wlaidlaw Posted September 23, 2006 Share #41 Posted September 23, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) It may be that my view of the D2 was coloured by the fact that the CCD on mine failed on a 'never to be repeated' trip round all the palaces and forts of Rajasthan last year but whereas it is a very nice handling camera and when working, is capable of fine results, it is now comfortably outperformed by other cameras. While mine was going through the painful and lengthy process of a failed repair then being sent to Germany and finally replaced, I bought a Sony DSC-R1 for another overseas trip. I came to the conclusion, looking at the images from both cameras, that the superior and much quieter output from the APS C sized CMOS sensor on the R1 and the extra range on the Zeiss zoom (24-120 against 28-90) outweighed the poorer ergonomics and build quality. I therefore decided to sell my "new and unused" guarantee replacement D2. There was not a great rush to buy it even though I was offering a nice 'kit' of D2+spare Leica battery+SF24D flash+UV filter+remote. In the end I got only about 2/3rd of the new price of the camera alone. The actual body of the D3 looks not a lot if any bigger than the D2 and if you put a non-IS Oly lens on it, it would be about the same size as a D2 but with the huge advantage of a non-smearing optical finder. I will be having a good look at it on Tuseday at Photokina and I think my choice will come down to either it or waiting for a better Sony DSLR with Zeiss lens. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Why from D2 to D3?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kamilsukun Posted September 23, 2006 Share #42 Posted September 23, 2006 I haven't joined in the D2 vs.D3 discussions as yet - but here's for what it's worth is my 2p contribution. I agree that the D3 is not an upgrade from the D2 - it's a different camera using a different working scenario. Basically I think almost eveyone has the right idea for an upgrade to the D2 which I really really love using, even with it's current deficiencies. In no particular order. 1. Much improved RAW buffer 2. Much better EVF 3. No real need for yet more pixels but a need for improved firmware and processing - Venus III on the existing sensor perhaps would be a start. 4. Less shutter delay if possible Oh, and one more thing (. The only reason I might at some point look at the D3 is a long lens which, good though the 90mm is I miss. So maybe... 5. A Tele adapter 1.5 or 2x. I'm not worried about finish colour but maybe a black option would be ok, or is that too like the Panasonic? I hope that Leica are listening to the profusion of remarks along this theme and will seriously consider what we are asking. The basic camera development cost must have been covered and I am sure that an improved version will really sell - even though it will hit our second hand prices! Let's hope Lecia to consider an upgrade program to fix these issues. Most of the current D2 owners seem to be ready to pay for it. Yes, we definitely want a “Digilux 2+” A better viewfinder, better shutter lag, raw buffer and better resolution are all everyone expects. Regards Kamil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackart Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share #43 Posted October 3, 2006 Actually one important reason for possible upgrade: D2 has sRGB color space D3 has Adobe RGB color space, what is superiour compared to sRGB -Jaak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted October 3, 2006 Share #44 Posted October 3, 2006 Actually one important reason for possible upgrade: D2 has sRGB color space D3 has Adobe RGB color space, what is superiour compared to sRGB -Jaak Good point - a definite plus. I'm waiting for the first seriously competent review! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 3, 2006 Share #45 Posted October 3, 2006 Different cameras. Not comparable. You either want the functions of the D3 or you don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhluxton Posted October 3, 2006 Share #46 Posted October 3, 2006 I must admit I am wondering if the bulk and expense of the D3 is worth it. Looks a nice machine - but I am still considering other options. As there are no long Leica tele lenses for D3 yet, I was thinking the most cost effective option would be to sell my D1 which I keep as a back up and buy a V-Lux1 for now. Using the D2 when I need wide and short tele an dthe V-Lux1 when I need the tele capability. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 3, 2006 Share #47 Posted October 3, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) The VLux option looks sweet. A reasonably sized camera, not too big to distract what's really at hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackart Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share #48 Posted October 3, 2006 The VLux option looks sweet. A reasonably sized camera, not too big to distract what's really at hand. But small and noisy chip AND no real manual control. -Jaak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted October 3, 2006 Share #49 Posted October 3, 2006 If you shoot Raw on the D2, can't you choose the color space in the Raw processor (I use CS2 and C1)? That's what I've been doing since I got mine. I may be completely off the mark here, but I thought that the sRGB choice was for JPEGs. In any case, the color out of the D2/LC1 is