Digilux 3 reviews - The silence is deafening

[hpu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love the machine. For me it is doing the job, as I like landscape which I do now MF. Ehen I don't use MF then I have the AF to center, like Dugby wrote earlier.

The new firmware 2.0 is an improvement. Luckily I read about this update on this fantastic site. (Thanks for that guys). It proves that the LUG seems better than the importer, which has until now no information sent out on this improvement.

[Advertisement]

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

[Iron Flatline]

I also wonder how much reviewing gets done absent a certain marketing effort. If Leica is not out there shaking the trees to get the thing reviewed, most reviewers are not going to make themselves crazy spending time on it - esp. when a nearly identical camera is available from Panasonic.

 

Panasonic is probably more aggressive (and has more marketing dollars) so it is more likely that their version gets reviewed. Leica needs to do a better job of differentiating its own product - tweak the pre-sets and the profiles, while pointing out the better warranty and included products (memory chips, software, etc.) Otherwise the photography world is so swamped with new products, noone is going to make the effort to review the product.

 

Also: this may be slightly semantic, but: right now the Panasonic is the primary camera, and the Leica is simply a fancier version. They need to reposition it in the market place so that Leica is the camera that comes to market, and the Pana the discount version.

[miami91]

Also: this may be slightly semantic, but: right now the Panasonic is the primary camera, and the Leica is simply a fancier version. They need to reposition it in the market place so that Leica is the camera that comes to market, and the Pana the discount version.

 

From a Leica owner's/user's perspective, I agree with you. But Panasonic is the 400 lb gorilla in this relationship, not Leica. I think Leica probably needs Panasonic more than Panasonic needs Leica. And since Panasonic wants to be seen as a major player in digital photography, they would probably resist being pigeonholed as the "discount" brand.

 

As others have noted, what's most curious about the D3 and L1 is the huge price difference between the two. The D3 retails at almost twice the price, a far larger gap than has been true of the many other pairings of Leica/Panasonic co-developed digicams in the past 3-4 years. You had many people who opted for the Leica package of warranty/aesthetics/profiles/software over Panasonic's offerings when it came to the D1, D2, D-Lux, D-Lux2, etc. But far fewer are willing/able to swallow this price difference with the D3. This has clearly been disadvantageous to Leica, and is something that they should endeavor to avoid in the future.

 

Jeff.

[rejcd]

Hi

I am the owner of a digilux three, and i regret having bought that camera for the following reasons.

In dim light focusing, the camera is useless, either with the view finder or with the LCD screen, you could do as well shooting with dark sunglasses. As for the focus helping light, unless you are shooting coackroaches, it will frighten the hell out of the subject, same for the pre flash bursts. I do not understand what would be so impossible in doing the focus with an ultrasound system bouncing back to the camera.

I normal conditions there is still plenty of missed shots with the autofocus going back and forth.

Thats the problem of all autofocus cameras anyway. Now if you are reduced to focus manually or to prefocus your shots, with bother with all the autofocus mumbo jumbo ?

As a conclusion, i paid $4000.00 AU for an excellent zoom lens, the camera is pretty ordinary, and while the concept and ergonomics are excellent, i think that it is a transition camera, a future Digilux 3-4 or 5 will surely fix all this, why buy one now, when the next model with the 14/150 zoom is around the far corner ??

As Kertez would have said if he owned a digilux 3 " I see the thing, i feel the thing, i miss the shot !!"

[chrisbo]

From a Leica owner's/user's perspective, I agree with you. But Panasonic is the 400 lb gorilla in this relationship, not Leica. I think Leica probably needs Panasonic more than Panasonic needs Leica. And since Panasonic wants to be seen as a major player in digital photography, they would probably resist being pigeonholed as the "discount" brand.

 

As others have noted, what's most curious about the D3 and L1 is the huge price difference between the two. The D3 retails at almost twice the price, a far larger gap than has been true of the many other pairings of Leica/Panasonic co-developed digicams in the past 3-4 years. You had many people who opted for the Leica package of warranty/aesthetics/profiles/software over Panasonic's offerings when it came to the D1, D2, D-Lux, D-Lux2, etc. But far fewer are willing/able to swallow this price difference with the D3. This has clearly been disadvantageous to Leica, and is something that they should endeavor to avoid in the future.

