The Leica D-Lux 7 and D-Lux 8

Comments are all moderated at 12:18 p.m. Sunday

This isn't a review. Just my chatty impression after trying a D-Lux 7 a few times. (Note the new Category, which you can see in the footer.) I took it to the local Art Fair weekend, where I met this guy. He was selling steampunk clocks made out of all sorts of bits and pieces of all sorts of things, and most of them incorporated old junk-shop cameras. The women I was with, Mary Kay and Chris, were moving on, so I didn't dally to take pictures of his clocks. A pity.

But I like that T-shirt.

Szarkowskian positivity
Negative reviews are too easy. You make a straw man of some product—a "straw man" is when you set something up just to knock it down—and then you can be entertainingly snarky and insulting. Some people get off on that. It makes them feel powerful or something. John Szarkowski, one of my writer-heroes in photography, had a simple policy about that: he didn't write about work he didn't like. He felt it was much harder to be clear about why he did like something than to wax acerbic about stuff he didn't. It's a good policy. Most of my best camera reviews came from getting very enthusiastic about something, learning all about it, and then sharing all that in detail.

That's not going to be the case here.

How this all came about is that my main camera has a 24x36mm B&W-only sensor (I'll be putting up some new work soon), and I started thinking about getting a color camera that's a little better and more versatile than my iPhone, but doesn't require me to carry my Fuji kit along.

A month or two back, Leica had just released the next-gen D-Lux 8, but they weren't shipping yet, so I figured I'd try a D-Lux 7 just to see what I thought of the form factor. Also, Leicaphiles are very hostile when you criticize anything about a current Leica product, whereas you are allowed to point out shortcomings in older versions. Think I'm kidding? It's absolutely a thing. I've watched it for 30 years or more. You can get around it by reviewing the last-generation version of anything.

The last-gen version of the D-Lux, the 7. The current
version is the semi-unobtainable 8.

I enjoyed my week with the D-Lux 7, which was kindly provided for us (for you) by Lensrentals. I like taking pictures, and I can enjoy almost any camera. Even if I don't get out with the big camera very often, I take pictures with the iPhone virtually every day. But the D-Lux 7, which is more or less identical to the now-discontinued Panasonic LX100 II that sold for several hundred dollars less, has one big problem.

It's not a bad camera at all, and I don't mean to dismiss anyone who loves it. It has a 4/3 sensor, and I particularly love the image quality of 4/3 sensors—they have sort of a crispy, sharp look. Although they're maybe a little coarse, without the fine detail or very subtle gradations you get out of larger sensors. (Note that the blog software softens pictures somewhat, so you can't get a real look at how sharp these illustrations are.) It has 17 megapixels, which is plenty. The zoom is effectively a 24–75mm, which is fine. The Leica raw files are nicely correctable—you can bring highlights back down pretty well and open shadows effectively, although, again, this tends to be even better on larger sensors. I might not get excited about the image quality, exactly, but I could live with it.

Friendly young art-fair goers I met at the Blue Heron
Bakery. We had a nice conversation.

The camera is small and light and easy to carry. And it looks nice. It drew attention several times, including from the young people pictured above. They all said they liked photography, and the first question they asked was, "is that a film camera?" I can't remember if I suggested the group portrait of if they did.

I've always tended to like arty people. It's my tribe.

I'm feeling sheepish about this next bit—and it violates yet another reviewing rule of mine, which is never to write about a camera except when you have it in front of you—but I can't remember what I thought about the viewfinder. That's a pretty serious lapse, since I have a long history of caring a lot about viewfinders. I don't recall a bad impression, so I think it's fine. But I don't really know. Can't recall now. (Gets red in face, tugs at collar, clears throat.)

But here's the bottom line, and the reason I lost interest in getting one for myself right away...it's a point-and-shoot. Now, there's nothing wrong with point and shoots, and I don't want to diss anyone who owns or uses one, and I certainly don't disagree with anyone who likes one of these LX100/D-Lux variants. You do you, and power to you. All cameras are good for someone. I'm camera-tolerant.

But, much as I love the idea of point-and-shoots, I've never found one that I've really been satisfied with. And—because I like the idea of them so much—I've used a great many of them over the years. Including some exotics like the Nikon 35Ti and the Contax T2, along with famous mainstream ones that everyone loved like the Olympus XA. I've used many digital ones too. And I've never found one that doesn't have weaknesses that become intrusive over time.

