DougK
This space left blank
Zeos, I must have spaced out that point the first time around, thanks for pointing that out.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
You're welcome...dkirchge said:
Earlier in this thread, Doug said he had read that Leica made a firmware change (but he wasn't certain if it was the D-Lux2 or the Digilux2 that he read about). Doug, if you read this post please try to find it again.
It is possible that Leica has made a firmware change for D-Lux2. I think we will have to wait until someone can test the D-Lux2 to see if that is true. If Leica made firmware changes it probably added stronger noise reduction. In addition, Dpreview noted, "If you don't like Panasonic's noise reduction system (and frankly who would?) there is always the option to shoot raw and use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) to convert the images".
Thus far, the images published by Panasonic and Leica use the lowest ISO's. To me they look very good. However, I would like to see Leica publish pictures taken at ISO 200-400. I am not concerned that the D-Lux2 is limited to ISO 400, but before I would purchase the camera I would like to know what enlargement was possible at that setting.
Sorry, Zeos... I just recall that when I was shopping for a digital camera a couple years ago the Digilux was one that interested me a lot, from the user-interface issue, and it seems to me I read that the firmware was one difference between it and the similar Panasonic model. Could have been at a site like DPReview or in discussion at Photo.net, I don't know.zeos 386sx said:
Double Vision
Member
zeos 386sx said:
I would like a digital version of the Leica CM with a 4/3 or similarly sized sensor. Electronics made in Japan with the lens and body made in Germany. No more than $2000 tops. The Digital M is going to cost at least twice that.
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
einolu said:
Most DPReview readers agree that anything less than "highly recommended" is only worth considering if its features are really necessary to you and can't be found elsewhere, the LX1 does not seem to have anything vital (to me) that can't be provided by other digicams.
I think I'll wait for a review of the E900 and then it'll be either the E900 or the F11
It is not something wrong with Leica or Panasnic, just that 1/8" 8 Mpixel sensors simply aren't up to the task, they should have either stayed with 5 MPixels or used 2/3" sensors.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Doug,Doug said:Sorry, Zeos... I just recall that when I was shopping for a digital camera a couple years ago the Digilux was one that interested me a lot, from the user-interface issue, and it seems to me I read that the firmware was one difference between it and the similar Panasonic model. Could have been at a site like DPReview or in discussion at Photo.net, I don't know.
Thanks anyway...
einolu
Well-known
fgianni said:
though i find most dpreview readers/forum users to be stupid, too many flower and bug macros for my tastes. the sensor is actually 1/1.65".
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The market-place will tell. With the Digilux 2 there are slight differences in the lens compared to Panasonic- notably the coating. Maybe that is the case as well with this one. There the price-difference was deemed ridiculous as well. Still the Leica version is selling well. At any rate Leica will earn some money on any camera sold by Panasonic too- for the lens.As for the noise issue, I tend to agree that Leica's choice in this case is debatable-for a consumer camera. Personally I prefer to manage noise in post-processing. We all know the "dead" look or "aquarel" look of camera's that provide strong in-camera noise reduction. Programs like Noise Ninja and Neat Image give exact choices as to where and how much must be noise-reduced. But as I said- is that the right choice for a consumer snapshot camera? Doubtful. Having said that, in film photographyand high ISO film noise in the form of grain is acceptable or even desirable, so why should digital be different, especially if it is "nice" noise like the Digilux2?
On the subject of "brand snobbery" : What is wrong with putting a price on a brand? A Swatch will tell the time as well or even better than a Rolex, and in my opinion looks better in many cases. Still, there is a price difference.....
On the subject of "brand snobbery" : What is wrong with putting a price on a brand? A Swatch will tell the time as well or even better than a Rolex, and in my opinion looks better in many cases. Still, there is a price difference.....
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
einolu said:
1) Well I quite like flowers and bugs macros, something I have to reach for my SLR to do, I guess it must be because I'm stupid.
