Fuji XT-10 vs Leica Dlux

Hello,

 

I am in the States currently and want to pick up a camera from BnH before I leave back for home. I am conflicted between the X-T10 and

the Dlux and would love some advice.

 

Some background.

 

I have a Canon 350 DSLR with a set of all the standard lenses and I still use it occasionally. While I am no pro, neither am I an amateur.

My gripe with the DSLR is that I hardly end up using it now since I find it cumbersome and bulky to carry around (I usually shoot street

scenes, architecture). In fact its been collecting dust and I end up shooting with my iPhone. My photography style is experimental and I

post process.

 

Style of photography:

 

http://www.anthologie-design.com/collections/x-pose-photo-art-decor

 

Now these two cameras sound great and I did check the Leica in fact I wanted to buy it before I tested it out. I found it a tad small in my

hands and was scared that I will end up dropping it! I was a little disappointed with the cosmetics of the camera but the 4K video was a

big selling point and the dream to own a Leica without empyting my back account is still there.

 

With the X-T10, while I loved the style (big fan of retro) and it reminded me of the Pentax K, I learnt photography on, I am not sure if it

makes sense to build a system again. And with the DSLR I already have the zoom, telephoto and the prime lens. Though I love the style

of it, but I wonder if its just another dslr in making for me.

 

Both end up costing the same, but I am so confused since I don't know what to decide on. With the X-T10, will the bulk again build up?

 

Also I have been shooting on automatic mode for most of the last few years. I want to brush up on my skills as well so I am confident

enough to shoot on manual and experiment.

 

Any advice would be really appreciated.

 

Thank You

<p>The Fuji X-T10 is very popular for it's ergonomics and impressive lens selection. The Leica D-Lux has a fixed lens and a M4/3 sensor, which is much smaller than that of the Fuji. While the D-Lux may be a very fine camera, it is not one of the more memorable Leica models behind the classic logo.</p>

<p>I don't own either, but considered the Fuji before deciding on a Sony A7ii. Like you, my main camera was a DSLR (Nikon D3), and I was looking for something with with less bulk and more flexibility. Of the two choices, I would look further into the Fuji as something that could grow with your expectations. Fuji lenses are very highly regarded.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was a little disappointed with the cosmetics of the camera but the 4K video was a big selling point and the dream to own a Leica without empyting my back account is still there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With the D-Lux you are in essence buying a Panasonic LX100 that was put into a differently designed Leica-branded body. You have to decide if the extra warranty and the packaged Lightroom are worth the extra costs (and the red dot, of course).</p>

Note that the Leica DLux (with 4K video) is a clone of the Panasonic LX-100. There may be reasons to spend

more $$ on the Leica version than the Panasonic, but it is much easier to find reviews of the Panasonic

version. The LX-100 is a very good, large sensor compact fixed lens camera, with a fast lens. It competes

with other large sensor compacts, such as the Sony RX-100 series and some of the Canon G series cameras.

While it has a much larger sensor than typical compact cameras, the imaging area is about 1/2 the size of the

sensor in Fuji. If you want an interchangeable lens camera, Fuji is an excellent choice, but I would not expect a

full Fuji system to be materially smaller or lighter than a comparable Canon APSC system. I don't see the

Panasonic LX-100 (or Dlux) competing directly with a DSLR or interchangeable lens mirrorless system, but as

a very competent compact camera that is an alternative to when I want to travel light.

<p>these are really two different types of cameras. the XT10 is a system camera that can take interchangeable lenses, of which Fuji has some of the best for APS-C sensors. the LX100 (sorry but i cant really call this a real Leica) has a fixed lens, so it's an all-in one. if your biggest concern is compactness and lack of bulk, i'd get the LX100. if you imagine shooting with different lenses, i'd get the Fuji.</p>