The D-Lux 7 is just...too...slow. Or rather, it's not too slow...but it lacks that wonderful feeling of immediate responsiveness that I love in cameras. The sense that you can raise it quickly to your eye and take a picture as fast as you can. There comes a point when slow AF, slow adjustments (in this case the power zoom—I have never, ever met a power zoom I liked), and shutter lag conspire together and that feeling or razor sharp responsiveness just goes bye-bye. Mind you, a camera doesn't have to be fast by the measurements...but that feeling of responsiveness, of it doing your bidding just as soon as you ask it to...well, that's something that really ratchets up the enjoyment of picturetaking if you ask me. It's worth a lot. It's worth having, and it's worth chasing.

And the one problem of the Leica D-Lux 8, which is the only surviving variant of this whole long line of Panasonic cameras and their Leica counterparts? (Aside from the fact that it's being released in fits and starts in limited quantities?) It's that the value proposition is in the toilet. It's terrible. Leica wants $1,600 for a D-Lux 8. That, in my opinion, is just too darn much for a point-and-shoot—even one with a nice sensor and a nice zoom range and that looks swell. $1,000 was too much for the Panasonic LX100 II. $1,600 for an LX100 II with Leica customizing is lighting a cigar with a $100 bill, just throwing money away.

I'd rather see people put those 16 $100 bills in the pages of a book* and keep adding more from time to time until they'd saved enough for a Q3. Or a used Q2. Or a nice Sony. Or something else.

As for me, I mean to wean myself of the allure of point-and-shoots. I should have learned my lesson eons ago. No more point-and-shoots from here on out, Mike! You know that territory, and you've investigated more than enough to have learned your lesson. No. More. Got it? Good.

That's my camera impression of the D-Lux 7. Note that I don't know about the D-Lux 8, which is probably much better. (Wink.)

Mike
(Thanks again to Lensrentals for the loan of the test camera.)

*I knew a camera dealer back in Chicago who had a tiny hole-in-the-wall shop—I think the street address ended in "1/2"—and that was how he saved for cameras he wanted for himself. He'd just take a hundred dollar bill or a fifty dollar bill from time to time and put it in a book until he had enough there for whatever he was saving for. Why a book? Because a thief would never know what book the cash was in and would never have enough time, or any reason, to look through all the pages of hundreds of books.

So what did I do? To make a start at saving, I took a $50 bill, put it in the pages of a book, forgot all about it, and then, later, donated the book, along with many others, to a local coffeshop/bookstore where a young couple were trying to make a go of a small business of their own. Months later, they called me—they, or someone, had found my $50 bill—and they remembered where the book had come from, and they returned the money to me!

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Grant: "I’ve been using a Panasonic LX100 since 2018. I have a lot of chatty impressions too, but I will try and keep this brief.

"I agree with a number of your observations. I bought a store demo LX100, with a very low shutter count and a full warranty, for $550 Canadian. The D-Lux 8 is selling for $2,200 Canadian. Ouch! I can buy a large supply of red sticky dots at the dollar store for a lot less.

"The zoom, which can be controlled by both a lever around the shutter button and by the control ring on the lens, takes a bit of getting used to. I’m used to it now.

"The focus is slower than cameras from Canon and Nikon but not unbearably slow. Should you need focusing assistance, it’s available.

"Moving on to where our impressions diverge. Yes it’s a point-and-shoot. So is your phone; get over it. Any camera is a point-and-shoot if you set the dial to P. The beauty of the LX100/D-Lux 7 and 8, is that they can quickly go from P, to A, to S, to M, with a turn of the shutter dial or the aperture ring. That’s a feature that sets this camera apart from all the other point-and-shoot cameras that force you to dig into menus, tap a button, or turn an unmarked dial. Glance down at the top of the camera and all your settings can be read instantly. I find this is a huge bonus when shooting quickly or in low light.

"To help refresh your memory, the viewfinder is good. It has all the shooting information and focusing aids that are on the LCD screen. I usually use the viewfinder before I use the screen.

"I have no complaints about image quality. The lens shines. The results please me. It’s hard to tell the difference between the LX100 files and files from my APS-C cameras. Gallery quality prints are not on my agenda so I don’t know how far the files can be stretched.

