Do Digilux 2 photos have distinctive look?

[daveleo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow John just how many D2 do you have.

 

a guy can't have too many D2's can he ? . . . esp the "pimped -out" kind.

 

nice going (again), John.

 

 

reminds me that I still have a green leather kit to do on my Hexar.

[Advertisement]

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

[rickp13]

john

 

i just got my first digilux 2 and am very pleased with it. so easy to work with, such good results 'right out of the box

 

but my big question - are your red and future chocolate brown covers from the cameraleather source, or from japan (or a 3rd source)?

 

btw, your photos are indeed 'distinctive'.

 

greetings from hamburg

 

rick

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!

[John Thawley]

john

 

i just got my first digilux 2 and am very pleased with it. so easy to work with, such good results 'right out of the box

 

but my big question - are your red and future chocolate brown covers from the cameraleather source, or from japan (or a 3rd source)?

 

btw, your photos are indeed 'distinctive'.

 

greetings from hamburg

 

rick

 

Thanks Rick.

 

All my leather work has been done by Morgan Sparks at Camera Leather. He does a fantastic job.

 

Straps I've gotten from Luigi.. though this strap came from a a gentleman in Korea who sells on eBay. It's certainly a nice strap... but it's no Luigi. But the color is spot on and it functions just fine. Where Luigi has the edge is his straps collapse in a soft pile when yu set them down... kind of like good wool trousers. They also display a bit of elasticity when you're wearing them. This new strap stays a bit more arced. It's soft.. but it doesn't fold up.

 

JT

[krabat]

A young ostrich in the Osnabrück Zoo, last August.

 

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!

[dopey]

Hi everyone

 

Im new to Leica.

 

I got me grubby hands on a DL2 last week having read JT & TO & many forum posts.

 

Heres one from my first day on sunday. Desaturated in GIMP by 71%.

 

 

[k_g_wolf ✝]

A very fine photograph. thank´s for sharing !

 

Enjoy your camera, it still is a top product for

top-notch photographs, as you just proofed.

 

BTW: Welcome to the forum!

 

 

Best

GEORG

[dopey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you kindly Georg

[John Thawley]

My Digilux 2 took his new "big brother" out for a photo shoot. Meet my new stealthy "Black Dot" M8.2 - photos taken with a Digilux 2.

 

Just a brief note. On my first outing with the M8.2 I really (REALLY) enjoyed shooting with it and the results (images) were fantastic. HOWEVER, I have to say... having shot the same location(s) just five days ago using the Digilux 2 and given the fact that most our images spend most of their lives at web resolution, the Digilux 2 images rival this camera in color and sharpness. In shallow depth-of-field? Not so much. LOL - But the comparison does speak volumes the impressive performance of the Digilux 2.

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!

[wda]

Hi everyone

 

Im new to Leica.

 

I got me grubby hands on a DL2 last week having read JT & TO & many forum posts.

 

Heres one from my first day on sunday. Desaturated in GIMP by 71%.

 

...

 

dopey, a warm welcome to the forum! Ownership of the Digilux 2 opens up a new way of seeing the world around us. Enjoy!

[wda]

My Digilux 2 took his new "big brother" out for a photo shoot. Meet my new stealthy "Black Dot" M8.2 - photos taken with a Digilux 2.

 

Just a brief note. On my first outing with the M8.2 I really (REALLY) enjoyed shooting with it and the results (images) were fantastic. HOWEVER, I have to say... having shot the same location(s) just five days ago using the Digilux 2 and given the fact that most our images spend most of their lives at web resolution, the Digilux 2 images rival this camera in color and sharpness. In shallow depth-of-field? Not so much. LOL - But the comparison does speak volumes the impressive performance of the Digilux 2.

John, you make an interesting point in comparing two very different Leica cameras. However, your comparison is a very narrow one. The simplest modern P&S is good enough purely for 'web' images; but go beyond that to pictures needed for fine-art or serious reproduction and your 8.2 will have an undoubted edge. But I guess you already realise that fact! LOL!

 

After-thought: Looking at the rather dark rendering by the D2 of the 8.2, I sense a little rivalry. D2 has clearly shunted 8.2 into the gloomy shadows!

