ustein Posted December 30, 2006 Share #21 Posted December 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) MJLogan>The default setting is rather soft. If you turn up sharpness by one or two notches in the menu, it's fine. I use RAW only. These settings should not effect RAW. jdlaing>The RAW Processing engine and software are different. What RAW engine? In camera? >The Color Processing is different. Yes, in camera. Not relevant for RAW I think. Uwe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Hi ustein, Take a look here Is the Digilux-3 "Seen" as a Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hamey Posted December 30, 2006 Share #22 Posted December 30, 2006 Andreas, IMHO, the answer is NO. You can tell by removing the Lens and check out the Mirror assembly on the D3 compare it to the real Leica's especially the Leicaflex models I held a D3 two weeks ago, and it felt about the same weight as my UV filter on my 28-90mm vario R lens. Generally Leica cameras are built for LIFE. Panasonics are not, and most likely will not have any spares after 10 years. Japanese philosphy, there is a new generation every 10 years and a new market. This manufacturing it's called Badge engineering Good luck. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 30, 2006 Share #23 Posted December 30, 2006 (I'll probably get flamed big time for this so here goes). Leica or shall I say Oskar Barnack, an employee of Leitz, a reputable maker of microscopes and the like in the early 1900's, took some movie film and fashioned a camera to use with it using the high quality optics Leica had been putting into their microscopes. It wasn't fancy. But it seemed to do the trick. The rest, they say, is history. These little cameras changed the style of photography as it was known at the time. The time, by the way, was about the turn of the LAST century. A time when people got hernias hauling around large format cameras with very fragile glass plates and bags full of highly volatile magnesium powder (to blast a heap o'light onto their subjects because the film sensitivities were so poor and optics weren't very fast). The little Leica proved to be a great success for the company. And it built quite a reputation and got quite a following. For the most part Leica made things in Germany (Wetzlar to be exact NOT Solms..does that make anything out of Solms not a TRUE Leica...nein!!). But Leica also made things (like the world famous Noctilux) in Canada and Portugal (where they cranked out a ton of very nice R4sP bodies, if I recall). They even briefly hooked up with a company in Japan called Minolta (remember Minolta?) to make a nice compact portable camera, the CL. Japan also provided some SLR bodies early on as well as mirror optics. Now was that Noctilux made in Canada not a Leica? Hardly. Were the SLR's out of Portugal unworthy of the Leica name? Uh...uh How about those adorable little CL's which fetch some serious change on Ebay today? KaChing. Don't think so. And all the other products that bore the red dot and the Leica name? Nope. Nope. Nope. No one made so much as a peep. (Okay maybe one peep.) They were all Leica's through and through. And no one, repeat NO ONE, had a problem with that. (Okay, admittedly some snobs felt optics out of Canada weren't on a par with the optics from Germany, but that was REALLY splitting hairs. Those optics were top notch.) Through all that time, Leica, first and foremost, was responsible for the optics--their world famous optics. The ones that kept Leica head and shoulders above everyone else (at least in the minds of afficionados). And still is their raison d'etre for existing today. Fast forward. It's the late 20th Century. Silver, that rare element so necessary for photography has been supplanted by a ubiquitous rival element called silicon. Suddenly, the livelihood of such chemical mega-giants like Kodak, Agfa and Fuji are in jeopardy (well not Fuji since they're another one of those brilliant mega congolmerates that don't pull all their products out of one hat). Leica needs a partner to avoid becoming a dinosaur in the digital age. So who do they hook up with? A pretty amazing MF of an electronic powerhouse: Matsushita. A.K.A. Panasonic. Leica provides classic propietary lens designs in return for bodies with a Pansonic made sensor. Not a bad trade. But the fans cry foul. "They're faux Leicas!", they sniff. "They're just re-badged cheap-o Panasonics!" "They're not TRUE Leicas!" (Tell that to the guy who just shelled out $1500 for either the Panasonic or the Leica-those stratospheric costs came from someplace!). "No a Leica is built like a Panzer. Undt it must be made in der fatherland!" "But isn't Leica about the QUALITY of the shots it takes? Quality usually a direct result of the lenses they've designed?" Let's see the results. I think I've seen a bunch o' them posted on the Leica Users Photo Forum a short click away ( http://www.leica-camera-user.com/photo-forum/ ). They even say things like taken with a Digilux 1 or Digilux 2 (and now the D3). Even D-lux's. And scattered among them were some L1's LX1's and LC1's among others. And you know what? Judging by the comments no one seems to have a problem with the 'Leica-ness" of the results they saw. (But from what I've read on this thread and others like it the bodies that made them USING Leitz optics.) "Yeah but but but..." No buts. Enough buts. The Digilux 3 is a Leica. As is the Panasonic L1. (Yeah, you heard me. The L1.) Just as the SL1 and SL2 were Leicas (even though they were made