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."