 

Jeff.

 

I almost purchased a "demonstrator" version of the Digilux III advertised on eBay by a Leica Authorized dealer at a "Buy it Now" price of $2,000.00. I lost track of time and didn't get to bid. No one bid on the camera and the auction closed. When I called the dealer directly to offer their asking price as listed on eBay or, in the alternative, to ask them to re-list the Digilux III so I could bid, the retailer indicated that Leica U.S.A. had contacted them and offered to buy the demonstrator Digilux III for $150.00 above their asking price on eBay. The dealer had no need to re-list the camera for sale. Leica is working hard to prop up the $2,500.00 asking price more than they're working on their marketing. In the weeks that've followed, I've noticed the price of the L1 dropping by several hundred dollars. I've also noticed that many retailers are offering an unusual number of "refurbished" Digilux III's for sale at $2,000.00, however only a 90 day Leica warranty is offered with the cameras. I've wondered if these are mostly returns.

[chrisbo]

certainly Olympus have met the opposition so far as noise is concerned

i think both 410/510 defeat 400D and XTi for noise, although not by a lot

D40 possibly beats them all, not much in that either though

 

the Olympus can be shot in daylight at 1600 to support speed and makes nice images

but like other cameras from APS C this size its still a bit noisy in low light

certainly 800iso looks fairly routine

 

this is one from the net by E-410 at iso 1600, EXIF in tact, vers .9 firmware

 

Thanks for your suggestions and comments Riley. They're very helpful. I've read many of your posts and I'm amazed at your technical knowledge with so many issues and equipment.

 

I've considered buying the Panasonic L1 just for the lens (I've seen it priced as low as $1,000.00, which is very, very close to the cost of the lens alone) and getting the Olympus E-510 body to use with the Leica lens. The combined $1,800.00 cost is less than a refurbished Digilux III.

 

Perhaps I could "get by" with that setup until Leica releases a Digilux IV that might not rely upon three or four year old digital camera technology for use with Leica's state-of-the-art lenses. I hate the wait though. My Digilux II has been gone for the usual sensor replacement for seven weeks already and I simply miss having my camera.

 

What are your thoughts on this approach.

[lemalk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the more in-depth reviews I saw before caving in and getting the D3 was this one:

 

Leica Digilux 3 Pro Review at PhotographyReview.com

 

You have to scroll down to see the full review.

[dugby]

I almost purchased a "demonstrator" version of the Digilux III advertised on eBay by a Leica Authorized dealer at a "Buy it Now" price of $2,000.00. I lost track of time and didn't get to bid. No one bid on the camera and the auction closed. When I called the dealer directly to offer their asking price as listed on eBay or, in the alternative, to ask them to re-list the Digilux III so I could bid, the retailer indicated that Leica U.S.A. had contacted them and offered to buy the demonstrator Digilux III for $150.00 above their asking price on eBay. The dealer had no need to re-list the camera for sale. Leica is working hard to prop up the $2,500.00 asking price more than they're working on their marketing. In the weeks that've followed, I've noticed the price of the L1 dropping by several hundred dollars. I've also noticed that many retailers are offering an unusual number of "refurbished" Digilux III's for sale at $2,000.00, however only a 90 day Leica warranty is offered with the cameras. I've wondered if these are mostly returns.

 

This is similar to when I bought my first Lexus LS400 in Australia in the 90's, Lexus kept buying all the used Lexus's. It was rumoured that they did this for 3 years.Kept the used prices up for a while. But they couldn't sustain that, as the 'cost of money' in these car was eating into their profits (though they have a big fat fairy godma).

 

Now on my second Lexus LS430 and market forces are applying to retail prices.

 

I wonder if/how long Leica could do this for ?

[robert_parker]

I guess the big question is whether there is any difference in the images produced between the L1 and the D3, to justify the higher price point

[Riley]

I guess the big question is whether there is any difference in the images produced between the L1 and the D3, to justify the higher price point

 

there isnt any difference realy

RAW would be very very close to the same

[jdlaing]

there isnt any difference realy

RAW would be very very close to the same

 

Everybody keeps saying that and it is simply NOT true.