by Minolta. Yeah. Minolta.) And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. (Digital manufacturing is different than film manufacturing.) And if some bodies are made in Japan it's no different than when Minolta made SLRs or the CL. Or when Canada produced the Noctilux. The results are the same. Cameras capable of taking some stunning images. And I mean stunning. Look if it's not entirely made in Solms, there will always be people who will go out of their way to make you feel like a second class citizen. Of course, for the moment you can retort that the M8 for all the boxtops required to purchase it seems to have some issues that make even THAT photographic tour de force questionable as a bona fide Leica (at least judging from the ballyhoos on 99% of the other threads in the digital forum since November.) But if you buy a camera with either Leitz made or Leitz designed glass on it you can bet your bottom dollar, (yen, euro or whatever currency you prefer) it's a Leica. Because I would defy anyone to hold up a quality print of a truly emotional image to anyone, Leica afficionado, snob or otherwise and not be moved by what the camera you bought helped you capture. Regards, P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 30, 2006 Share #24 Posted December 30, 2006 Exhibits A through D (M6, Digilux 2, Pansonic Lumix LX1 and Panasonic FZ-50) Enjoy 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/12315-is-the-digilux-3-seen-as-a-leica/?do=findComment&comment=129547'>More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 30, 2006 Share #25 Posted December 30, 2006 Its all nice and good to talk about the boxes here. the M8 and the R (used to be Minoltas I seem to think so maybe the D3 might develop the same way given time) I have been a photographer all my life and tend to think that the box really is second to the lenses? and from what I understand the D3 lens is very Leica, and honestly the pictures I have taken look good. So to me, a leica branded camera which operates with a very a nice Leica lens - IS a Leica camera. even if we don't call the epson camera a leica. (smile) But I need to say this is my first Leica, so maybe I would feel and think differently if I had started with another model. Bo VR Java and QTVR samples from BoPhoto.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwcolvin Posted December 30, 2006 Share #26 Posted December 30, 2006 I held a D3 two weeks ago, and it felt about the same weight as my UV filter on my 28-90mm vario R lens. Ken, I'm not sure what you held, but if there's one thing the Digilux 3 isn't, it's light. It also isn't small. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 30, 2006 Share #27 Posted December 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, it is a rather large and "fat" body, but it IS light, when you pick up the Digilux3 body it does not have the expected "heft". Hey one could get used to a comfortable weight. Bo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 30, 2006 Share #28 Posted December 30, 2006 Generally Leica cameras are built for LIFE. Panasonics are not, and most likely will not have any spares after 10 years. While I think in the past that was true with Leica film cameras today with the M8 and any other iterations I would have to disagree. For one thing, for all its robustness and similarity to the previous M's, the M8 has no seals. Water, the anti-christ of things silicon can get in at anytime and utterly destroy the innards of the thing. So much for a $4500 'lifetime' photographic investment. The LCD which I've seen get utterly destroyed on other digital cameras the moment a water droplet hits it is also extremely vulnerable to any liquid onslaught. Owners of the M8 are advised to avoid using the M8 under any inclement conditions lest they see their camera evaporate right before their eyes. This camera was NOT made to withstand the same hostile environmental conditions its legendary predecessors had endured and had earned bragging rights. Moreover, unlike the film-age where you could buy one camera and let Kodak, et al. make the evolutionary tweaks to improve the image from their end, in the digital age you buy the camera AND the 'film' (so to speak). So you're invested in (and stuck with) a 'film' until a a new, faster, better more improved 'film' comes along. Which in today's fast paced Moore's Law environment is about two months. Today the business model (and, ergo, the camera model) is totally different. Pentax and Canon have gone out of their ways apparently to make well-sealed environmentally impervious digital cameras. Leica, for all it's prowess in the past, has not at this time. Yes, with a Pansonic (and anyone else) you have a camera that's good for a few years, not a lifetime. And apparently the M8, if not used under utterly pristine conditions, is only good for a few years too. A lot has to do with the fact that we've gone from 3MP to 5MP to 8MP and now 10 and 12MP on a silcon chip. With every evolutionary improvement to the sensor comes a new camera attached to it. And neither the M8 nor very few other camera so far has been so far-sightedly designed as to allow for the possibility of swapping out sensors with the new improved ones that so often plague photographers who've felt they've made the last purchase for a while. (In fact, the ONLY camera that comes to mind is, ironically, the Leica R with its separate but pricey DMR. The modul being separate can easily accommodate not only a new sensor to be swapped out (at a high cost), it also makes allows for the possibility of introducing a full-frame introduction when the time comes (at an even higher cost), while the M8 allows for the possibility of neither. That said, if the current M8 is used under utterly pristine conditions whilst wearing kid gloves, yes it will probably last a lifetime. But for all practicality's sake, all things considered in the digital age, it's no more long lasting than a Panasonic L1. