Micro Four-Third camera

My good lady has a G1, and I've been lucky enough to use it a couple of times.... corking camera. Only reason I haven't got one myself is because of the GF1, for which I'm squirreling away pennies as we speak.

The 20mm f/1.7 lens is very highly rated too. My daily P&S is a Leica D-Lux4, so I'll admit I find the menu structure very familiar (which may be contributing to why I like the G1).

Mike

Which would you recommend for someone (= me!!) contemplating a compact. the Leica D-Lux4, or the Panasonic GF1 ?

I'd really like something that would fit in a shirt breast pocket (velcro closed flap pocket on outdoor shirt) so as to be instantly available. But would compromise this for a massive improvement in picture quality, if the compromise would fit into trouser pocket.

cheers

Don

LX3 ?

What's the basic differences between the LXs and LZs?

I think the LX have more manual overide functions and is regarded as semi-pro.

quote:

What's the basic differences between the LXs and LZs?

More difficult question is what differences distinguish LX3 from D-Lux4 (other than badge & price)?!!

Peter

Peter - think you just answered your own question.

From the well respected luminous landscape site.

What About The Leica D-Lux 4?
What is essentially the same camera as the Panasonic LX-3 is also available as the Leica D-Lux 4. The differences between them appear to be the Leica red button badge rather than the Lumix name on the top right hand corner of the body. And....

And, oh yes, almost $400 difference in price. At the time of this writing B&H, for example, is selling the LX-3 for $463 and the D-Lux 4 for $849. How is the remarkable price differential justified? I'm not sure.

UPDATE:

According to a source within Leica here are some salient advantages to the D-Lux 4...

– a provided wrist strap rather than a neck strap (wow - a saving of about $7)
– Phase One Capture One 4 raw software instead of Silkypix (a smart move, but not worth that much once other third party appears)
– A two year warranty, vs Panasonic's 1 Year with 90 days labour (Humm. How about I just buy a second camera for the extra $400 if the first one fails? Seems like expensive insurance to me).

The bottom line on this is that while the Leica version might be worth an extra $100, to my mind it simply isn't worth an almost $400 premium.

I picked the D-Lux4 over the Pana LX3 for four reasons:

1) 3yr warranty
2) Way better software for RAW (I have used the Silkypix that comes with the Pana LX3, and don't much care for it)
3) The add-on Leica handgrip worked better for me that the molded grip of the Pana (you can't add the Leica grip to the Pana)
4) I preferred the Leica's internal JPEG processing - which is definately different to the Pana

I offset all of these against a £200 (& free case) differential, and came down in favour of the Leica - but that's just me.

Don... the LX3/DLux4 is just about a shirt pocket camera - with a zoom.
The GF1 is bulkier with a fixed focal length pancake lens (40mm equiv)... again, make of that what you will.

I have seen Mike's work and he gets stunning results from his Leica - stunning.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike1380:
4) I preferred the Leica's internal JPEG processing - which is definately different to the Pana

I agree that the Leica JPEG handling is much better looking, and with a point&shoot how often do you really use the RAW files to show victims your hundreds of holiday snaps? Be honest. P&S cameras are really about the JPEGs, but it is nice to have the RAW back up in case one of the shots is worth a big print.

The D-Lux will fit in your pocket.

Honest?
I shoot mainly aperature priority in RAW+JPEG and the camera goes nearly everywhere with me, day in, day out.
I don't treat my D-Lux4 as a P&S - I have a tiny Contax i4R for that:

I treat it more as a serious photographic tool that I can use nearly anywhere - I may be the exception, but that's just me.

And it gives the goods:

Does the LX3 not have RAW capabilities then?

How much does that little contax cost

H...
The LX3 can do RAW - but the internal engine that processes the images to JPEG is not (IMHO) as good as the equivalent in the Leica. By the same token the supplied Silkypix RAW editor with the Pana is not as good as the Capture One with the Leica.

