Digilux 4 speculation

[rsolomon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there are just a few things i'm hoping for in the digilux 4

 

1. The the size, shape and look of the M (pretty close now), but not the weight.

 

2 Customer could upgrade the mount to R via leica service. with an adapter to D (today the other way is possible)

 

3. iso 6400

 

4. anti-shake in the camera

 

4. 5-10 fps - atleast 5

 

5. weather sealing

[goodbokeh]

there are just a few things i'm hoping for in the digilux 4

 

1. The the size, shape and look of the M (pretty close now), but not the weight.

 

2 Customer could upgrade the mount to R via leica service. with an adapter to D (today the other way is possible)

 

3. iso 6400

 

4. anti-shake in the camera

 

4. 5-10 fps - atleast 5

 

5. weather sealing

 

 

- I like the rangefinder style body of the Digilux 2 & 3 with the analog style shutter and aperture controls. I would like the Digilux 4 to conform with that tradition.

- Definitely stay with the 4/3rds system with its great dust buster and digital specific lenses!

- A 10 MP sensor with increased dynamic range and lower noise.

- A solid glass pentaprism replacing the porro mirror system for viewfinder brightness in low light and manual focusing ease.

- IS in the body.

- The kit lens as a option but not a mandatory bundle.

- The body offered in chrome or black, just like the Ms. Maybe even black paint!

[imnotaniceboy]

i just one the shutter dial and the aperture ring....and keep it small. Some new small lenses will be cool too

[goodbokeh]

i just one the shutter dial and the aperture ring....and keep it small. Some new small lenses will be cool too

 

It sounds like you would like a reworked E420 and a pancake lens. Not a bad idea....

[gIzzE]

I think they need to move away from the 4:3 system, it just doesn't cut it imho, too noisy passed 400iso.

[goodbokeh]

I think they need to move away from the 4:3 system, it just doesn't cut it imho, too noisy passed 400iso.

 

It sounds like the new R10, when it arrives at Photokina this fall, will be your camera of choice if you want a larger sensor. BTW, I understand the Oly E3 with the latest Panasonic 4/3rds 10 MP sensor is comparable to APS sensor cameras at 800 ISO.

[FastFashnReloaded]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think they need to move away from the 4:3 system, it just doesn't cut it imho, too noisy passed 400iso.

 

Bull.

 

Most of these were shot at 1600.

 

 

Savannah's 11th Birthday 3-8-2008 - a photoset on Flickr

 

 

Waiting for Harry Potter - a photoset on Flickr

 

Do some research before you troll on, boyo.

[gIzzE]

Too big for me I am afraid.

 

I went to buy the Oly E3 to use as a body with the Digilux 3 kit lens and the Panny/leica 25mm f1.4, but although while better than the digilux it was still noisy.

 

I ended up walking out with a Nikon D300 with the 50mm 1.8 and their 17-35mm AF-S, I would say that 3200iso is as useable as iso 800 on the digilux 3 and still more useable than iso 1600 on the Oly E3.

 

However the camera is big, the lens is bigger and overall it wasn't as nice to use as the Digilux 3.

It went kerputt after 2 weeks with it reporting no battery charge, and I wasn't using it that often as it was so bilky, so I took it back and got a refund.

 

 

I was going to get an M8, but not knowing if it is going to be upgraded or replaced stopped me at the last minute.

I like Canons and had been using them before, but to buy a 5D now seems silly, a MKII will be announced very shortly I guess, so I have decided to wait.

 

I had a credit with my camera shop for the Leica 25mm lens, so I bought a 400D and the canon 28mm f/1.8 lens, it cost me nothing, it is small, lightweight, takes great shots and I am using it more than anything else, mainly because of the size and weight of it.Plus you can use it for some great shots of people while out at night with iso 1600.

 

The Digilux 3 is great up to iso400 though, and I really miss it for that.

[gIzzE]

Bull.

 

Most of these were shot at 1600.

 

 

 

 

 

Do some research before you troll on, boyo.

 

 

Sorry I have a different opinion to you. I will keep quiet in future when you are around, perhaps you would like to PM me and let me know what threads you are going to post on so I don't upset you??

 

 

Why couldn't you just show your iso 1600 examples and put your point over about the 4:3 system rather than call me names?? You just come over like a kid!!

[FastFashnReloaded]

Sorry I have a different opinion to you. I will keep quiet in future when you are around, perhaps you would like to PM me and let me know what threads you are going to post on so I don't upset you??

