Leica 4/3 - Digilux 3

[gwebster]

Every year we try to attend the July 4th celebrations in the small Vermont town where my wife grew up and this

year I took my Digilux 3 and small collection of Four Thirds lenses with me. Some of the pictures I took are

shown below and if you click on the images, you can see larger versions.

<p>

In spite of not having been a great commercial success for Leica, I feel that the Digilux 3 camera is a real

triumph of ergonomics, design and image quality which coupled with some of the superb Four Thirds lenses, is

capable of producing really stunning images. The combination of the aperture ring on the Panasonic/Leica lenses

and the

manual shutter speed dial on top of the camera are arguably one of the most intelligent pieces of digital camera

design in recent years and it makes the transition from fully automatic exposure through the semi-automatic

"priority" modes to fully manual exposure, seamless. The Panasonic and Olympus lenses I have used thus far are

nothing short of amazing and on the Digilux 3 body they deliver fabulous images that are corner-to-corner sharp

and remarkably free of any aberrations or vignetting.

<p>

If it's true that Leica are quitting production of Four Thirds cameras, I feel that this would be a real shame.

The Four Thirds system is undoubtedly somewhat ahead of its time and ironically the "pros" will probably be

amongst the last to

abandon the still-dominant legacy of 35mm-based gear, but given what I see as the encroachment of

"less-professional" camera formats on what was once the pristine domain of the 35mm SLR, I feel sure that the days of

the dominance of the legacy 35mm format in digital photography are numbered. Some might be tempted to scoff at

this notion, pointing to the legions of digital "35mm"-wielding professional photographers and the huge market

share of the Nikon and Canon "35mm" digital systems, but I feel sure that these new camera formats will prove to

be a disruptive technology, even within digital photography - which was itself a disruptive technology when it

first appeared.

The 35mm format was after all, designed for collecting light on flat film, not on the 3D silicon structures of a

digital sensor and the gear is still large and heavy in spite of all the "technology".

<p>

Not that there weren't good things about the older cameras - there were plenty. The ergonomics of analog devices

is so appealing that it is often emulated in digital interfaces. Give me a real ISO dial any day over the

"hunt-and-peck" game of selecting option 4 in a menu list on an LCD screen. The appeal of many of the older

cameras that are regularly discussed on this forum is that they allow for a very unencumbered style of

photography in which the machinery becomes an extension of the photographer who is then freed to think about

light, composition and focus. The interfaces of many digital cameras are the antithesis of this approach and this

brings me back to the excellent Digilux 3. Sure it is not a perfect camera by any means, but to me it embodies

something that Leica could (if they set their minds to it) do really, really well - and that is to leverage their

decades of experience in the design and manufacture of photographic equipment to create a unique marriage of the

best in modern digital technology with the best of the thoughtful ergonomics and design that made the older

analog instruments such a joy to use. Much as I love what my M8 is capable of, I cannot in all honesty say that

they achieved this goal with their first digital M, or even with the Digilux 3 for that matter, but in spirit, I

feel that the Digilux 3 was a far more significant step in the right direction.

<p>

I do of course realize that there will be some who paid (as I did) the best part of $5000 for their M8 and will

be spitting blood to hear such blasphemy!

<p>

Gordon

<p>

<center>

<a href = "http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2826920584_b6e91052bd_o.jpg"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2826920584_3c9329969f.jpg"></a><br>

July 4th, Hartland VT

<p>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2826080645_5cd225ae8b_o.jpg"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2826080645_734a788e60.jpg"></a><br>

July 4th, Hartland VT

<p>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2826919890_783a6eb2b7_o.jpg"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2826919890_9fec8c070c.jpg"></a><br>

July 4th, Hartland VT

</center>

<p>

 

 

 

 

[lennert]

I also love my Panasonic L1! However, I realy hope to see more Leica glass to become available for the 4/3 system.

Everybody I show my photo's to, including larger sensor Canon and Nikon users, are impressed by the colors and the sharpness this camera produces!

Check out my portfolio for other examples this camera is capable of!

[ronald_moravec1]

The system is too expensive for the size image you can get from it. A nikon D60 can do as well at far less cost.

 

The camera is not small, yet the sensor is in comparison to beginner DSLR. A Nikon D300 will do as well and one can fine older pro lenses that work well on it.