[dopey]

dopey, a warm welcome to the forum! Ownership of the Digilux 2 opens up a new way of seeing the world around us. Enjoy!

 

 

Thank you kindly David

 

This was RAW 400 1/60 auto wb F2.0

 

Edited January 17, 2011 by dopey

[LeicaMAC]

Of course your absolutely correct WDA, John T did qualify his comparison comments by mentioning... "at web resolution"; but as a serial printer of photos from the D2, and to para-phase, contort and twist John T's earlier comment where (and I may be a bit off with the facts) I think he said it was possible to print at as low a resolution of 200dpi... and still get excellent results, I can say with some assurance that I have printed marginally larger than A3 with the D2 at this resolution and (after allowing for an appropriately wide frame mount) have framed, sharp, detailed prints which aren't exactly 10x8's. Granted they aren't going to be seen on any bill boards soon either, but the combined visual effect is of a much larger "picture" than I think many might think the brilliant D2 is capable of.

I'd hate for users who don't print often, to think of our meager five mega-pixel, point and shoot, yesterday-tech camera's as nostalgic keep sakes. I take mine very seriously. I find it flatters my ability as a photographer (herm....) from the moment I compose the shot, to the point it emerges from my printer. Oh, and did I mention I'm also a huge fan of the D2.

Web resolution indeed...!

[John Thawley]

John, you make an interesting point in comparing two very different Leica cameras. However, your comparison is a very narrow one. The simplest modern P&S is good enough purely for 'web' images; but go beyond that to pictures needed for fine-art or serious reproduction and your 8.2 will have an undoubted edge. But I guess you already realise that fact! LOL!

 

After-thought: Looking at the rather dark rendering by the D2 of the 8.2, I sense a little rivalry. D2 has clearly shunted 8.2 into the gloomy shadows!

 

I think there was a tinge of jealousy. But.. in fairness, I have this pension for shooting black on black and this was a kitchen counter bounce flash job. LOL

 

I'm not sure that I agree that the "simplest modern P&S" is "good enough." I know what you mean... BUT, the online environment is getting extremely sophisticated and people are viewing on some pretty impressive monitors. So, yes.... it's not the best environment... but there are examples that are moving in the right direction. I use a 27" monitor on my desk. A 1024px image is still a 4x6 print. While I'd be very careful about being over critical reviewing an image... we do have to acknowledge that online is where we live. I agree, a large print is "the proof in the proverbial pudding."

 

My iPad is frighteningly critical of image quality. And the next generation is going to be even better yet.

 

Lastly, I'd argue, editing my Digilux 2 files and the M8.2 files at my desk the differences are obvious, but I don't think they're technical. Given one has files twice the size of the other, the difference in image quality is (again, technical) is negligible. Where the M8.2 images excel is more where you'd expect it to be... and more of what you've pointed out. Fine art subtleties of smoother out of focus areas, better detail in the shadows, etc.

 

I still insist though, if I didn't KNOW better, images from the two cameras side-by-side on my monitor could leave you wondering "why did I bother?" I know why... but I'm just sayin'. LOL

 

JT

[John Thawley]

Thank you kindly David

 

This was RAW 400 1/60 auto wb F2.0

 

 

I think the point of discussion would be apparent once you attempt to get shadow detail from this image. It's totally black on the top 20% of the frame and down to the lower right side... all black.

 

What is happening... and what is catching your eye as "good" is the highlights. As an example of what I'm discussing, shoot a RAW file at ISO400 in good daylight. It will be OK. There'll be grain.. but not necessarily noise per se'.

 

When shooting in bright light, you expose for the highlights. When shooting in low light, the theory is to expose for the shadows. So in practice, we slightly underexpose during the sunny daylight and overexpose in low light situations.

 

Overexposing in low light will open up the shadows and reveal detail. And THIS is where you'll struggle with the Digilux 2. There's just not enough headroom to get those shadows open and not incur noise.

 

This is true with any camera... though this is also the technical challenge being addressed by newer sensors capable of shooting at high ISO settings.

 

I shoot a lot of night racing through out the year. I don't like shooting with a flash as it changes the entire scene. But I have found that my early methods of trying to sneak up on the night by holding onto to lower ISO settings as long as possible (to avoid noise) was not the way to go. I'd sneak up on it... ending up with slightly underexposed shots and trying to bring them up in post processing. All that will do is expose the noise that is already there and even emphasize it.