 

 

Why couldn't you just show your iso 1600 examples and put your point over about the 4:3 system rather than call me names?? You just come over like a kid!!

 

Tell you what. Why don't you just email me at angel3001.dana@gmail.com before you troll on about noise and such and I'll edit and correct the posts, then send them back to you so you can post the corrected versions.

 

You had a Digilux 3 and took it back, near as I can tell. You didn't buy an M because... "not knowing if it is going to be upgraded or replaced". Right... You did, apparently and confusingly, then go out and buy a Nikon D300 and broke it and took it back (?), AND(!), then you bought a a Canon 400D generic consumercam for some godawful reason, so you have no stake in Four Thirds, Leicas, Panasonics or Olys. Why are you here?

 

You came over to tell us how good a Canon Generic consumercam was? Ok!

[gIzzE]

I had been using a Canon 20D, really wanted a Leica M8 but it was over my budget, when the Digilux 3 came down to a grand I decided to have a go with one.

I bought it in mid january and for alot of stuff I really liked it, the control, the low iso results etc. etc. But, and for me it is a big but, it was so far behind the Canon 20D at iso 1600 it was unreal, by this point I had let the 20D go, so I had a decision to make, keep the Digilux 3 and live with the results at higher isos and start to use noise ninja alot more or convert to black and white or have a go with the Oly E3, after reading reports on here it seemed to have good results at these higher isos.

However while trying it out it still had that same chroma noise that I don't like, while in the camera shop I had a play with a Nikon D300, everyone is raving above the iso1600 results on that. I have to say it is a good camera, but at these higher isos it really smoothes out details so it is very soft, again my reference is the Canon 20d and 5D, I haven't used alot of other cameras.

Then when the thing started playing up and eventually died on me I decided to hand it back and just bite the bullet with the M8 ($4500 tied up in the D300 was not for me, and I had sold the Digilux 3 that week so had $5k sat there with the return of the Nikon).

But I couldn't do it, $6000 is a lot of money for me, and not knowing if this is going to be upgraded or replaced over the next few months just doesn't fill me with confidence on that high a purchase price.

 

So I have left my $4k sat there ready for news from Leica on the M8/9 and news from canon on the successor to the 5D, as soon as something is known I will jump on it.

 

But I need a camera and the 400d with a nice prime lens is ideal for the sort of photography I do while not breaking into my proper camera budget.

 

 

Why I am explaining myself to a condescending Berkshire hunt like you is beyond me?But you seem to really care about what I do and why I am here, so I have explained.

 

What leica gear are you using?? And what settings are you using with it at iso 1600, as you seem to be pleased with it?

Perhaps rather than waste time with your attitude you could put some time into teaching me where I went wrong?? It would be far more beneficial, don't you think??

[FastFashnReloaded]

I had been using a Canon 20D, really wanted a Leica M8 but it was over my budget, when the Digilux 3 came down to a grand I decided to have a go with one.

I bought it in mid january and for alot of stuff I really liked it, the control, the low iso results etc. etc. But, and for me it is a big but, it was so far behind the Canon 20D at iso 1600 it was unreal, by this point I had let the 20D go, so I had a decision to make, keep the Digilux 3 and live with the results at higher isos and start to use noise ninja alot more or convert to black and white or have a go with the Oly E3, after reading reports on here it seemed to have good results at these higher isos.

However while trying it out it still had that same chroma noise that I don't like, while in the camera shop I had a play with a Nikon D300, everyone is raving above the iso1600 results on that. I have to say it is a good camera, but at these higher isos it really smoothes out details so it is very soft, again my reference is the Canon 20d and 5D, I haven't used alot of other cameras.

Then when the thing started playing up and eventually died on me I decided to hand it back and just bite the bullet with the M8 ($4500 tied up in the D300 was not for me, and I had sold the Digilux 3 that week so had $5k sat there with the return of the Nikon).

But I couldn't do it, $6000 is a lot of money for me, and not knowing if this is going to be upgraded or replaced over the next few months just doesn't fill me with confidence on that high a purchase price.

 

So I have left my $4k sat there ready for news from Leica on the M8/9 and news from canon on the successor to the 5D, as soon as something is known I will jump on it.

 

But I need a camera and the 400d with a nice prime lens is ideal for the sort of photography I do while not breaking into my proper camera budget.

 

 

Why I am explaining myself to a condescending Berkshire hunt like you is beyond me?But you seem to really care about what I do and why I am here, so I have explained.

 

What leica gear are you using?? And what settings are you using with it at iso 1600, as you seem to be pleased with it?

