Help an old Leica guy buy a digital camera

[watchin]

Yeah, never thought of that.. hmmm don't I wish.

[godfrey]

Congratulations, Oswaldo. The Nikon D70 is an excellent camera for the money. I am

personally not so keen on zooms like that, I tend to prefer the performance, faster speed,

lighter weight and lower price of good primes in the wide to short telephoto range, but the

zooms are handy for sure.

 

I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

 

Godfrey

[patricks]

Oswaldo, good choice. I think the D70 is the best value around - TODAY - albeit the viewfinder...

 

Glad you didn't get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate. Within a forseeable future it will be a moot point, when technology evolution peaks off and offerings by both brands will look very similar - just buy one and enjoy it!

[jonydirk]

FORGET the Canon G5. LOUSY ergonomics!

 

Hi,

 

I am primarily a Nikon systems shooter (D2h and D1x), although use Contax 645 (film and digi-back)....and have a Leica M7. So I'm pretty familiar with cameras.

 

Well, last year I bought a Canon G3 (same - if not better - as G5). And boy, who placed what control where. It was sloooow with its autofocus, and then there is that little control wheel (I had mine set for f/stop) right by the zoom lever on the top right. Breathe on that little control wheel and it turns....changing whatever setting one had.

 

I absolutely HATED the G3/G5.....I lost so many party photos (my main use for the camera).

 

Bought the Leica D2 back at the end of Feb 2004. Love it....except for the fact the Leica has failed to supply dealers (or anyone) with the 69mm UV filter that I'd like to screw on the front to protect the lens.

 

Oh....don't buy the leather case that comes with the D2. It's TOO SMALL for the camera...can you believe!?! If you're contemplating and don't trust my statement, be sure to go into a dealer to figure out the fit first hand. Otherwise you may be sorry.

 

But as for the Leica Digilux 2.....darn good camera.

 

Cheers,

John

[andrew_grant]

If it didn't cost twice as much as it should and had a proper optical viewfinder.

[eric friedemann]

"If it didn't cost twice as much as it should and had a proper optical viewfinder."

 

Andrew brings up a good point. I haven't held the camera, so what is the optical viewfinder looking thing seen on the front of the camera? It apparently isn't a viewfinder, since the camera has a video finder.

[godfrey]

It does not cease to amaze me how many people rail on and on about the price of the

Digilux 2. Get over it! Yes, it's expensive as hell. If you don't like the price, don't buy one.

Why is it necessary to follow up every mention of it with a whine about how much it costs?

 

From a perspective of Leica ownership, the whole camera is less expensive than most Leica

M *lenses*.

 

I'd much rather hear about its performance, what it does well and what it does poorly, etc.

The price is absurd, but then so is the price of all Leica gear. And at least you can get a

nice $300 break on the price of this one by buying the Panasonic badged sibling.

 

Godfrey

[eric friedemann]

Ah, but Godfrey, here is the problem. With Leica M equipment, you can logically argue that the lenses are the finest in 35mm photography. And the best, as Hemingway said of pheasant hunting, "is worth what you have to pay for it."

 

This arguement falls apart with the Digilux 2. The camera isn't made by Leica. The lens is strangely underpriced for a Leica lens. Where is it made? Dunno.

 

At 5 megapixels with a tiny chip, both the Digilux 2 and the Panasonic version of the camera are grossly overpriced. Further, there are other better-designed cameras, like the Oly 5060, that will deliver better photos with higher resolution for 1/3rd the cost.

 

It is one thing for Leica to gouge credulous buyers. It is another thing for Leica to gouge credulous consumers while selling second-rate technology.

[godfrey]

<i>"...With Leica M equipment, you can

logically argue that the lenses are the finest in 35mm photography. And the

best, as Hemingway said of pheasant hunting, 'is worth what you have to pay for

it.'"</i>

<br><br>

I find that kind of statement to be "mostly nonsense". Leica lenses are excellent, and

hideously overpriced for that tiny edge in performance over other premium lenses.

Sometimes it's worth it. Most of the time not.

<br><br>

<i>"This arguement falls apart with the Digilux 2. The camera isn't made by Leica.

The lens is strangely underpriced for a Leica lens. Where is it made? Dunno."</i>

<br><br>

I don't care where a lens is made. I care how it performs. The Digilux 2, by all the

comparative testing I've seen, has the best lens and imaging quality available in a 2/3

sensor, 5Mpixel camera.

<br><br>

<i>"At 5 megapixels with a tiny chip, both the Digilux 2 and the Panasonic version

of the camera are grossly overpriced. "</i>

<br><br>

I agree with that.<br><br>

<i>" ...Further, there are other better-designed

cameras, like the Oly 5060, that will deliver better photos with higher

resolution for 1/3rd the cost."</i>

<br><br>

I haven't seen any test reports indicating that this is actually the case. The comparisons

I've done with sample images show that for a 2/3 size, 5Mpixel sensor, the D2 is about as

good as you can get for resolution and lack of noise, particularly if used in RAW storage

mode.

<br><br>

<i>"It is one thing for Leica to gouge credulous buyers. It is another thing for

Leica to gouge credulous consumers while selling second-rate technology."</i>

<br><br>

I don't accept "gouging" as an acceptable business practice in any circumstances. I'm

astonished that anyone would. If, however, they're in a position to price at "what the

market will bear", more power to them.

<br><br>

I've heard all these arguments reiterated here over and over again. Is is absolutely

necessary to repeat them every time the camera is mentioned?

<br><br>

Godfrey