Leica Digilux 2 vs Olympus XZ1 (lens size wise)

[koray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olympus has just released a new compact camera, XZ1, which has a 1/1.63" CCD (similarly sized with Digilux 2) and a zoom lens which is 28-112mm equivalent, with F1.8-2.5 maximum aperture (maintains f/2.2 until 100mm).

 

Olympus XZ-1 Quick Preview Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

 

Looking at the photos of the thing, I was stunned how minuscule the whole lens unit is when compared what Digilux 2 has.

 

 

 

Isn't it interesting? How do they do it?

 

Koray

[farnz]

Since Oly has applied the Zuiko name to the lens It'll be interesting to see how it performs compared with the Vario-Summicron's exceptional performance.

 

Pete.

[elgenper]

...

Looking at the photos of the thing, I was stunned how minuscule the whole lens unit is when compared what Digilux 2 has.

....

....

 

Isn't it interesting? How do they do it?

 

 

Well, they left out the zoom ring, the focussing ring, and the aperture ring. Instead they got the whirring and delay each time the camera turns on and off, just like any other fiddly digicam.

 

Sadly, this was the same tradeoff that Leica did with the X1.

[giordano]

It's also far more fragile than the Digilux 2. Love it or loathe it, the D2 never wanted to be mollycoddled.

[adan]

Main difference is that the Digilux 2 lens was specifically designed NOT to change size when zooming, which made it stronger and kept the optics more stable. No little tubes sliding back and forth.

 

From the D2 brochure: "The first group of lens elements remains stationary over the entire zoom range. This results in high mechanical stability, which in turn results in high focusing accuracy, longevity and precise mechanical movements. Both focusing as well as focal length changes take place exclusively inside the lens."

 

As mentioned, it was also required for the analog aperture and focusing rings, which obviously can't slide around as much as a "bare" lens like the Zuiko.

[koray]

Main difference is that the Digilux 2 lens was specifically designed NOT to change size when zooming, which made it stronger and kept the optics more stable. No little tubes sliding back and forth.

 

From the D2 brochure: "The first group of lens elements remains stationary over the entire zoom range. This results in high mechanical stability, which in turn results in high focusing accuracy, longevity and precise mechanical movements. Both focusing as well as focal length changes take place exclusively inside the lens."

 

As mentioned, it was also required for the analog aperture and focusing rings, which obviously can't slide around as much as a "bare" lens like the Zuiko.

 

Now that explains everything! Thanks Andy!..

 

K.

[TBL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

and sadly as well, they refuse to offer us a BIG accurate optical (or hybrid) viewfinder, which should be perfectly doable for a 4x zoom. The first brand that will make such a camera of high quality will sell massively to the 45+ generation, especially as at 45 or 60 most of us have more to spend than at 20 or 30.

 

Reg

 

Well, they left out the zoom ring, the focussing ring, and the aperture ring. Instead they got the whirring and delay each time the camera turns on and off, just like any other fiddly digicam.

 

Sadly, this was the same tradeoff that Leica did with the X1.

[farnz]

See sample shots from the XZ-1 here.

 

Pete.

[adan]

Not too X-citing! (To borrow the writing style of Oly's PR people)

 

But that's mostly because heavy-handed NR makes it hard to see what the lens can actually do.

[Digitom]

For Digilux 2 fans (and fanatics as well ) no successor. Resolution and noise maybe better (no, sure it is, because the cam is new) but the handling is not same. So the D2 still is unique.

[Paul Reading]

The sensor of the XZ1 is only 48mm compared with 58mm for the D2 this means the depth of field will be much lower on the D2.

[farnz]

The sensor of the XZ1 is only 48mm compared with 58mm for the D2 this means the depth of field will be much lower on the D2.

Paul,

 

I'm not sure where your information came from but the sensors are nowhere near that large, even on the diagonal.

 

The D2 has a 2/3" format sensor, which is 8.8 mm x 6.6 mm and 11 mm on the diagonal and the XZ-1 has a 1:1.63" format sensor, which is 8.08 mm x 6.01 mm and 10.07 mm on the diagonal.

 

Pete.

[adan]

Well, Paul was (accurately if not correctly) comparing the total area (sq mm) - But, Paul, nobody in the industry uses area for comparing sensors*. They use linear dimensions just as with film - either the diagonal or the sides.

 

People referred to 35mm format as 24 x 36, or 1" x 1.5," and MF as 6x6 or 6x7 - no one every calls them "864 mm" film or "2,916mm" film

 

The diagonal is usually the preferred measure for comparing things like DoF potential or "effective focal length" - so long as the aspect ratio is not too extreme.

 

The XZ-1 has about a 1.1x "crop factor" over the Digilux 2 - not enough to to make a significant difference in DoF.

____________

 

*Hassy and Mamiya have occasionally used area to justify saying their negs are "3 times" or "4 times" the size of 35mm, but no one pays them any attention.

[farnz]

Thanks, Andy, it never occurred to me that Paul might have been talking in sq mm.

 

Pete.

[Paul Reading]

You are correct I was talking square mm. Hassy and Mamiya are absolutely correct to compare square area in relation to the resolution (assuming the same quality lens) as the area of film is like comparing the number of pixels.

 

With regards to the DOF it will be related to focal length of the lens to cover the sensor so a larger sensor will require a longer focal length, but I think you are correct, the effect will be proportional to the diagonal not the overall area.

[adan]

You're right that area is proportional to pixels (if the pixel size is the same).

 

However, generally, resolution has always been measured in line pairs per mm (linear), not points per sq. mm (area). So, assuming the film/lens resolution is 100 lppm, a 120 neg will resolve 5400 lines across the film and a 35mm neg will resolve 2400 lines across the film - i.e. ~2.2x the resolution.

 

Same for sensors - a Nikon D3x sensor has twice the pixels of the D700/D3s, but will only resolve 1.4x the number of pickets in a fence (to use the classic example).

 

In this particular case, the XZ-1 has a smaller sensor but MORE pixels than the D2. Twice as many pixels, potentially 1.4x the resolution (depending on other factors, including the lens quality).

[Paul Reading]

Thanks I can see the logic in that, it is counter intuitive. You would expect to look at the total number of different receptors(grain/pixels) and assume that the resolution is proportional to the number of them.