Digilux 1

[thomasl.se]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still looking around for my first digital camera. A bunch of D1 questions below; more than that, maybe some current and perhaps more former D1 users can share some related thoughts and experiences here. I'm sure there are questions I didn't know I should ask.

 

So, I've seen some really lovely D1 pics, enough not to be able to shake a notion that I might utlimately be more pleased with a D1 than with a DL3, which is of course a fine camera (with RAW capability, which the D1 unfortunely doesn't have). The D1 form factor, construction and handling also appears to be very nice.

I've read the recent thread on the D1 vs DL3, which mostly discusses the C-Lux 1. So, I wish to ask for your knowledge specifically on the D1 here.

 

First question: How, if at all possible, can one access (D1) discussions from the old forum?

 

Is the battery for D1 and D2 identical?

 

Were there ever any firmware updates made available for the D1?

 

I found the operating manual for the DMC-LC5 online; will that cover all essentials on the D1 as well?

 

What's the D1 size limit for SD cards? 4GB?

 

I've checked eBay but there's not many D1's up right now. What's currently a fair 2nd hand price for a D1 in perfect working condition?

 

Lately reports of malfuncioning D2's have trickled in at this forum. What's the reputation and your own experience with the D1's reliablity; in particular are there any known malfunction issues with the electronics?

 

Cyan cast: is that easily neutralized in post processing by the batch?

 

White balance: How do you best deal with WB problems? Trial and error in the field, using the LCD for feedback; or in post processing?

 

Thomas

[richam]

Thomas,

 

I own both the Digilux 1 and Digilux 2. One observation is that the latter takes better quality photos overall, IMHO. Several points:

 

- The Digilux 1 can take nice infrared images by using a 092 filter in front of the lens -- even handheld in sunlight. A 092 filter is almost opaque to the Digilux 2. This means to me that the Digilux 2 has a better IR cutoff filter buit in, hence less (invisible to the eye) IR affecting the image.

 

- I've noticed shadow noise in the Digilux 1 that would not be a problem with the Digilux 2.

 

Will try to answer a couple of your questions.

 

Is the battery for D1 and D2 identical?

 

Yes.

 

Lately reports of malfuncioning D2's have trickled in at this forum. What's the reputation and your own experience with the D1's reliablity; in particular are there any known malfunction issues with the electronics?

 

Can only note that my Digilux 1 has never had a problem. The Digilux 2 has been back to Solms once for repair.

 

White balance: How do you best deal with WB problems? Trial and error in the field, using the LCD for feedback; or in post processing?

 

Best to preset either camera for the scene being photographed. The "function" key on the Digilux 2 can be set up for doing this with fewer keystrokes.

 

Not a fair comparison, but there are some Digilux 1 photos on my smugmug site -- the Turkey Expo Ankara series:

 

http://richam.smugmug.com/gallery/230762/4/14016508

 

And, some Digilux 2 photos -- The rapeseed fields (except the closeups):

 

http://richam.smugmug.com/gallery/115012

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[robert_parker]

Thomas

 

I had a D1 for two years before upgrading to a D2 - judging it by current standards, you'd find it excellent for macro photography and quite fun to use - it has interesting styling which is quite distinctive. The manual focus over-ride is perhaps easier to get right than the D2.

 

That having been said the D2, with its excellent lens and greater number of megapixels really out performs the D1 - you may find that on occasion the D1 can disappoint when you enlarge the prints - but you do have to enlarge them a fair bit for that to be a worry - it's also prone to some fringing when shooting against the light but then most cameras of that time were, too.

 

Consequently, I'd say it's a fun camera, with lots going for it, particularly if you enjoy macro photography and a great way to start with digital.

 

Ps It shoots jpeg and TIFF, not RAW

[robert_parker]

Here's some D1 photos from the old forum:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[dugby]

In addition to the above comments, I can add-

 

You mentioned D1 vrs DL3...... I have the LC5 and LX1 (which are the Panasonic versions identical to the Leica D1 and DL2)....... (in hind-sight I have too many, D1, DL2,D2 and now D3).

