Digilux 2 -- A gushing review

Review by Frank van Riper, who concedes his bias, is found here:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm

Uh-oh, I feel a large, obnoxious ego about to spew! What are you waiting for Jay? Quit fondling the jewelry for a minute and get your screed out.

hey, I ran in to him at Chrome when picking up some contact sheets, and he was sporting the Digilux 2 on his shoulder. I didn't realize that it was actually Frank until this very minute.

 

I let me handle/fondle it for a while, and he seemed very pleased with it. But we both agreed that the M6 is the best allround Leica around.

 

Nice reading though...

Couldn't care less about the Digilux, but his article from the previous week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/040211.htm) was pretty good.

Jon,<p>

 

You're far braver than I am! ;-)<p>

I would love to own this camera, but the price the price....

Thanks for the link, a good review.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm">Link</a>

As a bona-fide computer geek since 1983 and a photographer since 1969, I have to say

that I'm very impressed with the Digilux 2 and it's Panasonic sibling.

 

I haven't handled one yet, I've been reading the owners manual that Leica made available

through their website. But as described in the manual, the features and controls of this

camera were, in my opinion, obviously laid out by someone who understood good camera

design and control ergonomics.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing one in person and running some test exposures with it. The

bottom line of any camera is how good the photos it makes are at its best and where its

limitations are at the worst. If the controls work as well as they seem and it produces the

kind of picture quality I need, the price is a detail that gets consumed in the use...

 

At least it won't be costing me film and processing. ;-)

 

Godfrey

Van Riper is a Leica fanboy and has been one for a few years; his review makes clear that he

is not unbiased and that he'd rather have a red dot on his camera than $250 in his pocket:

<p>

 

<i><b> Of course, I'm not the most unbiased source.... The cameras are virtually

identical.... The Leica version looks more like, well, a Leica, including the famous red dot

with "Leica" written in a flowing script. To some, that's a lot of money to pay for a red dot.

Then again..... </b></i>

I'm sure the Digilux 2 is an excellent camera for what it is, but I fear that many will buy it for what it is not, namely a digital rangefinder Leica, and be quite disappointed. Manual focusing the Digilux 2 is much more like an SLR than a rangefinder, it's based on optical perception of sharpness not two images coinciding. Thus the back-and-forth focusing associated with a manual-focus SLR versus the positive quickness of a rangefinder. Also as I've stated before, the extensive DOF of the "28-90 *equivalent*" ultrawide lens would make subject isolation next to impossible. For a scenic photog like me ironically it would be less of an issue than for portraitists. Finally, since there are no features of the Digilux 2 that are lacking on the Panasonic version, one would have to be quite inventive to come up with a good rationalization for why they paid more to get the Leica...not that such rationalizations are uncommon among Leicaphiles. It's a similar situation with the Fuji and Hasselblad versions of the Xpan and H1 except that at least Hassy and Fuji agreed to give distribution exclusivity of Hasselblad outside of Japan.

FWIW,

 

In THEORY I will be getting a review unit of the Digilux 2 in two weeks or so. They arem't shipping any production models until the first week of March.

"At least it won't be costing me film and processing," says

Godfrey. But is that all that matters with digital?

Everyone is focusing on the gear here.

 

Did anyone bother to download the sample images on the Leica site?

 

One has to assume these are pretty much representative of the best the camera has to

offer (or close to it). Before anyone brings up that these are internet images, I will just say

they are large files, and no different than downloading any sample from other digital

cameras like Canon did for the 1D, or Kodak did initially for the 14n launch (which were

just as awful as the camera turned out to be). If it's valid for top end digital review, it is

here also.

 

IMO, the D2 images look just like ones from a Canon G5 (or G3 for that matter). Which

should be no surprise given that they are the same sized sensor and meg count (G5). The

characteristics of 2/3 sensors is apparent to my eye... flat feeling in terms of perceptual

depth. And plastic feeling. The color is nice, but so is the Canon G3/5 color. One way to

better judge certain characteristics is to convert the color images to B&W and then

evaluate the feeling of depth.

 

As far as gear is concerned, I think the camera is beautiful and elegant looking if not a tad

big for what it is... a manual P&S. Making the controls more manually oriented IS a step in

the right direction for sure. I do not particularly like that the flash shoe is off to the side,

which may cause some angled shadows, even using the FS flash with a diffuser. The in-

camera pop-up flash looks quite vulnerable to me, but time will tell (the Canon Elf had a

pop-up flash that broke by just looking at it).

