Leica C-Lux 2 or D-Lux 3

[airlights]

I have been looking for a great quality Point-and-Shoot camera, and I have recently came to the conclusion that I would definitely love to buy a Leica. Now I am stuck on which one, the C-Lux 2 or the D-Lux 3. I tried writing out a pros and cons list of both, but I have come out empty. I looked at various reviews, photo samples etc to no avail. I am actually feeling a bit like a failure right now; I usually come to my decisions much much quicker. Anyway, now I am here for a little help. If you own one or the other, please please please tell me what you like or dislike about it. I am sure you guys will be of help. Hey, by browsing the forum convinced me to wait a bit longer to buy a Macbook, just in case.

Cheers!

(Oh!--please, do not suggest the Panasonic versions. I don't think this would matter though, but a disclaimer never hurt anyone. Okay, maybe the lack of one.)

 

[M@lew]

D-Lux. You get RAW and better manual control.

 

[netdog]

And you also get a much better piece of glass.

Bear in mind that both (like most P&S cameras) aren't great in situations that aren't well lit. The flashes are crap and they get a bit noisy in low light.

That said, I use a D-Lux3 and it is fantastic.

 

[airlights]

Oh thanks for you help! I will save up for a D-Lux. Cheers! Cheers!

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Buy the Panasonic Lumix. Its the same camera, but cheaper.

edit-I see your disclaimer, but seriously. Unless you're buying it because you want to tell your friends you have a Leica, the DMC-LX2 is literally the same camera as the D-Lux 3.

Here is what cNet has to say in the D-Lux 3 review:

Every year, Leica and Panasonic collaborate on a few camera models that get branded under each company's name. If you can't tell them apart, just look at the price tags. Leica generally throws in about $100 worth of perks--usually better software and an SD memory card--then charges about $200 more for the bundle. In the case of the Leica D-Lux 3, the perks over its twin, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2, are Adobe Photoshop Elements 4 and a 64MB SD memory card (you can get the latest version, Photoshop Elements 5, plus a 64MB card for about $120). Like the DMC-LX2, the D-Lux 3 comes in both black and silver and is just packed with amateur-oriented features, including raw file support, a variety of focus modes, all of the essential metering and semimanual exposure options, a wide-angle lens, and an overstuffed information display.

 

[netdog]

Buy the Panasonic Lumix. Its the same camera, but cheaper.

And uglier




(But seriously, he is right. I only got the D-Lux because it's beautiful. It does carry a longer warranty, not that this matters).

 

[airlights]

And uglier




(But seriously, he is right. I only got the D-Lux because it's beautiful. It does carry a longer warranty, not that this matters).

That was definitely another reason why I chose Lecia. I am a person who needs to be comforted with a nice warranty. I have bad luck when it comes to my electronics so I will rather be safe than sorry. Also eh it is prettier! I tend to be vain about things like that. (Bad thing. I know. I know!)

Plus, it isn't like I am going to mess up my savings account with this camera. I current attend my local state university, so I have no student loans to worry about. I work 30 hours, and put most of that goes into my savings again. Besides my mobile bill (why so much at&t?) and my small balance on my credit card, I don't really pay for anything. I don't fully know why I am explaining this to the world; I guess this is my way of saying I do understand the great difference in prices. I honestly thought it out!

Do trust me on this. I never ever ever make expensive purchuses without thinking about it for months. I could never spend $500+ on a point-and-shoot without sitting on it for say six months.

Cheers!

 

[taylorwilsdon]

That was definitely another reason why I chose Lecia. I am a person who needs to be comforted with a nice warranty. I have bad luck when it comes to my electronics so I will rather be safe than sorry. Also eh it is prettier! I tend to be vain about things like that. (Bad thing. I know. I know!)

Plus, it isn't like I am going to mess up my savings account with this camera. I current attend my local state university, so I have no student loans to worry about. I work 30 hours, and put most of that goes into my savings again. Besides my mobile bill (why so much at&t?) and my small balance on my credit card, I don't really pay for anything. I don't fully know why I am explaining this to the world; I guess this is my way of saying I do understand the great difference in prices. I honestly thought it out!

Do trust me on this. I never ever ever make expensive purchuses without thinking about it for months. I could never spend $500+ on a point-and-shoot without sitting on it for say six months.

Cheers!

That's a really terrible reason. For 1/3rd of the price difference, you could get a Personal Item Insurance policy from State Farm (it would cost $25 per year max), and that would cover not only it breaking of natural causes, which a warranty might cover, but also if you drop it in a lake, it gets stolen, you throw it in the fireplace...

