Digilux 3 or Nikon D200?

[HeiKro]

Hello there,

My digital equipment currently consists of a Digilux 2 -- a camera I'm very happy with. Now I'd like to move on to a new model, yet I'm undecided as to whether to buy a Digilux 3 or a D200.

It may be conceded that, technically speaking, the Nikon is in a different league (larger sensor, more pixels, faster autofocus, more frames per second etc.) while -- according to LFI -- the Leica D3 merely represents the "middle class". However, these are not the features I'm particularly interested in.

Who can tell me something about the picture quality of these two cameras? Would you see a difference between photos taken with a Digilux 3 and a D200, printed (under equal conditions) in A4 or A3?

Incidentally, I prefer photographing landscapes and architecture, so I don't necessarily need the quickest camera with dozens of lenses. What matters to me are criteria like resolution, colour contrast -- in short: achieving the optimal quality.

How does the Digilux 3 come off, compared to the D200? Which of the two cameras would you buy -- and why?

Best wishes
and all the best in 2007

HeiKro

[bindrar]

Hi Heinz,

I will reply in the English forum and not German as I am not so comfortable writing in German.

I would ask you what type of photography you like doing and if you are happy with the ergonomics of both Digilux 3 or the Nikon? Also, I have heard elsewhere that Nikon will bring out a full frame soon in 2007.

If it was me ... when are you selling your Digilux 2 and can I buy it? I think the Digilux 2 is a good camera and it all depends upon what size you want to print your images if 5MP is enough of if you need 7-8MP?

Guten Rutsch

Ravi

[Riley]

this is quite a proponderous situation, due to the lack of any decent review of the D3
[Sean Reid are you listening ?]
most of the material we have to view is of Panasonics L1, but even that doesnt get beyond the use of the kit lens. thats not a fair way to examine the resolution of any camera

I did see a comparison between the Nikon D80 and L1, which one should assume is as close as we could get to D3 and anything else dSLR. And found the ultimate resolution of L1 lacking. So i was left to determine, if this was due to the lens, or the sensor/camera. a question of course I am unable to answer.

Case in point, the Nikon D70 APS C sensor is 50% lareger than four-thirds sensor.

look here for comparison photos using L1 and D80

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 full review Cameralabs outdoor and RAW results

[rosuna]

Originally Posted by Riley

Case in point, the Nikon D70 APS C sensor is 50% lareger than four-thirds sensor.

That is the key point.

[Riley]

Originally Posted by rosuna

That is the key point.

rosuna having seen a few requests for D3 review material, i have just started a new thread with all the review material i have at hand, you may like to look at that

there are balancing features to D3
the analogue control is a big deal for me

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Im not sure which to recomend, but for landscape one thing is sure, keep it in ISO 100, there tend to be a good deal of blue-band noise in the shadows at heigher iso settings. not more than many other cameras, but for some reason I tend to notice it more in the D3 files, and at the same time the files have a very pleasant look to them. so I think its very much a matter of taste.

Take a look at this link for a fullsize iso400 file, color corrected but no other post.
http://www.bophoto.com/leica/files/L1000272/jpg

Bo



My Leica scratch page - random thoughts

[sdai]

Originally Posted by Riley

... And found the ultimate resolution of L1 lacking. So i was left to determine, if this was due to the lens, or the sensor/camera. a question of course I am unable to answer.

Color Foto of Germany has tested the L1 and Digilux 3 separately, based on the figures they've published in the magazine, the Digilux 3 has slightly less resolution than the L1:

Digilux 3 ISO100/400: 1002/980 Line Pairs per Picture Height
L1 ISO100/400: 1013/994 Line Pairs per Picture Height.

The resolution of D80 is: 1127/1095 LP/BH
D200 resolves: 1173/1084 LP/BH

[Riley]

Simon
i recall ColorFoto did that before with D Lux 2 i think it was
surely thats not possible
but for batch variations normal within production
the resources the camera has are identical
just the processing is different

[dwcolvin]

Originally Posted by sdai

Color Foto of Germany has tested the L1 and Digilux 3 separately, based on the figures they've published in the magazine, the Digilux 3 has slightly less resolution than the L1:

Digilux 3 ISO100/400: 1002/980 Line Pairs per Picture Height
L1 ISO100/400: 1013/994 Line Pairs per Picture Height.

What are they testing -- default jpg processing? From a practical point of view these measurements are meaningless. And the samples someone referred to just had different contrast and sharpening characteristics... not very useful, either.

How big do you really want to go? If you plan to print 20" x 30" all the time, you may want more resolution than the D3 (although I have printed an image from that sensor at 20x30 iso 800, with spectacular results).

The D200 is certainly a better value than the Digilux 3... if Live View and the dustbuster don't mean anything to you (and you don't care about the Leica intangibiles, but then, why are you here?), then get the Nikon. Or a Canon 5D. Or an M8. Or if you really want resolution, a Hasselblad H3D.

But only you can make that decision.

[Riley]

Bo that link is bad
it should be

http://www.bophoto.com/leica/files/L1000272.JPG

what you describe is likely to be noise processing, the after effect of processing removing noise within the camera

[ho_co]

Heinz--
First, remember that citing 'line pairs per picture height' is meaningless. It's rather like specifying horsepower of an automobile without addressing handling, braking, fuel economy, etc.

I have a D200 and like it a lot, but I am very dissatisfied with the couple lenses I've got for it. I find that with Nikon, you need to do a fair amount of research into individual lenses before buying, because the Nikkors range from quite good to barely acceptable--and also because price doesn't seem to be a good indication of where a given lens falls along that quality line.

