Digilux 2 is the most talked about and loved camera here - but is it justified?

[jrethorst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The sensor uses only the central part of an already superior lens

 

Then, could the D2's sensor in theory be replaced by, say, a 4/3 sensor, using the current lens?

[jippiejee]

I wished they'd offer such a replacement. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. A sensor comes with a lot of hardware too.

[Tietje]

The Digilux 2 is just a joy to use and handle. When I first got mine I almost felt I was using an M again. I've also been using my D-Lux 5 for the last month on my travels. It has great image quality and very convenient to use, but the Digilux makes me want to take pictures!

[Leicanier]

The "MegaPixel"-race has turned into a "MegaPixel"-madness!

1/2.3" sensors with 16 MPix?? Crazy!

My NEX-7 with 24 MPix! Even that is mad. (But not as bad as with the small sensors. )

 

Anyway, from a certain level on, it is no longer important how many additional MPix there are, it's much more important what a cam feels like in your hands. And when it comes to "haptics" the Digilux 2 is fantastic. I would even say on par with my NEX-7 and almost with an M9!

 

A "Digilux 2.2" with a 2/3" 8 MPix sensor and modern anti-noise algorithms would be something like my dream camera!

 

We go your cam is Digilux 3!

[agrokid]

Yes, it is loved, for reasons, I think, which have nothing to do with megapixels. Look at some of the features which knock spots off an M9. Fixed lens, so no sensor dust. Summicron zoom over the most used focal lengths (28-90). It's a manual zoom, so no battery drain, and silent. Live viewfinder with no frames to clutter the view. Stop and speed shown in viewfinder. Histogram if you want it. Autofocus and autometer faster than an M9. Three styles of metering from a finger dial on top plate. Full manual control when you want it, with all dials in their proper places. Easy bracketing. Easy series of three fast shots, one after the other, with the second and third shots often free from camera shake, and often having the best smile in a portrait. Absolutely silent shutter for utmost discretion. Synchronised at all speeds. Built-in flash to soften too wide a dynamic range. Bounce flash to soften a portrait. Weight is about 2/3rds of an M9 with one lens, and about half an M9 and two lenses. Jpegs so good that it's seldom worth bothering with raw. But, when you have to, raw is DNG, as it should be, but seldom is. OK, it doesn't have umpteem megapixels, but 5MP and a 4:3 format gives 8x6ins prints at native resolution using top printers, and that's plenty big enough for many purposes, though I'll grant you that beyond 20x16ins the D2 is struggling. On top of all that, the colors and smooth tones from the D2 really are as good as any camera. Yes, it seems to me there are plenty of reasons to love the D2, and they are all justified. What a shame that Leica have never upgraded this lovely camera. Faster software and more pixels would put it right at the top again. That's not much to ask, is it?

[Antonio Pereira Jiménez]

Yes, it is loved, for reasons, I think, which have nothing to do with megapixels. Look at some of the features which knock spots off an M9. Fixed lens, so no sensor dust. Summicron zoom over the most used focal lengths (28-90). It's a manual zoom, so no battery drain, and silent. Live viewfinder with no frames to clutter the view. Stop and speed shown in viewfinder. Histogram if you want it. Autofocus and autometer faster than an M9. Three styles of metering from a finger dial on top plate. Full manual control when you want it, with all dials in their proper places. Easy bracketing. Easy series of three fast shots, one after the other, with the second and third shots often free from camera shake, and often having the best smile in a portrait. Absolutely silent shutter for utmost discretion. Synchronised at all speeds. Built-in flash to soften too wide a dynamic range. Bounce flash to soften a portrait. Weight is about 2/3rds of an M9 with one lens, and about half an M9 and two lenses. Jpegs so good that it's seldom worth bothering with raw. But, when you have to, raw is DNG, as it should be, but seldom is. OK, it doesn't have umpteem megapixels, but 5MP and a 4:3 format gives 8x6ins prints at native resolution using top printers, and that's plenty big enough for many purposes, though I'll grant you that beyond 20x16ins the D2 is struggling. On top of all that, the colors and smooth tones from the D2 really are as good as any camera. Yes, it seems to me there are plenty of reasons to love the D2, and they are all justified. What a shame that Leica have never upgraded this lovely camera. Faster software and more pixels would put it right at the top again. That's not much to ask, is it?

 

Estoy totalmente deacuerdo.

Al fin y al cabo una camara de fotos es una herramienta para hacer fotos.Y la Digilux 2 es una exelente herramienta para ello.Esta limitada pero en estos limites hay un monton de fotos que se pueden hacer.Ademas su objetivo 28-90 con su movimiento interno es una pasada.

Saludos dede Andalucia.

[LucisPictor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We go your cam is Digilux 3!

 

No, no, no. The Digilux 3 is a completely different cam.

It looks similar, yes, but it is really different.