However - if you have Capture One or Lightroom already, save the money, buy the Pana, and do RAW-JPEG conversion in your computer.

Deadlifter - I bought the Contax 5 yrs ago for £300. They are rare as rocking horse doodoo, so good luck, but I doubt you'll find one.
In fact I nearly lost mine down the back of the sofa - that's how small it is!

£300 ouch

Thanks Mike, I have never used RAW with my EOS 350, so I'm not sure why I asked. One of those it's there if I need it things, I guess.

I have played with the GF1 in a shop and was quite impressed, far more so than the Oly EP1. The Panny 20mm prime lens is also supposed to be a peach.

I am holding off until the Leica X1 comes out and will make my choice between those two I think.

DP Review's GF1 review is worth reading.

Julian

As an aside anyone see the guy on Antiques Road-show, who had bought the "genuine" 1936 Olympic Leica?
Turned out to be a more recent copy.

Seen a few of those "genuine" ones in my time - back in the days when I worked at Fox Talbot. poor sod - he was really gutted!

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
As an aside anyone see the guy on Antiques Road-show, who had bought the "genuine" 1936 Olympic Leica?
Turned out to be a more recent copy.

Yes indeed.

I must say that I mostly use RAW - the level of detail and possibilities for recovery of burnt out/ shadow details is vastly superior with Aperture or Photoshop.

RAW uses more space on the memory card, but I can't see any other demerit in using it - the D-Lux saves the photos in both when set to RAW mode.

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by northpole:
I must say that I mostly use RAW - the level of detail and possibilities for recovery of burnt out/ shadow details is vastly superior with Aperture or Photoshop.

RAW uses more space on the memory card, but I can't see any other demerit in using it - the D-Lux saves the photos in both when set to RAW mode.

Peter

There are a few disadvantages:

1) The raw files take longer to write to the card so can limit the frames per second you can shoot.

2) Proprietary formats: Unlike JPEG, the RAW files are proprietary format, sometimes limited to just one model of camera. Software updates for Photoshop (for example) try to keep up, but you are limited. If you try to view or process your photos using software that doesn't support the format you are s.o.l. If for example you are travelling and want to upload photos to a blog for friends back home at an internet cafe, you'd better have JPEGS as well. My D300 (and others) allows RAW (NEF in Nikon-speak) and JPEG to be saved simultaneously.

But yes, shooting RAW with the maximum bit-depth gives the most flexibility in post processing. If, in-fact you have the time to do the post-processing.

winky
the d-lux saves raw & jpeg for each shot.
I agree that it is slower but then again I don't use it for action shots where an slr would be much more adept.
I didn't realise there was a potential problem with the software updates - have to admit though that I'm very slow at getting round to upgrades!
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Does the LX3 not have RAW capabilities then?

Apart from Mikes comments re software/film options, the resale on the leica , should you ever wish to sell holds up probally better than Naims.The Panasonic's plumets. In addition their is also the free accidental damage cover, all in all the Leica is not so expensive.

Steve.

quote:

Apart from Mikes comments re software/film options, the resale on the leica , should you ever wish to sell holds up probally better than Naims.The Panasonic's plumets. In addition their is also the free accidental damage cover, all in all the Leica is not so expensive.

Usually, I'd agree. But in this case I think I disagree. I sold a year old LX3 for more than what I paid for it new recently.

The LX3 is truely a classic camera, the Leica is little more than a rebaged panasonic and most people view that accordingly.

Add to that the LX3 has vastly improved firmware with new features (not sure if this has made its way to the DL4 yet).


Tomorrow, I'm off to pickup my E-P1. I chose it for a few reasons over the GF1 (despite being a huge panasonic fan)-

- Way cleaner iso800 and up
- IBIS
- the JPGs look stunning, no need to post process. The GF1 jpgs look like typical panasonic jpgs, enough said there.
- Love the collapable kit lens

I hope to pickup the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 and then I'll be all set