Digilux 3 or Nikon D200?

[hamey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very informative, but moving away from the technical stuff.

 

The D3.... do not like it's ergonomics, the body is to square and I don't think it would

be comfortable with R lenses, Panasonic designers did not take into account of the weight of Leica R lenses,

or perhaps they have never heard of Leica R.

 

To me the D3 is a short term design good untill the D4 which could be on Panasonic drawing boards for release in a couple of years.

 

The DMR, it's perfect for my R8/9 but cannot justify it's use, and too EXPENSIVE.

 

I have been a devoted to Leica cameras for over 30 years and have bought many models

and still own, however "IF" I consider getting a Digital camera it will "certainly" not be a Leica or a re badged over expensive Panasonic clone.

 

I think it's either a Nikon or Canon for me.

They both have the Muscle and resources to move forward.

 

As for the 4/3 I wonder ?

 

Happy new year all.

 

Ken.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[graham_mitchell]

The DMR, it's perfect for my R8/9 but cannot justify it's use, and too EXPENSIVE.

 

Given that you already have the body and lenses, it seems a real shame not to get the DMR. Have you added up how much you might spend in film, processing and transport costs over 5 years? The other options also cost real money but are more compromised in several ways.

[Riley]

snipped

Using 800iso became quite regular over time, I couldn't always wait for for a slightly overcast day where the Oly worked brilliantly

 

im surprised you use 800iso for this

i never get into 800iso, my gear is good for 400 tops

D3 (on L1 reviews) will make 800iso tops

i believe the Nikon tops out at 1600 at the same quality

thats 1 stop the difference

 

thats not a whole lot is it

 

below is a noise comparison, wrong Nikon but...you get the idea, its not as bad as all that

 

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 full review Cameralabs noise results

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!

[dwcolvin]

The 7-14 is a big bit of protruding glass, one is compelled to place a filter to protect and way too heavy for their smaller cameras, it really makes for an unbalanced unit.

 

As there is no way to attach a filter to an Olympus 7-14mm, one would have to resist the compulsion. Having used it on every 4/3 camera but the E-400, I don't find it "way too heavy". YMMV

[audidudi]

The D3.... do not like it's ergonomics, the body is to square and I don't think it would be comfortable with R lenses, Panasonic designers did not take into account of the weight of Leica R lenses, or perhaps they have never heard of Leica R.

 

While out running errands today, I stopped by a Fry's Electronics store and to my surprise, they had an Olympus E-330 on demo. I spent a good 20 minutes playing around with it (much to the annoyance of my gf, who was along with me!) and quickly decided that however bad the ergonomics of the D3/L1 are (as compared to my LC1, which is just about perfect in this regard), the E-330's were worse still. The tiltable LCD is a nice touch, but this is about the only design aspect I prefer to the D3/L1 ... of course, this is just my opinion and others may disagree.

 

So, I guess I'll be sticking with the L1 for now, as there is no other digital camera that offers the same triple-whammy combination of interchangeable lenses, 7.5MP resolution, and a live view from the sensor pre-exposure that are the minimum requirements for my purposes. (And if I'm wrong and there are other such cameras out there, then please let me know!) That said, I plan to keep my LC1 as well because it works so well for general, everyday photography, even if its technology is now getting a big long in the tooth. It's too bad that, for whatever reasons, Panasonic/Leica didn't see fit to make the D3/L1 an updated version of the D2/LC1 instead of the DSLR it turned out to be...

[Guest stnami]

....... exactly that compelled to cover a piece of glass the size of my brother in-laws brainbucket he used a toupe and it didn't work. Heavy as in a tendency to dip with the camera

800iso lots of shaded areas, under trees, balconies etc with contrasting bright sunlight and the ollies overexpose, stopping down was the name of the game. The difference is enough.

But you guys are adament about the whole caper so be it, like I said used it for years had enough can't see too much progress

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

this is quite a proponderous situation, due to the lack of any decent review of the D3

[sean Reid are you listening ?]

 

Yes, I'm reading and I'll review it as soon as I can get caught up. I have a lot of RF lenses here to review and the clock is ticking on their return. Also have a few other items that must be reviewed before they're due back but, again, I will review the D3 as soon as I can.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Gone and forgotten is that statisticly only 11% of users expect clean images at iso1600. A lesser 4% at iso3200. I guess if you spend all your shooting time hanging around dark bars it will be usefull.

