My Panasonic Identical (nearly) to a Leica?

[Basil]

I was browsing around B&H web site and, on a lark, searched for "Leica". While most of the Leica models are north of $5k, I found one that was surprisingly cheap for a Leica - the Leica D-Lux 7, for about $1400. But then I started looking at it and the specs and I realized it was nearly identical to my Panasonic LUMIX LX100, which I bought used with very low shutter count for about $350 (It was like new). Here are some comparison pictures - doesn't this look like the same camera with different names? (By the way, I love this LX100)

Stock image of front of my LX100 - Note my LX100 has exact same Leica Lens as the Leica​

Top-down view of my LX100 and the Leica:
​

Rear View of both cameras. Buttons slightly different but identical layout

 

[DrEntropy]

From a practical imaging standpoint, I'd say the LX-100 is every bit the equal of that Leica.

It has been my experience that from the time of the SLR (late fifties~early sixties) onward, it's been a simple matter of bragging rights. The Leica/Contax/Nikon rangefinder 35mm days were the "opening rounds" to show that glass was what determined image quality, the Asians were catching up. Fast.

Mid-to-late sixties pix of press "photogs-in-action" show more 35MM cameras than lumps like Graphlex 4x5's, and most of those 35's were Nikon's models F and FtN. Few of them Leica. Later, Canon and Pentax took another chunk out of the German's sales. Magazines like Pop Photo and Modern Photo were full of "comparison" articles, feature stories increasingly shot with the likes of Pentax/Nikon/Canon/Minolta. Leicas were becoming less and less affordable to both pro and enthusiast shooters, Leica went on a "prestige campaign" that IMHO was less-than effective to convince folks to switch from cameras that did the same job for two-to-one money. No press room was in it for the prestige, just the images. The photo magazines did similar, catering to the now-called "pro-sumer" and enthusiast crowd. Leica became the Ferrari of the photo world. Now, in the DSLR age, apparently Leica is selling their technology, yet holding onto a "brand" recognition, catering to an effete audience.

If I were looking for a convenient point-n-shoot, the Lumix would be a consideration, as would a Fuji FinePix. But in reality, more likely a cellphone!

 

[Basil]

From a practical imaging standpoint, I'd say the LX-100 is every bit the equal of that Leica.

I have been very happy with the image quality of the LX100. Even though it's "only" 16MP (really about 13 effective), it takes pretty decent images as long as you don't need to crop too much. In fact, the image of the Point Loma shoreline I posted here recently was shot with the LX100.

If I were looking for a convenient point-n-shoot, the Lumix would be a consideration, as would a Fuji FinePix.

Funny you should mention FujiFilm. As it happens, I have been researching a relatively new (a couple years old) entry from FujiFilm - the X100V. It is a Leica-like rangefinder-style fixed focal length camera that is, on the one hand very "retro," but at the same time packed with a ton of very cool technology. From the many reviews I've seen, the IQ of this thing is quite good - and I've seen lots of comparisons to the Leica Q2 in which it compares very favorably with the much more expensive Leica. Some of the things that intrigue me about the X100V:
1. Film Emulations: It has several built-in "film emulations" that allow you to emulate various old-school film types. It also allows you to develop your own emulations and there are people out there who have come up with formulas to emulate other film types, like Kodachrome etc. You can have the camera loaded up with several of your own emulations in addition to those that ship with the camera.
2. Leaf shutter. Unlike most digital cameras that have a regular shutter that sits between the aperture ring and the sensor, the X100V has a leaf shutter built into in the lens that sits in front of the aperture ring. For one thing it allows you to take flash images at higher shutter speeds while avoiding the banding you'd get with regular shutters. The leaf shutter provides for much more uniform distribution of light on the sensor.
3. The tilt screen. This would be very handy for street photography as it allows you to compose shots without being so obvious that you're taking pictures.

It's not a "cheap" camera, but it is far less $$ than an equivalent Leica. I'm almost tempted to sell the LX100 to provide seed money for one of these. These only issue is, this camera is out of stock and on back order at all the major stores like B&H and Adorama, etc., with no indication of when it will be back in stock.

Here's one of the many videos discussing the X100V:

 

[DrEntropy]

"...way back in 2011.'' wow.

Fixed focal length lens may be a minus, you have to use "sneaker zoom" to do in-camera composing. But the other features may offset that inconvenience.

I like the idea of the leaf shutter. I'd like to have heard it used to hear if it's as quiet as an equivalent "old school" film camera shutter. That has advantages more that just high speed flash sync.