2) You are right the sensor is 1/1.65", sort of 1/8" stretched I think, but the substance does not change, cram too many pixels in a too small piece of silicon and all you get is too much noise, unless you manage to do something really smart like the Fuji guys with the F10 (shame that it has no manual controls otherwise it would have been the perfect pocket digicam)
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Jaap,jaapv said:
I think Leica is on a razor's edge with the noise issue. The D-Lux2 is a mid-range camera but still priced high enough that the people buying it will probably be semi-serious about photography - so - It really depends on what size print enlargment they want at what ISO. Dpreview stated that noise shouldn't be a problem at normal print sizes. Looking at the Leica/Panasonic samples I tend to agree with that assessment. But, as I stated earlier, before I put money down for the camera I would like to know if the upper ISO's would work for ME.
I don't think there is anything wrong "with putting a price on a brand" if the company can afford to do it (Hermes does it all the time). I'm not certain that Leica is in a good enough financial position to get away with it yet. It might be wiser at this time for them to keep their price closer to panasonics.
ywenz
Veteran
This camera is crap, just like all other P&S-ers.. If I really needed a P&S, i'd get a cheaper alternative.. you'd be nuts to spend Leica-like cash for a mere P&S
Last edited:
Ywenz, are you TRYing for irritable responses, or did it just come out this way? As just a friendly suggestion, you might consider the adage, "Keep your words soft and sweet because you never know when you'll have to eat them." Best wishes...ywenz said:
ywenz
Veteran
Doug, read my other posts before calling me out.
I'm surprised the die-hard fans are not upset with Leica with this brand-diluting rebadging Leica is doing nowadays..
If Leica had taken a Bessa R2 and slapped their logo on there and sold it off as a low-end M-mount Leica RF, would you have reacted the same? Leica is effectively doing the same thing with their digital P&S digicams.
And I'll say it again, "most" P&Ss are crap, including this new one from Leica. I've seen shots from the Panasonc version and it doesn't stack up to a G-series from Canon. Why would anyone pay extra for it other than overwhelming brand-loyalty?
I'm surprised the die-hard fans are not upset with Leica with this brand-diluting rebadging Leica is doing nowadays..
If Leica had taken a Bessa R2 and slapped their logo on there and sold it off as a low-end M-mount Leica RF, would you have reacted the same? Leica is effectively doing the same thing with their digital P&S digicams.
And I'll say it again, "most" P&Ss are crap, including this new one from Leica. I've seen shots from the Panasonc version and it doesn't stack up to a G-series from Canon. Why would anyone pay extra for it other than overwhelming brand-loyalty?
djon
Well-known
IMO the ultimate digital Leica is still the Canon Ixus: rugged, physically beautiful, sharp, Contax-style zooming-optical viewfinder....unfortunately it's still got some shutter lag and no bright frame.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
ywenz - with that tone, you might be happier at pnet or another site where rudeness is more the norm than here. People here are polite.
Robert
Robert
ywenz
Veteran
If I have crossed the line with the usage of the word crap. I would like for the moderator to let me know and I would stop using it.
#1 thing to know when you particiate in an online forum is to NEVER decipher a poster's "tone" from a few pieces of text. Just take the text as it is and don't interject anything you think you might be feeling.
I would much more be interested in having you guys respond to the points I've brought up rather than making a reply to what you thought the tone of my post was..
#1 thing to know when you particiate in an online forum is to NEVER decipher a poster's "tone" from a few pieces of text. Just take the text as it is and don't interject anything you think you might be feeling.
I would much more be interested in having you guys respond to the points I've brought up rather than making a reply to what you thought the tone of my post was..
Last edited:
kbg32
neo-romanticist
einolu
Well-known
talking about bigger sensors, have many of you actually seen how small this camera is? its quite small, I will post pictures when mine comes in the mail ,
,zeos 386sx
Well-known
AT 105.7x58.3x25.6mm (4 5/32"x2 9/32"x 1") it is a real Oskar Barnack, stick-in-your-pocket special. I'm suffering from mail-envy already.einolu said:talking about bigger sensors, have many of you actually seen how small this camera is? its quite small, I will post pictures when mine comes in the mail
I look forward to the pictures and reading your comments on the camera.
einolu
Well-known
im actually a liar, i got the panasonic version of the camera. good enough for me though, and in black I find it to be one sleek number. remindes me of that part in the hitchhikers books when they see the black space ship at the restaurant at the end of the universe, the exact quote slips my mind.