 

I would have an M8 if it were not for the reliability issues and if it were full frame. I am patiently wait the introduction of the R digital so I could use my R glass, but the train has already left the station in that I have heavily invested in Nikon. That makes my third system, M R, and Nikon. The chance of them selling me digital is pretty small.

 

Full frame surpasses APS and that is where the pro market is headed. Smaller sensors will be strictly amateur.

[cd_k]

I really enjoy using my Panasonic L1 with Leica and Olympus lenses. Despite its smallish sensor size, the 4/3 format is really

about its lenses. Compared with some of the Nikon pro glasses (which I have also been using) such as the 17-35/2,8, and 24-70/28, I much

prefer the image quality of Leica (14-50/2,8-3,5) and Olympus (7-14) lenses. You really have to try it to believe it!

 

Cheers,

[gwebster]

<em>Full frame surpasses APS and that is where the pro market is headed. Smaller sensors will be strictly

amateur.</em>

<p>

The term "full frame" is itself simply a legacy of the 35mm system and only has any relevance at all when it is

referring to a camera that uses lenses based upon the old 35mm system. All Four Thirds cameras are "full frame"

for the Four Thirds system.

<p>

When digital photography was just beginning, it made sense to make camera bodies that could mate with the wealth

of 35mm lenses and accessories that were pre-existent. Some smart people at Olympus realized that once digital

photography became mature, there were more optimal configurations for camera/lens systems if you didn't have to

remain tied to the old 35mm standard whose configuration was sub-optimal for digital.

<p>

As one responder pointed out, the Four Thirds system is designed around the optics which is what you really want

for the best image quality. The 35mm format arose almost by accident, from devices that had been designed to test

batches of 35mm movie film. The Four Thirds system was designed from the ground up for digital image capture and

its lenses are really stellar performers. In my experience, the image quality I get from the Four Thirds lenses I

own is visibly better than I can get from my equivalent Canon L lenses.

<p>

Sensor design and manufacture are still on a Moore's Law kind of trajectory since after all, sensors are pretty

much light-gathering computer chips and as such, they benefit from a similar exponential growth law in their

development. Sensor technology is advancing in leaps and bounds and there's really no doubt that they will

continue to deliver better and better images under all kinds of light conditions. The developments in optics are

ongoing but

not nearly as rapid as the rate of sensor development and in the case of the 35mm format, they are even limited

to some extent by the requirement to conform to a format that is sub-optimal for digital. Vignetting and

resolution fall-off is likely to be something that "35mm" full frame digital photographers will have to continue

to live with. Some of it can be partially corrected in post-processing but then you are effectively using your

digital workflow to compensate for the optical shortcomings of your camera system.

<p>

As I've said before, don't look to the pros to lead the way here. By definition, the most "professional" people

in any field are more institutionalized in their thinking and under far more constraints to conform to certain

norms in their work by virtue of their professional status.

<p>

And then of course, just around the corner there's micro Four thirds ...

<p>

I'll be very interested to see what's "amateur" in ten years from now.

<p>

Watch this space!

[el_fang]

<i>The term "full frame" is itself simply a legacy of the 35mm system and only has any relevance at all when it is referring to a camera that uses lenses based upon the old 35mm system. All Four Thirds cameras are "full frame" for the Four Thirds system.</i>

<p>If you want to argue semantics then be my guest. So far, nobody's been able to repeal the laws of physics, which dictate that larger sensors, given the same equivalent field of view, will give you more control of depth of field and are less diffraction-limited, among other benefits. The only question is, how big of a camera/lens are you willing to carry? For many people, 35mm has been a carry-around standard for so long, that "full-frame" 35mm digital has been a no-brainer ever since the 5D came out. For others, there are Phase One digital backs, Four Thirds and upcoming "Micro" Four Thirds. Horses for courses.</p>

[jtk]

4/3 DSLR viewfinders have *all* been BAD until Oly's recent work-around in E3, which rivals good APS DSLRs.

 

To be worthwhile, 4/3 needs a good digicam design with proper optical viewfinder and no shutter lag. Nikon and Canon are about to steal any micro 4/3 thunder with smaller cameras, more advanced sensors...G9 has been superb, even without Canon's best glass, and G10 will be a step up from that.

