Digilux II or Panasonic LCM

[paul_neuthaler]

Are these the same except for finish?

[monochrome11]

I think you'r referring to the Panasonic LC1.

 

They are ergonomically and optically very similar. My understanding is that the firmware is different, in particular in camera jpeg and compression settings differ (not sure how). Also noteable is the fact that the LC1 (at least in Canada) includes a number of accessories that may not be included with the Digilux II - (ie. electronic remote shutter release, MC filter and square lens shade). Not sure about the difference between the two warranties. Overall, the unless you need the red dot, it's generally agreed that the LC1 is a better value.

[eric friedemann]

Well, at B&H, neither camera comes with a filter. This is significant as Leica has again created an amazingly annoying, one-up thread size- 69mm. The only protection filter available is a Leica UV filter for $140- more than 10% of the price of the Panasonic camera:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=307945&is=USA

 

 

At least Heliopan is making a 69-77mm step-up ring. But that ring, which should cost $6-7 is retailing for $36.50:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=160210&is=REG

[godfrey]

There was a rumor that the LC-1 had different programming compared to the Digilux 2,

but it was corrected some time ago (I don't have the reference, but it was a Leica

representative that posted the correction). They are the same camera other than for styling

and cosmetics. And warranty ... the D2 has the Leica Passport warranty.

 

The dumb 69mm filter size is an annoyance, for sure, but there's no point to a UV filter

anyway. Use the lens hood and a lens cap to protect the lens. The real annoyance is that

there's no ND or polarizer filters available in the size. I don't use them much anyway, but

they are very useful occasionally.

 

IIFC, the LC-1 comes with its remote release ... that alone would be a value to me, in

addition to the lower price.

 

Godfrey

[ben z]

Paul, have you taken a look thru the finders of those cameras? I wasn't thrilled with the EVF. With my eyesight, holding a digicam at arms length to compose on the LCD just doesn't work either. The only digitals so far I've been comfortable with are the DSLRs and the RD1, the latter being well out of my price range.

[ben z]

Another thing, if you plan shooting available light, make sure you try some shots with the DigiluxII/Panasonic at higher ISOs, to see if the characteristics are ok with you.

[eric friedemann]

"(T)here's no point to a UV filter anyway."

 

 

Some of us prefer to use a UV filter and a lens hood, but not a lens cap.

 

 

"The real annoyance is that there's no ND or polarizer filters available in the size."

 

 

Leica does make an ND filter for the camera:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=307946&is=USA

[peter_werner1]

<p><i>I wasn't thrilled with the EVF.</i></p>

<p>Neither was I, but one gets used to it. I had read a comment by a TV camera operator who uses such a type of viewer professionally day in day out. He said that for him the viewer of this camera was quite easy to adapt to. That finally decided me to buy the Panasonic DMC-FZ20 with the 2.8/38-432 image stabilized Vario Elmarit.</p>

<p>I do not regret the decision and by now it is the camera I use most often. It is lightweight and much smaller than my R9 or Canon 20D with a comparative lens. Thus it is always with me even when I do not plan any shooting in advance. It gets the job done, and well. 8x10 prints are sharp and 11x16 possible most of the time. Color balance and contrast are excellent and I need much less PS post-processing than with the DSLR.

<p>The Digilux 2/LC1 has a bigger sensor and thus marginally better quality at the same focal length. However, the enormous 12x zoom range of the FZ20 allows to catch just the part of the scene I want and I do not have to crop later. Overall, for my use, this more than compensates the smaller sensor size. I do not normally shoot in low light and always use ISO 80 setting. I have read that at ISO 200 and more noise may become a problem.</p>

<p>Read the <a href=?http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Az4I?>comparative discussion of the Digilux2 vs the FZ20</a> on the Photo Net Digital Forum.

[bobatkins]

A 69mm filter size and $140 ND filters?

 

Is anyone surprised that Leica are in financial trouble?

 

You can get a 69mm polarizer from Heliopan. They're around $200.

 

I guess I won't complain about the slightly odd-ball 48mm filters the Canonet QL17 takes anymore. At least they exist.

[godfrey]

Sorry, a UV filter does nothing useful with regard to filtering light on a digital camera, and

it presents yet another set of air-glass surfaces to cause flare and degrade resolution. Use

a lens cap when the camera is not in use, use a lens hood to help reduce flare as well as

protect the lens in use.

 

At the prices for polarizer and ND filter, they might as well not exist.

 

Regards the EVF, it's ok .. nothing special, you get used to using it in time. Not as good as

the KM A2 EVF, very different from an optical finder, that's all.

 

The lack of sensitivity of small sensor digicams is their Achilles Heel. These cameras do an

excellent job at ISO 50 to 100 in decent light hand held or on a tripod for more static

subjects. Image quality degrades at higher ISO settings, particularly with JPEG format

storage. Saving exposures in RAW format and doing the RAW conversion process yourself,

you can get pretty good results at up to ISO 400 (and bypass the overly aggressive noise

filtering and smoothing that's built in too).

 

That said, you can make excellent photographs with an LC1 or D2. I would suggest that,

rather than railing against the laws of physics that constrain the sensitivity, in low light

you want to be become proficient with flash illumination. It's amazing what you can

achieve with a flash unit with tilt/swivel head, a diffuser, and a little bit of thought.

 

Godfrey

[aizan_sasayama]

how do higher iso shots respond to noise reduction by software like neat image or

123di?

[godfrey]

Lots of folks use NeatImage and other noise reduction software to good effect. I prefer to

work within the constraints imposed by the camera's output, personally, and do all my

own noise reduction/sharpening/etc in Photoshop.

 

Godfrey

[andy_piper2]

One correction: The Digilux comes with a 3-YEAR warranty (as opposed to the LC-1's 1-year) but it is NOT a "Passport" warranty.

 

Passport means Leica will repair or replace the camera for 3 years against ANY casualty (drop it in water, drop it on cement, drop it from an airplane, etc.) so long as you can provide at least some remains with the serial number readable. The D2 is warrantied only for defects or failures not caused by external damage - i.e. if the LCD shuts down or the flash quits working or the files are getting scrambled..

[eric friedemann]

If Leica goes bankrupt, whether the DII has a three-year warranty or a Passport warranty will be moot.

[oben_c]

Whether it be Leica or Panasonic at the price point of these digital cameras there are far more alternatives for people who are looking for best value for money given similar or superior imaging capability.

[monochrome11]

in Canada, prices on the LC1 have dropped to approx. USD$750-800 - (CAD)$900-950, making it a much more reasonably priced...