Raymond Tam Posted July 13, 2008 Share #21 Posted July 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me, the abandonment of the D2 concept for the D3 concept meant abandonment of Leica for Canon. They are totally different horses. Long before the D2 came out there was plenty of discussion of the D2 upgrade needs and how it would be a classic line. I bought a D3 - and took it back. NOT A D2 MarkII but a different concept. If they make a "D2 Mark II" I might come back. If it has the lens and mistique of the D2 I'll morgage my house for one. For now, the D2 is still in my stable as a plow horse. Am I sour on Leica now after 30 years shooting Leica? Yes! I like my D2 very much even the ccd had been changed and now it works fine! I do think the D3 is mistake if they can re-tool to change the D3 with pixel and electronic finder that will make a big difference in the midd-range market. Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Hi Raymond Tam, Take a look here leica! please! make a digilux 2 markII. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Riley Posted July 14, 2008 Share #22 Posted July 14, 2008 One of the things i find interesting about these discussions is, they never holistically look at the whole camera. Zoom lenses require an EVF, fixed lenses a simple VF, RF mechanisms require geared fitments for lenses. A 4/3rds sensor version wouldnt be very much smaller than todays 4/3rds camera builds, and the loss of the aperture ring and MF capability probably wouldnt be appreciated. You could put an aperture ring on the lens mount barrel, which would provide an aperture ring for every 4/3rds lens, but then what would become of the Leica D 4/3rds lenses as you would have 2 aperture rings! M lenses would be next to useless on such a camera without a focal reducer. They would be way too long in FL for RF shooting by a factor of 2 for 4/3rds and 4 for a 2/3" sensor. I think if they did it again it could/should be a lot smaller. Of course the lens would be the same, but the body could be as much as 75% of the size of D2/LC1. Since the sensor fits on the end of the lens (although it does protrude right into the body) a simple collar mount would adapt the old lens fitment. Small primes might be even more interesting but would require at least 3 at 28/50/90 EFL and the addition of a mount and raise the question of additional costs. The most sensible course is simple update version of D2 would use the only surviving 2/3" sensor and the existing 2-2.4/28-90 (EFL) lens design/control layout with a marginally smaller body. The 11Mp Fuji 2/3" sensor is pretty easily 800iso capable and shoots to iso3200, a full 3 stops more capability with less s/n, the possibility of OIS or IS for increased slow shutter speed range. Improve the EVF by a factor of 3, speed up the AF and the RAW buffer, add an articulated LCD, even if its only up and down tilting, and you have a capable dSLR competitor at only 3x the price... well you cant have everything can you, and you cant take it with you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted July 14, 2008 Share #23 Posted July 14, 2008 And it won awards. I mean life could be so simple if people stuck to their knitting. After all your biggest competitor in manufacturing is yourself, getting your act together. Imagine too, a leader line to the top end. Sort out all their marketing problems too. Yes the whole thing just has the words 'a quick win' painted up and down it - the idea of a (maybe slightly smaller) enthusiasts camera, perhaps with interchangeable lenses and tilting LCD (and for me, more reliable focussing), just sounds great - I'm not sue I'd buy two but I'd certainly buy one !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted July 14, 2008 Share #24 Posted July 14, 2008 >Thinks< Wonder if Leica could buy the body and lens rights from Panasonic... just shove in some new bits and..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjöbjörn Posted July 15, 2008 Share #25 Posted July 15, 2008 I think if they did it again it could/should be a lot smaller. Of course the lens would be the same, but the body could be as much as 75% of the size of D2/LC1. Since the sensor fits on the end of the lens (although it does protrude right into the body) a simple collar mount would adapt the old lens fitment. Small primes might be even more interesting but would require at least 3 at 28/50/90 EFL and the addition of a mount and raise the question of additional costs. The most sensible course is simple update version of D2 would use the only surviving 2/3" sensor and the existing 2-2.4/28-90 (EFL) lens design/control layout with a marginally smaller body. The 11Mp Fuji 2/3" sensor is pretty easily 800iso capable and shoots to iso3200, a full 3 stops more capability with less s/n, the possibility of OIS or IS for increased slow shutter speed range. Improve the EVF by a factor of 3, speed up the AF and the RAW buffer, add an articulated LCD, even if its only up and down tilting, and you have a capable dSLR competitor at only 3x the price... Could not agree more, that would be the right camera (fast it should be, i.e. low exposure delay)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted July 15, 2008 Share #26 Posted July 15, 2008 Yes - one of the more irritating things is the e...........xposure delay! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted July 15, 2008 Share #27 Posted July 15, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) im thinking mostly thats the slow AF if you try MF its quite a lot quicker... what a pity it is you just cant plug in a fuji 2/3" sensor as you could a CPU upgrade in a PC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.