why I like the Leica Digilux 2

After reading many speculative forum discussions about the upcoming

Leica Digilux 2 (D2), I hope we could take a step back and consider

about the Leica M user way of thinking first, for which it is

conceptualized as.

About pixels:

There have been many discussions concentrating on pixel counts.

Personally, I am not searching for the absolute highest resolution

necessarily. An analogy would be like using medium format cameras

like the Mamiya 6 & 7 or even the Alpa. Thus, a 5 mega pixel sensor

is sufficient for the vast majority of my A4/Letter-size prints for

my photo album and wall frames. Don�t forget, even if you have an 8-

mega pixel or more camera, you would also require a printer that is

able to maximize the images.

About the lens:

I�ve read in some links that the zooming range in the D2 isn�t

enough. M-users know very well that Leica currently supplies 21mm to

135mm M-Series lens (we could even expand that if we were to add

Voigtlander/Cosina�s line-up as well). So the range of the

28mm~90mm (equivalent) in the D2 is right there in the heart of

familiar focal lengths.

About noise:

Some people also expressed their concerns and curiosity about the D2

noise level. I am included in this group but for a slightly

different reason. If I can create both an analog looking output, say

a Tri-X / Ilford and Provia then I think Leica and Panasonic should

be given credit in duplicating those aesthetics.

And finally about creating an emotional response � the MOMENT:

At the end of the day, it�s about having fun capturing and savoring

those precious moments. I commend both Leica and Panasonic for

creating the D2 with a specific purpose and shooting �style�,

which I hope would be an extension of the M-Series virtues,

experience and spirit - a perfect tool for those who likes

photojournalism AND also digital darkroom processing.

I've had one (an LC1 actually) in my hands for about 6 weeks now. So far I'm very, very pleased with it. I'm not going to get into any discussion about pixel quantity (plenty for me) or noise (more than quiet enough), there are far too many of those discussions already. I'm not going to do a review here, I'd be way too biased. But after playing with this one for a while, I think the reviewers will bear out a lot of my observations. Here's my impression in a nutshell:

It's a unique camera. The only non-SLR digital I've ever used to offer manual zoom, focus and f-stop on the lens, and the only digital I've ever used to allow me to set shutter speeds like I do on my other cameras. It fits very well in my hands, the controls are exactly where I expect them and behave as I'd expect. Operating this camera is a manual photog's dream, with one notable exception: The manual focus ring turns a full 180 degrees from close focus to infinity. None of my RF or SLR lenses have to rotate that far and it's kind of akward. Also, I'm not terribly happy with the magnification-focus assist. With the lens zoomed all the way out (28mm equiv), there's so much DOF that it's hard to tell when you've achieved sharp focus. I work around by zooming in, focusing, and zooming out, or using AF.

The prints I have obtained so far, of up to 18x24 size have been excellent. I'm happy with the colors, sharpness, lack of grain (noise), etc.

I'm really very happy with the unit. As Nakajima-san said, "At the end of the day, it�s about having fun capturing and savoring those precious moments." That pretty well sums it up for me. The D2 meets that goal admirably.

Eric

Let's not fight over the word Perfect. After all it's about the joy and the art of picture taking.

The point I wanted to raise is that if the D2 duplicates similar EXPERIENCES and PLEASURES as when using any M-Series camera, then we as avid rangefinder shooter should not complain about the function or design. And from what I heard from my local dealer and read in the WEB the D2 body and ergonomic controls is a pleasant blend of old school and new (at least for me - a current D1X and M6 user).

Next, if those digital information creates outputs that duplicate analog ones, which we love and expect, then many traditional Leica users would be more than quite pleased. {This is really THE holy grail we are all searching for isn't it...}

Any way, it's the synthesis of the two forces that I hope to enjoy. For me that would be perfect.

Eric,

The one feature that no one is talking about is how fast the D2/LC-1 powers up and shoots. This is more important to me then pixel counts etc.

I would love to have a 5MP camera that "works" as fast or similar to a film camera (i.e. Nikon D1's etc).

