Successor to D2? Any possibility for D2n?

[rebride]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even if D2 has not been extensively popular from its beginning despite the "special and distinctive look" of the photos it produces, does it mean that Leica would not make a big mistake by launching a successor to it?

Maybe with a sensor from X1 or even from M8, with a lens "not of this world" as in the original camera, with improved ISO range and with improved noise at higher ISO values going up to 1600?

I would not mind its size once again.

 

What do you, folks, think - is Leica thinking of something like that? Would D2n jeopardize X1?

 

Leica, what do you say? Is this just a dream?

 

 

M8, MP, CL, D2, Dlx2, WATE, MATE, 35Lux Asph, 35Cron, 40Cron, 50LuxAsph, 50Cron, 90Cron, 135TE, 200Telyt, Viso III

[earleygallery]

Ask Panasonic, they made the thing.

 

I suspect that the next camera in the X series, assuming that there will be one, will be the nearest you'll get to a D2.

[daveleo]

Even if D2 has not been extensively popular from its beginning despite the "special and distinctive look" of the photos it produces, does it mean that Leica would not make a big mistake by launching a successor to it?

Maybe with a sensor from X1 or even from M8, with a lens "not of this world" as in the original camera, with improved ISO range and with improved noise at higher ISO values going up to 1600?

 

jees !!! .... that must be the most complicated question i ever read in my life.

 

any chance you could boil that down to a single simple sentence ?

[sfage]

1600?

 

Why?

 

Would you spend several hundred more for it?

[pop]

Even if D2 has not been extensively popular from its beginning despite the "special and distinctive look" of the photos it produces, does it mean that Leica would not make a big mistake by launching a successor to it?

 

No, it doesn't.

[krabat]

Hi rebride,

 

Well, this is a just question. There have been many people in this forum asking for **real** successor to Digilux 2. I think a camera with a similar design and handling, with a modern electronics including an APS sensor and a good EVF, and, most important, with a lens comparable to the D2 lens (i.e., 28-90 mm, f2.0) would be THE ABSOLUTE BURNER and cash-cow for Leica.

It is a pity that Leica focuses instead on niche products, such as S2 and X1.

 

Best regards, Peter.

[Digitom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi rebride,

 

Well, this is a just question. There have been many people in this forum asking for **real** successor to Digilux 2. I think a camera with a similar design and handling, with a modern electronics including an APS sensor and a good EVF, and, most important, with a lens comparable to the D2 lens (i.e., 28-90 mm, f2.0) would be THE ABSOLUTE BURNER and cash-cow for Leica.

It is a pity that Leica focuses instead on niche products, such as S2 and X1.

 

Best regards, Peter.

 

Yes, it is a real big pity! And nowadays I think, when Leica is able to build a new line like the S2 from ground up and also the X1, there IS now the know how and it could be possible to create a Digilux 4 with all the features you mentioned. A camera like the D2 is missing in the portfolio of Leica I think. A camera like the Digilux 2 can attract many people with a lower budget to Leica and finally later they may switch to the M line! Leica should notice that. Maybe time will tell. But first, the next product would surely be that "adequate solution" for R lenses and maybe the overnext thing in the pipeline could be an X2 which maybe is an sucessor for Digilux 2. I do not want interchangeable lenses, 28 to 90mm is enough. But I see the need for a ELV in addition to a monitor. So I hope that X1 is successful (beside the -IMHO- too high price for that camera, which may kill that success), only to get the chance for that future X2 which may fit the needs of us "Digilux dreamers" If that X2 would cost 1800 Euro like the D2, it would be ok for many users.

[jsrockit]

They already made a Digilux 3... why would they step back (not in quality, but in number... despite the M2) and make a Digilux 2n? Honestly, the best you could hope for is a totally different camera.

[bill]

Spoken like a man who has never used one...

 

The unloved D3 will not be missed. The D2/LC-1 still has a significant following for a reason.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jsrockit]

Spoken like a man who has never used one...

 

The unloved D3 will not be missed. The D2/LC-1 still has a significant following for a reason.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Understood... but with regards to numbers (please note that I did say quality knowing that people prefer the D2)... the D3 still existed. It seems weird to make a new camera in this line and go backwards with the name.

[prabuleica]

There's always possibility for D2n

 

but personally or me

it would be great if Leica just upgrade the D2 instead, so we can just give the D2 back, pay some cash, and they upgrade the ISO and the sensor

there's nothing more i want from this camera development

but to be able to have 3200 iso or more

 

i wanna shoot in the dark

 

but if Leica want to upgrade it to Interchangeable lens i would be super

[wda]

Sadly, a true successor to the D2 remains a dream. In the past I asked the MD of Leica UK the same question and was told there were no plans. Leica's resources have been severely stretched with the M8, M9 and S2 programmes. I doubt they will ever consider a real D2 successor. Meanwhile, enjoy yours while you can. Mine is constantly in use.

[adan]

Several points occur to me:

 

The Digilux 2 was a unique combination of lens and sensor at a unique point in time. 2/3" sensors have mostly disappeared from the still camera market (Fuji introduced the Fujifilm S100FS 2 years ago, and that was seen as something of a throwback). Certainly Panasonic has moved on to micro 4/3" as their new standard for bridge cameras (and with the X1, Leica seems to have skipped right over 4/3rds to APS-C). The Digilux 2's Vario-Summicron lens is designed for the 2/3" format, so any camera using a different format would basically need a completely new lens, even if the base specs ("28-90," f/2) were the same.

