kpsk_sony

Dear folks, a long, long time ago, in my hippie days I sold a beautiful Leica M2 because I was giving up my middle class lifestyle . Well that was a mistake since it only took about a year of marijuana abuse to bring me back to a more sensible existence sans weed but still ‘alternative’. Now, I see thousand $ Leica D-LUX or C-LUX. Is the red dot better tHan the other cameras in that class? Or am I still yearning for that old M2?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Go for the M2
It was your baby. You can still have it.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I guess it's what you mean by better. I'm a Leica M10 owner and can tell you that it is a solidly built camera. It has a cast magnesium alloy body and milled brass top and bottom plates.
It's a rangefinder and not a DSLR or DSLR like mirrorless. The camera is completely made in Germany as are Leica lenses. As far as image quality, I don't think you could tell the difference between a Leica and a top quality DSLR, at least not in casual viewing.
If you are looking for a digital Leica rangefinder, but don't want to spend the M10 money, consider a M9. Don't bother with a Leica M (typ 240).

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Compare the Leica D-Lux to the Panasonic Lumix LX100 models.
Or the Leica C-Lux to the Panasonic ZS200.
They are amazingly similar... except price and a few other features.
(Panasonic makes some great cameras)

Neither are in the same category as the M or Q models, other than the Leica name.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

When it comes to digital, I wouldn't call today's Leica any better or worse then other brands.... with one exception. Many vintage Leitz lenses can be used on their modern digital. If you had some favorites of those, it might be worth it. But if you don't have any Leitz lenses you want to use with digital... Or if you don't require a red dot and the "retro" look and feel.... you can get a whole lot more, equally capable camera and lenses for your money buying other brands.

BebuLamar

The D-LUX or C-LUX are not made by Leica so if you want a Leica buy a good used M2. It's strange but they are made in Japan I think by Panasonic but the Panasonic version of these cameras are made in China.
So for short cheap Leica is not better than no Leica.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I worked at Leica in Rockleigh NJ around that time. I did an employee purchase of a KE-7A - a military spec camera that was an all black M4 with weather sealing, along with the 50mm F1.4 Summilux. They both stayed in the boxes I bought them in, thinking that one day they might be worth something. I believe I paid $500 (no error here) for both. I sold it and a bunch of other Leica gear - including another M4, Visiflex housing, 21mm Super Angulon with WA Finder, 28m 35, 50 65 Elmar, 90 Summicron, 135 Tele-Elmarit and a 180mm Tele-Elmarit lenses, bellows, etc when I needed to raise money for a year's worth of college tuition.

I might have spent about $2K putting all that together at employee discount pricing. I sold everything a couple of years later for $5k thinking I had made a killing. Had I held onto the KE7A and black Summilux I could have sold that today for $30K. I figure the rest of the gear probably would get another $30K today. As Homer Simpson would say, D'OH!

In any case, I got my diploma and bought a lot of really cool large format camera gear, as I worked my way through grad school doing architectural photography.

I do miss the Leica, but the new stuff from Canon and Nikon is just as functional for what I do these days. I'd rather have my $$$ in the bank and not worry about that love affair I had with the little German cameras.

An M2 is a great camera, I don't have to tell you that. But the better version is the M2-R which loads film faster, like the M4.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Thanks. Interesting story.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

All depends on the ratio

($$$-L)/($$$)

If you spend L to get the Leica what does that do to your finances?

If that ratio approaches zero, it's not better. If that ratio is near 1, it's better.

You get to decide what the cutoff point is.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

They even had a little side business - a machine shop that made Tilt-all tripods. I worked in the warehouse, which is why I got first dibs on a lot of stuff.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

1) Your lost youth is just that, lost. Never coming back.
2) Spend $1000 on an overpriced camera?
3) Get a 3-D printer, print up some red dots and relax.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

I still have my 2 old M3's with a range of lenses but only hold on to them for nostalgia reasons now. To remind me of the olden days when things were far simpler.
I first got the LX3 and now have the LX100, it is similar enough to the M3 for it to feel perfect, to me as a digital alternative.
Results, in my opinion, mostly equal my Nikon D7100 with the advantage too of being almost always with me.
A great little camera.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Agreed!
I was seriously thinking about getting an LX100.
My Fuji X-E2 reminds me a bit of the M4 I used to use.
Very intuitive controls on both the Fuji and your Panny, if one has ever shot with film.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

Put some money aside for the one you want. Then there is no looking back. Happy Shooting.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Jim, had a look at your pics. What a fantastic eclectic collection. I think you do better with the ability to swap lenses out and may not have been happy with the limitations of the LX100.
Ive used the Nikkor 24-70 for many years as my main lens so am comfortable with the LX100 range and dont seek the broad range of subjects you do so well with.