 

I wonder if there are any other differences between the Panasonic and Leica? Is there a

better warranty? Is there different software? Different accessories? I also wonder if the

"street" price difference will really be only $250. or so once the cameras are in retailer's

hands?

 

IMO, for the price, If I wanted a small digital camera, and cared about image quality more

than being a stylin' guy, I select the Pentax 1stD I mentioned in my other thread awhile

ago. The is no comparison when it comes to image quality, even with the wonderful Leica

optic on the D2. Digital cameras are first and foremost about the sensor and the firmware/

softwear. Which brings up another unknown ... I wonder what the software is like,

especially the RAW developer. If the PanoLeica RAW files were include in the Adobe RAW

developer I would feel a lot better about it (note: the Pentax RAW files ARE supported by

the Adobe RAW developer). I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Marc, the last update of Camera Raw includes support for the Digilux 2.

 

I totally agree with your and Jay's comments. I just bought an Olympus E20 at a much reduced price. That one has a real viewfinder, at least. Otherwise, I would not expect great strides in image quality from the Digilux 2. Digital is still largely sensor-limited, not lens-limited.

 

I'll stick to my M6 and SL66 for the pictures I care about :-)

<i> "At least it won't be costing me film and processing," says Godfrey. But is that all that

matters with digital? </i><p>

 

What part of "at least" didn't you get?

Regarding Jay's comment on depth of field, isn't the Digilux 2 killed by the inability to isolate your subject with a shallow DOF? I realize this failing is not exclusive to the Digilux 2, but I wouldn't pay $1500+ for a non-interchangeable camera/lens combination that lacked the critical (to me) ability to achieve shallow DOF. Can anyone estimate what the shallowest DOF is with the Digilux 2, in a 35mm equivalent?

Chris,

 

DoF is a function of focal length where as angle of view, for a particular focal length, is about film or sensor size. Therefore, if the thing has a 135 format equivalent angle of view of 28mm to 90mm it probably has something like a 7mm to 24mm real focal length. Now just think about what those focal lengths mean on the system you understand and thats your answer.

 

regards

Craig / Shajiazhuang (tonite)

Craig, thank you, but I can't really picture what you are describing, as my widest lens is a 28mm. To make it simple, is the DOF with the Digilux's 28-90 equivalent lens roughly equal to an aperture 1/4 the size of the stated aperture? So, say, for DOF purposes, the Digilux lens is a 28-90 4/5.6 equivalent?

The Digilux2 sensor is about 1/4 the width of a 35mm frame of film, so to get an estimate of "comparable" depth of field, apply a 4x multiple to the f-number. In other words, the 28-90 (equivalent) zoom lens with f/2-f/2.4 aperture will yield depth of field comparable to 28-90mm on 35mm film with an aperture of f/8 (wide) - f/9.6 (telephoto) .

 

Note that the sensor has a 4:3 aspect ratio, so you can't directly compare the two without picking one to crop.

"Did anyone bother to download the sample images on the Leica site?"

 

Yes - and printed a 10" x 13" from the amusement-park-ride image. Grain/noise that falls in-between the grain from 35mm Sensia and Velvia scanned at 2700 dpi and printed 10 x 15; a bare hint of pixels showing in one small part of the brightest yellow light streaks.

 

"One has to assume these are the best the camera has to offer (or close to it)....valid for top end digital review"

 

Agreed.

 

"...same sized sensor and meg count (G5).

 

INCORRECT - Canon G3/5 cameras use 1-1/8th sensors, not 2/3rds. Which is why a 7mm lens equals only a 33mm on the Canons, but is a 28mm true-wide-angle on the Leicasonic (and also Sony 828, Minolta A1/2, etc.)

 

"to better judge certain characteristics is to convert the color images to B&W and then evaluate the feeling of depth."

 

Did that, too. Again, grain/noise is mostly invisible in a 10 x 13. Pan F level - clearly less than 100/400 traditional silver films. "Depth" is subjective, and so dependent on a whole host of picture variables that I wouldn't presume to judge it based on the sample shots, which are dull and boring photographs, regardless of their 'finer' technical qualities.

 

But in general you are correct that the D2's image quality is effectively equal to the other top-end 5Mp "bridge cameras". And about even (IMHO) with the 8Mp replacements - less resolution, but also less noise; a wash.

 

-----

 

"Making the controls more manually oriented IS a step in the right direction..."

