Leica debuts D-LUX 4 Safari special edition camera
By Donald Melanson 
posted June 7th 2009 3:01PM
posted June 7th 2009 3:01PM
Leica has never been one to shy away from special edition cameras, but we're not about to start complaining, especially when they keep churning out packages that look like this. As Leica fans will no doubt notice, this one is just a regular D-LUX 4 camera, but with a new olive drab, safari-style appearance that has also graced Leica's high-end M8.2 rangefinder. Of course, while this model is thousands of dollars cheaper than that camera, it is still a somewhat hefty $995 (stylish, water-resistant case included, naturally). Look for it to be available this August.
why leicas are so expensive?
Same reason why Apple computers are more expensive.
I think beacuse of this special edition ('Safari special edition camera')
That's my answer, but i'm not a pro, the price depends on lots of things :)
Leica are so expensive because they are simply incredible. Any proffesional will tell you that you cannot get better than a Leica. You really do get what you pay for, unlike Apple where that is sometimes questionable...
And that from an Apple fanboy, too!
yeah but what you are trying to say these small cameras better that canon's or nikon's dslrs at same price?
From 'luminous landscape':
Mechanical robustness, manufacturability, and durability.
Many years ago, in the salad days, when cameras were sold in camera stores and camera manufacturers had reps and all was right with the world, a friend of mine attended a demonstration by a Leica rep. According to my friend, this man gave a short talk on mechanical robustness, during which he took a short section of barbed wire and rubbed the barb against the outermost element of the lens. Then he took the lens in his hand, crouched, and launched it like a bowling ball across the floor, where it skittered and bounced until it banged into the wall. He walked calmly over, picked up the lens, snapped it into his camera, and said, "Ready to take pictures."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-02-22.shtml
They're expensive because Leica a much smaller niche brand
They're expensive because they have historically appealed to rich people and collectors and Leica tries to preserve this exclusivity
They're expensive because Leica spend a little more on a quality fit and finish, which appeals to rich people and collectors
Excluding their old 35mm film cameras, as a photographic tool Leicas are generally inferior to even the cheapest DSLRs from Nikon or Canon in terms of both usability and image quality.
@engadget,
Leica is and always was about the lenses and not the specifications of the body. Also, the M8 blows most DSLR's out of the water when used within it's limits by one who knows how to use a M8
Their rangefinder cameras, and the prices of said cameras, are legendary. The lenses are solid and still command insanely high prices on ebay. Rangefinders have their advantages, and I'd still give my right arm for one, but I don't have thousands of dollars to burn.
The digital cameras, with the exception of their rangefinder digital, are just rebranded Panasonic cameras (which are still solid cameras, but not worth the markup just for saying "Leica" on the side).
Epson is able to demand over $2k for a digital rangefinder, mainly because it'll accept Leica lenses.
"Also, the M8 blows..."
Yes, we can agree on that. The M8 does blow.
I am guessing @engadget has never used a Leica camera ...
"I am guessing @engadget has never used a Leica camera ..."
Actually, I have used various recent Leica digital camera. I've also read reviews, which have been largely negative compared to other far cheaper alternatives.
I'm guessing @EB is trying really hard to justify his ridiculous purchase.
engadget, so does your mother.
"Also, the M8 blows most DSLR's out of the water when used within it's limits by one who knows how to use a M8"
In the modern context the Leica M8 is junk. It's limits are far too narrow for a $5,000 camera. There is noise at ISO400, even a cheap Rebel gets better low-noise capability. These days, in the competitive environment of CMOS sensors, the Leica's CCD is plain uncompetitive to even low-end dSLRs.
The main function of the Leica is the small compact rangefinder body that can be taken anywhere and photograph candid pictures in the spur of the moment. The dated sensor of the Leica means that more likely then not you will be operating the camera outside it's limitations.
"engadget, so does your mother."
Sorry bluecold, I was too busy getting blown by yours.
When I read the headline I thought it had Apple's web browser! Oh well...
This is the same camera as the Panasonic DMC-LX3. The extra $600 gets you the bag, green paint, and Leica logo.
Leica is no different than Rolex in this area. This is purely a status symbol.
There's also the consideration of re-sale value. Once you've had your Leica for a while, and when you're ready to buy something else, you'll still be able to get a big chunk of your investment back.
Have you seen the prices for used Leicas?
Actually, the resale value between the Panasonic and Leica is not significantly different. Used completed auctions are around $500 for the Panasonic and $700 for the Leica. The Leica users are losing lots of money, while the Panasonic sells for about as much as new. So actually the Panasonic offers better resale value. There are many cases where luxury goods really do offer value, but I can't think of any good reason to buy the the D-LUX 4 over the Panasonic.
@Ollie
Leicas are simply incredible, but the D-LUX4 is a rebranded and slightly tweaked Panasonic.
Which is a great camera, but not a true Leica.
Aah thanks for pointing that out djbentley! And I agree with you, Leicas (which are actually Leicas) are just phenomenal!
The only good cameras Leica makes are rangefinders, and that's if you like those better than a cheaper, just as good DSLR.
Needs more leopard skin. To blend in with the gaudy clothing for who would actually buy it.
leica is more hipster than couture.
Leica hasn't found their way in digital world. Their 35mm Film cameras are excellent.
A high end point and shoot- sounds like a oxymoron to me.
Leica was great back in the day when they weren't rebadging other companies products.
These may say "Leica", but they still are re-badged Panasonics, same goes with the "Leica" lenses on the Pannys and 4/3rds cameras - they are designed and built by Panasonic in Japan, but Leica has a bit of say in QC. I do like the looks of this "Leica", but not close to $1000 like, and the Panasonic LX3 can be had for about half of that.
