Digilux 3 or Nikon D200?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howard, I'm going to give up ...

 

The information regarding the 5D was straight from a Canon engineer (in Japan), is that enough?

Thanks, Simon, that's a help. But to me it just raises more questions, as I said above. "Crystal" can mean a lot of things, and I'm very curious about the 5D specification. It makes very good pictures, no matter how they do it!

[Advertisement]

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

[MJLogan]

Would you see a difference between photos taken with a Digilux 3 and a D200, printed (under equal conditions) in A4 or A3?

 

To take this back to the OP's question...

 

I don't own a D200, but I have a Digilux 3 and my partner has a Digilux 2. Having just printed a series of images from each camera at 12 x 16 inches (roughly A3), I can say that the differences visible on screen (mostly, I imagine, due to sensor size and pixel count) almost totally disappeared in the prints, which I made on high-quality photo paper with my Epson R1800. All the prints looked spectacular.

 

Given that the advantages in sensor size and pixel count of the D200 over the Digilux 3 are smaller than those of the Digilux 3 over the Digilux 2, I think it's a safe guess that you won't be able to see those advantages in an A3 print, assuming you fitted the D200 with a lens as excellent as the Digilux 3 kit zoom.

 

So choose the camera you'd most enjoy using--that will probably make more difference to your results than the technical advantages of either system.

[ho_co]

Howard there are indeed crystal filters around, crystal having rather different properties, and of those in particular the refractive index. Crystal is commonly coated too but there are a miriad of coatings available and it would be impossible to identify by looking at it.

Thanks, Rob. I'm sure there are crystal AA filters. But since they do have a different refractive index, I would think it would be hard to say that because the 5D has a thicker filter it is necessarily stronger than the 1Ds's.

 

I know the 5D has a later design than the 1 series, and at one time I think Sean Reid mentioned that he felt the 5D made a better image than the earlier design. And the 5D is superb, no question.

 

My problem is just that I'm learning some of the ins and outs of digital on the basis of the M8's filter issues, and I'm hoping for pointers to more information on how other companies have attempted to solve the problems.

 

I agree, by the way, with your comments about APS-C vs full-frame sensors. Canon is getting good advertising by saying "full frame," even though there are good reasons to hold back from going that way. I was at a presentation a couple months ago where the Nikon D2Xs was shown locally for the first time, and the first question the rep got was, "Oh, great! Is it full frame?" Sad. Customer didn't want to know anything about the product, just wanted to know if it had one specification.

 

Sort of like "Rolls has introduced a new car."

--"Oh, great! Is it red?"

 

Happy New Year!

 

--HC

[Riley]

Thanks, Simon, that's a help. But to me it just raises more questions, as I said above. "Crystal" can mean a lot of things, and I'm very curious about the 5D specification. It makes very good pictures, no matter how they do it!

 

The DIGIC chip is to improve the native defects of the Canon CMOS sensor, it forgives sharpness to render a smooth photo.

 

Then there is the diffraction limit of sensors. The 5D can go to F:22 before the dreaded 'airy disk' begins to blur the detail. So it has a virtual full working aperture range. At the other end of the scale, a four thirds equiped with say 8mp will only get to F:11. M8 would make F:18. The D2 gets to F:5.6. After this point, the airy disk phenomena will blend detail, making the image less sharp.

[Riley]

Indeed canon get a lot of milage out of the FF cameras

 

Seemingly many lesser owners of the canon marque are always quick to quote "not as good as FF" Probably without any clue as to what the real differences are.

 

Another commonly pushed barrow is that of high iso, where Canon like other manufacturers using internal processing to smooth out the noise. It so happens that Canon's algorithm for this works better than almost anyone elses. Well maybe anyone except Fuji now.

 

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.

[ho_co]

Then there is the diffraction limit of sensors. The 5D can go to F:22 before the dreaded 'airy disk' begins to blur the detail.