 

Not A step, THE step! The ONLY step. I guess I still find it hard to understand - why others find it so hard to understand - that this is a qualitative difference for some of us.

 

There are cameras with clear, unambiguous, easily accessible manual controls - and the rest (including all previous Leica digitals) are c**p, suitable only for crushing with a sledge-hammer so the plastic can be recycled. See rant at end for the detailed explanation of why I WILL buy a Digilux-2, and no other digicam competes.

 

It is NOT a "Leica vs. - " thing. If Nikon or Canon or Minolta produced this precise camera, I would buy it - for the same price as the Leica, if necessary. If they'd produced it a year ago at 4Mp, I'd have bought it a year ago at 4Mp.

 

I want direct manual control of the primary photographic controls. And no SLR noise, shake, bulk.

 

Anyone who delivers that can sell me a camera - nothing else rates even a passing glance.

 

Differences between the Panasonic and Leica?

 

"Is there a better warranty?" YES - 3 years (L) vs. 1 year (P)

 

Is there different software? YES, but mostly immaterial since I already have Photoshop. Also different firmware (internal processing algorithms) - which may also be mostly immaterial. Presumably Leica thinks their A/D conversion for color or whatever is more "Leica-like" - but who knows (or cares)?

 

Different accessories? Not so's you'd notice. Panasonic shows a REALLY big wide-converter lens on their web site - presumably it will also fit the Leica since they are both 69mm attachment size. Leica is offering an underwater housing, which is also probably interchangeable.

 

"Digital cameras are first and foremost about the sensor and the firmware/softwear."

 

Oh, c'mon Marc. That's like saying "film cameras are first and foremost about the film and developer". Important, yes. Overridingly important? Well, if so, you should do just fine with a Holga or Lomo, so long as you use the BEST film and developer, no?

 

Nope - cameras, digital and otherwise, are first and foremost "about" how they work as tools.

 

If I'm in a fast-moving situation, can I scale-focus to 5 feet or 8 feet to shoot quickly? Or do I have to scroll through 3 menu levels to get to "manual focus" and then "chimp" the camera at arm's length to see the LCD?

 

When I turn the camera on, does it take 3 seconds for the motorized zoom to expand, or can I shoot 1 second later?

 

If the light is low, can I shoot at 1/8th second without mirror-slap smearing the picture all over the sensor? Or shoot at f/2-2.8 instead of f/3.5-5.6 to avoid the slow shutter in the first place?

 

And speaking of hand-holding, does the camera have a well-balanced, centrally positioned lens where my fingers fall right on the controls, or does it have all the ergonomics of a plumbing "U"-joint.

 

If I want to speed up response time, and avoid weird exposures due to light/dark subject tones, can I just set the camera to 1/250 and f/6.8 and keep shooting, without waiting for the AE to figure out the exposure, and without (again) using buttons to scroll around and find the "shutter speed" and "aperture" menus?

 

With the D2/LC-1 I can. Nothing else made today - by anyone - makes the cut to be in MY camera bag. Everyone else is free to make their own choices.

As to depth-of-field: The analyses above are about right. You do have to factor in the extra enlargement from the tiny 6x9mm image, which gains you back a bit of blur.

 

But roughly speaking, the "90" setting of the D2 gives blur about like f/6.8 with a real 90 on 35mm film.

 

It's a 50/50 proposition, though. Shallow DOF can be a great tool, or a hindrance. Look at the contortions large-format photographers (and their cameras) go through to INCREASE DOF.

 

Looking over my pictures over the years - about 10% would have benefited from having MORE DOF than the light/aperture/action allowed; about 10% would suffer from the limited 'blur' of the D2, and in the other 80% a increase in DOF would make no difference at all, since their impact comes from their content, not their pictorial qualities.

 

But that's why they make LOTS of cameras - so we can each have a choice.

<i>"Making the controls more manually oriented IS a step in the right direction..." <p>

 

 

Not A step, THE step! The ONLY step. I guess I still find it hard to understand - why others find it so hard to understand - that this is a qualitative difference for some of us.</i><p>

 

It took me about two hours of shooting to get used to manually setting the G5, other than focus. Focus is a little trickier because you are focusing a digital image, but that's true on the Digilux 2 also.<p>

 

If you ask me, the most important step (given that all the cameras in this category have similar sensors) is a true clear view finder, combined with a tilt and swivel screen (anyone who has worked for two days with this feature understands why it's so useful) so that it can be used at eye level or waist level with equal ease. But the finders on pretty much every non-SLR digital camera suck if you are used to rangefinders.