 

The DL2 takes much better IQ shots than the D1, the DL2 shots are closer to a D2, than what a D1's. I paid 25% more for my DL2 over the D1, both quite 'low cost' (not cheap) cameras.

 

OIS is really worth paying for in the DL2/DL3 over D1/D2

 

There are reviews showing that the DL3 despite being the newest, has some image smearing issues that doesn't affect the DL2. Knowing what I have experienced 1st hand. And given the collective ownership issues of my bunch list above.

 

I think the DL2 from a "usage" perspective will satisfy your photographic needs 90% of the time....with great shots. The D2 will produce better shots, but from a usage perspective is less satisfying than the DL2. If you did not see the side-by-side shots by a DL2 vrs D2, you would not think there is any differnce between the two outputs.

[robert_parker]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thomas,

 

I have the Panasonic version the LC5, which I bought off e bay for a silly cheap price. The Leica D1 is exactly the same camera although Leica set their own processing settings. However both cams benefit from being used on Low Contrast/Sharpness/Saturation and post processing the images.

 

To answer a few more of your questions, no there wasn't a firmware update, the cyan cast isn't an issue, prices for the Leica seem to be iro £250 from a dealer. I saw one advertised recently - will try to find the details and PM you.

 

If I'm being totally frank with you I'm not sure that it is a good choice for your first digital. Why? 4MP is really quite a low resolution, you can only shoot jpegs or TIFF, images are very noisy at any of the higher ISO settings so its really a 100 ISO only camera unless you want a very 'grainy film' effect, even Jpeg images require post processing - its not a shoot and print camera.

 

However, in its favour, it's compact compared to the D2 (although a bit of a brick compared to most other digicams), shutter lag is minimal, it has an optical finder, it has a separate hot shoe as well as the built in flash & its - shall we say unique - image quality suits some subject matter particularly well, i.e. portraits.

 

If you can live with using another brand of camera (!!) £250 will buy you a new, higher res, more compact digicam. Or for a little more you could treat yourself to the CLux.

 

It depends what your intended use for the camera will be, subject matter etc.

 

Here's a pic I shot earlier..

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[nikau]

Not withstanding Robert's excellent photos, overall I found the Digilux 1 an awful camera. High noise, so slow to react you almost had time to take a lunch break and of flimsy quality (at least compared to M and R gear). It broke about three months out of warranty and was sent to Solms for repair, but the quoted cost was more than the camera was worth on the used market so it now sits as a mute reminder of an unhappy introduction to Leica's digital products and the company's unwillingness to bend a little on the warranty. I forget just what the problem was, but it was to do with some faulty circuits. A report with the quote acknowledged it was a fault, not wear and tear, but that it was "too far" out of warranty.

[philipotto]

My first camera was a new "just released" Canon PowerShot S230 Digital Elph. This camera was the smallest 3.2 megapixel camera when it was introduced (something I was pround to tell people).

I gave this camera to my grandfather after my purchase of a mint Digilux 1 on ebay.

I fell in love with the design and build of this camera. I got many compliments on the look and the "dot".

 

I found that my pictures got better over time as I got to learn the camera, and photography in general. While the D1 lacks the aperature ring and shutter speed dial of the Digilux 2, the four way controller that controls shutter speed and aperature is very welcome, and missing in most consumer digitals.

 

I sold purchased my D1, brand new condition, warrenty card blank, and sold it for $500, after a great deal of use.

 

I sold it to finance my second hand Panasonic LC1, which I purchased soon after playing around with my friends LC1. I hadn't shot with it, but I was anamored none-the-less, and knew it would be my next camera.

 

Initially I missed my D1 a bit, and have considered getting a LC-5 but over time I saw that my D1 photos couldn't compare to those of the LC-1.

I recently aquired the Digilux 2, and am having fun with the pair of them.