With Leica, on the other hand, there is much less difference among different lenses and almost no variation from sample to sample.

Rumors of a full-size sensor for Nikon have been around for years, and may yet turn out to be true; on the other hand, there are also predictions that the Four Thirds System will eventually die out.

Dollar-for-dollar (or whatever your chosen currency ), the D200 is the better buy. It offers a range of lenses--including some made by Zeiss, which would be superior to the equivalent Nikkors--and a larger sensor.

Using good lenses on both, I doubt that you could see a difference between the two cameras at A4; and you might not be able to distinguish the two at A3.

--HC

[sdai]

Color Foto tested the L1 and Digilux 3 using the same lens ... Zuiko Digital 50/2 Macro ED ... and to the best of my knowledge, no other magazine on earth tests digital cameras as complex as they do, normally their results for each camera is based upon more than 600,000 measurement points. They do have a clear description of their test methodology which is both published on site and in magazine.

Nikon already can do 35mm full frame DSLRs before the D200 ... and the D200 was very close to be their first 35mm FF DSLR - this is NOT rumour folks.

Regarding Olympus, you're not going to see the "E3" by next fall - earliest, and that's all for 4/3.

Speaking of the ZF lenses, there're many tests showing they're NOT better than the Nikkors. The 50/1.4 for example, all the pre-AI, AI-S and AF-D versions seem to be better than the ZF.

If you're interested, here's a Japanese test of the ZF against some old supposed-to-be junks.

?Japanese ZF 50/1.4 test samples

[dwcolvin]

Originally Posted by sdai

Regarding Olympus, you're not going to see the "E3" by next fall - earliest, and that's all for 4/3.

Here we go again. 4/3 is dead because the E-3 isn't available (even though most saying that have no intention of actually buying one).

I thought this was a Leica forum. Maybe Leica should just scrap their new lens plans.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by dwcolvin

I thought this was a Leica forum. Maybe Leica should just scrap their new lens plans.

But, Denny ... the "D" lenses aren't made nor designed by Leica. If there's a plan ... you should see the rubber stamp of Panasonic.

The 4/3 system won't die IMO, it will evolve as a low-end product lineup in the predictable future. I'm actually looking forward to buying the "E-3" to use my R lenses via the Leica-made R-4/3 adapter.

[Riley]

Originally Posted by sdai

Regarding Olympus, you're not going to see the "E3" by next fall - earliest, and that's all for 4/3.

what do you base that on Simon
just wondering if your gossip is better than my gossip...

[sdai]

Treat it as rumors, Rob ... and I'll never mind.

[MJLogan]

Originally Posted by sdai

But, Denny ... the "D" lenses aren't made nor designed by Leica. If there's a plan ... you should see the rubber stamp of Panasonic.

They most certainly are designed by Leica, in collaboration with Panasonic, (who build them) and incorporating Panasonic's OIS and the basic rules of 4/3 which, I suppose, originated with Olympus. Last time I checked, the most important parts of a lens are the glass elements, and that's where Leica's input is perfectly obvious--both in thei design and their quality control.

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by sdai

... and to the best of my knowledge, no other magazine on earth tests digital cameras as complex as they do, normally their results for each camera is based upon more than 600,000 measurement points.

Maybe so. But having 600,000 measurement points doesn't mean anything. How many issues of a car magazine would you read if they said they tested Astons and Ferraris with 600,000 measurement points? (See also Puts on the topic.)

Nikon already can do 35mm full frame DSLRs before the D200 ... and the D200 was very close to be their first 35mm FF DSLR

"They can do FF" but following the introduction of the D200 they have brought out D40, D80, D2Xs, all DX and not FF. I guess just in terms of time, these later models are even closer to the first FF Nikon dSLR than the D200 was....

this is NOT rumour folks.

My dictionary's definition of "rumor" is 'a statement or report current without known authority for its truth.' Thus, if you are not citing an authority, it's rumor.

Regarding Olympus, you're not going to see the "E3" by next fall - earliest, and that's all for 4/3.

Again, no authority; another rumor. "That's all for Four Thirds"--does that mean that Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Sigma, Tamron will all be so upset that they quit producing Four Thirds System equipment?

Speaking of the ZF lenses, there're many tests showing they're NOT better than the Nikkors. The 50/1.4 for example, all the pre-AI, AI-S and AF-D versions seem to be better than the ZF.

"Many tests"? You list only one. (Oh, and it doesn't have 600,000 test points so I'm not sure I should believe it! ) I don't doubt that some pre-AF lenses were better than current versions. But to tell someone thinking of buying a new camera that he should only buy old lenses for it on the basis of one test report seems a bit strange. Check out Sean Reid's comparison report on the current 50/1.4 AF Nikkor and the current Zeiss 50/1.4.

And by the way, Simon, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question (http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...tml#post128983) in regard to a source for information about the 5D's low-pass filter. I'm quite curious. Please, my friend: You stated something as fact and I've been waiting almost two days since asking for a reference!

Happy New Year.

--HC

[sdai]

Howard, I'm going to give up ...

The information regarding the 5D was straight from a Canon engineer (in Japan), is that enough?

[Riley]

i would think Nikon have mostly gone with APS C sensors for the same reasons Olympus [edit: went to four thirds] did. FF while desirable in the minds of many (mostly those who have a rack of old 35mm glass hanging around) has its own issues. Also FF has proven to be less than 1/2% of the business. I think M8 has proven the need for FF to be a myth, conclusively.

Howard there are indeed crystal filters around, crystal having rather different properties, and of those in particular the refractive index. Crystal is commonly coated too but there are a miriad of coatings available and it would be impossible to identify by looking at it.