Help an old Leica guy buy a digital camera

[o fragasi]

No, I'm not liquidating my Leicas and jumping into the digital world

headfirst without looking. I LOVE my m3, m4, m5 and m7 and wont be

selling them.

 

I shoot B&W almost exclusively and for this you need film. Thats a

no brainer. But I'm living in a colorful European town and am

finding a desire to shoot color for a change, and instead of loading

up on Provia, with all the attendant costs, I'm comtemplating buying

a digital camera and being done with it (gasp!). However, I'm very

confused about megapixels/sensor size/digital-optical zooms etc.

 

What I'd like is the following:

1) something remotely resembling the ergos of a classic film camera;

2) something that gives me RAW files that can be enlarged

significantly (and I'm not averse to GF interpolation post-

processing when need be) to be printed up to 12x18 or beyond with

acceptable quality;

3) a lens of excellent quality, whether interchangable or dedicated.

 

I know what you are saying- sounds like I want a Digilux 2 or the

Panasonic duplicate. Given my research, I'm leaning towards the

Panasonic as its cheaper than the Digilux, but I've also read good

things about the Canon G5 or Minolta A2. Or should I just spring for

a D70 with Nikon 24mm?

 

Help me out here. I wont be using it all the time (my m4 loaded with

Tri-X has that job); I just want something to use to take color

photos or to use when time is a factor when the spirit moves me.

What do you suggest?

[Aoresteen]

Olympus 5060. $499 at B&H.

[brambor]

You can get a used Canon D30 for under $500. Coupled with canon ef 35mm/2.0 it gives you a decent combination with normal lens perspective considering the 1.6 crop factor.

[________1]

"I shoot B&W almost exclusively and for this you need film."

 

I wasn't aware of that, someone tell grant.

 

Check out the ergonomics of the Nikon D70 vs. the 300D Canon. I purchased the Canon, then freaked thinking I should have waited to check out the D70, but in the end was glad I got the Canon. It *is* a chunky hand full, not heavy though. I'm very happy with it.

[ronald_moravec1]

How about color neg and a scanner? How do you archive a digital file. Kodak says put it on film. Some people like ink jet prints or thermal dye set, I don`t. You can e-mail picture file to labs and they will make real photos from them. I had a high res scan done from my last roll of color neg just so I could get it on my computer. Iwouln`t spend a whole lot of money on a camera the first time. The Olympus 2.0n is great for $2000 and there is a new Cannon for $1000 with 35-100 zoom that keeps lines straight, but has a electronic viewfinder as do all the low end cameras and it drives me crazy. I know I`m swinming against the tide here, but digital just doesn`t make me happy. Nova slot processor and QUALITY color neg for me.

[simon_hughes1]

Oswaldo,

 

I've come at this from the opposite way in that I had been shooting exclusively digital since 2000 using Nikon D1, D100 and D1X but recently bought the Digilux 2 and realized how much more I enjoyed my photography by having a smaller, less weighty kit. Subsequently, I sold all the Nikon stuff and bought a new M7 and some used lenses, and couldn't be happier with this combo of film and digital.

 

The D2 will certainly give you what you require for ergonomics, image format and quality. I went with the Leica for a few reasons: the name (Hey, I can admit it!), the build quality, and the longer warranty. Subsequently, I also like it for the software differences (a lower amount of sharpening etc.). We are now hearing that it *may* have more lens elements than the Panasonic version, but this is yet to be confirmed.

 

Have a look at the www.dpreview.com review posted yesterday for the D2.

 

CHeers,

 

Simon

[jorge]

Ronald,

 

>> Nova slot processor and QUALITY color neg for me <<

 

I used to be a competent color printer but nowadays I find I can get much better results by scanning my color negs (I use a Minolta 5400 for 45mm and an Epson 2450 for MF/LF). My trusty Nova Quad has been removed from my darkroom to make space for another wash tray. B&W is another thing. I still can't find a replacement for air dried glossy MG4FB.

 

Oswaldo,

 

Just keep in mind that save for DSLRs and the Epson RF, all digital cameras suffer from shutter lag. I have a Minolta 7i and it's virtually unusable for action shots.

[o fragasi]

Simon- very interesting. Could you tell me how you perceive the image quality of the Digilux 2 versus what you were getting from your D100?

 

Thanks, Oswaldo

[eric friedemann]

Oswaldo-

 

Obviously, the Panasonic camera with the $250 Leica nameplate will be the most comforting to an old M shooter. However, if you want a camera with a size more similar to Leica Ms, I'll put in another vote for the Olympus 5060 (27mm-up zoom). I really enjoy my 5060.

 

If you usually print larger than 8x12", I would suggest that a DSLR with a larger chip will give you considerably more resolution to fall back on than the Panasonilux or the Oly. Assuming you usually shoot a 35mm Leica lens, the 24mm AFD Nikkor would be 36mm on a D70, but might also be distractingly whiny for an M shooter.