 

By the time we have a new sensor, and a new lens, there is not much left of what made the Digilux 2 unique in terms of imagery produced.

 

And unless someone can persuade Panasonic or Sony to put money and time into reviving 2/3" sensor production (presumably with higher ISO and/or more pixels - thus a new design) there is nothing to upgrade with or to.

 

I think there are two ways one might see a Digilux-2-like package worthy of the name "Digilux 4" appear.

 

1. Leica gets the "micro 4/3rds" religion and works with Panasonic to produce a Leica-branded GH-1 or GF-1 with a new 14-45 (28-90 equivalent) f/2 lens of a quality Leica is willing to put its name on. Leica has said repeatedly that they are no longer interested in 4/3rds of any type - but then Leica has been known to change its mind.

 

2. Leica produces an X2 or X3 with an additional EVF or optical-zoom finder, and either a "fixed" 17-60mm (28-90 equivalent) f/2 zoom or an interchangeable mount (with a dust reduction system since interchangeable lenses means dust can get to the sensor - the Digilux 2 was a sealed system).

 

An additional point to consider is that the Digilux 2 lens was really a 6.8-21mm lens. But was not small, thanks to the pursuit of f/2 and spectacular image quality. As big as a Noctilux.

 

By the time one designs a 14-45 f/2 or 17-60 f/2 lens to work with a bigger sensor, it going to be a very large chunk of glass. About like a Nikkor or Canon 17-35 f/2.8 zoom (we'll assume that we can squeeze f/2 into the same lens barrel through not needing to cover 24 x 36).

 

If I were betting, I'd say the closest thing to a "new" Digilux 2 we will see would be something in the X line (APS-C sensor) with a non-interchangeable zoom in the region of a 17-60mm f/2.8-f/3.5 and a built-in EVF or optical zoom finder (with focus confirmation light). Perhaps with the Digilux 2-style manual zoom and focus rings, since the lens will be big enough to have room for them.

[sfage]

Spoken like a man who has never used one...

 

The unloved D3 will not be missed. The D2/LC-1 still has a significant following for a reason.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I don't agree. For one thing, the D3 is less noisy. Second, the D2 was a cheaper camera. It was a very good camera that was put in more people's hands. That's why more people can comment upon it. I bought a new D2 for 1450. The D3 was a thousand dollars more than the D2.

 

I don't understand why people don't like the D3. I remember some people complaining about the weight. The D3 is about the same weight as a Rollei... and no-one ever whined about the weight of those... and if weight is high on your list of criteria for a camera, go back to the seventies when machines were made out of real metal.

 

Complaining about the weight of the D3 is a little like saying: "it's a bad car. It's purple."

[krabat]

Andy, yes, I agree with most of what you said. Regarding the lens, I could live also with a good (i.e., Leica-like ) "non-interchangeable zoom in the region of a 17-60mm f/2.8-f/3.5", as you write, if at the same time there would be an APS sensor with a high ISO range.

Of course, the handling should be the similar as with the D2, manual zoom, aperture, focus, exposure time...

 

Best, Peter.

[pop]

... the D3 is less noisy ... I remember some people complaining about the weight. The D3 is about the same weight as a Rollei... and no-one ever whined about the weight of those... and if weight is high on your list of criteria for a camera, go back to the seventies when machines were made out of real metal.

 

The Digilux 3 camera is most certainly not less noisy than the Digilux 2. When I shoot with the D3, people standing before me turn their heads to locate the source of the noise. When I shoot with the D2, people ask whether I was going to make a picture when I am done shooting.

 

If you do not understand about people's needs, you'd better not comment on them. There were beautiful cameras in the seventies which did not weigh a ton.

[bill]

Ok, hands up... which one of you complained about the weight of the D3...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[pop]

Ok, hands up... which one of you complained about the weight of the D3...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

The D3 with the set (zoom) lens is bulky and uncomfortably heavy. It is nearly the heaviest camera I currently own. It also is noisy. There. I said it.

[John Thawley]

 

Complaining about the weight of the D3 is a little like saying: "it's a bad car. It's purple."

 

 

The D3 is not a BAD camera. It's just a camera that can be replaced by a lot of others. The kit lens was certainly a nice lens. But, you could buy a Canon D30 or 40 at that time along with a 24-105 L series lens and have a superior camera.

 

It just doesn't do anything that makes it a remarkable camera. And yes, I had one. Lovely camera. But honestly, it was a glorified solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

When you build a product to take to market, the first thing you ask is "where is there a void?"

 

Meanwhile, no one has even come close to replicating the Digilux 2.

 

JT

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sfage]

The Digilux 3 camera is most certainly not less noisy than the Digilux 2. When I shoot with the D3, people standing before me turn their heads to locate the source of the noise. When I shoot with the D2, people ask whether I was going to make a picture when I am done shooting.

 

If you do not understand about people's needs, you'd better not comment on them. There were beautiful cameras in the seventies which did not weigh a ton.

 

I was talking about the noise in the image.

 

Don't take what I am saying the wrong way; I had a D2 and I loved it. The lens was fantastic, for a 5 mp machine one could do large prints, et cetera. I do -however- maintain that that in low "ish" light, it was quite noisy. Of course, that's not surprising for a 5mp machine.

 

In fact, in my gallery, I sold lots of images captured with the D2. I made enough off those images to buy 10 D2 cameras. So yeah, it's great.

 

.... but it is not a better machine than the D3.

 

Almost all of these were shot with the D2

 

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/sfage/Gallery1.jpg