Seriously. We've all gone though this. We've all wanted a Leica so we could have a Leica, but this isn't the real deal and there is absolutely no point in wasting your money.

 

[ChrisA]

That was definitely another reason why I chose Lecia. I am a person who needs to be comforted with a nice warranty..

Then why not buy the Panasonic and an extened warenty. Then you the same camera, an even longer warrenty and money left over.

 

[netdog]

Because he digs the Leica. So do I. There is nothing wrong with appreciating aesthetics, nor for paying for them.

Surely on a Mac forum, people can understand this.

(For the budget minded, the Panasonic is a damned fine camera. It really is true that its JPEG processing isn't as nice, but who shoots JPEGs on these anyway?)

 

[airlights]

Because he digs the Leica. So do I. There is nothing wrong with appreciating aesthetics, nor for paying for them.

Surely on a Mac forum, people can understand this.

(For the budget minded, the Panasonic is a damned fine camera. It really is true that its JPEG processing isn't as nice, but who shoots JPEGs on these anyway?)

I am a she, just to let you know.

Again, I do not buy expensive items often. I save my money wisely; I don't just go buying things without thinking it though. And for people who think I am buying it just for bragging rights, my friends and family do not even know what a Leica brand camera is. And netdog is right, this is a Mac fourm! People are talking about buying/owning the MacBook Air, and I swear it may be a beautiful machine but it's a serious waste of money!

I know I can save a couple hundred by buying the Panasonic version.

 

[netdog]

People are talking about buying/owning the MacBook Air, and I swear it may be a beautiful machine but it's a serious waste of money!

Like a Leica, a MacBook Air is a waste of money to some, and a tool that is a joy to use on every level to others. Fair enough.

Personally, the absolute silence of my MBA makes it a real pleasure to write with. The silence is sooooo peaceful.

Enjoy your D-Lux 3 or LX2. Learn to use the manual controls. It is a fantastic little rangefinder disguised as a point and shoot (which it can also be when you want it to be).

Check out Jim Radcliffe's online gallery to get a further idea of what you can do with this tool. FWIW, he bought the Leica too. He is a regular in the forum at DPReview.com and a great guy and photographer to boot. He is always willing to help so he will be a great resource to help you to learn to get the most out of your new camera.

 

[airlights]

I haven't had the chance to play with the Macbook Air since I haven't been to the Apple Store in months, but I'm sure it's an amazing machine but I'm afraid of breaking it or losing it because it's so thin. The absolute silence sounds wonderful! What annoys me most is when my PC makes a more audible noise than the music I'm playing through iTunes.

Ahh, thanks for the link! I really appropriate it.

 

[hector]

Check out Jim Radcliffe's online gallery to get a further idea of what you can do with this tool.

People always get pointed in the direction of that link whenever Leica comes up, but I reckon this gallery says more about the photographer than the camera.
I think Jim could probably produce stunning images with any P&S you handed him within reason, not to say that the Leica isn't a great camera (I wouldn't know I haven't used one).

 

[netdog]

People always get pointed in the direction of that link whenever Leica comes up, but I reckon this gallery says more about the photographer than the camera.
I think Jim could probably produce stunning images with any P&S you handed him within reason, not to say that the Leica isn't a great camera (I wouldn't know I haven't used one).

It is generally me who points them there and for a reason.

He also gets stunning images with the Sigma DP1 that he has essentially given up on (because it is so damn slow sadly) and his G9 which is his newest toy. He generally seems to fall back to the D-Lux though, and he would never argue that the D-Lux is a better tool in terms of image than an LX2 as he takes all of his images in RAW mode, but he too prefers the build quality and design of the Leica.

It's a great little camera that isn't for everyone. Somebody just wanting a P&S would probably be happier with a Fuji. For somebody who wants manual control, however, along with a great piece of contrasty glass for a compact and the option of 16x9 format, the Leica/Lumix are capable of producing stunning images.

Most people can't make a Strat sing like Hendrix could, but a great old Strat is nonetheless great. Even the occasional great new one for that matter.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

It is generally me who points them there and for a reason.

He also gets stunning images with the Sigma DP1 that he has essentially given up on (because it is so damn slow sadly) and his G9 which is his newest toy. He generally seems to fall back to the D-Lux though, and he would never argue that the D-Lux is a better tool in terms of image than an LX2 as he takes all of his images in RAW mode, but he too prefers the build quality and design of the Leica.