Rob--

I had always thought of the Airy disk as strictly an optical phenomenon, so I'm surprised to hear that it is influenced also by the choice of sensor. But I guess that should be obvious, come to think of it...

 

This probably gets to an issue that I simply can't comprehend, viz: With film, I visualize a range of adjacent points in the real world being focused into a range of adjacent points on the film.

 

But since pixels have a measurable size, and since there are four elements (RGBG) to each pixel in a sensor, it seems that "there's no way" that a digital sensor can outresolve film, because the adjacent points in the real world can't be rendered adjacent on the sensor.

 

That's my logic on the matter, even though I know that in fact sensors regularly outresolve film--for example, LFI showed it with a black-and-white comparison using the same lens with DMR and with film.

 

Doesn't this question have to do with the same issues raised by the Airy disk with photosensors?

 

In other words, I know I'm missing something fundamental. Can you give any pointers?

 

Many thanks!

 

--HC

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HC

 

Since film also have physical size points, being actual physical grains, the ones we used to focus on when printing, so when digital is out-resolving film, one might think that the pixel sites are becomming smaller than the original silver halide grains.?

 

Well, I clearly don't know, just wondering.

 

 

Bo

[ho_co]

Bo--It's a better theory than any I had come up with!

 

Hmm. Maybe my problem isn't that I don't understand digital, but that I don't understand film!

 

Thanks for the suggestion, and Happy New Year!

 

--HC

[dugby]

I can add the following about a D80 that a friend uses. After shooting similar shots with his Nikon glass, he decided he preferred the D2 colour and images.

 

If you find some similar extrapolations of a D80 to D200, you may get a better idea of where a D3 versus D200 sits.

 

Now i've been shooting with a D3/L1, which is now producing much better images over my D2. That Leica sharpness and glow in the D3 images, one can see has come from the same DNA pool as those from an M8.

[stunsworth]

Bo, I don't think it works like that. My understanding is that an individual film grain is binary - it's either on or off, i.e. exposed or not. An individual sensor 'pit' on the other hand can store a large number of values depending on the light falling on it. So it takes many grains to provide the same information as a single pixel.

 

I'm sure my logic is flawed :-), but my experience with both digital and film is that my Canon 5D outperforms scanned film by a considerable margin - I have no experience of other higher end DSLRs, but I'm sure the same applies to Leica, Nikon, Pentax etc.

[ptomsu]

After all my experiences with Nikon D200, Nikon lenses and the 4/3 system (E1 with several lenses) and having tried the Digilux3, I only can vote for Nikon D200 with high end Nikon glass. This will outperform Digilux3 in all aspects - speed, AF, picture quality, higher ISO with less noise etc.

 

Peter

[ptomsu]

I can add the following about a D80 that a friend uses. After shooting similar shots with his Nikon glass, he decided he preferred the D2 colour and images.

 

If you find some similar extrapolations of a D80 to D200, you may get a better idea of where a D3 versus D200 sits.

 

Now i've been shooting with a D3/L1, which is now producing much better images over my D2. That Leica sharpness and glow in the D3 images, one can see has come from the same DNA pool as those from an M8.

 

The colour and also contrast differences you might find out of the cameras is something which can be adjusted by ANY workflow SW package as liked. Else you cannot use any WF SW or do not want to go through this step, then the D200 is definitely the better solution!

[FrankA]

