been a while since I compared them (the manuals). I think it's pretty minor stuff, like the fact that the Panasonic firmware lets you "tell" the camera that a wide-angle adaptor is fitted.

[geoffmalter]

I don't believe there is any material difference between the DL-4 and the LX3 except for aesthetic differences in the camera case. I don't believe there is difference quality control, I don't believe the lens coatings are different, I don't even believe that the in-camera JPEG processing is different.

 

In the end, I bought the DL-4 because:

 

1. I couldn't get an LX3

2. I liked the styling of the DL-4 more than the LX3

3. I couldn't get an LX3

 

There are four qualitative differences between the LX3 and the DL-4. One is that the LX3 has a one-year warranty. The DL-4 has a three year. The second is that the LX3 comes with SilkyPix for RAW processing, the DL-4 comes with Camera One. Not having used SilkyPix I can't say whether it's better or worse than Camera One. Like other posters here, I shoot straight to JPEG 99% of the time anyways.

 

Third is that the Panasonic manual is better than the Leica manual. Fourth is that the Panasonic firmware gives you more options and control over the camera hardware than the "Leica" firmware. I do not know if you can load the Panasonic firmware into the DL-4 and I'm not going to try.

 

The camera is an absolute marvel. I do not appear to be able to take a bad picture with it and, believe me, I am not a great photographer.

 

As I said before, the only difference between the LX3 and the DL-4 are styling, warrantee, included software, the manual, and slightly different camera firmware. Oh, and the price.

 

I thought I read elsewhere that the Leica manual was much more informative than its Panasonic counterpart. I could be wrong. And unless I read the specs wrong, the DL4 is nearly 1/2 the thickness of the LX3 (27mm vs. 45mm). I don't know if being smaller is better or worse. There must be a point, like cellphones, where too small creates problems.

[Jeff S]

I thought I read elsewhere that the Leica manual was much more informative than its Panasonic counterpart. I could be wrong. And unless I read the specs wrong, the DL4 is nearly 1/2 the thickness of the LX3 (27mm vs. 45mm). I don't know if being smaller is better or worse. There must be a point, like cellphones, where too small creates problems.

 

Other way around...the LX manual is much more informative. But, no reason to buy the camera...you can download the Panasonic manual for free...as I did after buying the Leica

[robbi@laurenson.com]

RAW is the main reason for me. Leica works with Phase One to make sure that the default D-Lux 4 profiles are developed with an eye to Leica aesthetics and quality. That said I have switched to LightRoom for various reasons, but still use Capture One to get a bead on what Leica thought the RAW conversion should look like.

 

In-camera JPEG processing is also different (better to my eye).

 

I think if you're not shooting at least some RAW it's a wash - get the LX-3 if you can find it.

[bill]

Biggest differentiator for me was that the D-Lux 4 takes the grip. I have large hands and it transforms the handling of the camera. That plus I got a great deal from Harrisons (keen price, free postage, fast delivery a couple of days before Christmas) and the extra year's warranty swung it for me. With the grip, it feels like a small "real" camera rather than a digicam. This is reinforced with the addition of the Pandabase adaptor, that again transforms handling.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[cobbslane]

If I had a £ for every time this question has been raised on the internet I would be the owner of Leica by now!

 

The tie up between Leica and Panasonic has been a good one for both companies as neither had the technological lead in their respective fields yet both needed that know-how to go further and succeed. From Kodak (schneider) to Hassleblad (Phase one, etc) there have been successful tie-ups. The difference with this one is that there appears to be a trend to launch what appears to be identical models with different jackets by both parties, combined with silence on their absolute differences. So we are left to the 'experts' of the web to test these models to death in less than scientific ways and attempt to justify their view as a result. But beware the 'knockers' of the more expensive brand hidden behind some of those assessments too.

 

The choice must be yours, I'm afraid. Handle them both. Take test shots of your own with each of them. Experience the Leica dealer support (that lasts beyond the sale by the way!) Shop around for a bargain (Harrison's with free case, postage etc) and then decide. Oh, and take a look at the Panasonic LX3 forum....if you can find it (no not on Flickr)

 

I think - like the rest of us here - that you will be swayed by those factors for which there is no price. They are part of the experience that comes with Leica. (I recall being invited to the Leica days run in the UK when I bought my previous Leica M & R models - don't know if they still do them but it allowed me to handle/try the entire range of Leica lens suited to my body for a whole day - free.....do Panasonic do that too?)

