the next d-lux-xy or what ever it will be called

[vic vic]

now with the talks with the new d-lux-3 i have a few remarks...

what leica gives me with this new version is a camera wich photographs at 100 iso a bigger pictures (with 10 megapix?)...
this is called upgrade - rite???

i have a dl-lux-2... i really love this camera - use it alot and enjoy very much....
but i dont think it needed more megapixes... i think it needed a much better sensor that will allow me to use the camera beyound 100iso...
sorry but i cannot use it beyound it tat much, not photographically at least. when i make a picture with 400iso i have to start being creative with graphic softwares and apple quartz filters to totally change its look.. that is cool, but it is not what camera supposed to give me....

in ither words.. i would like to have:
1. a tiny camera that i can use always... for that - the concpet and the usability of d-lux-2 is great.. the digilux3 is not exactly a pocket camera
2. a much better sensor that will allow me to photograph at 400+ iso, and will look like photograph... for that i would eassily give up on the resolution (mega-pix) issue... this camera is not supposed to be a tool from which u make huge prints... there is the m8 for it and there are medium formats for it..... at this moment i can make about 12.5" print which is more than enough for this kind of cameras
3. a faster lens??? is it possible to put there a kind of summicron... equivalent to 28-90 will be great ... with less distortion (on wide angle) will be also great. an option of intechangable will be great too. an option of superfast normal lens will be great - one of those at least... or otherwise - the lens is really cool for what it is :-))))

leica legacy.... well - u can repeat the legacy - seriously - u can do it with the d-lux concept... small pocket size camera for great snapshots that do not pretend itself to be big print maker... cause at the moment, what d-lux3 offers me is a bigger print, which i dont need, and i believe this is not the camera that should do it... but the serious limitation of this camera has not been solved actually...

also - instead of the flash - put there pop-up viewfinder - it would be great...

"leica"... "mini-system" of "mini-pocket-digital-m"...
im not engineer, so i dont know how it is possibel... im photographer and costumer... i just know that if u make it - i will buy it - even if it costs alot (which is very natural to leica users) :-)

[jank]

Vic , you are right,
viewfinder on small camera is essential, and a necessity for those of us over 50.
I am looking for one with following features:

1/ viewfinder, just any kind, your suggestion of pop-up type is great, you should start writing a patent.
2/ 28 mm (equivalent) or wider for all those pictures in crowded places, parties etc.
3/ up to 80 perhaps longer not necessarily ( I can always walk closer).
3/ faster lens , one stop makes up for doubling the ASA it makes 200 with 100 quality.I do not need 10 MP, perhaps 5 to 7 would do.This would reduce noise for the same size sensor.
4/ Zoom- not necessary, perhaps 20 - 50 - 90 tri-something would do.
They can skip the motor for zooming.I can learn to move some lever or ring to 3 fixed positions.
5/ image stabilizaton should stay, great feature.
6/ there should be a raw file available.
7/ a simple analog like setup (digilux3), no videogame type as common to most consumer products.
8/there should be a possibility to put camera to sleep and maintain all settings incl. focus etc. for instant wake-up.
Jan

[vic vic]

jan..

ya - your aditions are very welcomed ...

no need for zoom - personally - 28, 50, 75 (or 90) + additional 35 (many people like 35)... with tri-elm-like change... and ya - more analog feel (even if the dlux2 feels ok basically, compared to other small digi camseras)...

makro ability is important for this kind of camera...

additional stop - ya agree with u, and i would add that this will be fixed stop along all focal lenghts....

6 to 7 mega-pix should be enough - if olympus e1 and leica digilux 3 can live with it than d-lux should live with it too - sure...

if it can be done with intrchangable lenses than cool too - add to it 50mm equvalent summilux :-)))))))

common leica.. we can continue developing ideas from user point of view... u do it - u will make the next MEGA-HYPE.... digital pocket m camera

lets admit it - with comapct cameras and even with the digilux u simply give us a kind of sexier and finer panasonics... i have no problems with panasonic of course.. indeed they do great job... but do it yourslef - even with panasonic - i dont mind... just do a fully developed digi pocket camera based on M camera original principles.... put in it super quality photo ability through lenses and sensor and u will do the HYPE and most importantly the mini-TOOL

[kobold]

Pretty much what I asked for here:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...following.html

and here:

Dos a camera with these specs exist? - FM Forums

Currently, I can't see how the D-Lux-3 can be any improvement over the LX-2, except for the Red Dot, assuming you shoot Raw.