Back to the original question. I have owned the D200 and some of Nikon's best glass. The 70-200, 60mm micro, 300mm f/4, 85 f/1.4. It was a very good performer. I now own the Olypmus E-1 with the 7-14, 35-100, and 50mm micro. The reason I switched was the glass and the weatherproofing. I am outside for most of my photography. I also hated sensor cleaning and that feature on the Oly/leica line is worth it to not to have to open the camera and put something wet inside. The E whatever will be out this spring so I was not worried about that. 7.5mp in the Digilux 3 and the 10mp in the D200 are not that much different for the print size you suggested. I doubt you will see a difference at normal viewing distance. The olympus 7-14 is an incredible piece of glass for architecture and landscapes. The 35-100 rivals the Nikon 70-200 for quality, and though subjective, I think it is better. And at f/2 to boot. The 50mm is excellent. The 4/3 system is open so olympus glass will work on the leica and vica versa. I think either way you will get good equipment. But at the end of the day, glass is what matters. Olympus and Leicas are the best in my opinion. And with not much variance in quality frorm one lens to another like you get with Canon/Nikon. I also have never had front focus/back focus issues with the E-1. I think over the next few years technology will have advanced to a point where sensors wilI not be very different from a quality perspective between APS and 4/3 I am about ready to the pull the trigger on the Digilux 3. Been lurking here to get a sense for it. Most naysayers of the 4/3 format are usually those who have never used it and are just parrots of what they read. Yes at high ISO, it can be troublesome, but I never shoot above 800 ISO. 90% at 100 ISO. So I don't care about the issue. Hope this helps. An example of the Oly 50mm macro.

http://hislight.smugmug.com/photos/100995460-M.jpg

[dwcolvin]

After all my experiences with Nikon D200, Nikon lenses and the 4/3 system (E1 with several lenses) and having tried the Digilux3, I only can vote for Nikon D200 with high end Nikon glass. This will outperform Digilux3 in all aspects - speed, AF, picture quality, higher ISO with less noise etc.

 

Dust? LiveView? Wide angle?

 

But, of course, your M and R are the only real Leicas.

[Riley]

i think we really need to hear more of the purpose

i wouldnt dream of buying into a system unless it fitted the requirements

 

Frank pretty well nailed the discussion,

he condensed all the reasons i bought into four thirds

im not counting on a E3 or D4 or anything like that

but ive bought a cheap B body E300 and will work up from there

but then i have an investment in Oly accessories

Oly wides are there strong point, ditch the kit lens and go wide

both the Oly 11-22, and the fabulous 7-14 are great lenses

the 7-14 is really without comparison

do check out what this lens can do

 

in the end, bodies come and go, glass is for keeps

[ptomsu]

@ Frank,

 

well I owned a complete E1 system with 5 lenses for almost 2 years, before I finally got tired of all that crab. I was really disappointed by the bad noise levels, the 5MP and nothing else than 7MP in sight in forseeable future and the yearlong promises for the succesor of the E1.

 

But there is one issue which wil always stay - smaller sensor size will always require smaller pixels and thus higher noise levels, as compared to APS sensor size or even FF sensor size or MF. And one cannot argue this away. Only thing that will help here is if you are not looking for higher resolution, but then other formats will definitely outperform 4/3. And please do not start arguing about resolution, if you do not need it fine, bt in general you need it desperately if you are developing your pictures nd do cropping, rotating etc.

 

Maybe you are happy with 4/3, fine then, but never try to convince the rest of the world, because this is proned to fail.

 

Have a great New Year and much fun with your system

 

Peter

[ptomsu]

Dust? LiveView? Wide angle?

 

But, of course, your M and R are the only real Leicas.

 

1) I never have dust problems with my Nikon D2X or DMR

 

2) I do not need Live View

 

3) Wide Angel - Oly only has a 7 - 14, which translates to 14 - 28 in normal 35mm. Nikon has the 2.8/10.5 which translates to 17.5 equivalent, but much more speed, or the 4/12-24, which results in 18-48 equivalent, so I also do not have any wide angle issues!

 

Any other issues you would like to mention?

 

If not let me mention some: smaller sensor size, not full functional compatibility between lenses of different vendors (one of the highest praised advantages of 4/3), small viewfinders, dark slow AF (which would not need to be the case but is for given because Oly and Pana are not really advanced in this areas), .......

 

How long should I continue?