"Overall this is a full-featured camera in a small package. I keep the camera, plus the flash and two spare batteries, in a very small shoulder bag. It rides shotgun everywhere I go. When I walk about and don’t want to use the bag, the camera hangs on a wrist strap or slips in a jacket pocket. Yes, I know my phone is with me too, but I can’t get no respect when I pull out a phone, the way I can get respect when I pull out a real camera.

"Dear editor, you may edit this comment for reasons of punctuation, spelling and grammar, but please do not remove the parts where I call you rude names and insult your intelligence for not being hopelessly smitten with this fine camera."

Bernard: "I think that your Leica observation has flipped around. You'll hear and read lots of criticisms of current models, but previous models are revered. The M11 and SL3 are suffering the brunt of criticism right now, while the M10 and SL2 are considered to be their best recent interchangeable-lens models. We'll need to wait for the M12 to come out before the M11 becomes the best digital M. It may have something to do with Leica owners of course. Many of us can only afford (or justify owning) the previous model, so we are only now discovering what those cameras can do."

Mike replies: Thanks for your insight. It's entirely possible I'm behind the times.

Rick in CO: "As a Leica user (M10R & CL) I agree completely with your review. I was hoping that Leica would come out with a new compact camera to replace my CL, which, with the 18–56 zoom lens, is not exactly pocketable. As it is they just re-hashed the old design, although I understand the EVF is a notable upgrade. I can only think there was a leftover supply of parts in China that had to be made use of due to previous contractual arrangements. There is some feedback from 7 users that the 8 has lost a few of the features they previously enjoyed (step-zoom in particular). My CL will have to trundle along as my knockabout/backup camera."

Thom Hogan: "There are probably two primary changes in the D-Lux 8, which I have, from the D-Lux 7/LX100 II, which I used to have. No. 1 is a very improved viewfinder. It's now OLED. No. 2 is a pretty simplified and more direct approach (Leica Q3) to setting things. Do those justify the now substantively higher price? No, but it does make an already competent compact a better experience. Note that not everyone will like the near menuless approach. To enjoy it, you have to embrace what Leica did. Button, tap, maybe another tap, done."

Omer: "My experience with the 7 is somewhat better than what you've described and I am content with it. But it is just a camera so I'll leave it at that. I have it only because it has the famous red dot which has some power over me. The 7 and a 6—yes, 'platinum blondes' both—are enough to satisfy my Leica craving."

Comments

[Doug Vaughn]

I have my primary cameras covered (a pair of Canon R6II for landscape trips, Fuji X-T30II converted to infrared, and Pentax Monochrome), but now I find myself shopping around for a point and shoot. I generally feel the same about them as you do, but I will be taking an epic hiking trip with my adult son in October and want to carry as little camera weight as possible.

You guessed it... one of the two cameras I've been looking at (and preordered in case stock arrives) is the Leica D-Lux 8. The other is a Ricoh GRIIIx. They are very different cameras, but there's just not a lot out there for high quality P&S right now. Both are older sensor tech but completely adequate for this trip. Considering the scarcity of both, I should have no trouble reselling for only a very small loss if I don't bond with whichever I buy. Both are overpriced for what they are, so you're correct on that point.

[Dave Millier]

I feel I should stand up for the honour of this poor camera, even though I have never used one. I'm not sure what you mean by calling the rebadged LX100 a P&S. As far as I'm aware, it has exactly the same controls as many top end FF mirrorless.

In my mind, a P&S is a camera with no, or very limited, user controls that is intended to be used by people without photographic knowledge and is fully automatic or lacking settings. Something like this Konica Pop from the film era. Even has a lens with a fixed focus.

https://austerityphoto.co.uk/konica-pop-review-guest-review-by-al-mullen/

There are plenty of compact digitals that can reasonably be called P&S, but I wouldn't include the LX100 in that bracket. It is intended to be a serious photographer's compact. It's a small camera with a non removable lens, but it has fast glass, multi aspect ratio sensor with a dedicated control switch, a large sensor (for a tiny compact), dedicated shutter speed dial, dedicated exposure compensation dial, dedicated aperture ring on the lens. It couldn't be further from a P&S to me (except for the annoying power zoom); it is intended to be used by, and to appeal to, experienced photographers. The power of your big camera in a smaller package.

Whether it pulls of this ambition is another matter (Dpreview did give it a Gold award), but please show it some respect - it's at the very least a proper camera, not a P&S.