Good to know that the Adobe RAW converter works with it. That is a BIG plus.

 

My Andy, off to the races huh? Thanks for the correction on sensor size BTW.

 

However, you kept talking about noiselessness which I didn't comment on. I think the

overall images look 1 dimensional, a complaint I've had about ALL of the smaller sensor

cameras (and why I no longer own any). Converting to B&W makes it all the more

apparent. IMO, the only reason to own a small sensor digital is because the camera is

smaller... which this camera isn't. But to each his own.

 

I do, however, completely understand the lure of a manually controlled digital like this, so

I'm not down playing it at all. The electronic viewfinder has to be evaluated after it been

used for awhile. We'll see.

 

As far as the sensor/software comparison to film/processing... one is mature and already

there, the other is not. It ISN"T like film at all really. It's like someone picked the film for

your camera and that's it, wether you like it or not.

 

Many of these sensors are problematic, and the software (meaning the proprietary RAW

software) is a nightmare. If you only have P6 then you're screwed if the software that

comes with the camera is problematic (which is a mute point now that I know the Adobe

processor works with it).

 

The longer warranty is also a BIG deal IMO. Almost worth the extra cost in itself. If they

offered an extended warranty, I'd consider that also.

Jeff: I'm sure I could "get used to" making button-twirl settings - but it's still slower than "click" (aperture) "click" (shutter speed). Heck, on the D2 you can do those at the same time - left index finger for aperture and right index finger for shutter.

 

If you shoot a G5 in manual mode and then shut it off - is it still in manual mode by default when you turn it on again?

 

Marc: yeah, well, I got a bit carried away. But for me the manual controls really do put the Leicasonics in a class by themselves.

 

I look at the nice new 8Mp Canon Proshot 1 and Nikon 8700 and ask myself "WHY couldn't they have put up-front analog controls on these?" These guys have beaten Leica before - I know they have the talent and technology.

 

(And sorry about the sledgehammer remark - hug your digicam tonight and promise it you won't EVER let it near that MEAN, NASTY Andy Piper.)

 

Just out of curiousity, I priced out a few DSLR systems that would offer a fair approximation of the D2's manual controls and cover the same effective focal lengths with f/2 to f/2.8 apertures. No zooms, since the SLR zooms are heavier and longer than the D2 zoom (big as it may appear). I want the shooting package (body + 1 lens) to be as close to the D2 as possible.

 

Had to guess at the *ist body price ($899?), and cut Pentax and Canon some slack at the wide end, since they only make 20mm prime lenses (30mm efl, not 28mm).

 

Nikon D70 + lenses 18/24/35/60mm - $3193

 

Canon DRebel + lenses 20/24/35/65 - $2614

 

Pentax *istD + lenses 20/24/35/77 - $2701

 

So it seems like the oh-so-pricey D2 is SAVING me $750-$1300, as well as the weight and bulk of carrying 3 extra lenses, in terms of giving me what I want to work with.

 

Not that the D2 is flawless. And the EVF is only no. 3 on my list. No. 1 is the 3:4 format. I prefer the 2:3 35mm frame, even if the paper-makers don't. (No. 2 is the lack of 21/135 focal lengths - but maybe I'll learn some discipline).

 

As to the "flatness" of digital images - I know what you mean. I'll see if I can't just do something about that once I start shooting digital...8^)

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW4/large/flowers

-2792.jpg"><BR>

<I>Roses - Sony DSC-U60</i>

</center><br>

The DoF/FoV coupling in a camera with this size sensor is different from 35mm but no

less "good" or "bad". Since I shoot with everything from Minox to Hasselblad in film

cameras, it's simply an alternative and requires different compositional techniques. It's a

tremendous aid when doing macro work!

<br><br>

I'd like a square sensor in some camera, sometime. ;-)

<br><br>

Not quite to 28mm field of view, not quite to 90, but my alternative choice:

<br> Canon 10D + 28/1.8 + 50/1.4 + 20/2.8 = ~$2500

<br><br>

Since I have that already, I'm looking forward to the LC1/D2 for those occasions when I

want to use something with a different imaging flavor.

<br><br>

<i> ... "flatness" of digital images ... </i> <br>

If you have a high quality, high resolution, noiseless digital image, it's easy to add

vignetting and texturing to give the sense of depth and aberration that a film image

typically presents. I do it all the time.<br><br>

Godfrey