Why I paid more for the Leica D-Lux 5, instead of cheaper Panasonic LX5

<p>I paid more for the little red dot on the Leica D-Lux 5, rather than getting the cheaper and allegedly identical Panasonic Lumix LX5. Here's why.<br /><br />Before buying, I must have read almost all the online reviews and comparisons. Virtually all were speculation, but amongst them there were a consistent thread of Leica users who swore that the Leica D-Lux 5, inspite of appearing to be a Lumix LX5 clone, actually had something different internally that was producing the "Leica look" in the JPEGs.<br /><br />I believe there is such a thing as the "Leica look". Way back in the chemical darkroom days, I started off shooting exclusively with Nikon SLRs. I later on acquired an old Leica M2 but with a brand new 35mm Summicron. The first batch of photos that I made from that Leica made me jump. The difference was that distinct. There is something intangible that you can discern from the photos. That difference comes solely from the fact it was taken with a Leica lens, versus, in that case, my Nikon lenses (28/35/50/105/200).<br /><br />Hence, the assertions by Leica users - who bought the D-Lux 5 - was that this same "Leica look" is present in the JPEGs produced by the D-Lux 5, which, by inference, were not in the Lumix LX5 JPEGs. People suspected Leica had twiddled with the firmware to produce JPEGs that are more in line with Leica's approach to imaging. No one could confirm this technically, but the anecdotes of Leica users was that they could see something different in the D-Lux 5 JPEGs that was the "Leica look".<br /><br />Search Google for -- Leica D-Lux "leica look"<br /><br />The comparison below convinced me that there was indeed a difference in the JPEG engines of the Leica D-Lux 5 vs the Lumix LX5.<br /><br />http://leicarumors.com/2011/01/27/leica-d-lux-5-vs-panasonic-lx-5-image-comparison.aspx/<br /><br />In the above, I think it goes further than just smoother JPEGs at higher ISO. Rather, it has to do with color rendition - which I don't think is as well highlighted in the samples in the above link.<br /><br />So, ultimately, it was a step of faith in the numerous comments on the internet, from Leica users who were all convinced that the firmware of the D-Lux 5 had indeed been tweaked to produce the fabled Leica look.<br /><br />I also posted some comments, under the name RS on this site:<br>

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2010/02/06/Leica-D-Lux-4/comments<br /><br />FINANCIAL REASONS:<br /><br />I am traveling soon, which means I can claim the GST rebate off. That's a 10% discount over here.<br /><br />Plus, the Leica has a 2 year warranty, while the Lumix has a 1 year warranty. When I purchase it with my superduper credit card, I get a further free warranty extension. To put this in context, my Apple iPod touch recently developed a wiggly connection where the earphone jack is inserted. And that caused Apple's repairman to write it off. Cost to replace: 63% of the original purchase price. I was out of the 1 year Apple warranty, but still within the extended warranty of the credit card insurance. Hence, warranties are important.<br>

<br />Plus, I do not already have any versions of Adobe Lightroom, so the free Lightroom that comes with the Leica D-Lux 5 is effectively like having $200+ taken off the price (depending how much Lightroom 3 costs in your area of town).<br /><br />Plus, I am really into design aesthetics, and am attracted to the minimalistic design of the Leica D-Lux 5.<br /><br />The lack of a handgrip in the D-Lux 5 does not matter since, if you buy a leather case on eBay for the LX5, there is a bump to accommodate the handgrip which effectively acts as a handgrip on the Leica. (If you google the name Richard Franiec, you can find a low-cost handgrip that can be adhered to the body).<br /><br />Before I got the D-Lux 5, I was undecided whether to use it as my sole camera on my forthcoming trip, or also bring along my heavyweight Nikon D300 and 16-85 and 12-24 zooms, but after tinkering around with the D-Lux 5, there's no doubt now that it'll be my sole traveling camera on this trip. I am just enthralled by its usability and speed. For years, I have avoided using point and shoot cameras because I need fast focus for photojournalism-style photos, and also fast shutter reaction for taking portraits to capture the facial expression just at the right moment. In the past, point and shoots simply did not have the fast focus and shutter reaction time I needed. Now, for the first time, I've found a pocket camera that can satisfy these two main criteria in the styles of photography that are my main focus. And, the image quality is great - with, if you are a believer in this - a semblance of the fabled Leica look.<br /><br />This review highlights the fast focus speed making it suitable for street photography:<br /><br />http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/Street-Photo-Stress-Test-Leica-X1-Leica-D-Lux-5<br /><br />In summary, if I factor in the 10% GST travel rebate, the longer warranty, and the free Adobe Lightroom 3, and the numerous anecdotes that the Leica's firmware is better - it all adds up to mean that the cost of the red dot, for me, wasn't that much more costly than the Lumix LX5.<br /><br />Moreover, this blog post by Lara Rossignol demonstrated for me that superb photos were possible with a compact camera, and that I did not have to take my Nikon D300 along on my trip to get great photos. We all know it is the photographer and not the camera, but it's hard to wean yourself off a DSLR.<br /><br />http://blog.leica-camera.com/guest-blog-post/going-pro-lara-rossignol-tests-the-d-lux-5/<br /><br />And the clincher - I get more frequent flyer points on the credit card purchase by buying the Leica than the Lumix :)<br /><br />And that's how I justified getting the red dot. </p>

