Digilux 3 vs. Nikon d200

[bap]

Does anyone have an opinion between these two DSLR's... keeping in mind it would be in addition to the M8...for those times the M8 is not quite right.

[tom0511]

Originally Posted by bap

Does anyone have an opinion between these two DSLR's... keeping in mind it would be in addition to the M8...for those times the M8 is not quite right.

I would definatly prefer the d200 as an addition to the m8.
I have the combo and like it a lot.
4/3 is nice but Nikon offers much more lens options.
Also you can at least get some shallow dof with the 1.5 crop (compared to 3/4 crop).
I would assume that the viewfinder and also AF-speed of fthe d200 is much better than the Digil.3.
just my opinion
cheers, tom

[charlesphoto99]

I have a D200 which I use primarily for editorial work still prefering film for personal work though that may change once I get an M8.

The D200 is great in that one can use all of Nikons lenses past and enter the lens info in the database and then quickly access it via the function button. I prefer manual focus lenses vs auto so have picked a load of relatively inexpensive lenses for it. The 1.5x crop is a little hard to deal with but great on the longer end of things. I have a 105mm f1.8 for it which is real nice. I can see when i get the M8 complementing it with the D200 with either a 14mm 2.8 or 12-24 zoom to get the wide end that Leica doesn't accomodate (or only prohibitively expensively so) and lenses on the other end. As well as a macro. The you're covered. I also find the Nikon has a nice film like quality to the images vs Canon. Noise is more like grain.

I had a Digilux 2 for awhile but didn't gel with it. Too big to be a point and shoot, not enough going on to be a pro camera. beautiful object though. If i was a serious amatuer and only wanted one camera the Digilux 3 would be a nice choice but otherwise too limiting if you're used to M s.

[woodda]

Different beasts. The d200 is a great camera and is light. If I had one I would choose that as it reliable, great pictures, built in flash and great selection of lenses when you need it. How about D80 as same picture quality but not as ruggid although I suggest better than D3

P.S> I have an Leica MP and a D70 which has been great (16,000 pictures in 2 years no faults). I will probably stay with Nikon and get a M9 or 9

[dugby]

Originally Posted by woodda

Different beasts. The d200 is a great camera and is light. If I had one I would choose that as it reliable, great pictures, built in flash and great selection of lenses when you need it. How about D80 as same picture quality but not as ruggid although I suggest better than D3

P.S> I have an Leica MP and a D70 which has been great (16,000 pictures in 2 years no faults). I will probably stay with Nikon and get a M9 or 9

All I can say is friend with a D80 did a shoot with me a few months ago. He is so disappointed with what was printed of his D80 versus those from my D2, he's now regretting his decision.

[Riley]

theres a comparison here between D3 and D80, not what you want but close

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

I think there are things to add to that which is mostly about images
the aperture ring and speed dial are way better to have than wheels
the built in bounce flash is inovative
the OIS is more than usefull
the Live View is also usefull on occasion, Id like to see a tilt LCD to make it more worthwhile
dust reduction system works well and takes some troubles away

[ho_co]

I am a bit disappointed with the D200.

I use the 18-200 lens almost exclusively and am amazed at having an 11:1 zoom ratio and at finding out that the image stabilization (VR in Nikon-speak) is fantastic, but upset that the lens just isn't sharp.

There are many lenses available for the camera and I shouldn't condemn it on the basis of just one, but with Leica it seems that all lenses are quite good. (Of course, all Leica lenses are also a lot more expensive than this $750 Nikkor.)

And I'm bothered by the range of buttons and menus. I personally don't find the camera intuitive to use. I've owned it a year and will keep working with it, but I still need to check the manual to do new operations.

Not that the D200 is bad, mind you, but it isn't as good as I had hoped. Maybe sticking with it will change my mind.

--HC

[symmetron]

I almost bought the D200 and the D3, as I already have the D2, and D70 & D50, as well as Leica M and R film cameras.

I felt that the D3 although a DSLR (sort of) was very limiting in what it can do relative to the Nikon (or most DSLRs), i.e. poor viewfinder, not good for action (mediocre AF), noisy sensor, etc. to name a few. Frankly I was disappointed in the D3. However, it does (or will) have the Leica lenses. I felt that a D2 or other Leica P&S was probably very close to the D3 and not the worth the $2500 just for the 14-55mm (?) lens.

Personally, I'd get the D200 or D80 as it's much more versatile than the D3 and the top-end Nikon lenses will probably be cheaper than the Leica DSLR lenses if they ever come out. Whatever you do, handle both cameras before you purchase and do not rely simply on advice. The two cameras are night and day different in every respect.

[marknorton]

The reason to have another camera to complement the M8 is to get the flexibility for those situations where the M8 is less than ideal and the D3 does not provide it. Sorry, but the 4/3 thing to me is a refuge for also-rans in the dSLR market. Small brain in a large body and I think it will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Buy a D200 and it can tackle pretty much anything you throw at it, sports, macro, P&S, nature; not ideal for those areas where the M8 excels but that's why you're interested in both, right?

Important to know though that Nikon make lenses and cameras at different price points and there are inevitable compromises at the lower end of the range. How could there not be? If you're coming from Leica quality, you'll know that lens quality costs and things are no different in Nikon land.