Perhaps rather than waste time with your attitude you could put some time into teaching me where I went wrong?? It would be far more beneficial, don't you think??

 

1) See profile. "What leica gear are you using??"

 

2) American, actually. "Why I am explaining myself to a condescending Berkshire hunt like you" I would have thought that was obvious. As The Grim Reaper might say, "You talk and you talk and you say, "Let me tell you something!", and, "I just wanna say this!""

 

3) Electronic items will always be replaced by a new model, "next month". You spend your money, you don't count on anything being an investment, and you use it while it lasts and is compatible with your OS, and then you put it into a cabinet as a paperweight or you recycle it. "But I couldn't do it, $6000 is a lot of money for me, and not knowing if this is going to be upgraded or replaced over the next few months just doesn't fill me with confidence on that high a purchase price."

 

4) Well, I haven't seen any of your pix with the DMC-L1/Digilux 3/E-330 so I have no idea where you went wrong. Underexposure? Bad sensor? Bad technique? Didn't want to take the time in Photoshop after you took the pix? "Perhaps rather than waste time with your attitude you could put some time into teaching me where I went wrong??" You already got rid of the camera, so what's the point?

 

5) The settings are in the EXIF data. "And what settings are you using with it at iso 1600, as you seem to be pleased with it?"

 

You came over to this thread SPECIFICALLY to say that Four Thirds was noisy and that you didn't like and that we should go out and get a Canon consumerdigicam like you did. I'm calling you on it. Specifically, your pixel peeping lowbrow troll, "I think they need to move away from the 4:3 system, it just doesn't cut it imho, too noisy passed 400iso."

 

Just a note, most of these were shot in jpg, green filter, NR turned off, and manual focus when possible. I was doing happy snaps, and if I were doing studio work I'd be shooting at a minimum ISO in RAW. There is no problem with the Four Thirds format - and I'm certainly getting a much higher hit rate and save than I did with film,

 

Savannah's 11th Birthday 3-8-2008 - a photoset on Flickr

 

You can see the original file (generally) next to the cropped and adjusted file in the set. Obviously shots in RAW were not uploaded.

[gIzzE]

You came over to this thread SPECIFICALLY to say that Four Thirds was noisy and that you didn't like and that we should go out and get a Canon consumerdigicam like you did. I'm calling you on it. Specifically, your pixel peeping lowbrow troll, "I think they need to move away from the 4:3 system, it just doesn't cut it imho, too noisy passed 400iso.".

 

 

I didn't come into here to specifically say that the 4:3 system was too noisy, the thread was asking what we would like to see changed for the Digilux 4, and I would like to see a less noisy sensor, because you use that system don't take it as a personal insult.

We are all different and personally I would like to see something different on the Digilux 4 sensor wise, and, whatever you feel, I am allowed to give my opinion without having to listen to to someone like you throwing insults at me.

 

I know you say I can't be bothered to spend time in PP to get the images looking good, but I don't want to be spending loads of time in photoshop, lightroom, noise ninja, not when there are cameras out there that don't need the correction afterwards, I enjoy getting out there and taking pics, there are some great places on this planet and some truly bizarre people, and a camera gives me the excuse to just wander round and experience those, I do not get off on sitting in front of the mac for hours adjusting the photos to get them to look half decent, that is not the reason I like using a camera.

 

 

Shall we just drop it now, I must have hit a nerve with you, I am sorry about that, but why not get out and take some pics and calm down a bit, you will give yourself a heart attack if you're not careful.

[FastFashnReloaded]

I didn't come into here to specifically say that the 4:3 system was too noisy, the thread was asking what we would like to see changed for the Digilux 4, and I would like to see a less noisy sensor, because you use that system don't take it as a personal insult.

We are all different and personally I would like to see something different on the Digilux 4 sensor wise, and, whatever you feel, I am allowed to give my opinion without having to listen to to someone like you throwing insults at me.

 

I know you say I can't be bothered to spend time in PP to get the images looking good, but I don't want to be spending loads of time in photoshop, lightroom, noise ninja, not when there are cameras out there that don't need the correction afterwards, I enjoy getting out there and taking pics, there are some great places on this planet and some truly bizarre people, and a camera gives me the excuse to just wander round and experience those, I do not get off on sitting in front of the mac for hours adjusting the photos to get them to look half decent, that is not the reason I like using a camera.

 

"I think they need to move away from the 4:3 system, it just doesn't cut it imho, too noisy passed 400iso." "I didn't come into here to specifically say that the 4:3 system was too noisy" - These are both your quotes, are they not?