<p>We knew from the early reports that the software inside the cameras were different and it was not just the snob appeal of the red badge, and after all we have the Leica name on the lens mounting, not as good as Leitz of course, just Leica, you have to be n old-timer to appreciate the difference :-). ... though years ago I gave away my Leica in favoiur of a Japanese camera more in tune with my needs of the time [ not a Leica clone either]. If the Leica look is what you want then spend your money, I chose not to bother and have bought Panasonic these past years..</p>

<p>Hmm...why justify your money? Everyone knows the "leica" look is via film only;) </p>

<p>Seriously though, I wouldn't want a "leica" or "canon" look. I would want my own look and have my own vision or signature to my photographs. Maybe it's a little too ambitious but it makes much more sense than a "brand name" look, whatever that means...</p>

<p> </p>

I assume there is no "Leica look" in the raws, which is all I would shoot with such a camera. (I have a prestige-free

Canon S95.)

<p>hey man, did somebody give you a guilt trip or something? honestly, you go on an on about your reasons for spending almost 2x as much for a red dot and a 'look' which may or may not exist.</p>

<p>honestly don't believe the two are all that different, plus you could always get a stand-alone extended warranty for far less than $400, though lightoom costs about $250 on its own--which is kind of overkill if you're shooting jpeg anyway, since you could just use any other post-processing program, like PS elements, and get the same results..</p>

<p>for me? i bought the samsung TL500, which has better build and a better monitor and a faster aperture than either camera. also costs less. if i wanted the Leica look, i'd get an actual Leica, not a Leicasonic. or get an m-mount adapter, a summicron or two, and a m4/3 camera.but that's just me.</p>

<p>bottom line is, i dont really care about your reasons for purchasing, or your justifications of said purchase. but as long as you're happy spending twice as much as you needed to, that's all that counts.</p>

<p>the other thing i should mention is that when i travel, i use electrical tape to black out my camera logos and remove the OEM strap. i really dont want to be a walking advertisement screaming "rob me, please! i'm a foolish tourist!" just a guess, but i bet you'd be loathe to mar your red dot status symbol in such a way--after all, someone might think you had a lesser camera.</p>

<p>and while the TL500, D-Lux 5 and other hi-end compacts (many of which share the same 10mp sensor) are good backup cameras, they dont deliver the same dynamic range--almost, but not quite--as a DSLR. i'm sure there are other ways to get frequent flyer miles, as well.</p>

<p>I bought the D-Lux 5 over the LX-5 because I like the more plain appearance of the Leica branded camera better, and I enjoy having the red dot.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p>I just logged in to check responses, and I must say I was totally surprised by the, may I say, the bite in some of the responses. For instance, when people discuss why they chose particular Nikon equipment, one never gets responses like Eric's "I dont care" statement. There must be some raw nerve that is being touched. Anyway, it made my day - a little light entertainment.<br /><br />Leslie, the "everyone" does not encompass the many people who like to think that Leica might have succeeded in translating the combination of contrast and color rendition into the digital arena. Another example of a sweeping statement rather than an analysis of the range of viewpoints on what is no doubt a subjective issue.<br /><br />If you review all my posts on photo.net, I don't recall having made a post/comment where I felt the need to respond in kind. It's just that the terseness of some of the comments came as a shock to me. Those people have to look in a mirror and ask themselves whether they'd make the same comment in reply to people explaining why they bought a Nikon or Canon, which are fairly expensive gear as well. Eric? </p>