 

 

My advise would be to get a LC1 if you can stretch your budget.

 

A good case for the four cameras we are talking about is the prices are staying steady, so if you get a good deal, you may even come out ahead, depending on how long you use it. This is even more so with the LC1/D2. This is very rare indeed with electronics.

 

One of the things that was lost on the LC1/D2 compared to the LC-5/D1, is that on the D1's LCD you can see exposure changes real time. The picture looks darker or lighter as you play with the shutter speed and aperature in manual. Not the case on the D2. Changes to exposure give no feedback until you release the shutter and review the shot.

This has been talked about before on the forum. If anyone knows if this was something technical they could'ny incorporate, or they decided not to, please let me know.

 

 

 

You may prefer to skip to the photos.

I know I would.

 

All taken with the Digilux 1.

No PP. Straight from camera, resized for forum.

11/17/05 11:12AM-12:10PM

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[philipotto]

3 more.

Just found that there is now a limit of 10 files per post.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thomasl.se]

Michael,

 

>

>I own both the Digilux 1 and Digilux 2. One observation is that the latter takes better quality photos overall, IMHO.

>

 

I do agree with that; given 100 random but similar shots taken by the same photographer, the image quality of the D2 will overall outperform that of the D1. I'd still expect a challenge in some scenes though; or at least in macro.

 

What keeps me holding the D1 as an interesting candidate is that compared to D2 it's certainly cheaper, and possibly (although I admittedly have way too few reports to compare with) more funcionally reliable; i.e. not as likely to malfunction.

It also has a more appealing, smaller form factor and lighter weight; in no way is the D2's weight objectionable, but a little lighter is quite alright with me.

 

Price wise, the D-Lux 3 is a closer match to the D1; and those are the two at the top of my short list. If the D2 had fewer malfuncion reports (with long turnaround times to boot), I wouldn't mind saving up a bit longer for that camera. But as the D2 is a fairly hefty sum for me right now, I'm discouraged reading about the repair reports, knowing little will remain of the average eBayed D2's 3 year warranty at this date.

 

 

>

>- The Digilux 1 can take nice infrared images by using a 092 filter in front of the lens -- even handheld in sunlight. A 092 filter is almost opaque to the Digilux 2. This means to me that the Digilux 2 has a better IR cutoff filter buit in, hence less (invisible to the eye) IR affecting the image.

>

 

IR images is an aspect I haven't though of in the least (I've never tried it with my old manual film Minolta SLR either). Do you find IR with the D1 a problem to be worked around, as much as a possibility to exploit?

 

 

>

>- I've noticed shadow noise in the Digilux 1 that would not be a problem with the Digilux 2.

>

 

Yes, I've seen that, and in fairness and to be expected -- some things are not on par with the standards of later cameras.

All taken into account, I am really expecting a somewhat lesser camera at a lesser price with the D1 vs D2. But nota bene, a camera with some striking potentials nonetheless; perhaps not objectively so, but at least for my taste. I can only assume the Summicron accounts for this quality: I see it in some D1 pics; frequently in D2 pics, and I've been looking pretty hard but it just isn't happening with The D-; C;- or V-Lux.

 

I will certainly say that many D-; C;- and V-Lux shots meet a higher standard than some D1 shots. Late afternoon should do it. But again, I'm lured by the D1's potential in beneficial circumstances; not the standard in all.

 

 

>

>Best to preset either camera for the scene being photographed. The "function" key on the Digilux 2 can be set up for doing this with fewer keystrokes.

>

 

So, the WB is not all that much of an issue with this camera once you get to know it then?

 

 

>

Not a fair comparison, but there are some Digilux 1 photos on my smugmug site -- the Turkey Expo Ankara series:

>

And, some Digilux 2 photos -- The rapeseed fields (except the closeups):

>

 

Thanks for your fine gallery links! Price and form factor aside, if I had more faith in the D2's reliability I'm quite sure I'd be very pleased with it, indeed.

