Is the Digilux-3 "Seen" as a Leica

[stunsworth]

Does it matter?

[larry]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

Does it matter?

NO

[guy_mancuso]

Any good reviews on this camera. And no i agree it takes a leica mount and that is all that really matters.

[Riley]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

Any good reviews on this camera. And no i agree it takes a leica mount and that is all that really matters.

very scarce info at all

theres a pay for view on D3 at Amatuer Photographer Magasine, I think you can get 2 weeks free from them as a trial, Im told the review is good

Amateur Photographer Test Reports

the one from photokina

Leica Digilux 3

user review

Leica Digilux 3 Digital Camera User Review

for the rest you can look at L1, which is close

an ok review of L1 here

Panasonic*Lumix DMC-L1 Review

a quality one of L1 here

Panasonic Lumix DMC L1 Review

[michael_b_elmer]

My common sense tells me that:

a Leica is a Leica.

Other question:

As most of you think the Digilux-3 is a Leica:

Is the Panasonic DMC L1 also a Leica, just without the red dot?

[Riley]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Benjamin Franklin

[guy_mancuso]

Thanks Rob . I saw this on a ad somewhere, a mini DMR?

[John E Robertson]

Originally Posted by bill

Andreas, you are right; this is one of those sticky questions. Sadly, it is likely to bring out the worst sort of brand snobbery and gormless bigotry in response. Not that it really matters what I or anyone else thinks, but it is branded as a Leica, therefore it is a Leica.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck...

Regards,

Bill

It certainly won't keep its value like one. Just look at the latest prices for remaindered Minilux cameras!! £250
The same amount Leica quoted for mine (bought new in 1996) to be repaired for the third time!! It's now landfill!!

[TSK]

If you can actually sell your Digilux 3 five years later for twenty bucks more than what you've paid for it today ... then I would say it IS a Leica. LOL

[John E Robertson]

Originally Posted by TSK

If you can actually sell your Digilux 3 five years later for twenty bucks more than what you've paid for it today ... then I would say it IS a Leica. LOL

Exactly!!
I doubt if I would get what I paid for my Leica Mini 3, (which I love, and has been far more reliable than the Minilux)
Must buy a Ferrari badge to stick on my Fiat. (Well it is the same company!)

[terrycioni]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

Any good reviews on this camera. And no i agree it takes a leica mount and that is all that really matters.

Guy,

LFI has done a pretty good job reporting on the D3. The latest issue talks about how you can successfully adapt R lenses to the D3 and they promise more to follow on the D3

I have one, I don't use it very often since the M8. That said it is a very capable camera, but I wouldn't take it to an NHL playoff game, but then it is not advertised as such. The KIT lens is outstanding and Leica claims that the D3 14-50 ASPH Vario Elmarit KIT lens has been hand selected for the D3, how accurate that is I don't know. I do have a friend with the L1 and I can't see any difference, however the lenses have slightly different markings. The D3 lens says Leica Camera Germany on the bottom for whatever that is worth - they are made in Japan.

Kindest Regards. Terry.

[audidudi]

Originally Posted by ustein

So far my main issue would be that the files need very strong sharpening which is either the chip or an extremely strong AA filter.

This past week (and in particular today), I've been shooting back-to-back comparison images with my LC1 and L1. I'm not yet finished with my testing, but my initial conclusion is that L1 images not only tolerate more sharpening than LC1 images but they also need more sharpening. Even then, I'm finding the LC1 images to be more life-life, more three-dimensional and overall, more appealing to my eye. I was an early adopter and advocate of the L1, but based upon the results of my testing this past week, mine may well be finding a new home soon! And as for the notion that RAW images are somehow different between the L1/D3, I disagree as I shot a few back-to-back images with my L1 and a local dealer's D3 on my tripod (I was trying to determine if my L1's lack of sharpness was due to a defect in the camera/lens) and I can see no differences between them even when I compare them very, very carefully. If there is a difference, then it's an awfully subtle one!

[Riley]

yes the 5Mp files of LC-1/D2 are really quite thin, and wont take much PP without falling apart. Then again they are more often usable straight out of the camera. Yet the larger files from D3/L1, much like Olympus files can be hammered into form without much pain.

[audidudi]

Originally Posted by Riley

Yet the larger files from D3/L1, much like Olympus files can be hammered into form without much pain.

Perhaps. If there is a way to "hammer them into form," then I haven't had any success in figuring it out!

[Iron Flatline]

Any other manufacturer owners tend to focus on the lenses they own once they're beyond making a body choice. Calling a Nikon a Nikon is silly because the lenses are what matters, whereas the sensor in a Nikon is made by Sony.

In the case of the Digilux 3, the lens is from Leica. The camera bodies (for the forseeable future) will be out-moded every few years, but the lenses will last a long time.

However, the warranty and service issues are Leica, and that matters. They may have been swamped recently, but in general they have a much deeper and longer relationship with photographers than a general electronics manufacturer like Panasonic.

It's a Leica.