davidross Posted December 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can anyone tell me if the Digilux 2 differs from the Digilux 1 in any way but the CCD sensor/resolution? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Hi davidross, Take a look here Ancient History: Digilux 1 vs. Digilux 2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lesh Posted December 11, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 11, 2009 Never owned one, but still like the D1 design....what is it, a Retro or a Bauhaus look? Anyway will be interested to hear what those who have owned both cameras say about how they compare in use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniuni68 Posted December 11, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 11, 2009 I have owned both. I bought the D1 when it was first announced in 2002 and I bought the D2 in 2005 after the sensor problem was fixed. The D1 was a 4mp camera with minimal manual controls while the D2 has quite a few manual controls. The D1 suffered from a posterization of the pictures with a high degree of graininess that the D2 does not have. The D1 has very poor high ISO capabilities, which really worsens the graininess. The body is painted and thus is very slippery to the grip. I used it with the LCD shroud all the time, which was great because it protected the LCD screen, which was terribly dim. The battery life was decent. You can do macros with the D1 and you can do manual focus and manual zoom with the ring barrels. I believe you can also manually adjust the f-stop, etc, but with the menu functions, which is cumbersome. The D2 allows you to make most of the changes with the barrel rings, which is very convenient and intuitive. You can quickly adjust the settings for a full manual control of the D2 which allows you to push the limits of the camera to the edge for some pretty amazing pictures. Strengths of the D1? It was very very fast. The moment you tapped the button to the time the image was captured was probably under one second. This made it the perfect camera for me as I bought it in 2002 to take pictures of my then-4-year-old dog who never sat still for pictures. My father has a million shots of the dog walking out of frame when he used his Sony. The D1 was probably the fasting digital camera back in 2002 unless you went with an SLR. Subjectively, the D1 felt faster than the D2. The D1 was also smaller than the D2. Both cameras are flashy in public but the D2 was more flashy. The strength of the D2 is well discussed in this forum and has a cult-like following, which tells you a lot about this camera. I have since sold both cameras and will probably move to M8 territory. My D1 was $895 and my D2 was $1895. If I had to do it over again, I would have gone with the D2 and bypassed the D1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted December 11, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 11, 2009 I still have my Digilux-1, and it is a fine camera. It is very quick in use, and does not suffer from many of the problems that most small cameras of it's day did. (Shutter-lag, slow focusing etc.) I have found that it is solid, well built, and capable of excellent results. It also has a real viewfinder. Although it is a bit limited compared to some more recent cameras, it's still a great little camera, with a cracking lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted December 11, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 11, 2009 I own both and share the same as above, a lot faster than the D2 but no where near as good... having said that it can still take good pictures.. prefer the colors of the D1 to be honest.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica@fuse.net Posted December 11, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 11, 2009 I still have my Digilux-1, and it is a fine camera. It is very quick in use, and does not suffer from many of the problems that most small cameras of it's day did. (Shutter-lag, slow focusing etc.) I have found that it is solid, well built, and capable of excellent results. It also has a real viewfinder. Although it is a bit limited compared to some more recent cameras, it's still a great little camera, with a cracking lens. I currently own both the D1 and D2. I still use the D1 as a "street"/"walkabout" camera instead of the D2. (heavy, very noticeable!) Reasons: As stated above by Nicoleica; plus it' a tough little camera and at ISO 100 it produces excellent pics for me. Hey; it's light and fast. ...and.... it has Bokeh too. However, when I get serious, I use the D2 always.... Bob leica@fuse.