Some D1 shots are likewise appealing (commenting image quality, not composition which I find very attractive), but I don't for example suppose the D2 would blow both ends of the dynamic range as in #23, the camel fight shot. The white on the wood, and the dark cloth.

 

 

 

 

Robert,

 

>

>I had a D1 for two years before upgrading to a D2 - judging it by current standards, you'd find it excellent for macro photography and quite fun to use - it has interesting styling which is quite distinctive. The manual focus over-ride is perhaps easier to get right than the D2.

>

 

The very nice macros you've posted here are in good company over at the photo forum; you must have seen them all I imagine. I just scanned the photo forum earlier today for D1 pics; not just any lens will offer this quality. Macro is obviously one of the D1's real forte: excellence.

 

 

>

That having been said the D2, with its excellent lens and greater number of megapixels really out performs the D1 - you may find that on occasion the D1 can disappoint when you enlarge the prints - but you do have to enlarge them a fair bit for that to be a worry - it's also prone to some fringing when shooting against the light but then most cameras of that time were, too.

>

 

Yes, that's understood and I'll be keeping things in proper perspective here. I'm not paying D2 prices for a D1, but it's still definitely worth something. The macro alone: I'll safely bet that a lot of eBay power sellers would get the D1 money back on items shot with it; rather than posting cell phone pics on their auctions.

 

 

>

Consequently, I'd say it's a fun camera, with lots going for it, particularly if you enjoy macro photography and a great way to start with digital.

>

 

Some of that is what I'd expect with the D1. And for it to last while I save and wait for the *real* D3, which of course will be pretty much perfect and never break.

 

 

>

Ps It shoots jpeg and TIFF, not RAW

>

 

I wonder just how useful TIFF will prove with the D1, compared to how useful RAW might have been. Did you shoot a lot of JPG with it?

 

 

 

 

Dugby,

 

 

>

The DL2 takes much better IQ shots than the D1,

>

 

On some shots I'd agree, typically on a, objectively technical level; on others I wouldn't, on a more subjective level I suppose. The D1 mixes up the performance a whole lot more: sometimes it's very grown up and a class above; other times it's juvenility shines through.

If I did agree all out, given the alternatives, mainly the D-Lux 3 (and 2), I wouldn't consider the D1 at all.

 

 

>

I think the DL2 from a "usage" perspective will satisfy your photographic needs 90% of the time....with great shots.

>

 

Oh yes, easily. Frankly, a lot of people I see (typically when reading dpreview forums) just seem very spoiled and nagging about basically non-issues. They "need" this and that. The DL2/3 are excellent cameras, period.

 

 

>

The D2 will produce better shots, but from a usage perspective is less satisfying than the DL2.

>

 

Really. Less satisfying, how do you mean? Are you talking about 16:9?

 

 

>

If you did not see the side-by-side shots by a DL2 vrs D2, you would not think there is any differnce between the two outputs.

>

 

I'll say otherwise, boldly; at least until well proven I can't get a better pick rate than chance would have it.

 

 

 

 

James,

 

>

>the cyan cast isn't an issue, prices for the Leica seem to be iro £250 from a dealer. I saw one advertised recently - will try to find the details and PM you.

>

 

Are you sure about the cyan? The blue channel looks jammed in some shots; especially clear sky and tropic waters.

Is that £250 from a reputable dealer (with womething like 3 or 6 months store warranty to boot?) I think I could be quite interested; your PM is very welcome!

 

 

>

If I'm being totally frank with you I'm not sure that it is a good choice for your first digital. Why? 4MP is really quite a low resolution, you can only shoot jpegs or TIFF, images are very noisy at any of the higher ISO settings so its really a 100 ISO only camera unless you want a very 'grainy film' effect, even Jpeg images require post processing - its not a shoot and print camera.

>

 

4MP I will work with; I'd use more for cropping mostly. Locked at ISO 100 sounds familiar, fresh from a film perspective; and grain can work too. I'm not worried about it, but if you can, please tell me about the post processing your D! JPGs would usually require? Maybe it'd be different with the D1 and post processing?