<p>Those are very different cameras. The Leica is a high end point-and-shoot. It's smaller than the Fuji and good if you want as much quality as you can get in the smallest package. The sensor is larger than most P&S cameras but smaller than APSC - it's a Micro 4/3 sensor but set up in an odd way so that there is cropping applied regardless of the aspect ratio you select, and the camera never uses the entire sensor. The Fuji has interchangeable lenses and a larger sensor than the Leica, so you never get as small a package but you can end up with higher quality, particularly if you are doing something where a specialty lens (portrait prime, tele, macro, ultra wide etc.) will be useful.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for taking time out and giving me your inputs. I guess my confusion stems from the point on what my purpose would be and if its worth spending 1000 on any of the two. My Rebel XT works well but I dont enjoy taking pictures from it and the mirror is scratched as well. <br>

I found Leica too small honestly and I can only shoot from a viewfinder. I find the whole LCD screen very disconcerting :)</p>

<p>I did check the XT10 at Best Buy and its much compact than my Rebel XT (350D). Though Best Buy had the 16-50 lens and I didnt care much for the plastic construction. So may opt for the 18-55mm. </p>

<p>I guess calling the Leica just a point and shoot puts things in perspective. My goal is to get back to photography and learn and maybe go semi pro.</p>

<p>Why not look at the Canon SL1? This is a very small, but good, DSLR: it will take all your existing Canon lenses. Equivalent quality to the best Rebel, but much smaller. Not the cachet (or the price) of the Fuji, but for you situation, I would check it out.</p>

<p>as i said, these are two different cameras. the LX100 belongs in a class along with other all-in-one compacts with zoom lenses, such as the Sony RX100. i wouldnt exactly call it a point and shoot because it does have a lot of external controls, as well as a larger sensor than a typical P&S. is it a semi-pro camera? could be, depending on the application. it's definitely an advanced compact.</p>

<p>the Fuji, OTOH, offers a bit more versatility, such as the option to attach wide or telephoto lenses as well as fast primes. some of those lenses aren't much smaller than DSLR equivalents, but others are, like the 27mm pancake. So it can be configured for different purposes quite easily, assuming you have the right lenses. you also have other options like a grip so it's more "pro" in that it's a system camera.</p>

<p>personally, i would lean toward the Fuji if it's going to be your main camera. the LX100 would be a capable backup, and is the better option for video, but the XT10 has better IQ overall and the excellent Fuji lenses, though pricey, are a plus in my book. </p>

<p>A Rebel SL1 isn't that different from the camera Tanya has already. It's slightly smaller, but not so much difference to seem worth buying a new camera over...</p>

<p>Tanya, I looked at the link you included as an example of the kind of experimental photography and art you like to pursue. If you are heavily into post processing and manipulation, adding tints, masks, translucency and all sorts of things so that your photos are really mainly source material for artistic compositions, I would think the image quality of either camera would be acceptable. I agree with everybody else that the Fuji is more versatile and has the higher quality ceiling. I have no doubt of that, but that isn't your question, right? Personally, having the camera be small is critical to me, and my mouth waters for that little Leica 109/Panasonic LX100, but for me, I have to ask myself how the absolute quality of that equiv. 25-75 f1.8-2.8 lens compares for its size to what you can get with the Fuji X system. I mean that Fuji has a great equiv. 27-82 f2.8-4 lens that probably would beat the Leica/LX100 zoom, but it is much bigger in practice than the Panasonic with its lens. I would summarize to say this: Because size and portability are important to you, if you are okay using a small prime lens only mainly with you all the time, then the Fuji is a better choice. If you want the versatility of a good zoom AND a very small size, the Leica/Pani are very attractive. Having said that, the characteristic of the smaller Leica/Pani that scares me off is that I just don't like buzzing whirring power zoom lenses of any sort. I might be able to get used to it, but I like having a good focusing ring, aperture ring, and zoom ring. That Leica/Pani compromises on this a little (I think from my little research), but it is worth noting that DPReview called it perhaps the best camera for its niche ever made. It might be enough for me to explore that niche again. But if you feel the Leica is too small in your hand, then it is too small, but how big can it be and you still trouble to carry it around with you? BTW, everybody might find it interesting to realize the LX100 is only a cm smaller in the longest dimension than the a6000, but then it comes back to the compact fast lens. The speed of the lens is key to enabling the smaller mft sensor to perhaps shoot at a lower iso. How many stops in low light quality advantage does the Fuji X sensor give over the mft sensor?</p>

