koray Posted October 23, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) PS: Sorry for the long post. This is somehow a mental exercise that I wanted to share with you. When I finished writing I had a better idea on which to keep, but nevertheless, I will share my thoughts with you. You are welcome to confuse me further. This is my dilemma. I know this forum may not be impartial, but nevertheless I want to ask for your valuable opinions. I need to choose one of them (and sell the other one), so any suggestion for a different brand/model camera is not helpful at all. To help my quest I created a comparison test scene lit with a separate flash unit bounced from the ceiling. I chose f/5.6 aperture (which I use most of the time) and compared the images at Lightroom at their original sizes, and at a downsampled size (2400px edge). I also included an LC1 in the test, which I will be selling soon, just to see how it compares with D2. Here is a copy of Leica D2 RAW result (click for 1024x768 copy, sorry for free flickr limitation): And here is the Sony R1 RAW result (click for 1024x768 copy, sorry for free flickr limitation): Here is the link to the test set (100% crops) on flickr: Leica Digilux 2 vs Panasonic LC1 vs Sony R1 - a set on Flickr Here is one sample 100% crops from my comparison set, Sony R1 and Leica D2 both RAW (click for original size): Below are my lists of PROs and CONs that I could come up with for each camera when compared with the other model. Sony R1 PROs: Much cleaner sensor output when compared to D2 between ISO100-400 Longer zoom reach (24-120mm eqv) Shallower depth of field (if needed) Faster startup when compared to D2 Longer battery life compared to D2 Better external flash white balance Top mount LCD provides excellent opportunities for architectural photography from unconventional shooting angles Sony R1 CONs: Heavy, large, and wrist-hurting ergonomics (or lack of) and hit/miss shutter release button Very slow AF in low light No manual/intuitive controls like D2 and the lens extends ridiculously when zoomed The lens provides somewhat inconsistent image quality, double-lined bokeh in some situations, and weird aberrations and shows excessive field curvature (out of focus and smeared edges) The lens is 1 stop slower at wider end, and 2 stops slower at tele end (f2.8-4.8) when compared to D2 Large RAW files (25MB!) and not so nice JPEG output Leica Digilux 2 PROs: Excellent lens optics provide excellent image quality at all ranges, wonderful bokeh guaranteed Wonderfully laid out manual and intuitive controls Ergonomics are excellent, the camera is not so heavy but not light either Nice JPEG output, comparable to RAW Better AF in low light when compared to R1 Built in bounce flash and better LCD when compared to R1 Leica Digilux 2 CONs: Not so clean sensor output, too grainy when compared to R1 and lack of detail Not so shallow depth of field (but 90/2.4 helps a lot) AF is hit and miss sometimes, requires manual focusing at 90mm (which slows down the whole process) Shorter battery life compared to R1 Cannot set custom white balance with an external flash In addition to these lists above, I should say that I experience more frustrations with R1 operation-wise. Many times camera wastes time AF'ing, but not achieving and then still releasing the shutter and making me wait 6 seconds for writing RAW. Using D2 is a more pleasant experience.If only D2 had a tad cleaner output (like R1) then I wouldn't hesitate keeping it. I also own a Leica M6 with 35/50 Summicrons. I find it easier to switch between M6 and D2 from ergonomics point of view. With R1 I totally get lost with wheels and menus. So my final thinking is that if I can't use a tool fluently then there is no point in better image quality (per pixel sensor output) that it provides. Moreover, in lower light (i.e., indoors) I lose 1-2 stops from R1 (increase to ISO200), and then I need to shoot at a higher shutter speed to reduce shake (lose another stop, so increase to ISO400), and I need to stop down more to get deeper depth of field (another few stops). With D2, I can shoot at 90mm eqv with f/2.4 and can still have more depth of field than R1 and enough light to shoot at ISO100. So theoretically in some cases R1 can't deliver where D2 can. I hardly print anything larger than 6x4, so probably I won't see the pixel difference between these two cameras at that size, right? Do you have any suggestions on these points? Cheers, Koray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Hi koray, Take a look here Which one to keep, Leica Digilux 2 or Sony R1?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted October 23, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 23, 2009 If you read your own post you will see that, subconsciously, you have already made your decision. The giveaway is the often emotive words you use to describe the pros and cons of each camera: D2: + "excellent, excellent, wonderful, guaranteed, wonderfully, intuitive, better". - "grainy, hit and miss, shorter". R1: + "cleaner, longer, faster, shallower, faster, longer, better, excellent". - "heavy, hurting, hit/miss, slow, ridiculously, inconsistent, weird, excessive, slower, smeared". But... ...I hardly print anything larger than 6x4, so probably I won't see the pixel difference between these two cameras at that size, right? Yup. Which makes the whole thing a subjective intellectual exercise, which as I have already pointed out, your subconscious has settled for you. Ditch the R1. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted October 23, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 23, 2009 You wrote: "I also own a Leica M6 with 35/50 Summicrons. I find it easier to switch between M6 and D2 from ergonomics point of view. With R1 I totally get lost with wheels and menus. So my final thinking is that if I can't use a tool fluently then there is no point in better image quality (per pixel sensor output) that it provides. " Another argument for the D2. Based on the D2 threads I've read on this forum, I doubt you will get anyone here supporting the Sony option. I myself decided to get a D2 as a leisure camera. Now I have an M2, M8, and D2. A happy Leica family. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosecpf Posted October 23, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 23, 2009 Koray, As the others pointed out, you already made your decision! In to addition to all Pros you have listed, I would add camera looks and better feel while handling it. The former is key to take better pictures. Nevertheless, thank you very much for your post! I was planning to buy an used R1 mainly because of it's ability to provide shallower DOF and it's high ISO capabilities. I read online that you can print clean pictures up to ISO 800, do you confirm? As for the shallower DOF, your test pictures make clear that the R1 is superior in this matter. However, after reading your post, I believe I am better off with my beloved D2!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koray Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted October 23, 2009 Wilfredo and Bill, thanks a lot for your comments. Yes, as I mentioned in my PS note, towards the end of my original post I thought to myself: "duh, I think I now know what I want, but I won't waste all these points and see what others think". Thanks for confirmation!.. Carlos, exactly as you pointed out, D2 feels better at hand, therefore it is easier to concentrate on the subject with D2. With R1 I never felt that way. Bulk of the camera body (including the lens and the LCD) is too apart from the hand grip, therefore it creates heavy strain on your wrist. It is so bad that you can't hold it for too long. If you do, you lose the sensitivity of your finger and it causes slipping on shutter release button (which itself is not very well designed), thus ending with erroneous AF and miss-release of shutter (and lost 10 seconds if you are at RAW setting). I had a lot more frustrations with R1 than any other camera. When it comes to noise, R1 is doing much better than D2, thanks to its modern and large sensor. Though, considering that it has a slower lens (f:2.8/4.8), and ISO800 being on the verge of usefulness, I don't think it improves a lot on D2 (as an upgrade). In dim light AF is unreliable. This is particularly problematic when you are using studio strobes, due to some stupid design choice of Sony which darkens the LCD in MF mode (long story). However, if you are shooting in good light, and if it is shallow depth of field you are after, than R1 is a viable choice. Here is one example from R1 that I was happy with (click for hi-res copy): R1 still is a great camera (especially for its price). However, after all these mental exercises I came to a conclusion that it doesn't fit my style of use and expectations of ergonomy... K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted October 23, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 23, 2009 I'm glad this was helpful. Sometimes we need to talk things out to get where we need to get :-) Here's my new used D2. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/101190-which-one-to-keep-leica-digilux-2-or-sony-r1/?do=findComment&comment=1086809'>More sharing options...
JHAG Posted October 23, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know if that helps in your musings, but after leaving my D2 like an orphan on its wooden shelf in an old pakistani cupboard, I took another ride with it, and I'm really pleased with some results I've got. I just learnt not to use it in low light, but mainly for external shots (or with the clever bounce flash). Thorsten Overgaard excellent D2 page helped me a bit for that. leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1) - Page 1 of 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 23, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 23, 2009 I just learnt not to use it in low light, but mainly for external shots (or with the clever bounce flash). I quite like it for night shots... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted October 23, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 23, 2009 I quite like it for night shots... Regards, Bill If that's what you call a night, "let's call it a day". :cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 23, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 23, 2009 If that's what you call a night, "let's call it a day". :cool: Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 23, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 23, 2009 As someone who got an R-1 as a stopgap for 2005-2006 while awaiting the M8, and had (and still have) a D2, your analysis of their characteristics is on target. R-1 had a lovely sensor and a lens that had its moments, good and bad. (nice range, though) I also really liked being able to shoot Barnack 2:3-shaped pictures instead of 4:3 aspect ratio. D2 lens far outshone what the sensor could keep up with, enough so that the R-1 really only captured about 10% more detail, even with 2x the pixels and 1.4x the linear resolution. The top-mounted LCD on the R-1 was kind of a cool innovation. Sometimes I shot it as a kind of waist-level Hassy-type camera (complete with Zeiss glass). With the M8's arrival, I sold the R-1, as it was what the M8 "replaced" in terms of Mpixels, aspect ratio, and lens range. Kept the D2 around because my wife was using one, and what with sensor failures and such, it seemed good to have a backup available. Sensor failed on the "backup"(!), was replaced free 2 years out of warranty. Now I'm keeping it as emergency backup to the M9 and for occasional informal shoots - used it to shoot studio pix of the M9 for a thread on that forum - still love that wonderful color and lens crispness straight from an ISO 100 jpeg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 23, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 23, 2009 I knew the answer to that question already before I opened the thread :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted October 23, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 23, 2009 I knew the answer to that question already before I opened the thread :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koray Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted October 24, 2009 As someone who got an R-1 as a stopgap for 2005-2006 while awaiting the M8, and had (and still have) a D2, your analysis of their characteristics is on target. R-1 had a lovely sensor and a lens that had its moments, good and bad. (nice range, though) I also really liked being able to shoot Barnack 2:3-shaped pictures instead of 4:3 aspect ratio. D2 lens far outshone what the sensor could keep up with, enough so that the R-1 really only captured about 10% more detail, even with 2x the pixels and 1.4x the linear resolution. ... Right on Adan, when I downsample D2 and R1 to 2400px at longer edge, there is not much difference between two outputs (even at certain parts D2 has more detail). R1 has its on "cult-status" among a group of people, but I never felt right using it. Most R1 users claim that they bought an R1 again after selling one. We'll see. :-) I prefer 2:3 aspect ratio, too. Sadly D2 doesn't allow switching to 2:3 mode (which I prefer since I get my family photos printed on 6"x4" paper). Earlier when I was using my LC1, I modified its LCD to show 2:3 framelines by the help of two thin wires (click on the photo below for a set of photos about this hack). I will definitely do the same on Digilux 2. After that all I have to do is set up default import settings in Lightroom which crops original photos to 2:3 aspect ratio. Hel-Stampes and Thorsten, thanks! K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lux50 Posted October 24, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 24, 2009 Keep the Digilux 2 - a terrific camera!; Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koray Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted October 26, 2009 Keep the Digilux 2 - a terrific camera!; Well, I did. Both Sony R1 and Pana LC1 are sold now, and at their new homes! Phew, what a relief!.. :-) Thanks for all comments. K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 26, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 26, 2009 Now ... next thing. Christmas gifts to our cameras. What to give your Digilux 2 for Christmas... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgenper Posted October 26, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 26, 2009 Now ... next thing. Christmas gifts to our cameras. What to give your Digilux 2 for Christmas... Why, an M9 as companion, of course! At least that´s what I´m doing (if I get it delivered in time...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthornbury Posted October 26, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 26, 2009 How about giving it a nice Christmas cuddle? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 26, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 26, 2009 Im rather proud of this new concept I came up with there. Imagine how much easier it will be to justify giving a present to your camera, than to your self I'm thinking I'll be giving my M9 a wide angle Summilux. Because she deserves it. And ... it's Christmas :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.