 

 

>

>image quality suits some subject matter particularly well, i.e. portraits.

>

 

No particular skin tone problems?

 

 

>

>If you can live with using another brand of camera

>

 

Forget about it.

 

 

>

>£250 will buy you a new, higher res, more compact digicam. Or for a little more you could treat yourself to the CLux.

>

 

The DL3 is a serious contender, and has been all along. Not the CLux, however. Very good image quality, but I prefer almost everything about the DL3, including the pics.

 

 

 

 

nikau,

 

>

so slow to react you almost had time to take a lunch break and of flimsy quality (at least compared to M and R gear).

>

 

Alright. But compared to other digicams? All I've read is that it's fast, even by today's standards.

 

 

 

 

Philip,

 

Thanks for sharing your Digilux background story, and good info. It's a charming looking camera. The LC5/1 on the other hand kind of fell off the ugly tree, well at least the LC5.

 

>

>My advise would be to get a LC1 if you can stretch your budget.

>

 

With more faith in the camera not breaking down, I think I would stretch the budget.

 

Great uploading! The portraits show a quality for which I'm prepared to make some sacrifices. Allert for blown highlights seems in order; at least in LA!

 

So, you sold it not out of frustration but out of LC1 craving, then?

[alukban]

I have a D1 and just got my DL3 yesterday. BTW, I just learned the acronyms y'all use for the diff cameras

 

They are the same price point, as someone else has mentioned. I would not spend more on a new toy I guess. I think the ideal camera would be something between the two - both sizewise and funtion-wise. I am not going to split hairs regarding image quality because I actually find noisy images somewhat alluring - HEH HEH. I guess I just deal with the instrument's technological limitations. What gets me is usability and form factor. For my uses - regular guy who just wants to capture the moment and not selling my photos nor post on the web but do want to control the shot - the D1 is slightly too big and the DL3 is slightly too small. The DL3 needs a viewfinder on top (like the D1), a screen protector that screws on (like the D1), two freakin' eyelets on both sides for a proper neck strap (like the D1 - otherwise the DL3 looks like a "handbag camera"), a separate SD card door (like the D1 so that I can "file stuff" by card) and about another 1/2" in thickness (about like the D1). I love the digital zoom, the higher ISO settings, the crisp screen, the amazing 16:9 video, the smaller size and the SDHC capability on the DL3. You do NOT need to buy SDHC cards if you concerned about 16:9 video write speed. It works just fine with regular SD if you can stay within the capacity limits. As a side beef, why can't Leica make leather cases which will fit the camera AND the danged strap?!

 

I hate lens caps. It's one more extra step in taking a picture. I had a screwed a Hoya hood onto my D1 and that made quick shots really feasible - just leave the camera power on and press the exposure button when needed to power up. The minus side is that my D1's screw adapter for the hood (also used for manual focusing) has nearly fallen off. I don't know if this is something Lecia is willing to fix. It still focuses though. The phallus on the DL3 protrudes by a lot when it is on and there is no threading on it so the lens hood idea is out, unfortunately.

 

I have put the D1 neck strap on the DL3 and the leather case now fit's around it like a slipper for protection against the elements. I don't like wearing these things on my hip . Between the cellphone, beeper, flashlight and pistol, I feel too much like Batman. This is how a new toy like a fancy German camera should be carried - brandished around your neck for bragging rights.

 

Note to self: these cameras need Bluetooth capability for the exposure! There is no technical reason why I could not take a shot with my PDA (or a small dedicated remote) while the camera is hanging around my neck or while it is sitting on a table. It would allow for better timed and subversive, jiggle-free shots.

[philipotto]

Michael,

 

Philip,

 

Thanks for sharing your Digilux background story, and good info. It's a charming looking camera. The LC5/1 on the other hand kind of fell off the ugly tree, well at least the LC5.