<p>I just don't like how the Canons look now. I know that sounds a little off when it comes to photography, but I am a very visual person and for me aesthetics are very important and add to the entire experience. </p>

<p>The XT10 feels good in my hands and I love how its constructed. The Rebel is now used by my employees for in house product shots so I can justify myself getting a new camera after almost 10 years!<br>

<br>

I think I would like to get back to photography which I have neglected due to personal issues. I don't have the same passion for it as I had it back in the day, but I want to pursue my interests again. But it is a splurge for me, so want to make sure.</p>

<p>Thank You Mark for putting things in perspective for me. I guess dropping 1000 bucks on Leica and with limited functionality doesnt make sense. With the XT10 at least I can learn and broaden my horizon. I went to photography school at 21 and learnt on my dads pentax k. Digital came soon after and then I just never went off AUTO MODE! I think really do want to learn all the basics again and XT10 surprising is pretty compact. At least compared to my Canon. </p>

<p>The Fuji is a very good camera. I have an X-T1, which is similar and goes everywhere with me. Just make sure to try it out first - these Fujis (and really all MILCs) have different controls from an SLR and "feel" different - it's a change that some people love and some never really get used to.</p>

<p>I think you get some extras when you buy a Leica version of a Panasonic, like editing software and a longer warranty. I recently checked out the value of my Nikon D300, a Nikon digital classic, one of the best cameras in their history-worth about $125 now. The point is, these things become nearly worthless in a short time, even digital Leicas.</p>

<p>Tanya, I wasn't going to comment further because I was just glad, along with everybody else, to help you make up your mind, but I really like that Leica, and you can get the essentially similar Panasonic LX100 for just $599 from some sources. I live in a large city, and on my way home from work I stopped and looked at the LX100 again just 3 hours ago, thinking of this post. It is a great camera, but like everybody else has said, it is a different kind of tool than the Fuji X-T10. In your last post you re-emphasized that you want to learn some of the basic skills again, and while you can do that with both cameras, the Fuji simply has a higher capability for when you want it. It is a bit larger than the LX100, but still so compact. The real issue is in what lens you want with you and where with you, and that is where I am always tormented. I think the APS-C size sensor may be the best solution/balance of all issues, but it is still too large a sensor to have a very high quality fast zoom that will fit in your pocket. However, the Sony and Fuji aps-c zooms are small enough to fit in a carefully selected "purse" or messenger bag/man purse in my case, and I carry one for this purpose every day with a Sony 5n with EVF and one of many lenses I use with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so much difference to seem worth buying a new camera over...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>SL1 with 18-55mm: 13.05 oz.<br>

T5 with 18-55: 15.3 oz<br>

XT-10 body only: 13.44 oz</p>

<p>I realize this is a mirrorless forum, but not all DSLRs are heavy or bulky.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for me aesthetics are very important and add to the entire experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both of these cameras have pretty decent aesthetics, but to me, this is a point ultimately in the Fuji's favor. it has a classic/retro look and its aesthetic is informed by the tactile dials for Exp Comp and Shutter Speed. When you pair it with one of the Fuji lenses which has an aperture ring, the overall experience is very 'hands-on'. <br>

<br>

The LX100 also has EC and shutter dials, as well as an aperture ring on the lens, which is cool, but... that power zoom just kind of kills the retro vibe. The LX100 does have a few nifty tricks, like a selectable lens dial which can control ISO setting, but if you use that, you're forced to use the power zoom switch. Also, the auto-ISO implementation is worse on the LX100, and the LX100 doesnt have a built-in flash. The LX100 does offer a switchable aspect ratio and can do 16:9, which is a great option for video, but the tradeoff of this is that you never get to use all 16mp that the sensor provides.<br>