 

Coming from your perspective, I would advise the Canon Digital Rebel with a 20mm f/2.8 EOS lens (32mm in 35mm format). The Canon lens has a smooth, quiet ultrasonic motor:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=297500&is=REG

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12082&is=USA

 

Regards, E

[ryanjoseph]

Being an old Leica fan, I am sure a Leica Digilux 2 is right down your lane Oswaldo. Here is a link to the reivew:

 

http://dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2/

 

Pansonic has the exact same camera for 300 dollars less. I think they mention it in the review. The review praises the Leica for having the best ergonomics of any consumer digicam. It is expensive though.

 

Your next option would be a Nikon D70 or EOS 10D. They are cheaper, larger and have better image quality and high ISO performance. I will leave comparisions between these two cameras alone, as I am sure the Nikon and Canon freaks will slug it out over which one is better.

[mattalofs]

The G5 and the 5060 are both fine cameras, but the user interface and ergos aren't fun if you are used to an all mechanical cam. A 10D with a 24 1.8 can be had for the same price as a Digilux2. It's about the same size, has fairly logical controls, and isn't terribly annoying to use.

[o fragasi]

Eric and Ryan-

 

Your comments bring me to an issue I'm confused about: megapixel size and its interaction with sensor size. I understand the concept of megapixels, but how does sensor size factor into the equation? Am I better off with a 6 mp larger sensor or an 8 mp with a smaller sensor? Does the Digilux have a sensor comparable to to the latest 6 mp DSLRs ( d70 etc) or it it smaller? And if its smaller, is the image quality difference that measurable between the two at, say, 12x18 interpolated with Genuine Fractals? And might the Leica optics make up for some of the difference?

 

I know I'm asking the tough questions, and I'm VERY thankful for your collective wisdom. Regards, OF

[godfrey]

<p>If you want quality and performance equivalent to your Leica M cameras, you will need

a DSLR. Small sensor, fixed lens digicams can produce excellent quality for modest size

prints at low ISO ratings, but you need the larger sensor of a DSLR to consistently get

quality acceptable for 12x18 or larger prints, as well as for speed and responsiveness. </

p>

<p>A Canon 10D with Canon 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2, not to mention the superb

Canon L series lenses, will provide performance on par with Leica M gear as well as greater

versatility. It will even be cheaper since the lens prices are much more modest. </p>

<p>"I shoot B&W almost exclusively and for this you need film. Thats a no brainer."<br>

Nonsense. B&W is easily done with any digital camera. It's done AFTER taking the picture,

in post-processing. Example: </p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW4/large/18.jpg"><br>

<i>Young Souls - Canon 10D + 28/1.8</i><br>

</center><br>

Godfrey

[m_.]

If it is about digital, go for it. If it is about color, go with slide films and a film scanner. They are really two different things.

[o fragasi]

<I shoot B&W almost exclusively and for this you need film. Thats a no brainer."

Nonsense. B&W is easily done with any digital camera. It's done AFTER taking the picture, in post-processing.>

 

Godfrey- nice shot. Good tonal range. But remember, you can't post process in tonal range you havent captured in the first place. Show me a digital BW print that captures 8 stops of tonal range and I might change my opinion.

[timothy_nelson]

Since you already have a full Leica M kit, why start all over with another system unless

you immediately need the "throughput" efficiency of a digital camera system? I agree

with those who suggested just shooting color neg and scanning. You'll need a

significant investment in a digital system, bodies and lenses, to duplicate what you

already have in your Leica kit, and the digicam world has generations of development

to go before the standards and qualities of compact M-like cameras stabilize. Let the

consumer masses pay for those disposable generations. If you instead put $1000 into

a film scanner, you'll have a complete system, at least for the years it takes to get to a

digital M. True, you can get nice image quality from the new generation of consumer

level digi SLRs, but if you're a longtime RF user, those short-lived plastic things are

probably not going to make you happy. Think about how many color images you

really want to take to the excellent print stage---film processing and scanning is

probably an acceptable alternative to a new digicam system.

[eric friedemann]

Oz-

 

1. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the pixels. Bigger pixels capture more information. Hence, a 6 Megapixel DSLR will yield considerably better resolution than a 6 MP point and shoot camera with a smaller sensor.

 

The new Digilux 2 is a 5 MP camera with a smaller chip. Hence, either a D70 or a Digital Rebel with 6 MP chips not only have 20% more pixels to capture information; the pixels are bigger and capture more info on that basis, too. In fact, I have shot the Oly 8080 (8 MP camera) as well. Both the D70 or the Digital Rebel have noticeably better resolution.