 

Pros will use whatever's most appropriate, as they always have...photojournalists will continue to use Canon/Nikon DSLRs and G9 equivalents, not out of habit but because the equipment works. But most will move into video because that's what their image-buyers most want (fine video equipment is cheaper than fine still equipment, check it out). The more successful wedding photogs have gotten very deeply into video over the past several years, even in small US cities: a VERY common format today is two still photographers (Canon) and one videographer.

 

Hard to imagine a studio or location commercial or portrait pro not switching to one of the several fine medium format DSLRs if their business is really successful...they certainly have little use for little cameras.

Price isn't an issue, after all: In addition to the tax writeoff factor, MF digitals cost less than the electronics in a good automobile service station...lack of top equipment will tell professional clients (art directors, brand managers) that the photographer isn't successful.

[el_fang]

<i>As I've said before, don't look to the pros to lead the way here. By definition, the most "professional" people in any field are more institutionalized in their thinking and under far more constraints to conform to certain norms in their work by virtue of their professional status.</i>

<p>I'd like to see where you got such an official, all-encompassing "definition" of pros. On the other hand, amateurs have been the main drive behind the point-and-shoot market and look where that's gotten us so far... <a href="http://panasonic.net/pavc/lumix/fx150_fx180/index.html" target="_blank">14.7 megapixels on a sensor the size of my pinky nail</a>, with noise to match, and no end in sight.</p>

[sam_motskin]

In terms of frame 4/3 is clearly less imposing on composition than 3/2 aspect. It is a kind of more natural. One can

take a look at old masters paintings which are closer to 4/3 than 3/2. But for me the questions is not the aspect but

the image quality that a camera produces. I think the small sensor is still an issue to be addressed by the camera

manufacturers.. That's the law of physics. Everything else equal the bigger sensor produces a better picture.

[bobtodrick]

Actually Ronald, your wrong about the D60 outperfoming the Digilux 3/L1.

 

The Digilux/L1 uses a MOS sensor (an active array v.s. the CMOS inactive array).

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/understanding_the_live_mos_sensor/

 

The MOS sensor gives much higher quality, than a comparably sized CMOS sensor...but is much more expensive to

produce, which is why you don't see many of them out there.

 

A client of mine (a respected professional in the area) recently did an extensive test of the L1 v.s. his Canon 30D. In

his opinion (which I respect...his list of clients includes Rueters and The New York Times) the L1 performed as well

as the Canon except in very low light.

[gwebster]

<em>Compared with some of the Nikon pro glasses (which I have also been using) such as the 17-35/2,8, and 24-70/28, I much prefer the image quality of Leica (14-50/2,8-3,5) and Olympus (7-14) lenses. You really have to try it to believe it! </em>

<p>

That's interesting to hear from the Nikon side CDK. I cannot make the Nikon comparison since I don't own a Nikon DLSR system, but I have had a similar epiphany when comparing my Four Thirds images with those obtained with my Canon L lenses. Even on a 5D where the sensor resolution is significantly higher than my Digilux 3, the images are not as crisp and flawless using Canon L lenses.

[gwebster]

<em>Nikon and Canon are about to steal any micro 4/3 thunder with smaller cameras, more advanced sensors.</em>

<p>

Objection your honor - the witness is attempting to pass off his own speculation as fact!

[starvy]

the clarity and sharpness of the pictures are quite superb.

[Robin Smith]

"Smaller sensors will be strictly amateur."

 

Bold words. I see no real reason why in the future people don't forget all this full frame nonsense and embrace the

superior performance and increased depth of field characteristics of smaller frame lenses. The argument that bigger

is better is always true (for sensors and film stock), but it does not mean that we all have to carry 4 x 5s around with

us. Once the 4/3 sensors achieve the same output as today's full frame sensors I see no real reason why people will

not buy them. The current obsession with what I can only assume is night photography ("The D3 has such superb IQ

at 64,000" etc. etc.) does not really reflect the conditions where most people actually take photos, so the quest for

superior noise performance will soon be solved sufficiently for smaller sensors to be just as good in real terms for

most photographers amateur or professional.

[gwebster]

Very well put Robin.

<p>

In a similar vein, somebody reads in some technical photography review that smaller sensors are more "diffraction limited" and this then gets repeated <em>ad nauseam</em> on forums like these as if this law of physics is somehow a reason not use the Four Thirds system (as Robin says, the interminable "bigger is better" argument).