<br>

I will confess that ive looked at the LX100 as a possible solution for compact kit and the lens specs are impressive, although there's an inherent disadvantage with m4/3 vs APS-C at high-ISO and also with obtaining shallow DoF. There's a lot to like there, but overall, i think the Fuji just has better aesthetics and is still quite compact, although physically larger. The LX100 isn't quite pocketable because the lens protrudes a bit, so there's no real advantage there. I do highly recommend the 18-55/2.8-4 OIS Fuji lens -- it's the best kit lens offered by any manufacturer in terms of optical quality and build. Another thing i like about the Fuji system, besides the aesthetics and IQ, is how configurable it is. Fitted with the 27 or 18 pancakes, it's very unobtrusive, and i appreciate having f/1.4, wide, and tele options. The caveat, of course, is that you'll spend more buying a system with interchangeable lenses than on an all-in-one, but i also think it's a better long-term purchase, especially for someone getting back into photography. </p>

Robin, small and light are independent variables. A dslr has more air inside it and a Rebel is mostly plastic.

 

This is really only important when space is at a premium. If I'm traveling with my wife and we each want a camera, two

Fujis with lenses fit in my shoulder bag along with the other stuff I carry but two dslrs with lenses don't. Other times, I

might prefer to have my Nikon with me.

<p>Along the lines of what Andy said, just because a camera is light enough to use it all day on a shoot without fatigue doesn't mean it is convenient to carry everywhere. I carry my Sony 5n with me almost everywhere I go and certainly to my office every day in just a very small briefcase or messenger bag. Most days I don't take a single picture. Sometimes I carry that messenger bag into the grocery store with me around my shoulder, especially if for whatever reason I don't want to leave it in the car. I'd rather not be wearing a backpack. I'm surprised I've found myself using the kit lens more often lately, but with a very small lens like the Leica Summicron 40 or Sony's 20 2.8, the 5n with lens is actually smaller than the LX100. The attached jpeg should put things in perspective. (Also, I use the EVF on the 5n always, but it doesn't much affect the dimension illustrated.)(I love camerasize.com.) I think we all know what the deal is with this. The larger sensor can be made to fit in the camera body, but the lenses have to be bigger to work best with the sensor, and that is where mft has some degree of advantage, but if you are willing to be very careful in lens selection, you can have aps-c sensor quality and a tiny package too. Carrying the Sony 20 and the Leica 40 gives you an equiv 30 and 60 in a very small kit. Still, you have to switch lenses. (I actually have the Sigma 19 instead.)</p><div></div>

<p>I know what you are saying: my only thought is that if one were to go for the Fuji it is not really significantly smaller than the SL1 and it is heavier and more expensive. Still the OP has made her choice. I'd probably get the Fuji too, but I am a photo geek, and she may not be.</p>

<p>Robin, I was glad to see Canon make an effort to reduce by making the SL1, and I agree it is handy. In fact, the likes of the Nikon D40 was quite compact. If Nikon had allowed that camera to meter properly with my manual focus ais Nikon lenses, I would probably have never left Nikon, notwithstanding the dark tiny view finder. Having said that, when we are talking about objects optimized to the hand or objects that need to be stored and transported a lot, small differences can have a big affect on the experience. Imagine for example carrying a pen in your shirt pocket the size of a marks-a-lot as opposed to a bic ball point. But I think we would all agree its just wonderful to have all these great choices.</p>

<p>Having used an XT-10 for several months now I am now using it for general photography much more than I ever expected. its so much lighter and with an excellent Digital Viewfinder that my Canon DSLRs seem antiquated now.<br>

IQ of JPGs is good enough and Video is usable especially as you can use the Viewfinder, the mic socket is a pain as it wont accept my Rode mics. So for quality Video I'll still be using my 70D or 6D with an add on viewfinder.<br>

The biggest limitation is not the camera but Adobe who refuse to sell me an upgrade to Lightroom and wont sell CC in in my location I really hate Adobe for this as I cannot use the RAW files without the additional process of converting to DNG which I am sure is not so effective.<br /><br /></p>