<p>AH....the "Red Dot" myth is alive and well it seems....and worth money too. Reminiscent of the "Red Line" some companies paint on their lenses accompanied by a Letter.....Gotta love that marketing.......( or not )....Robert</p>

<p>There is a mechanism which would make the Leica dot work. Maybe the "placebo effect," is as valid in photography as it sometimes is in medicine. You feel as if the camera will work better, and so you find it in yourself to create better images.</p>

<p>I agree with you, Hector<br>

I get a friend who is rich. He bought Nikon D700 with whole line up of Zeiss lens. Sometimes, he showed me photos which he said to be excellent photos. At this point of time, I understand the magic of money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those people have to look in a mirror and ask themselves whether they'd make the same comment in reply to people explaining why they bought a Nikon or Canon, which are fairly expensive gear as well. Eric?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>dude, i have a D3s, which is a $5000 camera. but in my case, i needed it for the stuff it can do that other cameras can't. in your case, you posted about why you paid double the price for a camera which can't do anything other cameras can't. you left yourself open for criticism,so are you that surprisied at the result?</p>

<p>mind you, i'm not actually knocking you for buying the D-Lux 5. if it works for you, great. but dont fool yourself that you paid more for anything but prestige. why i commented in the tone i did was your elaborate justifications for such a decision.</p>

<p>let's face it: the LX5 takes just as good pictures as the D-Lux 5. what you're paying for is the red dot. if that's what you want, fine, but please don't try to fool anyone other than yourself. thank you.</p>

 

Anybody want to bet me $1000 on whether you or the OP can reliably tell the difference, in a double-blind test, between either prints or screen views of files of the same image (same subject, exposure, etc.) from these two cameras, when the raw files are processed the same way in Photoshop or whatever? I say (believe) there is NO WAY you can reliably tell the difference.

 

 

(JPEG's might look a little different, due to different processing, but with a serious camera and an important shot, most serious photographers work from raw, which is the gold standard.)

<p><em>"Why I paid more for..." </em>- it seems to bother you so much that you felt the need to write such a long story.<br>

If you are happy, go out and shoot more pictures. Bring some and show us how much better your camera is.<br>

Perhaps you will not coerce people to agree with you, or to make you feel better that you did right spending that much money.<br>

Do not look here for justification of your personal purchase decision. If you can afford it, just be happy!</p>

<p>Sounds like the OP is trying to console himself after wasting a ton of money on a camera that he could have scored from Amazon for $399... That being said, I've wanted to own a Leica M body for years but could never get past the price of the Leica optics. A used M6 and 35mm Summicron would run nearly $3k, and that same amount could buy a used Nikon F3 and a dozen used Nikon lenses...it just doesn't make sense.<br>

But I understand the Leica brand image. It has nothing to do with photography, and everything to do with jewelry. And I'm not in to jewelry so I'll pass! And I for one think Panasonic LUMIX is a pretty cool brand in itself. My tiny little Panasonic LUMIX FX35 is a wonderful stealth camera that I carry with me often.<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/380914348_yjjjU-L-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong>Descending on to the tube platform, London, England, 2008. Panasonic FX35</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>And that's how I justified getting the red dot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah well, if it works for you. Still wondering why you feel the need to justify your purchase in public?<br>

And the clincher - You could have gotten even more airline miles had you purchased both the D-LUX 5 and the LX5 - and in addition, you could have then dazzled everyone by continually showing in side-by-side comparison the superiority of the "Leica Look".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There must be some raw nerve that is being touched.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could it have something to do with the fact that so many Leica users feel compelled to justify their purchases? With many of them referring to some mythical "Leica look"?</p>

<p>By the way, the red dot was not a Leica invention, it was <a href="http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/signet35.htm">Kodak</a></p>

<p>what's funny to me is that the d-lux 5, lx3, lx5, tl500, and xz1 <em>all have the same 10mp 1/1.63" Sony-manufactured CCD sensor</em>.</p>