 

Peter

[FrankA]

Thanks for your comments though you missed my point. I was not arguing about resolution. Everyone knows that a 10 to 12 mp pro camera is needed for the 4/3 format. PMA in february will showcase one. It will be here. As for differences between 7.5mp and 10mp, they are not that significant. As for noise, again, high ISO is not necessary for me. If it is for you, then you made your choice. In my film days I never shot over 800. Mostly 100 and 400. Rarely shoot over 100 in digital. I have know idea why all of a sudden 1600 ISO is the holy grail, but it is. I owned a Nikon D70 before the D200. I can assure you, the photos out the E-1 are way better than the D70. There is a difference between the D200 and E-1, but I can wait for that to go away this spring when the E-1 successor arrives. I have the glass and when Leica starts releasing more in the 4/3 format, we will have more excellent choices. The printed output is the determining factor for me. A 10mp 4/3 will be excellent. And if it is built like the E-1, a lot of people will be thinking that maybe there is something to this 4/3 stuff. For comparison, I also owned the 17-35 Nikon. The Olympus 7-14 is better, although a stop slower.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ptomsu]

Thanks for your comments though you missed my point. I was not arguing about resolution. Everyone knows that a 10 to 12 mp pro camera is needed for the 4/3 format. PMA in february will showcase one. It will be here. As for differences between 7.5mp and 10mp, they are not that significant. As for noise, again, high ISO is not necessary for me. If it is for you, then you made your choice. In my film days I never shot over 800. Mostly 100 and 400. Rarely shoot over 100 in digital. I have know idea why all of a sudden 1600 ISO is the holy grail, but it is. I owned a Nikon D70 before the D200. I can assure you, the photos out the E-1 are way better than the D70. There is a difference between the D200 and E-1, but I can wait for that to go away this spring when the E-1 successor arrives. I have the glass and when Leica starts releasing more in the 4/3 format, we will have more excellent choices. The printed output is the determining factor for me. A 10mp 4/3 will be excellent. And if it is built like the E-1, a lot of people will be thinking that maybe there is something to this 4/3 stuff. For comparison, I also owned the 17-35 Nikon. The Olympus 7-14 is better, although a stop slower.

 

If Oly really can release a E1 successor for PMA (what was already promised for the last 2 PMAs :-(( ) this will have 10 or 12 MP - so what? Canon will release a 16 and 22 MP models of their full frame by then and Nikon, who are admittedly a bit slow here might surprise with 14 or 16 MP in APS size or even a new full frame pro model. So what has Olympus achieved then, they are again followers and they are in this position for sure fighting with noise. But I doubt anyway that Oly will be able to show their new E2 :-((

 

Noise is no issue? One example, I made yesterday lot of pictures during New Years night with ISO800 on my D2X and a small flash - the SB400. Results are awesome, the flash ust fills in like natural, keeping all the colours of available light, and this only because of the high ISO used. But there is NO noise which disturbes the impression. Doing same with Oly would have meant to at least go down to ISO400 and then the available light already gets very reduced compared to the flash part of the light.

 

Again, if you are satisfied with the boundaries of 4/3 then ok, but this system will always be following the APS and full frame solutions in terms of capabilities, this is a given and it is perfectly ok if one can accept this. I could not so I had to change.

 

Peter

[Riley]

looking at Heinz's questions

he doesnt really need speed or a large kit of glass

he wants to shoot architecture and landscapes

i dont think higher iso would be an issue

 

what he does want to know is how the printed quality compares

seems to me that either could manage that, and that printing choices will get him there

 

but as i shoot real estate for a living, i would want to be convinced the wide glass was going to work out for me. From what i see of the 7-14, the level of distortion is minimal, and it is the widest glass going. I know for a fact that the 11-22 yields excellent results, so that isnt a barrier

 

i am aware that D200 would in the right circumstances knock the four thirds for dead, but these are not those circumstances

 

i would take some time out, and follow my heart, emotional satisfaction is a criteria i need to be happy with, maybe Heinz is the same