It appears that Leica is eyeing Pentax for color ideas. The M8 white looks like the same color as the Pentax white K-m / K2000. And now this Safari D-Lux 4 is so similar to the "olive" edition of the K-m...
http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/slr/k-m/olive/
I have to agree with everyone here that this is nothing more than a rebadged Panasonic. If you want high image quality in a compact package, get the Canon Powershot G10. Canon has been in the forefront of digital imaging technology (as evidenced by their EOS professional SLR and "L" series glass) and they have incorporated those technology in the G10, which gives it lower noise levels and better quality optics than the Panasonic/Leica. You're just buying Leica for the name, but not for quality. I know this because I own a Canon 5D Mark II and I love it.
err..
The Lumix LX3 (aka dlux4) is better than the G10 other than it's range. Since the G10 has more optical zoom but the LX3 is wider.
Try reading this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/
Wait what? Canon has better optics than Leica?
I used Canon bodies and L lenses to shoot assignments for our school newspaper. While the tele lenses are decent, the wide to normal range Ls were terrible. I mean my Pentax kit lens was sharper than the 20-35L. Canon is popular because it's less expensive than its competitors and the electronics are good, but the lenses are pretty terrible excepting the longer teles. Nikon, Oly/Pana, Pentax, Cosina/Voigtlaender all make superior optics. The German manufacturers are even better, and Leica/Zeiss make pretty much the best lenses for 35mm format available.
Canon DLSRs have many advantages over Leica cams but lens quality is not one of them.
Actually, you're wrong about the Canon G10. It has noise at its lowest ISO settings that the Panasonic Lumix LX3 will handily outperform. In fact, I'd go for the Lumix LX3 over any other point-and-shoot right now.
I was a long-time Leica user in the film days. I've had some of the finest lenses they ever made. (35 Summilux Aspheric, 70-180 2.8 Apo, 280mm 2.8 Apo, 19mm 2.8 Elmarit, 35mm 1.4 R) and there are clearly the finest lenses made as a system. Although I can tell you the Nikon 14-24 2.8 is a lens that competes with Leica's best. I've used the R system and had an M6 that I used professionally for over 20 years. I've used, and use Canons, and Nikons and Contaxes, and Pentaxes. Not to mention Hasselblad, Rollei and Sinar.
Nothing competes optically with real Leicas. Not rebadged cameras like this. Over the past 50 years Leica often releases a "Safari" edition. They've released other special editions of plated gold, silver, platinum, snake skin, etc. That junk is simply for collectors to help pay for R&D for the real stuff.
Right now the M8 can compete with Nikon's cameras up to about ISO 400. That's truly sad since the M8 would otherwise be the definitive available light camera - if also it was full frame. Rumor has it that the M9 is coming in the next year or two and it will have new technologies that will be based on the S2 (their new $20,000 37 megapixel medium format camera that will compete with Hasselblad and others, due out this Summer) and they are also planning a whole new SLR line - the R10. Totally refreshed in every way.
Leica has been on the ropes financially for the past decade. But they have an owner who is committed to keeping it alive (his checking account can cover their expenses for decades - he's a shipping billionaire) and he could very possibly make them the reference camera system to beat.
But they have also priced themselves out of the professional market in the DSLR area, and most people simply can't afford them. I would LOVE to have their 50mm f/0.95 lens (more than a stop faster than f/1.4). So their future is irrelevant to those of us who would rather spend our money on families, cars, homes and retirement. It's truly sad. Because there is nothing like the beauty of the image a Leica lens lays down. It's not sharpness, it's not contrast. It's the overall effect. An organic whole that people can see, but they can't put their finger on.
So, that and the fact their stuff (real, not rebadged) is hand-made in Germany in very limited quantities to keep their quality control high when they're doing well. These days with financial trouble, they've had problems. But their problems are no different than S.O.P. with other companies.
Nikon and Canon own the pro market, and that's not going to change. But Leica will always have a special place for those rich enough to afford them. And that's a bit sad for the rest of us.
i almost see its high price！！！
I'm not much for "safari" editions myself. But I liked what Leica did with the white version of the M8. I wouldn't mind seeing an all white version of the D-Lux 4!
I dearly wish Leica would simply close down and all their products get obliterated from the market. They have some of the worst, overpriced and least relevant products. As a brand they are about as relevant today as the English cricket team. All hot air and no substance.
what a terrible thing to say
Yes, what a terrible thing to say. Eric is absolutely correct. I am a film and television producer who began as a photographer (Brooke's Institute) and have used virtually every system from large format to 35mm and now digital for over 25 years. I studied under a protege of Ansel Adams. I'm zone system to the core. In the past Leica was the barometer for which all other makers aim and I have no doubt that with the release of the S2 will once again establish itself as the pinnacle of camera design and precision. Leica glass remains unmatched. Period. If If could use Leica glass on my Red One Cameras I would.
Rajesh- Debasing greatness to serve your under-nourished self esteem and boost your ego is pathetic.
Long live Leica.
This camera is pure vanity.
The trouble with this whole adding a red dot for $2-300 is that you can't buy the LX3 anywhere right now - save for overpriced rip-off merchants.
What kills me is my old Elph grew fungus in its lens (can you believe it?) and I settled on the LX3 as the perfect replacement. Not too long ago, it was selling for $400. Now the only option is a $699 tweaked LX3 with a Leica sticker. Even worse, it seems like Panasonic have decided they can make more money this way with this cam... that Leica and Panasonic have cooked up a strategy.
So, truth is, I am pretty down on both companies right now... though supply and demand is what it is.
I hope the Olympus Pen EP1 blows them all out the water and leaves them scrambling. You want something special now? Don't dream of this safari nonsense. Get the Pen.