Any Diff between Leica D-LUX 3 & Panasonic DMC-LX2

[zeeshan]

I have read at couple of forums that the Leica has a different noise curve and

firmware, which is supposed to fix the noise issue of the DMC-LX2. Is this true?

 

I don't care for the name, but will buy the Leica if it produces better pictures

then the Panasonic. The Panasonic now sells for $399 so its 200 buck cheaper.

Trying to decide which one to order.

[styrkan]

The Leica looks better.

 

Anyone who payed $200 just for the red dot is going to tell you that his/her identical-to-LX2 camera takes better pictures.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

The Leica has different firmware and packaging. Among other things, the firmware is said to maximize the camera's optics for skin tones. But "better" is subjective.

[michael s.]

In the US, at least, there's a significant difference in the length of warranty, and different photo-editing software is packaged with the camera.

 

My suspicion is that how your photos come out will ultimately depend on your post-processing preferences/skills, but yes, Leica claims that the in-camera processing is different on the Leica version.

[clayh]

I Just got an LX2, but I am wondering if it was wise to pass up the chance to take advantage

of Leica's well known competitive advantage in digital camera color balancing. The faces of

people in my photos just don't look quite as ruddy as the ones from my M8.

[jerry_kirkwood]

There was much greater price difference between the D-Lux-2/LX-1 than there is D-Lux-3/LX-2. The Leica comes with a 2-yr warranty and C1-LE. I think if I wanted either (which I don't) this time the Leica gives value for the difference instead of just (in the eyes of the owner alone) snob appeal.

[nickr]

$200 for an extended warranty on a $400 camera is not worth it, imo. As far as the software

goes, if you already have PS, you won't need it. Silkypix, the raw converter software, that

comes with the LX2 is very powerful in its own right. If you check out Panasonic or Leica

forums you'll find that both groups complain about noise over ISO 200. I have the LX2. It's a

great little pocket camera for $400 and I really love the 16:9 option, but for $600 . . .?

[jkelly04]

I just bought a D-LUX 3 for my wife. Certainly the major real difference is the warranty, but if you're a Leicaphile like me, you can't deny the power of the red dot.

[eric_miller10]

Considering both cameras have the same Panasonic sensor, they are only as good as the weakest link. Shooting RAW would still give you the best results, and in that case, both cameras would be exactly the same. And from looking at V-lux 1/FZ-50 samples, the Leica looks less sharp, but use less noise reduction, color isn't as saturated for the JPEG's, I would imagine the LUX-3/LX2 would be similar.

 

I have an FZ-20, and I find ISO 200 usable, ISO 400 not very much, except B&W.

 

Extended warranty may be worth it if you're hard on your cameras, sounds like Leica is very good in that regard.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<b>Considering both cameras have the same Panasonic sensor, they are only as good as the weakest link.</b></p>That most often being the guy behind the camera :wink:

[zeeshan]

Just want to clarify that I am really not into doing any post processing. I do not want to be spending time on computer fixing up the picture. I just take the pictures and if they look good, keep it and transfer it to the computer, else I delete it.

[rj]

If you are really not going to do any post processing, I would suggest looking at another camera, maybe the new Canon G camera (what are they up to the 7 now?). I have the LX-1, predecessor to the LX-2 and consider it a RAW shooter for the most part, so for each shot I have to go through an extra step of processing in ACR. The JPEGs out of the camera are fine, but frankly I don't quite like the look of the camera processing and the noise is an issue with the jpegs. I really think that with the RAW processing step you can remove quite a bit of noise, even at ISO 400. They might of fixed the noise for the new version, but I can only think that it is at the expense of detail. Even though I am a big fan of the camera, the ability to shoot RAW is one of the huge reasons (lens, user functions and 16x9 are the other) I bought this camera.

[wayne_crider4]

I recently had the opportunity to see 20x24 prints from the leica at a recent Leica days event at a local lab. The prints were taken the day before the event and not Photoshopped. I was very impressed with the quality and will definetly buy one.

[chuan_lim]

i have the dlux3. it looks much better than the pana. if that matters. plus, its a Leica. :)

[Jim_Tardio]

There's no difference. Save your money. The noise in both models at anything above 100 is dreadful...worse than the D-Lux2 and LX1.

<p>

Get a clean, used Panasonic LX1 if you can.