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 30, 2006 Share #29 Posted December 30, 2006 .......got me heifer Lika Rose in race 6 Kentucky mid week 16 to 1 ................................................. Just Likeher should beat her half sister Panalika,Hong Kong Saturday week Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted December 30, 2006 Share #30 Posted December 30, 2006 Let me get this right, when a company makes a product like 1. a DMR in collaboration with Kodak/Jeno/Sino...where the knobs fall off, or the current DMR firmware is worse than the previous level.... its still a Leica. 2. an M8 in collaboration with Kodak/Jeno/Sino, with Banding, Green blobs, IR issues, and Firmware 'hangs'.... its still a Leica 3. a D3/L1 in collaboration with Matsushita...and it works superbly as a camera..... it's not really a Leica....????? Well I hope some here tells Leica that the someone else is using their BRAND name,.... and maybe Leica could use ROYALTIES, to keep their business alive whilst they fix the 'REAL' Leica products. Maybe someone here could tell Leica that this is called 'Business Transformation' dammit..... I knew it..... I keep making the wrong buying decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 30, 2006 Share #31 Posted December 30, 2006 Well, the only 'real' Leica is an LTM. All others are just cameras bearing the Leica name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted December 30, 2006 Share #32 Posted December 30, 2006 Peter. I have no problems where Leica cameras are made, but there is one importent thing to me. So I will explain my opinion on whats a TRUE Leica and not, so lets get the record right. First One of my best lenses is the Canadain version of the Magnaficent R 90mm f/2 and yes it's a True Leica. I have had several Leica cameras that where not manufactored in Germany, namely The R3, R4, and the R4s mod 2, they all had stamped on them MADE IN PORTUGAL. But to me I did'nt care because these are also a true Leica cameras. My SL, R7, R8 and R9 all state made in Germany and to me they are also a true Leica. Many times on this forum members also refer to some R cameras as Minolta's. They are all wrong and are simply ignorant of the facts. Only one model that had the same resemblance to a Minolta model, and that was the R3 to the XE, both had the Leitz copal shutter however the R3 also had a spot meter. But there was another important feature to both models, I should know as I owned both models at the same time, I still own the Minolta EX-5 The new Digital "D" models that are being sold are differant to the M8, which is also a true Leica. SO WHY. Because all the true Leicas were built in LEICA'S own Plants or Factories. The DI, D2, and the D3 etc are built by PANASONIC in JAPAN. There might be some varations to the firmwere but both come off the same plant. So because it might have a Leica sticker, logo, badge or emblem does it really make it a Leica, it simply wasn't manufactored by Leica in Germany or Portugal. If I put a Leica sticker on my Minolta Scanner does it now make it a Leica Scanner? Thats my point. I like Panasonic stuff, I have quite a bit of their equipment in my house and it's been very reliable and have no problems in buying more. NO pun intendid, just my opinion. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b_elmer Posted December 30, 2006 Share #33 Posted December 30, 2006 Common sense tells me that: A Leica is a Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted December 30, 2006 Share #34 Posted December 30, 2006 It has been suggested this can be judged by looking at the body, the lens or at the place of manufacture. I would add: results (probably the most important factor in choosing a camera, but the least likely to identify one particular brand) reliability (will it keep going as long as you want it to, and is it reasonable to ask for this in the digital age?) maintainability (will parts and someone to replace them be available?) As a result I regard my Digilux 2 as a Leica, but not a real Leica! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 30, 2006 Share #35 Posted December 30, 2006 what is a Leica ? when the LC1 was on its way, the hustle on the net about this 'new' camera was inspiring then someone noticed in images of the prototype.. 