[SteveW]

Pretty much my iPhone is my point and shoot.

(Each time I go down the rabbit hole of researching small cameras I go full circle back to my iPhone. My "real" camera is a Fuji X-T4, but I'm not using it much these days to be honest).

[darlene]

I mostly use my point-and-shoot, the Fujifilm x100v, on a copy stand to photograph objects for graphic work. Occasionally, I bring it out to capture community events when my HOA ropes me in. The x100v is lighter than my X-Pro3, and with its fixed lens, I don't have to play the lens-swap game—one less thing to fumble with while juggling mid-event—just point, shoot, and done! The colors are beautiful, and the files stay sharp even when I crop them down like a bad haircut. Give me a camera, and I'll figure out where it fits in my lineup.

[Robert Roaldi]

I've had three or four p&s cameras. They were mostly forgettable except for the Olympus Stylus Epic, which I really enjoyed a lot. Eventually the little plastic worm gears that advanced the film wore out. Funny thing about it though, I remembered it as having a 28 mm lens but 3-4 years ago I came across a nostalgia review piece where they mentioned the 35 mm lens in the specs. I was convinced they were wrong, but I checked other sources and it turns out I was wrong. This is doubly weird because I don't usually like 35 mm much but I'm ok with 28 mm. But I really liked using the Epic. It's all in our heads, isn't it.

This is a little off topic but I just wanted to say that Pentax was very clever to put a thumb film advance in the new half-frame 17 and not a motorized film advance. I've recently CLA'd and used my old Spotmatic and advancing the film manually is half the fun.

[David Brown]

I bought a Lumix LX7 after colleagues were having good luck with similar cameras. I (mistakenly) thought it was micro 4/3, but it is not. However, it is superb for what it is, and I believe there was a Leica version. The Panasonic version has a "Leica" lens. I took it on a long trip through the Southwest and California years ago and ended up buying its external viewfinder from a camera shop in LA. The viewfinder cost almost as much as the camera. Anyway, it still gets used from time to time (most recently a month ago) when I am in a "P&S" mood.

[Albert Smith]

Coming from the film days, a point and shoot was easier since you could have the same "sensor" in your say Nikon F3 and your Olympus XA by simply using the same film.

Towards that end, I gave up on using various formats for the sake of size. I know how much DOF a certain aperture will render, so how do I relate that knowledge to a tiny sensor? Or how a fully tweaked out film simulation won't be the same on another brand's capture.

I have Fujifilm X-T class bodies (almost already a compact compared to a DSLR), and when I want smaller, I have the equal vintage X-E bodies. Reduced size with no adjustment to my technique and delivering identical results. Just like I got with my Nikon and Olympus with Kodachrome.

[Rick]

Mike,

I think it has a 24-75mm lens, not 28-75.

Can you please explain why you designate this a "point and shoot"? It seems to have all the manual controls you'd need. It has a relatively fast lens. It has a decent sensor. Is it the size? I would not consider it a "point and shoot" based on those I have had over the years (small sensor, few controls, etc).

[robert e]

"point-and-shoots... like the Olympus XA"

You may be thinking of the XA2. The XA was aperture priority, and manually focused via the smallest rangefinder patch in the history of the galaxy. Way too fiddly to be considered a point-and-shoot. Adding to the fiddliness, it had a weird pressure-pad shutter button that wasn't 100% reliable. The XA2, on the other hand, was zone focus and auto-exposure, I believe. Very P&S.

[Jayanand Govindaraj]

Can you let me know any current Leica offering where the value proposition is good? They are not catering to photographers anymore, their market has shifted to luxury good buyers - specifically, the brand conscious noveau riche. If you do not agree with me, just see where they advertise nowadays, always a dead giveaway for a company's target market. I have nothing against Leica for doing that, after all, they have to survive, and bully to them if they think this is the way to do so. It does mean, however, that, just like Rolex do not make everyday tool watches anymore, or Montblanc do not make everyday pens, Leica does not make cameras for photographers. They all make jewelry!

[ChrisC]

You don’t need a point and shoot, you just need to configure your Fuji system appropriately. Perhaps pick up a secondhand X-E3 or4 and a 27 f/2.8 if you don’t already have one. Then you have your “compact” camera. That’s about the same size as the Leica. But it’s a real camera - none of the compromises you make with a compact. It has the looks and behaviour of the rest of your Fuji system. Need to add some ‘big’ bits from the rest of your Fuji bag - no problem.