Not often I disagree with HC but I think that 18-200 lens is a marvel, especially at the price point, but no one pretends it achieves the quality of, say, their 17-35, 70-200 VR or 105 micro VR.

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by marknorton

I think that 18-200 lens is a marvel, especially at the price point, but no one pretends it achieves the quality of, say, their 17-35, 70-200 VR or 105 micro VR.

Mark--
I concur. I'm torn between loving the lens for what it does--which *is* truly amazing--and despising it for the fact that it doesn't do more. I know there's no reason to expect it to be any better at the price, but I still wish it were.

Thanks for listing a couple lenses to consider. (It's hard to tell what's any good reading K Rockwell.) Maybe I should join Nikonians?


Back on topic: Like you, I question the future of FourThirds. The format really hasn't become a barn-burner, has it?

--HC

[Riley]

4/3 is a niche market within dSLRs
in that way they dont properly compete with APS C and FF dSLRs
yet there is always this pretence that they do
I dont think we have seen the best from the consortium yet
the question is will we

although they have lacked adequate AF for sports fans etc
they have the glass to do better
I think the 4/3 range suffer somewhat from to heavy an AA filter
and would be interested in what the potential is to combat this

I dont see 4/3 dissappearing anytime soon

[marknorton]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Like you, I question the future of FourThirds. The format really hasn't become a barn-burner, has it?

Tough to know how it's doing, but a D3 seems expensive to me; add in the lack of flexibility and its hardly a compelling purchase. Other than daring to be different, why would anyone choose it over a D200 or other maintstream equivalent?

I do wonder whether the only news in Solms which is worse than "the M8 needs a hardware recall" is "there's another container of D3s arriving today!"

[dugby]

I don't think you should dismiss the 4/3 solution too quickly. Remember the M8 sensor size and pixel density is not too different to those of the D3. (yes there are vastly differring architectual designs between the sensors).

In the old days we chose different film to change the photographic outcome, clearly today Leica in a digital era, is embarked upon a product line for customers to protect their investment in lenses again...4/3 Like all digital cameras the D3 will be outdated in time, and maybe the D4, D5 in 2007/8+ etc, may well have sensor solutions exceeding what a 2006-M8 produces today.

Granted the M lenses are outstanding and without peer. Maybe Leica has to hold back on what it could do with a D-range of 4/3 lenses for fear of canibalising it's M8 and DMR sales.

Leica clearly re-invented itself to go for other markets that are non M/R based, without this lower priced cash-cow segment, you can kiss good-bye anything beyond a M10 or R11 (assumming an M9 and R10 is already through the design phases, a position that any good development company like Leica should be positioned with).

[ho_co]

And in regard to FourThirds performance, I was photographed last week by a commercial photographer doing portraits for our church directory. He had Manfrotto tripod, three strobes, softboxes, background--and an Olympus E-1 with 1.4x and 14-54 lens. He's part of a large company doing these portraits, so the company must have bought a bunch of E-1s. I don't know the largest prints they offer, but the standard is 8 x 10.

So there must be some life and capability in the format.

Still, comparing the cost differential between the Digilux 3 and its Panasonic equivalent, and the current small lens offering for FourThirds to the range of lenses available for the D200, I would lean toward D200.

--HC

[elgenper]

I still love and use my D2, and plan to go on doing so; it remains an exceptional camera. However, I recently felt the need to complement it with a DSLR for closeups, fast action & c.

FWIW, after finally seeing the D3 (in its Panasonic form), I have to admit I went right away and bought the D200. I don´t regret it.

[marknorton]

I agree, the good old D2 still has a lot to offer, I've just bought a couple of spare batteries and it's a great P&S camera. It's a keeper...

[Riley]

I agree that D3 is quite expensive
various Oly prices have been tumbling,
not only cameras but the accesories and glass
i picked up an ex demo E300 for $350
that sort of value probably gives me a different view on the system
and Im optimistic that E3 will lift 4/3 to a new level
we will find out soon at PMA in March

Im eyeballing the available glass with a vew to the 7-14mm (just tell me where else would you get a lens like this) or 11-22mm
as I badly need another wide for work

[Shootist]

I own a D200 and like it and I think it would be a good compliment to a M8. I use it along side a M3 and find I take the M3 most times (But not having to do developing and scanning is nice. Just wish I could find a M8).
Since the Nikon has such a large selection of Lenses, from Nikon and other makers, it's good choice.

[stnami]

........the Pentax K10 with a 31mm lens seems to have a bit going for it seems to be a good camera

[Enrique Santa]

Agree with you Mark and Riley. D3 is expensive and isn´t a real sucesor of D2. I think 4/3 have several reason to grow up : price, wheight and size (see Oly E400) and a sensor that can be very good at low ASA (at 800 my E400 works perfect, and the sensor is Kodak, with the same tech than the sensor in the M8), so 4/3 is a perfect format for travels, street pics, and advanced-medium amateurs.
Oly E400 is priced at 800-1000€ depending the store with two excelent kit lenses. I will pay something more for the red dot, but not more than the double. Perhaps if Leica focuses, their 4/3 new cam in pro-sumer market, more than in a pro level, things may change.