What's the shutter lag/power up times like. It's received some ink on it's fast operation. Is it this true?

Nice lovefest for this camera.

Yet, I hate to let Leica off the hook, and prefer keeping the pressure up to make a digital M

that uses the current M lens line up (at least 28 through 90).

All due respect, but I am also surprised that so many Leica shooters think a camera with

an electronic viewfinder and a 5 meg small sensor can produce letter sized images that

satisfy them. It makes me wonder if the abilities of the M system were ever realized by

them.

IMO neither the experience or the image quality is replacement for even a 40 year old M3

and a reasonably decent M pre ASPH lens. But to each his own. Someone has to buy the D2

to fund the R&D for a real digital M... so I guess I shouldn't complain to much. ; - )

basically the digital discussions are completely overtaken by spec comparisons. I doubt that any of the testers and fanatic users even bother to take any pictures, let alone to print them. The same applies, I'm afraid, to a large part of all the brand groupies who get mad over lens x being whatever sharper than lens y, but since digital is much easier to quantify, the only subject of discussion are these spec debates.

Yes, leica lenses are very very good, maybe the best. But you'll never notice until you use a sandbagged tripod and 25 ISO film. I don't do that, I still enjoy using leica glass, but considering my technique (and the film I use, Tri-X).. well, any other rangefinder would do fine, too.

Back to digital. Yes, a y MP, whatever mp, is less than the current x mp of the current top dslr. But if you see the difference on a A4 print, that is a completely different question. And the sandbagged tripod also applies to digital, of course. Now if you print A4, I am very positive that 5 mp are absolutely fine.

Compare with cars. Everybody (at least in germany) measures cars in top speed and acceleration. 0-100 km/h in x sec, whoaaaa, I feel so lousy, my car is slower than that. In the real world, you move in traffic jams and have a hard time to come close to the maximum allowed speed in your area. So why is everybody drooling over specs, and ignoring the real world where they will actually use these toys?

"Also, I'm not terribly happy with the magnification-focus assist. With the lens zoomed all the way out (28mm equiv), there's so much DOF that it's hard to tell when you've achieved sharp focus. I work around by zooming in, focusing, and zooming out, or using AF."

Pity. One of the main reasons while I dislike manual SLRs is that I just keep moving the focus back and forth trying to guess where the focus plane is. It is like; not there yet... try a little further... hmm... a little further... dang! too far, going backwards...

After being frustrated with that, using a rangefinger on a Leica M is a like dream come true. Not there... turning... wham! There is focus!

I guess I will stand by my original complaint about the D2, that it lacks an optic rangefinder. Now I am definitely sure I would be annoyed by it.

Still, I hope the D2 sells well, but I am going to keep spending my money on film based products.

Jason

In the latest LFI it is stated that the D2 fires-up in 1.8 secs, and has a shutter lag of 0.14 secs.

It's quite an interesting read.

Regards

Bruno

Bruno please, you dont spare that much space when you writte LFI with all letters. This would spare me to ask you: what is LFI?.

This is probably the simplest thing in the world but right now its meaning does not come to my mind.

I am also glad to know that this shutter lag is as little as 140 milliseconds.

Jordi

LFI = Leica Fotografie International. A magazine available from The Falsten Partnership Tel: +44(0)2088096101, www.falsten.com.

LFI used , as it was assumed (obviously wrongly!) that it would be known what it stood for,on a Leica site. Hope the above info is of some use to you.

Regards

Bruno

"Yes, leica lenses are very very good, maybe the best. But you'll never notice until you use a sandbagged tripod and 25 ISO film."

Not true, in my experience. Wide-open, handheld with ISO 400 film, 4x6 prints, I can tell the difference between my Leica/Konica-M and Canon glass.

Jason:

In MF, the LC1's shutter lag is negligible. Even the turn-on delay is tolerable. Since there's no lens to extend like on a lot of compact digis, you don't have to wait for all the motors and such. Even when shooting in AF and full program AE, asuming you've done AF/AE lock by holding the shutter release halfway, there's virtually no lag. In MF and Manual exposure, I'd swear it was mechanical.