 

I found a much better result was to stay ahead of the ISO... and shoot with healthy settings that allowed me to start shooting a 1/2 of full stop over. What this means is your histogram is going to weighted to the right. You'll find much cleaner images and much better post processing results.

 

Finally, I'm not saying CAN'T or NEVER... we all shoot at times that we know we are "hoping." And as I said, there are a lot of black and white opportunities where 400 can look "stylishly cool."

 

JT

[dopey]

I think the point of discussion would be apparent once you attempt to get shadow detail from this image. It's totally black on the top 20% of the frame and down to the lower right side... all black.

 

What is happening... and what is catching your eye as "good" is the highlights.

 

When shooting in bright light, you expose for the highlights. When shooting in low light, the theory is to expose for the shadows. So in practice, we slightly underexpose during the sunny daylight and overexpose in low light situations.

 

JT

 

Hey JT

 

The clarity, colour, sharpness, auto WB made me go

 

I could have exposed for the shadow areas in the foreground (black crates & pallet trolley),

but i wanted in them in the picture at that angle just as ornaments to lead the eye on to the lit market stall.

 

Likewise with the blacked out buildings, the main subject was the market stall, so no distracting well exposed buildings in the background.

[John Thawley]

Hey JT

 

The clarity, colour, sharpness, auto WB made me go

 

I could have exposed for the shadow areas in the foreground (black crates & pallet trolley),

but i wanted in them in the picture at that angle just as ornaments to lead the eye on to the lit market stall.

 

Likewise with the blacked out buildings, the main subject was the market stall, so no distracting well exposed buildings in the background.

 

OK.

 

I didn't really want to get into the quality of the image or composition. Only to point out that to get this image "right" in to my eye and aesthetic, I would want to bring up the detail in the shadows.

 

Given what you have expressed and your goals of the photo, I would have moved in for a tighter crop.

 

And for what it's worth, this shot could have been captured at 100 ISO or 200 ISO as well. Especially had you moved in a bit. You're at 1/60 f/2 @ 30mm. With the Digilux 2 I'd encourage you to experiment with slower shutter speeds. At 100 ISO you would have been a 1/15 sec. and at 200 IS0 1/30 sec.

 

BTW... this is/was not a critique of your image, simply discussing some other options of how you might have skinned this cat to get the most from a Digilux 2.

 

JT

[krabat]

Hi Dopey, I like your image!

 

After being struggling with the noise in the shadows when shooting at night, I decided to rather underexpose images taken at night. Why? Because, besides less noise, I want to have darkness in the images where darkness was in reality, and I do not care that much about details in the shadows.

On the other hand, if there is a strong light in the image that could lead to a too short exposure time, I overexpose a little bit, no matter if the light is too bright then.

 

Just my 2 cents...

[dopey]

Hey JT & K

 

After i saw the exif i thought oooh i could've taken that 100 1/15.

Any closer the shadow of the pallet would've been chopped.

 

I was just so taken by what this fine Lady (DL2) can do.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Lux

[Cirrus1]

In reference to the talk about seeing DL2 images on the screen instead of printed, I can attest to the DL2's unique qualities on paper. I print DL2 JPEG's, B&W white balance, straight out of the camera with minimal PP at 288 PPI on 8x10 paper and they are stunning, better than my D-lux 4, EP-1, Hassey scans, darkroom prints,etc. Maybe they dont look as 3d as my 4x5 negs scanned and printed small, but still I get pretty amazed at what it can do. There is a presence in the images I just don't see in my other workflows. Sometimes I contemplate selling all the rest of my gear and just using my 2 DL2's!

[dopey]

OK.

 

Only to point out that to get this image "right" in to my eye and aesthetic, I would want to bring up the detail in the shadows.

 

Given what you have expressed and your goals of the photo, I would have moved in for a tighter crop.

 

JT

 

Ok JT

 

What you saw as "right" would have wrong in my eyes, since the details in the shadow is not the subject matter .

Also If I moved in for a tighter crop the shadow of the pallet would have been chopped.

 

This image was taken with a fair amount instant of consideration of angles, composition, subject matter.

We need to see all these in an instance for street.