I am going to get an LX-1 or 2, and add that Voiglander 28/35 finder, and mark the barrel position for the 35mm equivalent lens position that Sean suggested.

I can guesstimate longer focal lengths---or hold the thing at arms' length!

How Leica can put out a camera without a finder (EVF or optical) that you actually look *through* is beyond me---but then no one from Leica asked me (or anyone else here) what they actually wanted in a truly portable P&S. One day.

[biglouis]

Vic

Some good points. Personally, I do not intend to upgrade my D-LUX 2 to the D-LUX 3. I may be wrong but I don't see how you can extract more quality from the same size of sensor. On top of which I am very satisfied with the D-LUX 2.

What did shock me a little is the recently anounced Canon G7 which appears to have the 'form factor' we'd all like in a Leica, e.g. nice and compact and with a viewfinder.

The issue of viewfinder is one which I do sometimes agonise about. However, then I go out and use the D-LUX 2 in all kinds of situations and come back with.... I hope... a decent result.

BTW, the main reason is that I always shoot with the grid lines on and often I am looking at the grid lines and general placement more than the contents of the frame. I think that has resulted in my best shots.

Personally, I would like an entry level M8. Is that the Epson R-D1s?

LouisB

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by biglouis

Vic

Some good points. Personally, I do not intend to upgrade my D-LUX 2 to the D-LUX 3. I may be wrong but I don't see how you can extract more quality from the same size of sensor. On top of which I am very satisfied with the D-LUX 2.

What did shock me a little is the recently anounced Canon G7 which appears to have the 'form factor' we'd all like in a Leica, e.g. nice and compact and with a viewfinder.

The issue of viewfinder is one which I do sometimes agonise about. However, then I go out and use the D-LUX 2 in all kinds of situations and come back with.... I hope... a decent result.

BTW, the main reason is that I always shoot with the grid lines on and often I am looking at the grid lines and general placement more than the contents of the frame. I think that has resulted in my best shots.

Personally, I would like an entry level M8. Is that the Epson R-D1s?

LouisB

Yes, it certainly is. R-D1 with firmware upgrade is same camera. It is "entry level" with respect to relative price although the R-D1 also has some features the M8 does not. I'll be using one of each.

Cheers,

Sean

[vic vic]

luis - sean (u have a new name rite?) :-)

dont take me wrong... im dont talk about the described above camera as a replacement for m8 or epson r1d camera... not at all.. they have their place and m8 will probably ahve soon its place in my hands too...

i talk about a pocket camera... no, not because of price differances (if that is what u mean by saying about epson alternative as entery level m)... price is not the point here and entery level to the M system is not the point..

the point is a pocket digital camera that will be further developed... digilux is cool i soppose, but it is not a pocket camera at all.

i really would like to have a superior digi pocket camera, that will be flexible etc.. just like the leica camera was when it introduced at those times in the early 20th century...

sean... the basic concept of d-lux2 is very close to it initially i guess... i do use the dlux2 and love it very much... but there are limitations (as described above and adressed)... im limited - very limited in many ocasions when i take the dlux2 with me. i really dont like flash - only studio flashes, but this is a totally different story:-)))))

sean ... u do use alot of years the m cameras rite?? u know very well how flexible u r with it - u know that u can make your pictures any time any way regardless of anything... this is what i want - mini digi m that can go with me in the pocket....

do i ask too much???? maybe man... i told - im not engineer - but i will pay my part and buy if u give me this kind of thing. and i believe many people will buy it, and even more - i believe it can become really HOT thing.

will it replace m8 or mp cameras or epson.. no, not at all... this is not the intention at all. u know - m camera is not exactly pocket camera... there are even slr cameras that are more compact than m cameras... in the old days it was small of course... the referance was totally different - rollei, voigtlanders 69, view cameras etc... of course it was small then... now we talk about different proportions with "samll" - pocket (literally).