"Pity. One of the main reasons while I dislike manual SLRs is that I just keep moving the focus back and forth trying to guess where the focus plane is. It is like; not there yet... try a little further... hmm... a little further... dang! too far, going backwards... "

Hakan:

All of my manual SLRs had split-image "rangefinder-like" focusing spots in the center of the finder and/or microprisms. I never had any real trouble finding focus, except with long, slow lenses where the finder would darken too much to use the focus aids well. Then, yes, I'd have to try the back-and-forth trick to find the center of focus.

<<"Yes, leica lenses are very very good, maybe the best. But you'll never notice until you use a sandbagged tripod and 25 ISO film."

Not true, in my experience. Wide-open, handheld with ISO 400 film, 4x6 prints, I can tell the difference between my Leica/Konica-M and Canon glass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc Williams , feb 16, 2004; 12:58 p.m.

Me too Kevin.>>

I do too but I think it's mostly because I like shooting with the Leica so much more that my best shots are always made with it.

Hello Group,

May I say "Why I like my Digilux 1"? First is the sharpness of the images through the Leica manufactured lens. I use this camera to take photos of products to be displayed on my web sites (retail sites). The camera is a dream to use, especially with the large view screen.

On other occasions, the coupled viewfinder is also a pleasure to use for quick shooting outdoors.

Yes, for my regular work, and for hobby purposes, I rely on my M6-TTL - using mostly the 35mm. Film is just not yet surpassed by digital originals, nor are the optics available from Leica matched by any other manufacturer. I often scan the slides or negatives and am always amazed at the exceptional quality of the results.

Just my 2-cents and opinion - the Digilux 2 just doesn't offer (for me) a significant enough improvement for an upgrade. However, I did give away my Olympus 3040-Z (to my daughter) when the Digilux 1 became available - and have enjoyed the very real differences.

Regards,

Skip Cashwell

Retail Sites:

http://www.klikklok.com

http://www.clairescollectables.com

I can't wait to try this out. IMHO the real problems with digital cameras right now are motorised zooms and shutter lag. Also, being in my 50s, I prefer to use a viewfinder rather than have to put on my reading glasses and squint at an LCD screen. The D2 seems to address a number of these issues. In particular I welcome the large LCD screen and the manual zoom. The choice of MF / AF is a bonus but I won't be able to comment here until I try one. I prefer MF if the viewfinder is bright - clearly it is impossible to use MF on a LCD screen.

The beauty of this camera seems to be the combination of traditional (simple) approach with digital capture, albeit with the digital perks of WB adjustment, etc.

I like Leica lenses and this camera costs less than a fast Leica lens or a 3E. How good is this new Leitz lens? Seems to me its the "quality" of image that counts rather than the lines per mm resolution. 5MP is plenty good resolution for me. I have a Canon G3 and have just had a very nice 16x20 print made of a rather detailed photo and it looks OK to me, and thats with 4MP. That lens is pretty good, though.

Like many, I have been awaiting digital SLRs with interest (I use Minolta for 35mm SLR, so have had to wait longer than most) but I do worry about dust on sensors. Cloning dust off old 35mm neg scans is enough of a pain without having to face it on digital SLRs too. I think Id rather have a fixed lens if flexible enough. Especially if that lens is a Leitz and compares with their M and R lenses - cant wait to hear Erwin's input on this. And with this D2 we have the equivalent focals of a Tri Elmar, 75 and 90 with seamless jumps. Sounds good to me.

As to the Leica / Panasonic price difference - why do they do it? Anyone remember whether the Leica / Minolta CL / CLEs were priced differently? Must admit I would rather have the chrome version, though, and I suspect that the Leica name would ensure better used pricing. However, digicams must be the most rapidly depreciating physical assets in the world at the moment so why blow hundreds of dollars for the sake of a name or finish?