 

RAW is only what a programmer tells you. The data captured on the sensor must still be translated into a digital image by a written program. Simple.

 

Before I bought the Digilux 3 I took a memory card and borrowed a Panasonic and took some shots in different situations. There is a definite difference. The RAW shots from both have the same differences as do a JPEG in the "feel" of the picture.

 

I asked Leica specifically before I spent the extra 500 bucks if this was the case and they confirmed it. Two different pieces of firmware. Each written to specifications for the feeling each different group of engineers wanted.

 

RAW files are not some magical piece of data that remains the same over all camera manufacturers. It is still a piece of data that is manipulated by a written program that THEN becomes a digital program.

[audidudi]

RAW files are not some magical piece of data that remains the same over all camera manufacturers. It is still a piece of data that is manipulated by a written program that THEN becomes a digital program.

 

As I read it, this brief article by Bruce Fraser about RAW files suggests otherwise: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

[jdlaing]

Exactly.

 

Two paragraphs in this article that relay my point are as follows:

 

"All raw converters perform all of these tasks, but they may use very different algorithms to do so, which is why the same image may look quite different when processed through different raw converters. Some converters will map the tones flatter to provide editing headroom while others will try to achieve a more film-like look by increasing the contrast of the curve.

Generally, there is no one single “correct” interpretation of a given raw format. Vendors make a relatively subjective determination of what the best “look” is, and then adjust their converter to produce that result."

 

And........

 

"When you shoot raw, however, you get unparalleled control over the interpretation of the image through all the aforementioned aspects of the conversion. When you shoot raw, the only on-camera

settings that have an effect on the captured pixels are the ISO speed, the shutter speed, and the aperture setting. Everything else is under your control when you convert the raw file—you can reinterpret the white balance, the colorimetric rendering, the tonal response, and the detail rendition (sharpening and noise reduction) with a great deal of freedom. Within limits (which vary from one raw converter to another), you can even reinterpret the exposure compensation."

 

My point is this.......

 

The RAW files are different for each camera based on the manufacturers interpretation what is captured. All a RAW file lets me do is have a greater control over editing the captured image. RAW files are not necessarily the same over all manufacturers regardless of the sensor. Otherwise I could use Panasonic's RAW image converter to open a Leica or Canon or Nikon file.

[audidudi]

The RAW files are different for each camera based on the manufacturers interpretation what is captured. All a RAW file lets me do is have a greater control over editing the captured image. RAW files are not necessarily the same over all manufacturers regardless of the sensor. Otherwise I could use Panasonic's RAW image converter to open a Leica or Canon or Nikon file.

 

Re-read the second paragraph of the article: "A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data." (emphasis added)

 

The fact that "Panasonic's RAW image converter" won't open a D3 RAW file (and vice-versa) doesn't necessarily mean the underlying image data isn't identical. It could mean also that Panasonic's RAW image converter is looking for a tag that identifes the image source as an L1 and if it doesn't see it, it won't open the image or that (although I highly doubt this), the image data coming from the sensor is encded differently between the two cameras. Either way, this is certainly not proof that the L1 and D3 RAW images are somehow different from one another.

 

The only way to verify or refute this notion is to shoot identical images with an L1 and D3 and then compare the two RAW files ... to my knowledge, nobody has yet done this, however, I'm willing to make my L1 available to any D3 owner who wants to give this a shot.

[jdlaing]

I agree with the statement it records unprocessed data.

 

I still say there is a processing that takes place AFTER the recording that makes the data into a readable digital image. All a RAW file is is a data file that retains what a sensor recorded. It also allows you to manipulate that image more. That is all. A human being still writes the programs into the Firmware and the RAW converter to allow you to see the image. A human being also decides what each photosite sees in the way of color rendering as well as black and white greyscale.

 

A Canon RAW is different from a Nikon RAW is different from a Olympus RAW is different from a Sigma RAW ad infinitum.

 

Like the gentleman said in the article, or words to that effect, 100 different eyes see 100 different things.

 

A RAW file is not a natural thing where all are the same. It is simply a larger data field where more manipulation is possible. It is still controlled by the software that is written to convert it.