excellent. KL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackart Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share #50 Posted October 3, 2006 If you shoot Raw on the D2, can't you choose the color space in the Raw processor (I use CS2 and C1)? That's what I've been doing since I got mine. I may be completely off the mark here, but I thought that the sRGB choice was for JPEGs. In any case, the color out of the D2/LC1 is excellent. KL I agree, that RAW D2 is excellent, but tooooooooo sssllloooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww. Practical photographing requires the use of jpeg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_rob Posted October 3, 2006 Share #51 Posted October 3, 2006 If you shoot Raw on the D2, can't you choose the color space in the Raw processor (I use CS2 and C1)? That's what I've been doing since I got mine. I may be completely off the mark here, but I thought that the sRGB choice was for JPEGs. In any case, the color out of the D2/LC1 is excellent. KL sRGB is not just for JPEGs. It is perfectly useable for any other format or purpose. But that is beside the point. Adobe RGB has only a slight advantage of wider color gamut. Furthermore, this is only of some substance when it comes to the very highest-end commercial printing (offset presses). Increasingly, you can hear even from offset experts, that they prefer to work with the sRGB format for any "normal" use. Personally, I do not consider a camera that uses Adobe RGB as more "professional" than the one that uses sRGB. For me, it's just an icing (and a thin one) on the cake. I put this difference in the same category as 'less pixels versus more pixels'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted October 4, 2006 Share #52 Posted October 4, 2006 Jaak and Rob: sorry; I was a bit careless in what I wrote. What I meant was "in the menu (talking about the D2/LC-1), sRGB color space was only relevant to JPEGs you make in-camera". And I agree, sRGB is a perfectly usable space, and is the one I use for the majority of my commercial work these days. I have found that I simply cannot trust some graphic artists' workflow for brochures and the like, because if I give them Adobe RGB, some inadvertently use SRGB without realising it (this has happened a couple of times recently) and the problem can be compounded by the fact that everyone uses high-rez PDFs---even for books! Too many places where mistakes an occur. So, sRGB it is----hard to mess up, and the results are fine. And the sloooow Raw is the reason I am still looking for another decent all-in-one camera. I am going to start another thread on this in a moment. cheers, kl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_rob Posted October 4, 2006 Share #53 Posted October 4, 2006 Zitat von rob_rob Yes, that's why I am pondering skipping the D3 altogether and going the "heretic" way from D2 to 5D (full-frame Canon dSLR). I did just that, Rob. I've been waiting for the announcement, hoping for a D2 upgrade--especially a significant jump in pixels. But the 5D is a lot more camera than the D3 for not that much more money, so I jumped in. I won't part with my D2, though. Together, I think they'll make a great combination. John, you may be pleased to hear that the ShootSmarter web site announced results of their tests for a pro dSLR digital camera (on the American market) with the best quality of skin tone rendering. Canon 5D got their best marks. There's no mention about the Leica R Module, so I doubt that camera was included in the comparison test. If you'd like to read the full report, here's the link: http://www.shootsmarter.com/DSLRshootout.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanf Posted November 26, 2006 Share #54 Posted November 26, 2006 Exactly my thoughts, Geoff. Digilux 2 has been fine, uniquely Leica product. It deserved refinement, beefing up and updating - not replacement. Switching an entire concept to a dSLR was a sad miss on the part of Leica Camera. I think that the D3 is an excellent product, but it doesn't belong in the Digilux line. Perhaps they didn't want people to be distracted from their new digital "M" line?... I have the LC1 and I see the L1 as a supplement to a fixed lens camera. The L1/D3 will fulfill that role. What I would like to see is an updated fixed lens camera bought out by PanaLeica in the style of the LC1/D2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted November 26, 2006 Share #55 Posted November 26, 2006 Now that other threads have posted samples of what the D3 can produce, and people have actually got to handle one, are you going to swap your D2 for a D3 or add a D3 to your D2, or not bother? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_rob Posted November 27, 2006 Share #56 Posted November 27, 2006 I'm sure I won't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted November 27, 2006 Share #57 Posted November 27, 2006 Well after much deliberation, I have gone against my previous plan to skip the D3/L1. I have an situation with my D2 that will prevent me taking it on a once in a lifetime family trip to Tokyo-Paris-London next month. I was intending to buy an M8, 28/2.0 summicron and 75/2.0 summicron. But that is now on hold as the M8 IR fix timing will not work for me. So I've deferred that M8 purchase for now. So, I now have an L1 on order. The sample photos at the JP and USA panasonic websites have convinced me that the L1 images will work for my trip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.