 

Or shooting weddings, or photojournalism, or various kinds of documentary work, etc.

 

<G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Riley]

Yes, I'm reading and I'll review it as soon as I can get caught up. I have a lot of RF lenses here to review and the clock is ticking on their return. Also have a few other items that must be reviewed before they're due back but, again, I will review the D3 as soon as I can.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

that would be great

 

thanks !

[Riley]

Or shooting weddings, or photojournalism, or various kinds of documentary work, etc.

 

<G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

i never though of that

maybe its my lifestyle

[sean_reid]

i never though of that

maybe its my lifestyle

 

I work primarily with existing light and I am very often at ISO 1250/1600. Usable 3200 has saved my bacon more than once as well. Horses for courses...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ptomsu]

@ Frank

 

think you are getting something wrong here, I am not taking any of this discussion personal - I owned the 4/3 system for 2 years, before I sold and changed to Nikon and DMR. And I believed all the ice marketing stories coming from Oly and at this point in time it was a perfect fit for me. Only then it turned out they were delaying and delaying a pro successor of the E1 and this made me finally step away. Because one could easily see the limitations of the smaller sensor size for all future.

 

Maybe in some 5-10 years, when we have reached useful resolution limits also with 4/3 and this system does still exist, then it will become interesting again. Maybe if Leica decies to design their own 4/3 camera coming with high end Kodak sensors instead of Panasonic and bringing in all their kow how of the R and M system, yes maybe then 4/3 will become interesting agin, but I do not think before.

 

So nothing personal against 4/3 simply no longer beliefing it is the right choice for the time being. Future will tell :-))

 

Peter

[hamey]

Given that you already have the body and lenses, it seems a real shame not to get the DMR. Have you added up how much you might spend in film, processing and transport costs over 5 years? The other options also cost real money but are more compromised in several ways.

 

Graham.

 

I use around 12 to 15 + rolls of slide film and with processing it ends around 300 + $ Aus a year, so as you can see it's not much and I am nearly 58 years old, so spending 8000 Australian Dollars on the DMR simply doesn't add up.

At one stage I had these horrible thoughs about parting with the M7 and the 35mm f/2 asph as a part payment towards the DMR, but I convinced my dear wife that If I do. she can sign me into a luni house.

 

So it's most likely that I will stay with my beloved Slide Film untill one of us ( film or me ) expires, but in the mean time I might get the ....Canon A710 IS.....for Fun.

 

Cheers.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Ken hate to say this but your also denying yourself of some of the best images possible by not using a DMR. The images are extremely hard to beat. Look for a used one, I know Australia is expensive but maybe one from e-bay or personal seller

[Guest xxl-user]

Given that you already have the body and lenses, it seems a real shame not to get the DMR. Have you added up how much you might spend in film, processing and transport costs over 5 years? The other options also cost real money but are more compromised in several ways.

 

Graham.

 

I use around 12 to 15 + rolls of slide film and with processing it ends around 300 + $ Aus a year, so as you can see it's not much and I am nearly 58 years old, so spending 8000 Australian Dollars on the DMR simply doesn't add up.

At one stage I had these horrible thoughs about parting with the M7 and the 35mm f/2 asph as a part payment towards the DMR, but I convinced my dear wife that If I do. she can sign me into a luni house.

 

So it's most likely that I will stay with my beloved Slide Film untill one of us ( film or me ) expires, but in the mean time I might get the ....Canon A710 IS.....for Fun.

 

Cheers.

 

congratulations, ken!

 

some equipment-junkies think they will take better pictures if the have new equipment every half year. just half a look at their website and you know what´s the truth.

 

if you love shooting with your m7 and 35/2.0 you will never be happy with the voluminous and tank-shaped R9-DMR.

 

arnold

[Guest guy_mancuso]

So Arnold do we own a DMR to make that statement. Probably not

[ptomsu]

@ Arnold

 

the combo of R9 and DMR is some of the most handy cameras I have ever used, beats even the D2X and this is a great camera!

 

Peter

[Guest stnami]

I have know idea why all of a sudden 1600 ISO is the holy grail, but it is.

... because we have the opportunity and with acceptable detail etc, in the past it was difficult task.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ptomsu]

Did a lot of shots lately with 800 and flash, you get very nice colours at normal light conditions, but with 1600 it would be even perfect at very low light conditions

[Guest stnami]

.... or even a Pentax K10D.................. lotsagoodlenses!!!!