 

2. All the reviews I've read say that the Digilux 2 has a sweeeeeeet lens. No doubt, it will make that camera's photos look really good for a 5MP camera with a small chip. But, I'd still give the edge to the DSLR, particularly at 8x12" or larger:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-digilux2-part2.shtml

 

3. I have seen some cool stuff done with Genuine Fractals. But I'd still rather print with a big, rich image than start with a small, rich image and rez it up.

 

4. The other chip-size related issue is noise (digital grain). The smaller the chip, the more noise you get; like in film where the smaller the film you shoot the more you see the grain at a given enlargement size. Hence, to shoot a camera like the Digilux 2, you have to either shoot at lower ISOs than the B&W film you are probably used to shooting or do considerable post production work in Neat Image or Noise Ninja.

 

Regards, E

[o fragasi]

Eric-

 

Thanks for the consice, easy to understand explanation. Best I've seen yet. My bet is you write for a living! Cheers, OF

[klaus_gerhard_vogel]

What I will do if I was now in your place, I will for now simply use color film in my Leicas, for of course it is during many tens of years we have been using color film and just now digitale does not make color film less good. So then in perhaps some months we will see the Bessa in digitale and recognise it is good or not, and also we see what costs it. Such can then be with all your Leica lenses used until is coming the M Leica digitale.

[godfrey]

<i>"Godfrey- nice shot. Good tonal range. But remember, you can't post process in tonal

range you havent captured in the first place. Show me a digital BW print that captures 8

stops of tonal range and I might change my opinion."</i>

<br><br>

The Canon 10D when set to RAW storage mode capture records an image with 12bits of

intensity per pixel in a linear map. 12 bits equals '2 exponent 12' is equal to 12 stops of

tonal scale. Very few display media, including silver-halide photographic paper, can

represent that full tonal scale. Most of the time you need to apply the equivalent of a 2nd

order PDE curve to limit the range to an 8bit scale and meet your print/display media

limitations.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[eric friedemann]

Oz-

 

I'm a pain-in-the-ass lawyer who does research and writing for $$$. What helps more is that I work in a friend's camera store a few hours a month and I am constantly seeing the new cameras and their output. New digital cameras are coming so fast and furious, its hard to keep track of image quality without seeing their output.

 

E

[dan flanders]

Listen to theis old geezer. I did the same thing! I jumped into the digital world without looking and took the man�s word that the Olympus C5050z was the cat�s pajamas. Well, it definitely was the cat�s pajamas, but who wants pajamas when the birthday suit is perfectly adequate? I paid the full MRRP for it and now it is worth maybe half that and I still can�t use it with any measure of confidence. All I wanted was something with the accuity of a Leica and F2 lens that would put JPGs into my computer. Well, it does just that but it has taken me the last eight or nine months of study to make even a passable photo with it and I still can�t use it on a regular basis with any degree of confidence. It�s neat in that once I get an acceptable pic, it is no trouble to get it into Photoshop and process it, but getting past all the menus and options is worse than learning to operate a computer in the first place. <p> My recommendation now is to buy a decent scanner and work with your Leicas and then scan them into the PC or Mac, or whatever. I realize there is supposed to be some sort of saving of the cost of film, and once mastered, the virtues of the 5050 will come across, but I�m getting kinda long in the tooth and just don�t have or want to spend the time learning a completely new method of operation when the old one was so simple. Don�t run, don�t jump � crawl if you are determined, but remember, you are a long time durable product, trapped in a throwaway world. Maybe in a year or so the powers that be will give us a machine that works like a camera and doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate.

[Troll]

Digital cameras are still working out the cost/size/weight/quality issues which have been pretty well resolved by film cameras for a long time. Unless cost is not a consideration and you buy the very top of the line soon after it is announced, whatever you get will be obsolete within a year or two. Don't even think about using it as a substitute for your Leicas -- get somethng which will be fun to use, which you can carry in your shirt pocket 24/7. Like a Minox, only practical.<div></div>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I understand the concept of megapixels, but how does sensor size factor

into the equation?</I><P>megapxel simply refers to the number of pixels

(height x width) in the sensor array ("chip") . A larger factor

indeterminingthequality ofthe image is thesize of the individual pixels. current

technology is that for best results the pixel size should be in the 7 x 7 to 9x9

micron range. It is interesting that the medium format digital backs (like the

22mp Leaf, Sinar, Phase One, Imacon & Eyelike) which use a 9x9 micron

pixel size --h produce higher quality images than any DSLR on the market

today, even you crop an iamge from one of those backs to match the physical

size of any given DSLR sensor array, and DSLR unifrmly use about a 7x7

micron pixel. There are other factors to this of course: the medium format

backs have far better software, active cooling and a much smaller ISO range.

But choosing a 9x9 micron pixel size means a lower megaxel count which

would upset the "size queens" who think more must mean better.

[lutz]

Somehow I was smelling that this thread would attract posts like honey would bees. Twentythree in 2 hours and a half. Hmmmm...