You're missing the point. "He prefers the build quality and design of the Leica" - its the SAME
Same button placement, same size, same lens, same everything. The only difference is the (nice) grip on the LX2. They are the same camera, but different prices. The only differences are the extras - memory cards (you don't want the tiny freebie memory cards anyways) and a warranty that can be replaced by an extended warranty or a superior insurance plan for less money.
The only thing that changes is the logo.

 

[airlights]

I just don't fully understand why people are arguing over my choices effects my wallet. Can I get someone to answer this question? Maybe I should left that disclaimer out because it created more problems than solved. Argh.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

I just don't fully understand why people are arguing over my choices effects my wallet. Can I get someone to answer this question? Maybe I should left that disclaimer out because it created more problems than solved. Argh.

Fine, I'll be helpful. The C-Lux 2 is a smaller, more svelte camera; so if size is at all a concern, I would move that up a notch.

 

[airlights]

Fine, I'll be helpful. The C-Lux 2 is a smaller, more svelte camera; so if size is at all a concern, I would move that up a notch.

Thank you! You are an absolute sweetie.

 

[netdog]

You're missing the point. "He prefers the build quality and design of the Leica" - its the SAME
Same button placement, same size, same lens, same everything. The only difference is the (nice) grip on the LX2. They are the same camera, but different prices. The only differences are the extras - memory cards (you don't want the tiny freebie memory cards anyways) and a warranty that can be replaced by an extended warranty or a superior insurance plan for less money.
The only thing that changes is the logo.

The build quality is actually much different. Examine the two together.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

The build quality is actually much different. Examine the two together.

We're done with this. But no, it isn't.

 

[Father Jack]

We're done with this. But no, it isn't.

Oh no we're not and oh yes it is ...

 

[John T]

Whenever the word "Lieca" is mentioned it always seems to encourage a certain element to "rubbish" the brand with comments that it is overpriced, identical to cheaper brands, only possessed by the "older generation" etc.

Personally, I find this attitude to be boring and unhelpful. I'm willing to bet that the majority of these people have never actually owned a Leica and, what's more, if they could afford one would probably like to own one!!

Now, back behind the battlements!

 

[GoCubsGo]

I think if I had to choose I would choose the D-Lux 3 for one reason only and that is the focal length on the C-lux is 28-100 versus the D-lux is 24-110. I think that since you're stuck with that one lens you want the widest focal length range possible. At least if that were me that would be what I choose.

The c-lux's aperture range is greater, but I think the ISO sensitivity on the d-lux makes up for that. Both are great looking cameras and frankly I would choose the Leica over Panasonic. I understand people are saying the build quality is the same, but I am not entirely sure that is the case. Then again, since I haven't been in the market long enough for a great P&S, I haven't researched it enough.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

My reasons...

The build quality is actually much different. Examine the two together.

You are partially correct. The D-Lux 3 is 99% Panasonic. It costs more than the Panasonic. It does come with an extended warranty and of course it comes with that little red dot which means nothing to me other than allowing me grudging entrance to to post in Leica forums. I like Leica forums because the pixelpeeping is much lower and there is more emphasis on photography, the image, rather than the gear. Much different than Canon and Nikon forums. So maybe that also has some value.

I must say the two cameras were both held in my hands prior to the purchase of the Leica version. Why did I buy it? It felt better, it looked better (I like clean lines) and the build (external) appeared to be better to me.

I use cameras like I use tools and when I buy tools I buy them based on functionality first followed by asthetics and more importantly, how it feels in my hands. The D-Lux 3 felt much better in my hands than its Panasonic brother. It was my first compact camera purchase driven mainly for the 16:9 aspect ratio. I have grown to love it.. it allows you to tell more of a story at times and it can be very dramatic.

Then, there is also resale value to consider. The D-Lux 3 will hold more value just because of that stupid red dot and its clean lines than the Panasonic. It might be stupid.. but it's true. Check out eBay or Craig's List if you don't believe me. When it's time to sell a camera we all desire to get as much as possible don't we?

Take an image of the same scene from each camera and I could not tell you which one came from which camera... but ask me which camera I would prefer using and I would say the D-Lux 3. Why? Because we each like what we like. This requires no logic. It requires no reason. We just like what we like.

Some say the Leica is a status camera. Not in the circles I travel in. In fact, most people who have seen my D-Lux 3 in my hands don't even recognize the brand.. so much for status. To most of my friends Nikon or Canon are the status cameras.

I hope this answers a few of the questions raised here. This is my first post here. A friend of mine directed me to this thread and I thought I would add to it.

Jim Radcliffe