Fuji has been at it for quite a while, Mitsy has used two of the previous incarnations of their fixed-lens zoom FinePix models with great results. That shot of the crane with the dragonfly in its beak was done with one. And Fuji came out with their FinePix S2 Pro DSLR with a Nikon F-Mount, I got a "hand-me-down" from a pal trying to get me into the DSLR world. I fussed with it a bit but waited... glad I did.

 

[Basil]

Fixed focal length lens may be a minus, you have to use "sneaker zoom" to do in-camera composing.

I think it depends on the type of shooting you intend. If I were to invest in this bit of gear it wouldn’t replace my DSLR, but would be a supplement. I think the fixed focal length would make me work a little differently on composition (use my feet for zoom). That said, one of the things I like about my LX100 is the fact that its fixed lens allows for 24-75mm zoom. That is a definite convenience. This Fuji does have optional add-on converters that will give you either wider or more tele, but not nearly as flexible.

 

[DrEntropy]

In my youth, with a fixed-lens prime on an SLR (a Yashica and a Mamiya), tried juggling "auxiliary" lenses. Clumsy and less-than stellar optically. I'm sure the optics are much improved but would suspect using your feet to do the zoomin' would be far quicker than trying to attach another optic to the lens.

 

[Basil]

In my youth, with a fixed-lens prime on an SLR (a Yashica and a Mamiya), tried juggling "auxiliary" lenses. Clumsy and less-than stellar optically. I'm sure the optics are much improved but would suspect using your feet to do the zoomin' would be far quicker than trying to attach another optic to the lens.

There have been plenty of times I've gone out and about with my DSLR with only a prime attached and no other lenses in tow (usually a 50mm).

 

[DrEntropy]

Yup! Now, with the crop-sensor bodies, I've a 35mm ∱1.8 prime to serve as a "normal" lens. No problem using it with the sneaker-zoom!

 

[Basil]

Yup! Now, with the crop-sensor bodies, I've a 35mm ∱1.8 prime to serve as a "normal" lens. No problem using it with the sneaker-zoom!

Depending on your crop factor, that would be a tad over 50mm (~52 - 56) which is a good all-around focal length. That X100V is a 23mm, but it's also a crop sensor so about 35mm equivalent, which is a good focal length for street photography.

 

[DrEntropy]

Depending on your crop factor, that would be a tad over 50mm (~52 - 56) which is a good all-around focal length. That X100V is a 23mm, but it's also a crop sensor so about 35mm equivalent, which is a good focal length for street photography.

A 35mm angle-of-acceptance was pretty much the standard for 35mm film cameras for a long time. Particularly fixed-lens ones. The Leica (to bring this sort-of full circle) rangefinders usually were fitted with a "3,5cm Elmar" M-mount collapsible lens. The 50mm Summicron ∱2 was considered a portrait, or close-up lens. And VERY pricey.

A good tongue-in-cheek assessment of Leicas, the IIIc rangefinders in particular.

And these guys are full of themselves!

 

[Basil]

And these guys are full of themselves!

Wonder if the sell any Grey Poupon to go with their gear? LOL

 

[Basil]

An interesting discussion of those Fujifilm simulations.

 

[DrEntropy]

Interesting demo. His full-frame vs. APS-C vid is interesting as well. Kinda reiterates my reasoning and decision to go with the crop-sensor D7500/D7200 cameras. And why we went the expense of those DX 17~55mm ∱2.8 optics.

When Fujichrome first became available in our area (1966 or '67) we tried it, found it shifted magenta if processed in Kodak chemistry. ISTR Kodak had just come out with E-6, so that was likely what we ran it thru. Maybe the E-4 with its "flash" process would have yielded better results. Interesting he concludes the Fuji emulation is a Kodachrome one.

 

[GregW]

From what I found, many Leica's (22?) are rebranded Panasonic made in China.

 

[DrEntropy]

From what I found, many Leica's (22?) are rebranded Panasonic made in China.

Unsurprising, considering China's history of hijacking proprietary stuff. Leica may have decided to join 'em rather than fight 'em, "world trade" being what it is now.

A possible: "Half price, but ya can't use the trade dress." agreement?

 

[Basil]

From what I found, many Leica's (22?) are rebranded Panasonic made in China.

Hassleblad does that same thing. They had an entry lever camera, I think called the "Steller", which the sold for over $1000. It was a very small pocket camera. Some enterprising person on one of the Photog forums figured oout that this relatively expensive Hasselblad was noting more than a re-branded Sony

 

[DrEntropy]

'blads are another of the "GlamCam" makers, AFAIC. Used a lot of 500C's as studio and wedding cameras. Nice, if the business can support them.

I have always considered medium format cameras excess to requirement as a press photog's tool. Now, digital sensors achieve image quality with a full-frame DSLR on par or better.