 

As to the price - only you can justify it and it's none of our business whether you can or will. You can also buy 2nd hand now and of course if you are simply interested in taking pics and brands and wide support mean little, then there's always the LX3.

 

Either way you cannot lose

 

Gerry

[Tenor1]

I like owning the Leica because of the status and history of the company. There is nothing wrong with the LX3 and in fact the built-in hand grip might serve you better. There is a long thread here started by someone that bought both cameras and posted several A/B shots. I found little to no difference between the comparisons. If the cost is your determining factor then consider waiting for a no-tax sale, which occurs often in Southern California. The sales tax in SCal is now 9.25% and not paying that for a $700 camera is a consideration. I prefer to buy local over internet stores. I feel guilty asking for help from them if I don't support the shop (but that is not your question here).

 

Another suggestion is to compare these cameras to the Canon G-10. I bought it along with the DL4. It has some advantages and disadvantages and I'll share some:

 

Advantages:

Much longer battery life

5x zoom

Nice access to manual features

Built-in viewfinder, it's not fantastic but serves the purpose for framing darker shots. I like it more than the viewfinder attachment for the DL4 because it's easier to frame while zooming.

 

Disadvantages:

Heavier and larger

Low-light shots are not as good

Colors are not quite as natural especially with the blue of the sky, that's just my opinion

 

I feel certain you will enjoy any of these cameras.

[hjfischer]

I like owning the Leica because of the status and history of the company. There is nothing wrong with the LX3 and in fact the built-in hand grip might serve you better. There is a long thread here started by someone that bought both cameras and posted several A/B shots. I found little to no difference between the comparisons. If the cost is your determining factor then consider waiting for a no-tax sale, which occurs often in Southern California. The sales tax in SCal is now 9.25% and not paying that for a $700 camera is a consideration. I prefer to buy local over internet stores. I feel guilty asking for help from them if I don't support the shop (but that is not your question here).

 

Another suggestion is to compare these cameras to the Canon G-10. I bought it along with the DL4. It has some advantages and disadvantages and I'll share some:

 

Advantages:

Much longer battery life

5x zoom

Nice access to manual features

Built-in viewfinder, it's not fantastic but serves the purpose for framing darker shots. I like it more than the viewfinder attachment for the DL4 because it's easier to frame while zooming.

 

Disadvantages:

Heavier and larger

Low-light shots are not as good

Colors are not quite as natural especially with the blue of the sky, that's just my opinion

 

I feel certain you will enjoy any of these cameras.

 

The may issue of "Shutterbug" has an article comparing the Panasonic LX 3, Canon G-10 and Nikon 6000 which may be helpful in making your decision. Good luck.

[integrale]

The may issue of "Shutterbug" has an article comparing the Panasonic LX 3, Canon G-10 and Nikon 6000 which may be helpful in making your decision. Good luck.

 

Do an internetsearch and you'll realise that that set-up is quite common; it seems like the chosen trio of high-end semi-compacts (and the G10 and LX3 seem to be the testers' favorites).

 

BTW: Post #5 (gtravis) sums the LX3/DL4 issue quite nicely. There may be differences in IQ, but to most people it is insignificant (to me undetectable, but that's just me....

[Tenor1]

Thanks hjfischer for the article reference. I had that issue but didn't notice the article. Initially, I bought the Nikon 6000 then returned it for the Leica and Canon. My hobby is aquarium photography and the Leica and Canon do a better job with that than the Nikon. The Canon has an aquarium scene mode plus an underwater white balance selection. The Leica gives you control over the Kelvin setting. These features allow you to neutralize the blue color in the aquarium and give a more natural color to the fish. The Nikon offered the best ergonomics in my opinion and only lost out because of my very special uses.

 

What I disagree with in the article is the battery life. The Canon uses an oversized battery, witch lasts much longer than the Leica. The Leica uses the same battery as its predessor models.