'hey its got an aperture ring!' succesively they were launched, first the Lc1 and then along came D2 ask your self this what kind of cameras do Panasonic make ? look at every other camera they ever made and what can you say about them ? appart from LC1, do they look at all like D2 ? How many 2/3" sensor cameras did panasonic make ? Would a Panasonic lens be different if it where not for the input of Leica it has been clear to me for some time what the genesis of D2 was all along despite LC1 getting a shot at the title first, Leica is the origin, Leica wrote the brief Panasonics forte is in production skills, they prepared the lens design and the camera for mass manufacture they had the logistical infrastructure to get the camera out into the world they had the production capacity to manufacture the cameras they had the marketing intelligence to determine how it should be presented they had the finance to roll the setup into production then along comes L1... what do you see here thats different ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted December 30, 2006 Share #36 Posted December 30, 2006 If I put a Leica sticker on my Minolta Scanner does it now make it a Leica Scanner? So Ken, if you put a Leica sticker on the 15mm Elmarit R Lens manufactured by Zeiss on a Zeiss design in a Zeiss plant as Leica ACTUALLY did does that mean that that lens is now no longer a true Leica lens either? I don't think so. Look, Ken, I understand what you and so many others are saying. And part of me (the part that used to own an M6 and a bunch of lenses before I idiotically sold them off on Ebay because Leitz said it was going to be impossible to design and build a digital M) agrees with you, emotionally, to some extent. That for some reason the heft, feel and smell of the gear coming out of Leica's TOTAL control in the design and manufacturing process you get with their M and R gear is a lot different than the heft, feel and smell of the stuff produced at Panasonic's plants. And you're right. To some extent it IS different. Granted. But the quality from the results is there is not different. And in fact are stunning with all the bokeh and dreaminess we've come to expect from Leitz optics and not seen elsewhere. As so many examples on the Photo Forum can attest. And continue to attest. And now here we have the M8. A wonderful camera with some serious design issues that have created an almost apoplectic state on this forum for months now with the IR issues, the banding, green ghosting and stuff about the lack of seals and weatherproofing etc. Leica will tackle some but not all of the issues with this pass. And, hopefully, will seal the the thing in the M9 (or, more aptly, M8 v 1.1) The M8 certainly meets the heft, feel and smell criteria but, even with world renonwed M optics attached falls short, according to many here, in the image department. Yet that is a TRUE Leica. While a perfectly reliable Digilux 2 is not? Look, with the Panasonics, Leica had a MAJOR hand in the design (ergonomics), software design and navigation and, of course, the optical components. You can see Leitz fingerprints all over the things. (The D3 and L1, which while using for the most part the Olympus body have styling that is certainly NOT Oly but closer to what I would expect Leitz design elves to suggest and it looks like Panasonic followed that lead). In the design and manufacturing process outside of Solms, Leica does not appear to be passive at all as far as I can tell. And their input is taken VERY seriously. The D2 looked and worked like no other digital camera at the time. It offered manual focus, manual zoom and manual speed setting with analog like dials akin to what afficionados loved on cameras of yore. Not on typical wheely laden cameras of today. It was simple. And direct. An the D3 follows that tradition. And, to their credit, even some of Panasonic's own body designs under the Lumix name have shown German sensibility in my opinion. The LC1 and L1 as well as the LX 2 and LX3 are out and out gorgeous product designs in my opinion. With metal, not polycarbonate skins, no less. Unlike what their Nipponese bretheren have created. So with examples like the Zeiss made lens for the R system, again I have to disagree with the logic of what truly constitutes a true Leica. The digital age along with the outsourcing age have created new business models which we now must come to accept (reluctantly even on my part) as to what constitutes a true ANYTHING. With all the demands placed on traditional practices, today no manufacturer (in many cases sadly) can be an island. Regards, P. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted December 30, 2006 Share #37 Posted December 30, 2006 MJLogan> jdlaing>The RAW Processing engine and software are different. What RAW engine? In camera? >The Color Processing is different. Yes, in camera. Not relevant for RAW I think. Uwe Even Raw files are processed in camera. Analog to digital information. Raw Files are not exactly what the sensor sees. The Leica engine and Panasonic are different. The Color Processing between the two cameras is different with the Leica set to more of what Leica's engineers prefer as opposed to Panasonic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted December 30, 2006 Share #38 Posted December 30, 2006 Hi everyone, I just wanted to get the feel of the Leica community if this camera has been accepted into the fold. Andreas Folds are for sheep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b_elmer Posted December 30, 2006 Share #39 Posted December 30, 2006 My common sense tells me that: A Leica is a Leica! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopo Posted December 30, 2006 Share #40 Posted December 30, 2006 Great question. I have D-LUX 2 and I love it. Here are my 2 cents. Let's break the question into pieces --> and then my humble opinion Does it bring the glamour of a LEICA --> 30% Does it bring the full and manual M series control --> 2% Does it get people's attention for its looks --> 80% Does it get the attention of the smart people --> 100% Does it perform better than it's competitors at time of purchase --> 90% Would I buy an M8, because I am so dissapointed with it? --> 0% Do I wish I owned an M8... regardless --> 100% Peace! Chopo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.