The true cost of Leica D-Lux 4 vs Panasonic LX3

What's in a name? Can you repackage the same camera under a different name and charge twice as much? Apparently, that's what Leica has done.


I've been doing research on the Leica D-Lux 4 and Panasonic LX3. Internally, they're almost the same cameras and almost every casual shooter online agrees that the image quality differences between them are negligible. One produces a slightly cooler/warmer image. Yes there are other very subtle differences in tone, but it's not very significant. What is significantly different is the price tag. Today, you can get new models as follows (results from Bing/live cashback):

New D-Lux 4: $680
New LX3: $410

The argument I keep hearing from D-Lux users is that "it's a red dot!", "it has a slightly better warranty", and "it has a better resale value." I think what they are really saying "I need a Leica to fit in with my Country Club buddies putting at the greens." Leica, Mercedes, golf. They go hand in hand. I haven't heard a person who said he/she got the D-Lux because of the extra software. Anyways, of all the arguments I've heard, the "better resale value" seems to hold, somewhat. After doing a search on completed bids on eBay, here is what I find:

Used D-Lux 3: $450 (ball park)
Used LX2 $200 (ball park)

Assuming a new D-Lux 4 will drop to the price of today's used D-Lux 3 in a few years, and assuming a new LX3 will drop to the price of today's used LX2 in a few years, then we're looking at the following depreciation (yes this is a gross assumption but since no one can see the future, let's just assume the past prices correlates to future prices to some extent):
D-Lux: 680-450 = $230 depreciation (33% loss)
LX: 410-200 = $210 depreciation (51% loss)

So assuming you are willing to sell your old Leica D-Lux or Panasonic LX, will will depreciate to about the same value; even though the Leica costs a lot more than the Panasonic, its higher resale value holds. Leica owners can probably feel good that they're only paying $20 extra for the extra warranty, and the red dot that is useful for getting attention (which could be very good or very bad, depending on your perspective). So in the end, the cost difference, based on the assumptions above, is only $20 plus/minus a bunch of flaws in the assumptions above.

What is your take on the D-Lux 4 vs. LX3?

Pentax K1000

Pentax K1000 is one of the most loved and most common SLRs of all time. Its production run started from 1976 up to 1997, or 21 years of unchanged design! With electronics, motors, plastics, and computerized automation innovations in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, most camera production runs were only between 2-5 years... the time of high-tech obsolescence. Almost no other camera has had a production run as long as the K1000! Primitive as it may be, the K1000 has been a workhorse for people all over the world. It is cheap, mass produced, and the early versions have superb built quality. The early K1000 production was in Japan, then shifted to Hong Kong in the late 70s, to China in later years. Subsequent designs allowed the cameras to be cheaper, but had more plastics and were more prone to problems. Many photographers talk about their love for the K1000 the same way they talked about the Canon AE-1... cheap, reliable, superb. Given how popular and common the K1000 is, it's not a collector's item like the Nikon F or Leica rangefinders.

The pictures of the K1000 + 55mm f/2 shown here has been my workhorse since I was a kid. It was given to my mom, and almost all of the nice pictures from my childhood was taken with this camera. When I was old enough to hold it, it became my camera. It later became the only camera I used in my photography classes, the only camera I used as a school photographer for newspapers, then yearbook, and the only camera I won awards with. It was an amazing workhorse. Later on in my life I did get other lenses (two Sigma zoom K-mount) and while I loved not having to move around constantly using zoom lenses (I became lazier with zoom lenses), most of the picture with those lenses turned out really crappy. I didn't know it at the time, but now I do: in terms of image quality, consumer zoom lenses paled in performance relative to the amazing (but inconvenient) prime lens such as the 55mm f/2. This is one of the reasons why most of my lenses today are heavily biased in prime lenses. IMHO zoom lenses are for people who are lazy photographers who take same looking images over and over again from their chair.

The K1000 is an all manual camera with a built-in lightmeter. Focus, speed, aperture are all manual. It's one of the most popular cameras in film and photography classes because it's cheap, plentiful, and most importantly, it is completely manual operated. Manual cameras force people to think about photography, there is no way to cheat on it, it's a great learning tool, and it's one of the most recommended cameras in beginning film classes.


This camera dates between 1976-1978-- subsequent models were no longer made in Japan to reduce cost. Also subsequent models do not have the Asahi Pentax symbol on the penta-prism.

It's been 21 years since the camera had service, so I thought I would give CLA a try. First I wanted to clean the penta-prism because it was full of junk. But reaching the penta-prism requires disassembly of the top plate since the focusing screen on the K1000 isn't interchangeable. First, disassembly of the ISO/speed dial (which was actually surprisingly complex for a simple camera):


Then disassemply of the count dial:


Keep in mind I was so confident that I didn't need a service manual that I went ahead with disassembly, and here's the result-- I didn't know this was a LEFT HAND screw and stripped it the wrong way. There goes the screw!




Finally, I got to the penta-prism!


I managed to lose two screws, stripped a screw, and screwed up other things too. Moral of the story: no matter how simple the camera is, USE A SERVICE MANUAL!!! Anyways I replaced the mirror damper which looked amazingly good for an ancient camera. Here's a picture of resealing the film seal: