lucien1 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 version<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I can make it real simple: I might well buy this camera (or the Panasonic twin) - I wouldn't buy anything else currently on the market: not SLR, not P&S, not interested. If I HAVE to be able to produce the occasional fast digital image (the newspaper I work for can't use film anymore) - it's this or nothing. Don't care about the 'red dot' - DO care about manual/analog controls, metal construction, 28mm f/2 equiv. lens, the 'feel' of a rangefinder design (Leica or otherwise) - no mirror shake or noise, a corner eyepiece that doesn't require that my nose mash against the camera body (or the external LCD screen, in the case of a digicam). Offer me an alternative. The viewfinder is a compromise. It will look like a videocam viewfinder (which does make me itch!). But - you can't have zooming AND a mechanico/optical rangefinder (remember - you'd have to zoom BOTH the main view AND the secondary rangefinder image as well - two separate optical paths - and keep them perfectly in sync while zooming, or else the rangefinder geometry won't focus accurately, if at all). It might be technically doable - but the mechanism would be huge to meet the precision requirements. Think of the size and headaches involved with Leica's goggled 35mm and 135mm lenses - and those devices are 'zooming' the viewfinder/rangefinder to just ONE other focal length - not 62. You CAN have a zooming finder and autofocus with a 'focus confirmation' version of manual focus (a la Contax G1/2). But the only way to have zoom AND direct visual manual focus together in one place is this system - which (coincidentally) also allows you to see 100% of the image (instead of the normal Leica 85%) with no framing or parallax errors. Image quality (esp. noise at EI 400), shutter lag, quality of the software (esp. RAW conversion) - well, we'll just have to see. It may fail dismally - that'll be too bad. It IS possible to have near-zero shutter lag in a digicam - I just tried a Casio Exilim Z4 and it shoots RIGHT NOW! (but with a 3-second delay between shots - oh, well). As a point of comparison, the max resolution (2700ppi x 1900ppi or thereabouts) is about equal to scanning a half-frame 35mm image with my Nikon 2700dpi scanner. But minus grain 'noise' - may even be LESS noise overall than a half-frame scan from 400 color film. Five (five!) pictures per 64Mb card in RAW mode - talk about your short rolls of film! Better buy a gigabyte card (or 3). But note that the camera does take MM cards as well as SD - I think that's a change from the previous PanaLeicas. At least they didn't use the FX-10(?) as the basis for the Digilux-2! Whew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 ...when do the endangered species skin models come out? You need to be careful, Jeff. Some bloke from Leica was asking about you. Something about finding you in your natural habitat. Course i did,nt spit on you,much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Course i didn't split on you,much. Geez, the other one sounded awful, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Badge technology, sorry Leica. Looks like another great lump. Digital back for a M, NOT AT A MILLION POUND! You do have a few users! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_den_hartigh Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Come on guys! Don't be negative only. Give this thing a break. It's actually the first digital that looks like a camera instead of a computer. The small CCD has disadvantages, but the bonus is that you get a relativelt compact 2.0-2.4/28-90 equivalent lens. Ever thought about the size of such a lens for a bigger CCD? Let's see how it performs. Might be a nice stepping stone to that digital M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 "But the only way to have zoom AND direct visual manual focus together in one place is this system - which (coincidentally) also allows you to see 100% of the image (instead of the normal Leica 85%) with no framing or parallax errors." I should also add "....and no lens barrel blocking the lower right corner of the viewfinder." The internal LCD is actually higher-res than the one on the back. And it's rumored (totally unconfirmed) that the viewfinder will allow digital enlargement of just the center of the frame for critical focusing - not useful for street photography, but in some settings. I will be interested to see it in real life. Digital photography is in its infancy - 90 years ago people probably had the same arguments about whether a 1913 Rolls Silver Ghost was 'worth' 5x (or more) the price of a 1913 Model T - after all, they both got you from point "a" to point "b". Performance counts for a lot, but so does comfort, style, grace, and precision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 The price: Well, I'd prefer $1200 myself. The U.S. seems to get some break on Leica pricing vis-a-vis Europe, so maybe we'll get lucky this time, too. OTHO, that price includes ALL the focal lengths available, and flash. Let's see. M7, plus (comparable apertures) 28 'cron, 35 'cron, 40 'cron (used), 50 Elmar f/2.8, V'lander 75, 90 Elmarit, and flash. Comes to about $9000, give or take? Even a Bessa-R2 plus V'lander lenses will cost $2500+. Relative value depends on what comparison path you follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_reither1 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 To me, the issues are: 1. With the electronic viewfinder, can I focus accurately and see the subject well. (I've had a couple of point&shoots, neither of which focused accurately.) 2. Image quality, of course. 3. Shutter lag (in this respect, my point&shoots were simply AWFUL, but my digital SLR is great. The concept of the Digilux2 looks great to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stb Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 There is no mention anywhere of an autofocus system, which would be quite unique in the digital world. It would be very surprising as well. IF it is autofocus, it might be very good indeed for many situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom h. Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I quite like digital VF's- you can make them work for you- the way they compress things make it easier to see your image as a print (i.e. flattened), although nowhere near as good as a quality optical VF. And I know already it's too expensive. Maybe if they put one of those flimsy frame selector levers off an MP on it they could justify the cost. You don't see Hasselblad carrying on like this... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrivers Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 "Black and White mode" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 "Did someone say "Fuji GSW 690 II" ?" Not even close - see attached. Th camera looks big in the pix due to wide-angle distortion - the lens looks big because it is (think Noctilux plus 9mm). But not hardly a "Texas Leica".<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Stephan Bosman: The camera has auto-focus as an option - you turn the focus ring to a click-stop beyond infinity (sounds like Buzz Lightyear, doesn't it?) and the auto-focusing turns on. The twin windows where a Leica's viewfinder would be (top right front) are the AF sensors. Actually, there are TWO AF click-stops - regular AF and "macro-AF". Presumably the macro setting moves the whole lens forward to give a separate, closeup-only focusing range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now