<p>So, there may be some minute differences in jpeg processing, but the biggest differences between any of those cameras is going to be in lens quality and specs. does it really matter if the dlux5 is better at iso 1600 than the lx5 when the faster-specced lenses on the tl500 and xz1 mean you can shoot at one stop lower ISO in real-world conditions? not so much of an issue at 24mm where 2.0 is only slightly dimmer than 1.8, but at the longer end, the leicasonics are 3.3, while the samsung is 2.4 and the oly 2.5.</p>

<p>that's why i pay more attention to specs and performance than brand names, which is a silly, materialistic game to play.</p>

<p>if low-light performance was more important to the OP than a red dot, he would have gotten the Samsung or the Olympus. Admittedly, there's not too much cachet in having one of those, compared to a Leica, however, and i daresay no one has ever made a catch phrase out of the "samsung look."</p>

<p>but i'm perfectly satisfied with the tl500's pictures for what it is, while the build quality is absolutely top-notch. i certainly don't feel bad because i didn't get the leica, and not having a red dot has not lowered my self-esteem one iota. honestly, i eliminated the lx5 from consideration because the buttons were just too small. plus the tl500 has better skin tones. if i was planning on shooting mainly landscapes, it might be different, but even then i would just shoot RAW, which would eliminate any advantage the DLux might have over the LX. and if i was shooting mainly landscapes, i'd probably want a g12 or p7000, since low-light performance wouldnt be so important.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what's funny to me is that the d-lux 5, lx3, lx5, tl500, and xz1 <em>all have the same 10mp 1/1.63" Sony-manufactured CCD sensor</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>Are you sure, Eric? I thought the LX3/LX5 had a different sensor...The canon g11/12, s90/95, and samsung ex1/tl500 all have the sony sensor...the same one that doesn't do video well. I could be wrong... <br /></em></p>

<p>no the canon g 11/12 and the s90/95 all have a 1/1.7" sensor, as does the nikon p7000. the other cameras i mentioned have a 1/1.63" sensor. samsung deliberately set out to top the LX3 when they built theirs, that's why they used the same sensor. so at a base level, there's just not going to be a whole lotta difference in terms of imaging capabilities, although the processors and lenses are different.</p><div></div>

<p>Have looked at the LX5 and the others mentioned. No optical viewfinder window is a killer for me. All will take nice images and are small enough for a coat pocket. But the bright viewfinder blinding me in a dimly lit interior and screwing up my night vision is what keeps me from buying one.<br>

Had Leicas for courtroom photography years ago when that is all a Judge would let in. Had Nikons for the rest of my newspaper work. I preferred the Nikons, but that is just me. Could put images from both cameras side by side and no one could tell which came from which camera. It is the photographer who makes the 'look' with how they shoot, process and work with the images and complete familiarity and comfort with the camera goes a long way towards better images.<br>

I still shoot with the old 5x7 Deardorff. Had a Sinar given to me but the Deardorff is 'just more comfortable' and that helps with better work. Same with most cameras. If you are comfortable and it works for you then you have removed one more obstacle to fine results.<br>

Keep shooting with your Leicasonic and enjoy it. I don't need lightroom or I might consider it.</p>

<p>I bought a Nikon P7000 and I like it very much. Has an optical viewfinder if I want to turn the LCD display off and use it. I like the controls and the battery life is much improved over the P6000. I like the zoom range too. Performance at ISO 1600 is very good for a small sensor camera as well.</p>

<p>It's me, the OP. I have posted some photos on the Nikon forum starting a new thread<br /><br />http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YHt5<br /><br />I compare the look of JPEGs from the Leica D-Lux 5 compared to my Nikon D300. If you'd like to comment on the comparison of photos, perhaps comment on the other thread. </p>

<p>Roger,</p>

<p>Its a nice camera. I also have one, and love it (btw, get the JJC hinged cap for it off ebay; works great)!</p>

<p>But for the love of God, stop with the justification posts! I am perfectly content to sit here quietly (photographing with my D-Lux 5) and let people think me an idiot, rather than to author web posts which try to convince them otherwise, and go a long way to removing all the doubt!</p>

<p>You are fortunate to be able to afford the camera you like. Go enjoy it!</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p>p.s. I'm serious about the hinged lens cap...worth every penny!</p>