Personally, I do add a little more bulk to mine and use the 16 f2.8 more than the 27, but it is still a pretty compact setup. And then sometimes I go crazy and put a 70-300 on - no longer compact, but same feel and image quality.

[JH]

I agree with your assessment of P&S cameras. I've owned a couple since I have owned iPhones, but since the iPhone 8 found them lacking any significant advantages over the iPhone. It's easy to see why recent smartphones have killed the P&S market. Today I have an iPhone 14 and take over 5,000 pictures a year with almost 100% satisfaction.
But your feelings/comments about P&S are similar to my reaction to prime lenses. My negative feelings have nothing to do with image quality; I assume they are better. But I feel too constrained/frustrated by a single focal length. Perhaps it's too many years of using zooms. But the quality of the current generation of zooms and the convenience of not packing a number of lenses or changing them is another factor.
Or maybe it's exactly the same reason you express about P&S cameras - latency. Immediate response is important when you see a photo opportunity, a fast responding camera allows you to respond quickly (remember how fast film cameras were?!) and a zoom gives you flexibility in framing without the time consuming changing of lenses or moving to get the picture.

[Sean]

I’d have probably complimented that guy's T-shirt and then asked him if they did them in adult sizes, which I’m sure he’d have appreciated.

The kids have a nice vibe, and they must have thought you had too, as their response to you looks so warm. I'm a little taken aback by the size of those drinks. Is it some performance art against overconsumption?

[William Giokas]

The secret to buying a Leica camera is buy it used. You saving a lot of money and you get a Leica camera!
Bill

[James]

How do you define point and shoot? If you called a Holga or any of the large number of plastic fixed aperture/focal length film cameras a point and shoot I would probably understand. Is a point and shoot something you can't change the lens on? I'm not sure I would call a camera you can change things like the aperture or focal length or ISO on a point and shoot. I don't own this camera or the Panasonic version but I personally wouldn't consider it a point and shoot. I guess anything can be a point and shoot nowadays if you just put the camera in P mode. Perhaps the definition point and shoot made more sense before digital or various film cameras had automatic modes.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I’ve had my Leica D-Lux 8 for about a month now and have been using it nearly daily. While I was not a strong fan of the Lumix LX-100 or the earlier Leica D-Lux cameras I have become quite smitten with the D-Lux 8!

There are countless reviews of this camera online so I won’t waste time with details. Reduced to the essence, I’d say that my new affinity for the D-Lux 8 has two primary roots. First, Leica has streamlined the user interface and menu for complete consistency with its other current model cameras. Moving between the 8, and M11P, a Q3, or and SL3 is now as functionally smooth as possible. If you know one camera you’re immediately comfortable controlling the others. No more hopping o into a Panasonic-origined D-Lux interface. As I own other models this is quite important to me.

Second, and not immediately apparent to the drive-by reviewer, Leica has also lightly refined the physical controls on the 8, again to be more consistent with their higher models, but also for greater fluidity of shooting. I’ll also note that the rear screen and the EVF of the 8 are brighter and significantly sharper than previous models. (Unfortunately the screen doesn’t tilt.). Touch controls have also been honed.

So, in my opinion, there is some genuine value in the new D-Lux 8. Is it commensurate with the high cost? I dunno. The fact is that the camera biz largely abandoned the small camera (“p&s”) market as the phones became dominant. But there’s very much still a viable and vibrant niche for cameras like the 8, as the overwhelming order backlogs confirm. Also, price used LX-100 II’s, RX100 IV’s, et.al. They’re selling for nearly new prices. So Leica can certainly be excused for taking some advantage of this phenomenon.

Of course in the final word, all that counts is whether or not you’re comfortable and productive with a camera. I know a great many TOP readers are in their senior years (like me). Cameras like the D-Lux 8 fill the gap between a phone and a full-sized camera which might not be the carry-everywhere tool they were in your early years. Readers might be surprised by visiting or re-visiting a “p&s!

[MikeR]

Grant said what I would have, so no need to repeat.

Point & shoot? NFW!

Had I known about the original LX100, I wouldn't have bought a GX7 way back whenever. But then I bought an LX100 anyway. Still in use, while the GX7 was sold to buy a GX8.