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted December 11, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Got my Digilux I when they were first introduced. A great little camera for those quickie nuisance jobs like passport photos, etc., when you don't want to spend all day developing short rolls of film. The images were stunning--this thing has a real Summicron! The jpeg files looked good, and needed no post production manipulations. The camera operation was a little clumsy, with menu buttons instead of shutter and f/stop rings. I prefer to shoot in manual rather than any of the auto-exposure modes. At high f/stops and or short shutter speeds, the LCD screen is DARK--like a Visoflex @ f/22. In any of the auto modes, it's fine. One really useful feature (for me) was that you could sync a flash to 1/1000 sec. That's wonderful for lighting groups outdoors against harsh sunlight. (The D2 only syncs to 1/250). The Digilux 1 is a nifty little camera until it gets dark, then it has trouble acquiring focus. The D2 has the distinct advantage of being able to preset a distance by scale on the lens. Even if the camera can't "see" your subject in the dark, it will be in focus. The Digilux 1 has no histogram, nor RAW capture, but it is a Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidross Posted December 11, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted December 11, 2009 Thank you all who have replied so far. Regarding the lenses on the 2 cameras, are there any differences between the SUMMICRON f/2-2.5/7-21 mm on the Digilux-1 and the SUMMICRON 7-22.5 mm f/2.0-2.4 on the Digilux 2 besides the readily apparent ones? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted December 12, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 12, 2009 I wouldn't say there is any qualitative difference between the two lenses. The D1 has an equivalent 33-100mm lens, while the D2 has a 28-90. I find the 28 very handy, and the 90 just long enough. In practice, you will use the D2 at widest apertures for isolating your subjects against "busy" backrounds. The focus-ability of the D2 is much more certain. The lens on the D1 might be its optical equal, but I have lost many a photo to inaccurate auto-focus. One tends to use the D1 at medium apertures, insuring sharpness via depth of field. From a kit standpoint, the D1 Summicron is diminutive, the D2 is enormous. If you want to use filters in the Digilux 1, simply remove a chrome ring around the lens and mount a black tube (18906) to the body. That will support 49mm filters or anything else you might want to put in front of the camera. If you want to ues filters on the Digilux 2, you will need a fat wallet and a computer to find them. They are a rather unique E69. I found the D1 to be a learning experience. The D2 almost immediately replaced an armada of M equipment for daily professional work. I still keep the D1 for its specialty. Without modifications, it takes very nice infared scenes ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 13, 2009 ...The D1 suffered from a posterization of the pictures with a high degree of graininess that the D2 does not have... There is a learning curve with the Digilux 1. Suffice it to stick to 100 iso and use 'poor man's raw' i.e. set contrast, resolution and saturation to "low" and there is no disturbing 'grain' any more. Great little camera that i still use with pleasure in black and white but also in colour. Good results with the default settings of Silkypix. Here at 100 iso, f/2.3, 1/14s handheld. Larger file here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleeson Posted December 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 13, 2009 Having had both of them, I prefer the more manual controls of the D2. The D1 has an electric motor to zoom the lens. But both give good results! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 15, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 15, 2009 Another one from the same shooting as above. Added grain with Silver Efex. Not too bad for a 7 years old 4MP digicam no? Larger file here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted December 15, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 15, 2009 I took the below picture with my D1 a few years ago. So I'll take this opportunity to say... Season's greetings to one and all, from Nicole. 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/106345-ancient-history-digilux-1-vs-digilux-2/?do=findComment&comment=1151992'>More sharing options...
roguewave Posted December 15, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 15, 2009 David, as noted in this thread, the D2 has a cult following. I own several Leica cameras & lenses in the R & M systems, both digital & film. The D2 is unique. It's the camera I usually carry, even if I'm just going to the corner to get milk. The rendered image of the D2 is far superior to the D1 in many ways. Singular, it has the B&W mode, which I use very often. I have been shooting more & more with jpeg & not raw with my D2. Very fast. At night, I can't believe that this 4 year old camera allows me to get the kind of results that always surprises me. It is silent and the autofocus is dead on, even at night. It's by far, the most handsome Leica ever made. It is light and easy to use. Buy one. You will keep it forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted December 18, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 18, 2009 David, as noted in this thread, the D2 has a cult following. It's by far, the most handsome Leica ever made. LOL - while I think I agree... it's a good thing you posted this in a tiny obscure thread that isn't attracting a lot of 'M' users. I fear you'd need flame retardant underwear to survive the wrath you'd surely endure. It's a beautiful camera. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 18, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 18, 2009 Pity that the Digilux 2 was that big for a small sensor camera. I would have upgraded to it otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.