 

"I don't want to be spending loads of time in photoshop, lightroom, noise ninja, not when there are cameras out there that don't need the correction afterwards" All shots can benefit from post production, levels and cropping. That's why they make programs like Photoshop.

 

So, where are your galleries? You know, pix taken with your 400D and Canon 28mm lens? Where?

 

By the way, you said this about the Nikon D300. "However while trying it out it still had that same chroma noise that I don't like, while in the camera shop I had a play with a Nikon D300, everyone is raving above the iso1600 results on that. I have to say it is a good camera, but at these higher isos it really smoothes out details so it is very soft, again my reference is the Canon 20d and 5D, I haven't used alot of other cameras." It "smoothes" out details.

 

Not in RAW, I would think.

 

And this about the E-3... "so I had a decision to make, keep the Digilux 3 and live with the results at higher isos and start to use noise ninja alot more or convert to black and white or have a go with the Oly E3, after reading reports on here it seemed to have good results at these higher isos.However while trying it out it still had that same chroma noise that I don't like,"

 

Hell son, by your own admission you didn't even take the E-3 camera out of the store. What, were you looking at the final result on the LCD??? So you ended up with a Nikon D that you bought because you thought the noise levels were better, but they were not really better because you shot in JPG and had the noise reduction turned up (so they ended up soft). Then you broke that Nikon camera and exchanged again for a bottom feeder Canon, when, again by your own admission, you had plenty of money to get a full frame Canon 5D. The guys at the camera store must vie to serve you and your needs! That's... What. Three or four camera exchanges in late 2007 to early 2008?

[gIzzE]

Yes they are what I said, but as i said, I did not come in here to slate 4:3, I came in here and mentioned what I would like to see from the Digilux 4, it seems only you that is turning what I said into something it is not.

 

Maybe English is not your primary language? Or maybe my written word is not good enough to get over what I want to say, either way it doesn't really matter does it, I came on here to talk with like minded people who just enjoy cameras and like the Leica brand, I really can't be doing with all this crap coming from you, please, just drop the nonsense, you sound like a fekin' moron!!

 

You like photoshop and so do I, but I want it to enhance my pics not correct them.

 

 

I will make one up just for you over the next couple of weeks, it only arrived on Friday, and as I said it was so I had a camera while I decide what to do, I never said it was better, in fact quite the opposite, but I did say its compact size and lightweight, along with its iso1600 ability meant it was getting some use, which is a good thing.

But you twist everything around and read it in some bizarre way that seems to make out I am slagging off your wonderful E330.

[gIzzE]

 

By the way, you said this about the Nikon D300. "However while trying it out it still had that same chroma noise that I don't like, while in the camera shop I had a play with a Nikon D300, everyone is raving above the iso1600 results on that. I have to say it is a good camera, but at these higher isos it really smoothes out details so it is very soft, again my reference is the Canon 20d and 5D, I haven't used alot of other cameras." It "smoothes" out details.

 

Not in RAW, I would think.

 

And this about the E-3... "so I had a decision to make, keep the Digilux 3 and live with the results at higher isos and start to use noise ninja alot more or convert to black and white or have a go with the Oly E3, after reading reports on here it seemed to have good results at these higher isos.However while trying it out it still had that same chroma noise that I don't like,"

 

Hell son, by your own admission you didn't even take the E-3 camera out of the store. What, were you looking at the final result on the LCD??? So you ended up with a Nikon D that you bought because you thought the noise levels were better, but they were not really better because you shot in JPG and had the noise reduction turned up (so they ended up soft). Then you broke that Nikon camera and exchanged again for a bottom feeder Canon, when, again by your own admission, you had plenty of money to get a full frame Canon 5D. The guys at the camera store must vie to serve you and your needs! That's... What. Three or four camera exchanges in late 2007 to early 2008?

 

My God man, are you just stalking me or something??! You keep adding more!! :D

 

 

I was shooting RAW, I would guess that after iso800 some NR is added to all files.

 

 

I don't want to buy a 5D at this stage, I would rather wait and get the new one in a few months if nothing happens with an M8/9, this is what I really want but buying 2 year old tech for that sort of money when an announment seems close about upgrades or a new model seems like the wrong thing to do.

 

Two camers actually, the Digilux 3 (which I sold on ebay last week) and the D300, that was good, but I sort of felt it was the wrong move straight away, so when it went wrong I used it as an excuse to get a refund.

Digilux 3 I had for a month and the D300 for 13 days.

 

OK?? Happy??