how many people expect to buy a digilux 2 next month??

[fotografz]

Andy, you make a strong argument. A mechanical zoom is WAY better than the push

button kind. Same for setting f stops and focusing. And if you consider that a f/4 Tri-

Elmar cost a LOT more than this whole camera with it 28 to 105 ASPH f/2 zoom ...

well... let's wait and see what the images look like from a good shooter.

 

I wonder if you removed the retail cost of a sensor ($500/$600.?) and this were a film

camera with those specs for $1,200. would the protests be so shrill?

[mr._kenny]

$1800 for a posh and shoot is awful, terrible spit in your face price. where's my 1600 iso? f1.4? optical rangefinder? compact flash? <br />

theoretically the reason we put up with leica prices is not becuase of the exclusivity, but the performance and compatability, both of which are not here.<br />

i'll pass.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/

56z.jpg"><br>

<i>Crossing - Canon 10D+50/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

 

Andy wrote:<br>

<blockquote><i>

It doesn't really allow manual focusing by eye a la Leica or an SLR/EVF - it just has a

'focus-assist' readout. You can't actually SEE whether the image is in focus or whether

the RF images align - all you can see is whether two bars on an LCD line up.

</i></blockquote>

This is incorrect. The Digilux 2 will have a high resolution EVF which reflects focus

sharpness much like an optical SLR viewfinder. It has an assist mechanism which

creates a digitally zoomed center section in the viewfinder or on the LCD, allowing

you more precision in seeing the focus transition as you rack the focus control back

and forth.

<br><br>

While not the same as either an optical reflex or opto-mechanical coupled rangefinder

manual focus system, the EVF used should be quite good. It will have its own

characteristics and constraints compared to either of the other two manual focus

mechanisms, but my experience using one for a couple of years with Sony F7x7

cameras was quite positive. I miss some aspects of the EVF when I use the Canon 10D

nowadays, like illumination under very low lighting, ability to image infrared, etc.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[andy_piper2]

Geoffrey - please go back and read my post that you quoted out of context: I was describing how the >>>.CONTAX G2.<<< focusing works - not the Digilux EVF.</p>

 

"Yes, <b>the G2 finder</b></b></b> zooms.....It doesn't really allow manual focusing by eye a la Leica or an SLR/EVF...." etc.</p>

 

Just to set the record straight......</p>

[andy_piper2]

Ooops - sorry - "Godfrey"

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/09.jpg"><br>

<i>Conduit - Sony DSC-F717</i><br>

</center><br>

Ah, I see. Correction noted. I got the wrong impression through reading quickly.

<br><br>

I had a Contax G2 for a year and some. Loved the lenses, didn't like the camera's

workflow ... I was always doing something in the wrong order. Germaine to this

discussion, the finder was good and I had no real problems with it. The focus took

me a bit of time to learn how to target correctly since the parallax correction doesn't

migrate the marked sensor area: when you use a longer lens in the near range, you

have to judge where exactly the sensor is looking to get it to focus accurately. This

applies to both manual and auto focusing modes. Once you get it, it's dead on and

very reliable.

<br><br>

The Sony F717 EVF was better, the AF and manual focus at least as good, and I expect

the Digilux 2 viewfinder (higher resolution) to be even better and more accurate.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[karl_yik1]

I was quite interested in the Digilux2 until I heard it had an electronic viewfinder. Ater owning a Nikon 5700, I reckon the electronic viewfinder is THE worst feature and hell knows why more and more cameras are using them these days. I havent seen the finder of the digilux2, but I really cant see it being much better. I mean why cant Leica just bung the same M6 finder mech on it?? But at least they have started going in the right direction with totally manual zooming, focussing and aperture selection, all they need to do know is get the viewfinder right..... and get rid of that crap popup flash.

[andy_piper2]

"I mean why cant Leica just bung the same M6 finder mech on it??"

 

Karl, if you look at a diagram of the Leica M rangefinder viewfinder, you will see that the main viewing optics are practically solid glass from front to back - perhaps 10% at most is air space.

 

Look at any optics that "zoom" - lenses OR viewfinders - and you will see that they need a LOT of empty space (more like 50-80%) for the bits of glass to slide back and forth and do the zooming.

 

Without a zooming finder to match, you can't use a zoom lens.

 

I suppose Leica/Panasonic could have treated the Digilux lens as a Quint-Summicron - put clickstops on the zoom at the 28/35/50/75/90mm settings, and then linked those to the classic Leica framelines. Perhaps in the Digilux-3? They would also have to 'tweak' the frames' dimensions slightly, since the D2 does NOT use the classic 2:3 35mm format - it's a squarer image like a TV format or 645/6x7/4x5 film formats.

 

The main objection to that (which Leica specifically mentions) is that the quite large lens (69mm filter size compared to a Noctilux at 60mm) would block about 1/2 of the 28mm field of view. You could move the lens and imaging chip all the way to the far end of the camera (sort of an inverted Sony 828 or Nikon 5700 design) - but then you'd lose the "traditional analog-camera form-factor" that is the D2's main 'shtick' - and also increase parallax composition problems.

 

The second objection is probably that it would push the price of a D2 to $2500 (and the Panasonic version to $2000) - Leica's viewfinder/rangefinder modules run about $700.

 

(instant survey: how many out there would pay the extra $700 for a Leica-style viewfinder on a hypothetical Digilux-3?)

 

And the EVF does offer some SLR-like advantages over a classic RF viewing system - 100% framing accuracy at any subject distance, no parallax problems, closer focusing (0.3m compared to 0.7m), full use of all 63 'focal lengths' between 28 and 90 instead of just the 5 that happen to match framelines, inclusion of an optional HDTV panoramic format as well as 'full-frame', etc..

 

Obviously we Leica-shooters can live without those "advantages" - but I think Leicasonic looked at all the options and (whether we agree or not) decided the EVF was the best mix of pros and cons. Like I said earlier - I understand the rationale for choosing the EVF, whether I agree with it or not.

 

On another aspect of the D2 - I noticed in re-reading the specs that it will offer 2x/3x 'digital' zoom - which takes it out to 270mm equivalent (at reduced resolution - essentially just cropping the 90mm view). I might be willing to cheat it out as far as 135mm and see how it holds up.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lomoism/images/lomo12.jpg"><br>

<i>Fakin' the Lomo - Canon 10D+28/1.8</i><br>

</center><br>

The Nikon 5700 has a 180,000 pixel EVF, and it isn't as nice as the Sony F717's

similarly sized EVF.

<br><br>

The new Sony F828 and the Leica Digilux 2 have the 235,000 pixel EVF, a 30%

increase in resolution. If the Digi's viewfinder is as good as the F828's, it will be very

good.

<br><Br>

Godfrey