[gepetto]

Vic I would not dismiss the D-LUX 3 so soon. The D-LUX 3/LX2 is not just a bump in megapixels. For starters the new 16:9 LCD screen is worth the price of admission. The screen now matchs the sensor in aspect ratio. The old screen was backwards in compared to the aspect ratio of the sensor. Frankly how they released the DL2/LX1 with a 4:3 aspect ratio LCD was short changing the camera.

Some other improvements on the DL3:

An economy feature that shuts down the LCD when the camera is not used after 15 seconds. Half press of the shutter brings the screen back up. This equals much longer battery life.

The Auto focus seems much improved. I have used an LX1 which in macro focus the auto focus would hunt miss all the time. The DL3 it actually works. AF/exposure metering in general look much better.

In manual mode the focus assist can now be moved to any place on the LCD instead of being fixed in the center. I still wish they would allow for the focus assist to show up with a half press of the shutter.

For the guideline display mode you can now add histogram/settings together or seperate to the view.

High angle of view mode for the LCD really works.

In manual mode I wish they would have made the LCD fucntion like the D1 were the screen gives a live view so when you change shutter/f stop the screen reflected the change instead of the screen being gained up. They did however add the exposure meter in the guidelines as a visual.

SDHC card support.

When the DL2/LX1 were released the cameras were paned because of "image quality". Now we know these claims were bogus. The same thing is happening to the DL3/LX2 already. Below I am posting some images from both the DL3 and the LX1. The top images are from DL3 both for the full and 100% crop. Both shoots were at ISO 400 at f4 1/8sec focal lengths were ~10.8mm(DL3)11.3(LX1) hand held OIS on in dim incandescent kitchen light. WB was set for incandescent. Both images were run thru Adobe PS ACR with the same settings.

This was a real world impromptu test.

[Riley]

i think this is an interesting discussion because of our present position with technology. elsewhere ive been having a conversation about the soon to be redundancy of the slr. i think this will happen because of improvements to EVFs .

once we have an EVF that competes with either optical finders or the prismatic finder of the slr its curtains for the moving mirror. then you almost have what some of you are asking for here, sans the optical finder, but with a useful EVF.

so what do we call the remainder? its not an slr, it has no moving mirror or prism finder, it doesnt have an optical finder either so its not really a rangefinder camera.

why is it better? well its simpler/cheaper to construct and does without the complication of the moving mirror and all its faults, the mirror vibration, the loss of view re live view, the need to duplicate or reroute fucussing and exposure evaluation systems. it can also have light gain for low light, you can use zoom lenses or interchangeable lenses and see 100% accurate view.

i think this hybrid of cameras is inevitable, and ideally suited to Leica, and rather like D2 yes?... sans the low noise and interchangeable lenses. if not for that then a D Lux2 with a collapsible lens. they absolutely have to do something about noise, and get a useable iso800 or they are going to be smoked by the competition. the fuji F30 now has a useable iso 3200 ! and this in a compact with a new 1/1.7" sensor. D2 should have been way better for noise than it turned out i always thought.

gepetto
when you say
"When the DL2/LX1 were released the cameras were paned because of "image quality" were you referring to a review in ColorFoto ?

Riley

[gepetto]

Riley I think just about everyone was paning the DL2/LX1 save for a few. I am not sure I saw the ColorFoto review. The concensus was the cameras were no good without anyone actually using them.

The EVF's will get better. The D2 with a better EVF would be great.

One thing I forgot to mention with the above post was the lack of an optical viewfinder. With the larger LCD the DL3 has no room for one. What I think could be done to add an "optical" viewfinder would be something like the ones that cover and use the LCD. It could be attached using the tripod socket like the LCD shade for the D1.

I also wish they added threads for a lens barrel like the D1 for the use of filters with the DL3.

[rsh]

I have ordered a d-lux 3 for a carry around snapshot camera, and it will serve that purpose extremly well. I will use the M8, for serious digital photography. I will continue to use my M5s, MP and SL2s on occasion.

