mallo Posted July 11, 2009 Share #101 Posted July 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Less is more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Hi mallo, Take a look here Time for Digilux 4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Overgaard Posted July 11, 2009 Share #102 Posted July 11, 2009 leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1) - Page 1 of 3 The Digilux 4 is a simple camera. Leica tried to accommodate "advanced users" wants and the industry's lust for a united 3/4 system in the Digilux 3. Not a success user-wise or commercially. Hence the answer is to stick with the true Leica values of image quality, light control and simplicity. Back to basics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted July 11, 2009 Share #103 Posted July 11, 2009 LOL - You're a bad man, Mr. Overgaard. LOL I love it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 12, 2009 Share #104 Posted July 12, 2009 I guess you missed the part about the RETAINING the existing lens. JT Not really, keep in mind leica is not really about cameras - they are about lenses. The Digilux 2 is a point and shoot, The Digilux 3 is an DSLR that accomodates existing R lenses via an adapter. and opens up a new avenue to sell lenses. As you, i own both - differnt cameras. But do you expect Leica to add another P&S to the brand that already offers 2 pocket cameras or fill the significant gap left with recent annoucements. if your just chatting on the forum and talking about what leica might have /should have done a few years back - thats different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 12, 2009 Share #105 Posted July 12, 2009 Im surprised you would include this as part of your "reference" site. maybe im off ,but is there any base of realitly to a Digilux 4, what functions it would have, or what it will look like ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted July 12, 2009 Share #106 Posted July 12, 2009 True, and judging from the response I got from elsewhere, some even think they can buy it So there will be a reference from this to my science fiction site here in the future instead: leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 4 digital rangefinder camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted July 12, 2009 Share #107 Posted July 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not really, keep in mind leica is not really about cameras - they are about lenses. The Digilux 2 is a point and shoot, The Digilux 3 is an DSLR that accomodates existing R lenses via an adapter. and opens up a new avenue to sell lenses. As you, i own both - differnt cameras. But do you expect Leica to add another P&S to the brand that already offers 2 pocket cameras or fill the significant gap left with recent annoucements. if your just chatting on the forum and talking about what leica might have /should have done a few years back - thats different I'm talking about a market space they can OWN. I'll adorn my flame proof underwear and flatly state, they can't compete in the DSLR market. At Leica's price points, for them to make a camera to compete IN THE MARKET (not discussing image quality) with Canon 1D MK111, Nikon D3 and their full frame siblings you'd be pushing $20K. That's not competing. Regarding interchangeable lenses, my fundamental reason for selling the Digilux 3 was I caught myself looking at additional (bulky) lenses. At which point a light bulb went off telling me, "why not just take your "real" DSLRs, stupid?" I know the Digilux 3 puts out beautiful images... but it does it with the same bulky overhead as other DSLRs that do it better, faster, cheaper. For me, it's a lame-duck. Whereas, the Digilux 2 philosophy fills a void where the D-Lux 4, EP-1, G10... those Sigma attempts... all fail. It's a pure camera with simplicity in form, function and philosophy. Sorry... but once you open up the lists of "features," Leica falls down. They can't compete with "features." The word barely exists in their DNA. They're about true user benefits and form meeting function. The Digilux 2 is a philosophy that is right under their nose. It's what they do. Though, I grant you... if they did do it with a small range of interchangeable lenses, I wouldn't be offended. Nice, fast small primes would be titillating, to say the least. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 12, 2009 Share #108 Posted July 12, 2009 My guess is the next serious Panny will be an APSC EVIL to compete with Samsung who chose the best route IMHO. So why not an APS Digilux? This could be the 'solution' Stefan Daniel was referring to about the future of R lenses. I would prefer a full frame body by far but i doubt that any sensible maker would run the risk of dressing up an expensive FF body with an EVF so far. What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 12, 2009 Share #109 Posted July 12, 2009 ............ they can't compete in the DSLR market. .......... JT I agree with you except on this point - i think its better said " they won't compete in the DSLR market" meaning they have decided not to have a high end DSLR- they could and they did - they choose not to further leverage a significant engineering investment. In my opinion the DMR is / was the perfect solution, flawlessy engineered and marketed poorly outside of the R8 / R9 community. i did sell my DMR in hopes of a DMR II or R10 - I for one would have preffered a DMR II solution - Which could have been a fierce competitior. In my mind there is no doubt that would have been a fabulous piece of equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceflynn Posted July 12, 2009 Share #110 Posted July 12, 2009 There is a review of the Digilux 2 by Sean Reid at Luminous Landscape: Digilux 2 Review - Part 1 Leica Digilux 2 Review. Part Two A second opinion by Ben Lifson : Digilux 2 Review Second Opinion A fourth opinion: Digilux 2 / LC1 DxO Test Report In reading these reviews, ask yourself whether the objections made and shortcomings noted could be much better addressed with today's technology, without undermining the advantages of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted July 12, 2009 Share #111 Posted July 12, 2009 I agree with you except on this point - i think its better said " they won't compete in the DSLR market" meaning they have decided not to have a high end DSLR- they could and they did - they choose not to further leverage a significant engineering investment. In my opinion the DMR is / was the perfect solution, flawlessy engineered and marketed poorly outside of the R8 / R9 community. i did sell my DMR in hopes of a DMR II or R10 - I for one would have preffered a DMR II solution - Which could have been a fierce competitior. In my mind there is no doubt that would have been a fabulous piece of equipment. Again, I'm not doubting or questioning the quality of the R9, DMR etc. as a camera. said it can't compete. It can't and it didn't. If it had, the factory would be working 24/7 to deliver them to shops short on inventory. Regardless, the point is, there is a market they could establish and own as their own. IMO. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted July 12, 2009 Share #112 Posted July 12, 2009 Hey why not throw face recognition into that pile of feature demands? You wouldn't want the Digilux 4 to take a picture of a horse's ass instead of a timed-release self portrait would you? As for EVF, I take pictures *instead* of watching TV, not the other way 'round. Please post more often. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 12, 2009 Share #113 Posted July 12, 2009 Sounds like sirvine knows his way around a horse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 14, 2009 Share #114 Posted July 14, 2009 Again, I'm not doubting or questioning the quality of the R9, DMR etc. as a camera. said it can't compete. It can't and it didn't. If it had, the factory would be working 24/7 to deliver them to shops short on inventory. Regardless, the point is, there is a market they could establish and own as their own. IMO. JT I think it was competing....... and probably more important it sold R lenses ( the real businness) , because of the 1.3 image factor . My understanding is that the reason the DMR didn't do a second run was the partnership with Imacon/Hassy went sour - had nothing to do with comeptition/ marketplace. Leica only produced 5000 in the first run - that was the mistake - once again they missed read the marketplace. So you saying leica could own the "traditional look and traditional sized P&S camera market". well im sure they could since very few if anybody competes, or buys them, but i think the pocket and small sized DSLR market are MUCH MUCH MUCH larger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted July 14, 2009 Share #115 Posted July 14, 2009 I think it was competing....... and probably more important it sold R lenses ( the real businness) , because of the 1.3 image factor . My understanding is that the reason the DMR didn't do a second run was the partnership with Imacon/Hassy went sour - had nothing to do with comeptition/ marketplace. Leica only produced 5000 in the first run - that was the mistake - once again they missed read the marketplace. So you saying leica could own the "traditional look and traditional sized P&S camera market". well im sure they could since very few if anybody competes, or buys them, but i think the pocket and small sized DSLR market are MUCH MUCH MUCH larger. there is no question about the latter, I was looking at a video produced by an EP1 and put on youtube, it had over half a million hits. Cannot recall any camera inception that has taken off with such a frenzy, one that Im not the least bit interested in in its present form. However its a format not especially given to accommodating R lenses, the DoF being half that of FF with the same lens, its very difficult to achieve focus, and there is a big problem providing for wides. R lenses really need an APSH or FF platform, where I would still suggest that the straightest path is the R9 mirrorbox and modified M8 gizzards. With the present availability of both R and Contax glass, and that despite the complexity of different mounts, the appeal is such that it seems to me to be almost a tempting business proposition in itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 18, 2009 Share #116 Posted July 18, 2009 ..........R lenses really need an APSH or FF platform, where I would still suggest that the straightest path is the R9 mirrorbox and modified M8 gizzards. With the present availability of both R and Contax glass, and that despite the complexity of different mounts, the appeal is such that it seems to me to be almost a tempting business proposition in itself. Maybe, the question to ask now is which camera body to best put R glass onto ? I for one will not stop using my R glass Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted July 18, 2009 Share #117 Posted July 18, 2009 Maybe, the question to ask now is which camera body to best put R glass onto ? I for one will not stop using my R glass indeed in the interim that appears to be the only option. Kodak in the same boat as Nikon, the Contax N doesnt appear useful for anything other than conversation. You can get focus confirm adapters for R to EOS or Nikon, I think (but Im not sure) that the Nikon requires mount surgery to make it happen. However in either case you would have to like how the Canon/Nikon CMOS renders, where personally Im not all that fond of 5DII preferring 5D. You can also have Contax N AF lenses adapted to EOS, but theres a problem. Leica R like Contax wides wont fit the EOS mount and clear the mirror, in some cases you either forgo infinity focus or have the mirror shaved to accept these lenses. Mostly we are talking in the order of 1mm off the mirror. Some adapters are now getting quite sophisticated, with exposure modification and focus trimmers, but with this sophistication comes the need to have a programmed adapter for each lens, at circa $100 a pop from one dealer. An alternative is to replace the camera mount with an R mount, it wont have focus confirmation but if you have a lot of R glass it may well be the cheapest option. You would not be in a position to use EOS EF lenses then, as there is no EOS to R mount adapter,.....funny about that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2009 Share #118 Posted July 18, 2009 ...Some adapters are now getting quite sophisticated, with exposure modification and focus trimmers, but with this sophistication comes the need to have a programmed adapter for each lens... Never tested exposure compensation on my 5D so far but i don't need focus trimmers for my dozen f/2 to f/4 R lenses (21 to 180). I happen to use 4 same AF confirm adapters for sake of convenience but i could have bought a single one instead. Screwing / unscrewing lenses is quite easy on them and a mere screwdriver suffices to tighten the spring up if need be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted July 18, 2009 Share #119 Posted July 18, 2009 Never tested exposure compensation on my 5D so far but i don't need focus trimmers for my dozen f/2 to f/4 R lenses (21 to 180). I happen to use 4 same AF confirm adapters for sake of convenience but i could have bought a single one instead. Screwing / unscrewing lenses is quite easy on them and a mere screwdriver suffices to tighten the spring up if need be. yes I understand that LCT, just to elucidate anyone unfamiliar with FC Adapters, you have to reprogram the adapter to use it on another lens, not a foreboding task but its just easier to have one for each lens. The EPROM will hold the programmed data aboard when the lens is off the mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2009 Share #120 Posted July 18, 2009 Ever tried this on your 5D? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.