Have you ever compared the shutter sound of those two cams?

[Ruhayat]

Funny how after all these years, the Digilux 2 is still unmatched. I handled a Fuji X100 recently and it's nowhere near the ergonomic and easy to use operation of the Digilux 2. With the Digilux 2 Leica didn't merely copy the past, it used the retro design because it actually worked. Contrast with Fuji and Olympus efforts, which are merely cosmetic, by and large.

 

When I was still using mine, I loved it because out of camera B&W jpegs are simply superb, and you get 2 types of "film": ISO100 is like T-Max, very fine and smooth, and ISO400 you get Tri-X, contrasty and grainy. Colours and tones at ISO100 were lovely, too - a friend of mine once thought a 4x6 print I made from it was from my M6TTL.

 

The "outdated" sensor isn't outdated at all - perhaps 95% of most people use their cameras for web viewing and small prints every now and then, so 5MP is more than enough. Besides, increasing sensor size means a bigger package - have you seen the size of the equivalent lens for the Digilux 3? I'm okay with the write speeds, too - I never had to shoot RAW with it, and the jpeg write times mimicked my film shooting speed more or less.

[Ruhayat]

Maybe Leica should reintroduce the Digilux line. X line for compacts with fixed lens, Digilux line for compacts with normal zoom lens. And then you have the V-Lux line for compacts with superzooms. Leica for the masses, so to speak.

[Blindjock]

Well... Playing with my new toy today (D2), it knocks out excellent jpgs straight from the memory card. As long as you don't crop too heavily or pixel peep it is very nice. In fact, the files are idea for IPads, idea res for the 10" screen and modest sized.

[MrEd]

Maybe Leica should reintroduce the Digilux line. X line for compacts with fixed lens, Digilux line for compacts with normal zoom lens. And then you have the V-Lux line for compacts with superzooms. Leica for the masses, so to speak.

 

 

Forget about it.......

 

 

 

 

.

[ravduc]

Jaybob, I have to disagree with you on the Digilux 3. The Digilux 3 in combo with the panasonic-leica 25 1.4is a great camera. This combo is well balanced. It is not quite as enjoyable to use with the 14-50mm lens due to its size making the camera front heavy. The viewfinder is quite dim but not any more than the D2, and its optical. The Digilux 2 has a more grainy sort of film like look. Both cameras are nice to have.

 

I own a lot of cameras and probably too many (Olympus E-300, E-1, E-3, Fuji X100, Sony Alpha 850, etc). They all have their qualities and faults. The files generated by the Sony full frame camera are incredibly sharp but I still use the other cameras for their uniqueness and different renderings. I still use the D2 and D3 and enjoy them both. I printed an11x14 inch print just last week taken with the D2, and it looks very good. I only use the camera at 100 iso either in RAW or Xfine jpep. Same with the Digilux 3, 100 and 200 iso only. Love the look and feel of these two cameras.

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Funny how after all these years, the Digilux 2 is still unmatched. I handled a Fuji X100 recently and it's nowhere near the ergonomic and easy to use operation of the Digilux 2. With the Digilux 2 Leica didn't merely copy the past, it used the retro design because it actually worked. Contrast with Fuji and Olympus efforts, which are merely cosmetic, by and large.

 

Mmmm. I have a D2 (I had 3 at one time - just in case. This should help establish how passionate I am about this camera.) I went through a bunch of DSLRs and a Leica M8.2 (with 28, 35 and 50mm 'cron), sold them all and kept the D2. I bonded with that camera more than any other.

 

Having said that, I now also have a Fuji X100 and I also love it. While I miss the 28-90mm and the all-manual controls, going from the X100 to the D2 is a bit of a shock in 2 areas: viewfinder quality and ISO performance.

 

The D2 lens and controls with the X100 viewfinder and sensor would make the perfect camera for me. For the time being, I am very happy with two almost-perfect cameras.

 

If you are a fan of the D2 and have 'bonded' with it, the odds are pretty good that you'd like the X100. Having said that, it took a couple of months of experience with it and a couple of firmware upgrades before I was fully comfortable with the X100. During that period I missed quite a few shots.

 

Alberto

[dickgrafixstop]

You assume Leica let the Digilux 2 "die" because Panasonic quit making it. They couldn't give away the LC1's at the price they were asking and if they don't understand photographers they do understand accounting. Now if you re-introduce a "digilux 2.a" improved with a

new 16mp chip and improved image quality, noise handling and read/write speeds you

could kill the X1 (which has pretty much died by itself), negate the "need" for an X2, pretty

badly hurt Delux 5 sales and potentially impact the long anticipated "leica mirrorless".

Doesn't sound like a good business decision to me and besides, no "made in germany" sticker would be available and the "not invented here" syndrome would suffer renewed angst.

[John Thawley]

It's all very simple, really.

 

Those that are passionate about their Digilux 2 (or LC1) have the unique distinction of understanding photography and the art of making pictures.