[rvaubel]

I'm one of the many RD1 + LX1 w/28-35minifinder guys that seems to populate this forum. Frankly, I couldn't take the noise so I wasn't using it at all except for oudoors stuff. However, lately I have started to fool with Neat Image and have been favorably impressed. But the learning curve is steep, to say the least. I also wonder just how raw the RAW files are that come out of the camera. Does turning off all the in-camera noise reduction, sharpening, etc, really do anything in RAW or is it already off anyway?

Does anyone have some profiles or hints about optimizing Neat Image

Rex
taking a 2nd look

[kobold]

What did shock me a little is the recently anounced Canon G7 which appears to have the 'form factor' we'd all like in a Leica, e.g. nice and compact and with a viewfinder.

Form factor nice, apart from the lettering and graphics, etc.: but problems there, too. No Raw, and widest end is 35mm equivalent. Otherwise, I'd buy. As all here know, trememdous difference between 35 and 28 (about 10 degrees or thereabouts, re. FOV?). LX-2 in the meantime, with 28/35 finder. cheers

[hawkeye_a]

Hey folks, this is my first post here, so please bear with me .

Been looking to get a digital camera for some time now... never really been into photography all that much, so i do consider myself a novice. A few of my photographer friends pointed out the D-Lux 3, and in all honesty, i fell in love with the design of the body, and so i ordered if off B&H (Im in Australia). it should be here within the forthnight.

Ive been learning a lot about camera in the process, and ive read about the high ISOs and high noise thing. Apart from the example above i couldnt "see" the implications. From preliminary reports, the panasonic equivalent of the D-Lux3 has a major problem with this, and apparently Leica has "Leica-fied" the settings to produce a better picture. Was wondering if anyone here would know if there is any difference in picture quality between the D-Lux2 and it's Pana-equivalent ?

Although the MP count is a marketing thing..i think inorder to cmpete in the prosumer digital field, Leica had to come out with a 10MP camera as all it's competitors were.

I chose this camera because:
-RAW
-16X9
-Wide angle lens
-O.I.S
-10MP
-industrial design

i think thats a great combination for a wide-aspect-ratio camera (wide angle, 16X9). Thus far, ive only heard awesome reviews for Leica products, so i think ill be happy with the product.

I'd really appreciate it if someone could post samples of different ISO levels for comparison using the D-Lux2. if the pictures above illustrate it, never mind.

Cheers

PS>>is DL = D-Lux or Digi-Lux ?

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by vic vic

luis - sean (u have a new name rite?) :-)


i really would like to have a superior digi pocket camera, that will be flexible etc.. just like the leica camera was when it introduced at those times in the early 20th century...

Hi Vic,

Yes, a lot of us would like that, myself included. I was just answering the question above about the R-D1.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by gepetto

Below I am posting some images from both the DL3 and the LX1. The top images are from DL3 both for the full and 100% crop. Both shoots were at ISO 400 at f4 1/8sec focal lengths were ~10.8mm(DL3)11.3(LX1) hand held OIS on in dim incandescent kitchen light. WB was set for incandescent. Both images were run thru Adobe PS ACR with the same settings.

This was a real world impromptu test.

Gepetto,

I haven't tested the D-Lux 3 yet but your examples seem to show a significant improvement in file quality at ISO 400. I asked Leica specifically about the new model at high ISO in a meeting this summer and was told that this aspect of the camera, in particular, had received attention in the new model. I'm glad that you did this comparison with RAW files so as to eliminate the confounding variable of JPEG smoothing. In fact, now that I've seen your comparison, I'm going to try to move the D-Lux 3 further ahead in the line for review.

If this comparison is indicative, the D-Lux 3 certainly should not be dismissed out of hand.

Cheers,

Sean

[gepetto]

Hi Sean

I am glad you noticed the samples I posted. There is significant improvement. As a whole I think you will find that the D-LUX 3 is what the D-LUX 2 should have been out of the gate. The LCD alone makes it a winner. They seem to have gotten much use out of the extra megapixels. I am sure everyone will appreciate a review from an actual photographer with an objective view.

Here is another comparison at 100%. The top image is the D-LUX 3 ISO 800 f4 1/13s. The lower image is the same LX1 image above ISO400.

[stnami]

Geppetto things would have been more plausable with the camera EXIF data, then we could really see for ourselves