Digilux 2, or wait for the 3?

[ricardo_villagran]

Hello,

 

I wonder if there is any Digilux 2 or Panasonic DMC L1 users around because I would like to ask them their

opinions about these cameras.

 

I have the chance to buy a basically new D2 for 1500USD. I know the D3 (basically the L1) is coming soon,

but that one will cost at least 1000 more and basically it is a new system rather than a real substitute for

the D2.

 

I have right now an Epson RD1 who gives me excellent results, sometimes I miss a fast zoom and motor

winder, but I don't want a Canon, Nikon etc... so I narrow my choices to the D2 or the D3... am I crazy for

buying a 2004 camera at that price? should I wait? is the D2 really that bad at iso 400? the L1 is

substancially better in terms of image quality?

 

Any comments will be really appreciate...

kind regards,

 

Ricardo

[Rob F.]

I wouldn't pay US $1500 for one. You can do better. Take a look at this:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IV5L&tag=">RECENT DIGILUX II THREAD</a>

[stuart_richardson]

I would say stick with the RD1. If you miss a fast zoom and motor winder you are much

better off with an SLR. If you don't want Canon or Nikon, try the Pentax. The istD's had really

nice finders compared to the other compacts and they just felt better to me. They are coming

out with a newer, beefier version called the K10D. It will be 10mp with an image stabalized

sensor. Either way, I don't think the D2 is a good choice these days, particularly at 1500

dollars. Tony Rose at Popflash Photo has demos listed at 1250 (out of stock, but call him, he

may be able to get them), and he has a used one with several accessories listed for 1395.

Personally, I would not pay that either...if you really want a fast zoom and a motor winder,

your best bet is a DSLR.

[jkelly04]

There's a new Digilux 2 now on a certain auction site from an authorized dealer for $1100.

[pablito_pistola]

As someone who uses M Leicas for B&W film, I understand your resistance to the DSLR, but

for actually making pictures there's nothing like it. D2 has shutter lag and noisy sensor.

The fast lens would be a lot more useful if you didn't have to shoot at the lowest ISO to

avoid noise. Of course everything depends on the sort of work you do, but nothing beats

the DSLR for flexibility.

[raymond_tai]

The Leica 14-50mm zoom for the Panasonic DMC L1/Leica Digilux 3 will be available on its own later this year. You can consider getting one with an Olympus body like the E330.

[ishik_tuna]

$1500 for a 5 mpixel camera with a small sensor?

 

get a grip on yourself....

 

(and I have a Digilux 2)

[john_crawley]

I have a digilux 2 and I love it. But you can find them for less than $1500. The new Digilux 3 is an SLR. You are comparing apples and oranges. Find a Digilux 2 for less than a grand and wait for Leica to get real with the price of the Digilux 3...or buy the Lumix version. Great cameras in their own right.

 

Forget about the noise issue at ISO 400. If you know how to photograph, you know how to work around it, especially if you shooting with a rangefinder right now.

[tedms gallery]

I would agree with Stuart, if you need DSLR features, take a look at the *ist, ISO up to 1600 is less noisy, and more "film-like" than other digicams/DSLRs at 400-800. The 3200 on the *ist is pretty noisy, but I'm glad it's there anyways.

[ricardo_villagran]

After reading all the opinions seems to me like paying more than $600-700 for the D2 considering the options out there is absurd, even when are still selling strong for well more than 1000 bucks... Maybe I will get the Oly E-500 kit with 2 lenses brand new for $700.00 for when I need fast response and keep my RD1 just for the pleasure!

 

Thank you very much for your time!

Regards,

Ricardo

[ishik_tuna]

"Forget about the noise issue at ISO 400. If you know how to photograph, you know how to work around it"

 

maybe i'm overly sensitive, but i find this comment rather condescending. I've publish magazine covers. I've been using Leica's for about 35 years.

 

I don't presume to have superior abilities or knowledge in photography.

 

But I know that when you pay anywhere from $600 to $2000 for a camera (used or new Digilux 2), you shouldn't have to "work around" simple problems that $300 p&s cameras can handle with aplomb. Also, exactly how might I ask do you "work around" a crappy sensor that produces tons of noise at iso400, when shooting in low light...i suppose that means shooting with iso100 and a tripod. i guess that makes sense, since you have to wait 6-17 seconds between photographs if you shoot RAW....

 

the camera is a dud. it's not a real leica. yes, you can produce wonderful pictures with it under the proper circumstances, but it's no Leicaflex SL (the other cameras i own), and i'm guessing it's no M either. When I go it my Leicaflex eons ago, it allowed me to do things photographically, that i hadn't been able to do before, and it took better pictures than the competition. The Digilux 2 doesn't do either of those two things..maybe i expect to much.

 

I would love a Leica digital, in any format, that was "best in class" and had the Leica build feel. I'd be willing to pay a significant sum of money for it. The Digilux 2 is not that camera.

[john_crawley]

Forgive me for sounding arrogant, but when I hear someone complaining about the noise coming from a 5 MP sensor like that one the Leica Digilux 2 that is now over three years old, I laugh. Of course there is noise. Just like there was (is) with ISO (ASA) 400 film. We called it grain in the old days. Now it is digital noise. Shooting in extreme low light conditions will bring this on. But a good photographer knows how to adjust his or her shooting to limit the noise and improve picture quality. The first rule is use full frame for your composures so you don?t have to crop and/or enlarge the image prior to final processing. Second, shoot at one f stop higher than you would normally do, and shoot it that way regardless of what your camera?s internal light meter is reading. Then when you bring the slightly underexposed photo into a post program such as Photoshop, you can darken the print ever so slightly, leaving the contrast alone. You?ll get a nice print with very little noise.

 

It?s not hard. Been doing it for years. Started out doing it with a 1.5 MP Sony and then a 3 MP FujiFilm 3600 and finally a Digilux 1 and 2. Published a book with shots from those cameras in it. Not much noise. You do have to be gentle if you are converting to Black and White, because grain (excuse me noise) will pop up more there than in color. (This has to do with gamma gain isn?t subjected to dispersal in color layers and only has really one layer to work through ? black or K. To avoid this in B&W convert to a duotone and use black and a warm grey and the noise will subside even more. This is due to the grey layer evening out noise dispersal just as color layers do in RGB. In the early days of digital video, many shooters would actually crank in gamma ? or in reality turn off the gamma gain filters ? and let the noise run through their video, creating a film-like grain look. Still guys learned from this and countered the process to control noise in lower-light situations.) All in all, noise is very controllable as long as you keep to original composition and you don?t over enlarge the image. A 5 MP shot from a Digilux 2 can go 11x14 easily with little or no noise gain. In fact, you?ll get silky smooth prints that will remind you of film.

 

So you don?t have to have superior qualities as a photographer, just a good eye and a little experience behind the lens. (Knowing a thing or two about the mouse in this day and time is important, as well.) So, don?t let the noise about noise confuse you. Good photographers know how to limit noise.