 

>

>My advise would be to get a LC1 if you can stretch your budget.

>

 

With more faith in the camera not breaking down, I think I would stretch the budget.

 

Great uploading! The portraits show a quality for which I'm prepared to make some sacrifices. Allert for blown highlights seems in order; at least in LA!

 

So, you sold it not out of frustration but out of LC1 craving, then?

 

 

 

 

Reliability

 

I have not had a problem with my LC1, nor my D2, although I've only had it for a month.

I am not concerned about it personally.

 

I would not say that the D1 is necessarily more reliable than the D2, there are simply more cameras in circulation, and more owners on this forum.

Technical issues arrive with virtually every digitial camera, it is the nature of electronics.

 

 

If you are shooting professionally, you need a minimum of two bodies.

Anything can go wrong at any time.

 

 

 

Trading my D1 for a LC1

 

I was never frustrated with my D1, but when I handled my friends LC1, I knew I wanted one. That big lens on the front. Mechanical zoom, not electronic, love that its internal too (lens dosn't move). Aperature ring. Shutter speed dial. A real focus ring, the D1 has a manual focus ring, which is welcome, but it spins in circles.

I was sold.

 

I had to sell my D1. Couldn't afford to keep both.

Once I sold my D1, SF20 flash, and filter carrier, I had paid for my LC1.

 

 

 

D1 advantages over D2

 

Monitor reflects exposure settings in real time.

Focuses closer. (Although both Leica and Panasonic offer a close up filter for the D2/LC1)

Faster shutter

 

 

D2 advantages over D1

everything but the three points mentioned above

[philipotto]

Michael,

 

Great uploading! The portraits show a quality for which I'm prepared to make some sacrifices. Allert for blown highlights seems in order; at least in LA!

 

 

When bokeh isnt an option for portraits, and it isnt with the D1, you have to resort to blown backrounds. =)

[thomasl.se]

When bokeh isnt an option for portraits, and it isnt with the D1, you have to resort to blown backrounds. =)

 

I see a "buy it now, Euro 300" D1 at ebay right now. Can I have my bokeh with that, please? =)

 

I was pleased to see the flesh tones looking fine; these are nice portraits, but I was concerned with all the plain white in the pallette. Can you normally control the dynamic range in landscape shooting? I'm seeing blown highlights in a lot of D1 pics on the net.

[thomasl.se]

I have a D1 and just got my DL3 yesterday.

 

With the DL3, are you retiring your D1 now, or is it too early to say? I've seen a lot of DL3 pics of course, and it's a very solid performer; in a small package.

 

On the camera body size, yes I can dream up something like an updated D2 with a form factor in the CM-D1 interval. Maybe some day, with a new sensor.

[dfdann]

I have a D1 which started me down the slippery slope to a M7 and to the M8 which I have

on order. The D1 makes excellent pictures and the size appeals more to me than the D2.

The camera has never had any problems. One must be careful though as it is easy to change the exposure setting when the zoom control is used. I will keep the D1 as a backup.

Dan

[thomasl.se]

Dan,

 

Other than the exposure setting, is there anything in particular you'd change on the D1, within reason?

[lct]

...The D1 makes excellent pictures and the size appeals more to me than the D2...

Same for me.

I'm still looking for a better not-too-big digicam with optical viewfinder.

But 100 iso (perhaps 200 iso for serial # 2812xxx and higher) is the higest usable sensitivity if one don't want to use anti-noise softwares a lot.

Also the use of Photoshop or same is mandatory to get the best results out of the camera.

See my old 'simple tips' here:

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/LeicaD1settings.rtf

FWIW

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thomasl.se]

LCT,

 

Thanks for your document on noise. I think my main concern with D1 vs DL3 is dynamic range where the D1 looks outdated in comparison; many blown highlights and shadows/shadow detail are suffering in the pics I see on the net.

 

Did you mostly shoot TIFF?

 

What happened with serial # 2812xxx and higher? Firmware?