toke_hage Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Check out this link www.leica-camera.dk/ and click "digital" and "digilux2". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucien1 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux2/index_e.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volume12 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 There is now also some information on the official Leica site: http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux2/index_e.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volume12 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Lucien beat me to it; sorry about the double post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Gee, it looks nicer than my Digilux 1, and I haven't even had it that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_n_f Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I think the pictures show a nice design. The lens certainly looks like a Leica housing. Even though I doubt that I would buy it, I hope that as much effort and concern went to what is underneath the well designed skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 an electronic viewfinder.....yukkk..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_.1 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 and still no info on how the manual focusing is displayed in the viewfinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_n_f Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I could not find any exact pricing info on photo.net from earlier threads, so... Leica bei Meister shows the Digilux2 at �1800 including 16% Vat, �1550 without tax. FYI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_. Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Well, the price unfortunately is way over the top. The problem is that with digital cameras the "leica" mystique will not work, it's the digital part that counts here.. and the digital part is not very impressive. The tiny sensor is absolutely no match for that price, noise and artifacts are to be expected. Max 400 ISO also is nothing to write home about. The four-thirds olympus prosumer cameras should already blow the digilux out of the water in terms of image quality, not to mention the full frame and almost full frame sensors used in the dslrs these days. The concept, however, is very good, and so is the design. I bet this camea is a joy to use, unlike all the other digicams. For that price, however, best image quality is a must, and I hope that panasonic has at least a 4/3 sensor on its roadmap. Digilux3 could be a winner. Oh, I just assume that panasonic is making the camera - so there could be a panasonic version at a more reasonable price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kastner Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 One more reason I haven't yet started with digis. Whoa! Dont' flame. If I bought any digi today, it'll be outdated tomorrow ;-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Michael, your Leica M was outdated at least 30 years ago. IMO, if a camera takes the pictures you want, what's the difference if they come out with something else? If a camera doesn't take the pictures you want, then it was a dumb purchase in the first place. This one looks interesting for a P&S. 28mm on the wide end is pretty good for these type cameras which usually don't go that wide. It remains to be seen if it distorts as badly as the Canon G lens at the wide end. IF Leica actually designed the lens it may be better corrected. SD cards are a bit of a pain, but they are considerably smaller than CF cards. 5 meg should be decent enough for vacation snaps and family stuff. Having RAW will be a big help in post processing IF the software is decent. It'll be interesting to see if their RAW format can be processed in the new Adobe PhotoShop CF RAW developer. I doubt it, but you never know. Some of my digital camera RAW formats aren't listed as being supported by Adobe RAW, yet I can open and process them with it. I don't know about the electronic finder. For a P&S it may not be that big of a deal breaker. The camera sure isn't small however. But it looks nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 for me, the electronic finder defeats the purpose of that cam....<br> the ad says analog, but theres nothing analog about it... <br> and i agree, whatever works for each person, use it. thats what counts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucien1 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 It is interesting to see how the rays are hitting on the CCD.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonydirk Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Sadly I think Leica does not have the resources to compete head-to-head with the likes of Nikon and Canon for digi-photography supremacy. These companies are able to attract better (high)tech-talent and spend in (high)tech-acquisitions. Leica's other divisions (binoculars, etc) will do well, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I can't see how this camera could be particularly interesting - it can't use a photog's collection of already-owned leica lenses and is behind the curve on technology right out of the chute.<P> Not much different than my 2 year old 5 MP sony (who probably manufactures the "leica" sensor). But some will buy it because it <I>looks</I> like a leica... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 What John Arnold said... It costs 10s of millions of dollars just to develop the sensors, ADCs, and signal processing integrated circuits used in digital cameras. Plus all of the systems engineering necessary for product development and getting to manufacturing. Canon and Sony manufacture sensors in their own silicon foundries (Kodak makes their own high-end sensors as well). Canon/Sony/Nikon have the resources to go solo on development of the electronics and up-front engineering necessary to develop leading-edge digital cameras. They also have the R&D budgets to stay in front with the best in digital camera technology. Other manufacturers need to partner (at a price) and use either off-the-shelf or semi-custom technology to get their product off the ground timely and at a reasonable cost - which will never employ leading technology. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 "leading technology." But will it matter? Very soon all sensors will be "good enough" and then we will be back to the things that used to matter - handling, optical qualities etc. etc. Just because you have to buy in technology does not make it bad or a poor second best. Look at the PC industry - there seem to be no chip manufacturers producing PCs. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 <i> Look at the PC industry - there seem to be no chip manufacturers producing PCs.</i><p> Not so...IBM produces chips and PCs. Intel has produced motherboards for many companies. I don't know how big the business is for them now, but they used to build all the boards for Gateway. They used to build finished PCs, but they stopped because it hurt their chip sales.<p> The main reason companies don't do it is that Intel controls the business with an iron fist.<p> On the Digilux 2 subject...when do the endangered species skin models come out? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayton_p._strickland1 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 This certainly is a step in the right direction � HOWEVER � every electronic viewfinder I have used has been a major pain in the butt. Why not go with a fixed lens and rangefinder focusing. For me, at least, that would have been a better choice, this, of course, is assuming one cannot design a rangefinder for a zoom lens or can one? I hope some photojournalists get their hands on this camera and give us a real review instead of reviews full of fixed subject pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_van_rosendaal Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 To me, it looks like a boxy digicam with a Leica-like lens on it and the Leica logo adorning it. They seem to want to make us believe that this is getting closer to the digital M we all want, but since there's no word about the lack of shutter lag (the main problem with digicams), I assume the looks and the lens are really just a marketing ploy used to dress up a Panasonic camera. Correct me if I'm wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 +$2K??!! Next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 well, i should add that after reading the http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03120101leicadigilux2.asp info, I have to say it LOOKS very nice though. and i'm sure it will be an OK performer, but the price... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mcbride Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 D2 looks nice and I guess if I were a collector I might be interested in purchasing one. But, I'm not a collector, I'm a photographer. When I look at what one gets for 1550 euros vs. a $1000 cost for a Canon Digital Rebel kit, I ask myself what were they thinking at Solms? Maybe the Leica mystique still works for the M aficionados, but I think the digital folks are going to want more than just the little red dot on their cameras before they spend big bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 "Intel has produced motherboards for many companies" My point exactly: when did you last see a Motorola or an Intel PC? A motherboard to a computer is a sensor to a digital camera... Robin Smith 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