<p>

Given all of the far more pertinent optical parameters related to the quality of the lens/camera system, it is absurd to be fretting about potential diffraction limit effects on image resolution when the images you already have actually exhibit some of the more pressing (and apparent) optical shortcomings of your equipment such as resolution fall-off, aberrations, vignetting etc. (all of which are greatly ameliorated when using Four Thirds equipment).

<p>

It is really carrying the "bigger is better" argument to a quite silly extreme to try and make the case for using "full frame" 35mm digital systems on the basis that the sensors are less "diffraction limited" (than Four thirds) while settling for the obvious compromises in image quality that must be made when using 35mm lenses with a "full frame" sensor!

[gwebster]

<em>the clarity and sharpness of the pictures are quite superb</em>

<p>

Thanks Starvy - and even the JPEGs shown here do not really do justice to the TIFF images that I end with after

processing the RAW files.

<p>

I am also thrilled with the quality of the prints I get from the Digilux 3 which are quite stunning in their

clarity, crispness, color and tonality.

[jtk]

Leica devotees love anything with the red dot. But very few professionals have used those cameras for four or five decades.

 

I guess that means retirees and orthodontists are brilliant and professional photographers are fools.

[gwebster]

<em>I guess that means retirees and orthodontists are brilliant and professional photographers are fools.</em>

<p>

A penetrating insight!

[Rob F.]

I'd like to see continued evolution of the Digilux 2. I feel as strongly about it being a great camera, as Gordon feels about the 3. And for essentially the same reasons. I would like an increase in megapixels, and an increase in ISO speed. Not a quantum change, just an increase--say, to 7.5MP, and ISO 1000. I have taken many good pictures with this camera, and would just like to see its versatility increased a bit. Leica should not abandon it.

[godfrey]

<center>

<a href=" title="Fog in Druidale by Godfrey DiGiorgi, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2810275903_8b6855045d_o.jpg" width="820" height="647" alt="Fog

in Druidale" /></a><br>

<i>Panasonic L1 + Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH</i><br>

</center><br>

I use the Panasonic L1 and a small brace of 4/3 System lenses from Panasonic/Leica and Olympus for both my

personal and my business photography. I normally make prints in the 6x8 to 11x14 inch range. I've made several 21x28

inch prints, and a couple of larger ones. I shoot in all kinds of light and weather.

<br><br>

The quality of the images this equipment makes is exceptional. I've compared it against so-called "full frame" and other

cameras'/lenses' output and not seen anything to convince me that it cannot do the job I need. Whether Leica continues

to pursue 4/3 or not ... well, if they don't, Olympus and Panasonic bodies and lenses are well up to the task. :-)

<br><br>

Godfrey<br>

- <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/sets" target=new1>www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/sets</a><br>

[gwebster]

That's a lovely picture Godfrey!

<p>

I totally agree with you that whether or not Leica continues to pursue 4/3 or not, there are excellent alternatives in the Olympus and Panasonic bodies, with undoubtedly more and better ones to come. I just hope as you do, that Leica will continue to bring its particular talents to the 4/3 table.

[michael_markey]

Always a pleasure to view your work Godfrey. I have listened to your advocacy of this system both on this forum and

others.

It is a balanced perspective that the results certainly justify.

It was such that I nearly bought the D3 myself but the question over Leica continued commitment persuaded me

otherwise .

[anthony_brookes5]

As has been said all cameras are full frame !

[godfrey]

Thank you both, Gordon and Michael.

 

While I would find it very nice to have Leica's particular talents continue in developing 4/3 System lenses, overall I'd

have to say that it's simply a plus, not an essential, for the 4/3 System. Olympus' lenses are quite good, taken as a

whole, and their "pro" and "top pro" grade lenses are as good as or better than most any others.

 

The micro-4/3 spec will bring more to the table as well. Finally a compact, mirrorless body with a short register that can

have rangefinder-design lenses as well as be 100% compatible with the existing SLR range using an adapter. I'd love to

have a compact Summicron-D 19mm f/2 ASPH on a small, streamlined mFT body with a clip-on optical viewfinder ... :-)

 

Can't wait to hear what Photokina announcements there will be.

 

Godfrey

[gwebster]

I agree with you Godfrey that along with the PanaLeica lenses, the Olympus lenses are also really stellar performers. In addition to my Summilux 25/1,4, I own the Vario 14-50 and the Olympus 7-14 and 50-200 lenses which give me a focal length coverage of 14 - 400 mm (35mm equivalent).