 

You can talk megapixels, ISO, speed, viewfinder... yada, yada, yada, all day long. You can talk about it until you are blue in the face. To own and love the Digilux 2 to is know and understand the experience of making pictures.

 

Slow? Slow you say? Try slapping a 90mm Cron on an M9. Your subject can go have lunch and come back before you're composed, focused and ready to shoot.

 

Admittedly, I shoot mostly with my M9 these days. I've just become so enamored with selective focus in my shooting and trying harder to only use the necessary depth-of-field to enhance the composition.

 

But everytime I take the Digilux 2 out for a spin or as backup for an event that's moving a bit faster than the M9 manual focus can handle, I'm reminded what a stunning piece of kit it truly is.

 

There's a word for items and designs like the Digilux 2 (and the M for that matter). The word is quintessence. It almost defies definition by its very own definition.

 

Definition of QUINTESSENCE

1: the fifth and highest element in ancient and medieval philosophy that permeates all nature and is the substance composing the celestial bodies

2: the essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated form

 

You don't "think" when you shoot with a Digilux 2... if you know, understand and recognize what tools you have available in your hands, your Digilux 2 will perform superbly.

 

Every camera has its trade-offs. My M9 redefines slow in the modern digital era. My Canon 5D MK11 redefines size and weight. So, while the Digilux 2 may define 8 year-old technology, it is also defined with 1970's film style shooting - you have a film-like camera that someone slipped a sensor into. Voila.

 

Learn the camera, master its features... learn how to perform with it and it will reward you with wonderful images time and time again.

 

Just my opinion... I could be wrong.

 

JT

[agrokid]

John Thawley tells us he's become enamoured of narrow depth of field. I used to get much the same effect with a Rollei TLR at F2.8, and Leica lenses prefer to be used wide open so they encourage this effect. But, John, don't you find it becomes boring after a while?

[John Thawley]

John Thawley tells us he's become enamoured of narrow depth of field. I used to get much the same effect with a Rollei TLR at F2.8, and Leica lenses prefer to be used wide open so they encourage this effect. But, John, don't you find it becomes boring after a while?

 

Agrokid tells us he's no longer reading threads as they are written. But, Agrokid, don't you find inserting your own statements becomes confusing?

 

Sir: Nowhere did I say I've become enamored of narrow depth of field. What I said is:

 

I've just become so enamored with selective focus in my shooting and trying harder to only use the necessary depth-of-field to enhance the composition.

 

This is an entirely different statement.

 

The "necessary" depth-of-field is quite different shooting a portrait compared to say, shooting a static pose of a car. One might be sufficient at f/3.5 - f/4 where as the other might be better at f/11. Obviously, I could shoot both at f/22, but that would give MORE than the NECESSARY depth of field in both cases.

 

In addition, I've actually become a bit weary of SHALLOW depth-of-field and in fact, sold my 35mm f/1.2. And whereas both my 35mm and 50mm Summicrons perform quite nicely wide open, I find my 90mm Summicron is much more comfortable and performs better at f/4.

 

With respect to your twin lens reflex Rollei, f/2.8 in a 120 format is not f/2.8 in 35mm. I have a Polaroid Pathfinder with a 4x5 back and a f/4.7 Rodenstock lens that produces ridiculously shallow depth-of-field.

 

Anyway, to answer your question, I do get tired of images (and photographers) that seem to seek some badge of honor misusing razor thin depth-of-field.

 

JT

[agrokid]

Ooops! Sorry, John Thawley. I'm an admirer of your work and have no wish to upset you. Can we have a truce based on your last paragraph, "Anyway, to answer your question, I do get tired of images (and photographers) that seem to seek some badge of honor misusing razor thin depth-of-field"? So do I. Are we friends now?

[John Thawley]

Ooops! Sorry, John Thawley. I'm an admirer of your work and have no wish to upset you. Can we have a truce based on your last paragraph, "Anyway, to answer your question, I do get tired of images (and photographers) that seem to seek some badge of honor misusing razor thin depth-of-field"? So do I. Are we friends now?

 

No worries... and certainly not upset. You actually provided an excellent teaching opportunity. I don't think a lot of people think through the use of "depth-of-field," short of going for ridiculously shallow and confusing the circle of confusion for bokeh.

 

Thanks,

 

JT

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Lux

[ajthornbury]

I have had my D2 for about 5years, I still like using it, together with my E620 and vlux 20.

All have their different uses and advantages. The D2 however is my favourite. Ergonically every thing seems to be in the right place. It is still a nice looking peice of kit, and does not look dated. As far as larger Mpixels are concerned, they can be more of a hinderance. If images are composed in the viewfinder, in a similar way to the older slide photographers techniques then the images do not need cropping and the D2 images will easily print out to A3.

I wouldn't sell mine, older technology or not.