I really dislike having to fiddle with lens changes, so the GX8 has a Pan/Leica zoom semi-permanently fitted, while the LX100 gives me the same convenience in a smaller package.

Non-ILC *NE P&S.

[Patrick Dodds]

MikeR nearly said what I was going to say - I use an ancient Panasonic GX7 whenever I want something approximating a point 'n' shoot, with the lovely 17mm 1.8 on it. If I'm feeling particularly point 'n' shooty I'll go with the Rough Monochrome preset.

[Stephen S.]

Whether or not the EVF is good is a highly subjective thing. The D-Lux 7 and both LX100 models use a field-sequential LCD that quickly flickers through red, green, and blue backlights behind a monochrome LCD. Some people don't even notice and aren't bothered by this, but some perceive the flickering of colours and their response can vary from mild annoyance to eyestrain and headaches. The D-Lux 8 solves this with an OLED display, as for some people, the field-sequential display is utterly unbearable.

[psu]

I recently picked up a Sony RX100 Mark something or other to carry around as a "somewhat better in some ways than an iPhone" camera when even the micro-4/3rds stuff is too big or tedious to use.

It's clunky in a lot of ways but it's not _slow_ or limited in what you can control. The focus system is faster and more featured than my high end Olympus "real" camera, esp. trackng focus ... and it can sit there and shoot 10 or 15 or 30 frames into your SD card before you even realize it's done anything.

Now, going from "off" to "shoot" is certainly not as streamlined, and there is the dreaded power zoom. But using the negative leaning term "point and shoot" to describe this machine does not give it enough credit. An Olympus Stylus Epic is a point and shoot. An iPhone is even slightly more than that.

This thing is a slightly less ergonomic almost as good as an m4/3rds camera camera ... and I imagine the D-Lux is kind of in the same box. It might make you work in a way you don't like, or are not used to. But it's not _limited_ in the ways that real point and shoots were.

Anyway, you can say you don't like how it works without the broad brush phrasing, is all I'm saying.

[Mike Chisholm]

Mike,

Your friendly pedant here. I wonder if you're confusing a "straw dog" with a "straw man"?

Neither to be confused with a "short straw", the "last straw", "grasping at a straw", "a straw in the wind", "a straw poll", etc., etc.

There used to be a lot more straw about the place, it seems.

Mike

[How embarrassing! I'm losin' it. Fixed now. Thanks Mike. --Mike]

[Ilkka]

I’m confused. You don’t like point and shoots. Point and shoot is supposed to be fast, you just point and shoot. But this is slow. So it is not a good point and shoot. Maybe it is not a point and shoot at all, because you really need to point it and compose and choose the right focal length, maybe even the right aperture and shutter speed for the subject and composition. That takes time. So what’s the problem?

[Roger Bradbury]

As I write this,Mike Chisholm's comment is the latest one published, so does that mean it's the last straw? : )

[Roger Bradbury]

I don't have a point and shoot but I do have a daily carry, a Sony A6000 with the 16-50mm kit lens. It's small, or at least about the same size as other kit mentioned here (I think) and it's light. So it can be used as a P&S if required.

[Kristine Hinrichs]

I purchased the lx100 mkii the day it came out and have loved it. I particularly like the black and white rendering. There is one flaw in that camera that doesn’t come out in a test - the zoom lens sucks debris into the body and on to the sensor. It’s a very expensive repair - about $250 the first time and $500 the second - both covered by my credit card extended warranty. It needs cleaning again. If I had any confidence that the new Leica had solved the problem, I’d consider it.

I’m just going to ride it out and find another small PS to add to my “collection”.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

The Micro Four Thirds system started as my toy camera, when point-and-shoots finally lost my interest.

I previously had a Panasonic LX3, which had an f/2 lens and about the perfect zoom range for me. I could even make exhibition-grade prints from it—if the picture was shot in daylight. Most of my pictures are shot indoors, often in low light, and I eventually needed something better there.

The Olympus EPL2 with the 20mm pancake was only very little bigger than the LX3, and it was vastly better in low light. Plus, with a few lenses, even better.

And that grew into parallel Nikon and Micro Four Thirds systems, which I finally decided I couldn't afford to support both of, and my conversion to all M43.

[Paul Komen]

Mike, did you try the Ricoh GRiiix? It is really pocketable, has your preferred 40mm focal length and uses snap focus for an immediate shutter response. Seems like the complete and ideal package!