Digilux 3 or Canon 40D?

[tbracher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really want to love the Digilux 3 but I have not seen pictures to convince me. On the other hand I find the Canon's really common and boring however with very good images especially when at higher ISO's the Canon seems to preform better than the Digilux 3.

 

I am interested in portraits and candid shots, shallow DOF, reportage sort of photo's.

 

ANY advice please... trust me, I am not a fan of the Canon, but if the images are THAT much better then it is hard to lean to the Digi 3... advice please! Post photos if you can...

Thank you!!!

Todd

[leicagator]

Todd, I am afraid you are following the wrong approach here. In my view the Digilux 3 and the Canon 40 D do not compete.

 

You purchase the Digilux 3 because you like its unique style and its "old fashioned" way of handling (aperture ring, shutter dial etc.). You may even like the look of the images it creates (at least I do like the look very much) (leaving aside the R-lens compatibility).

 

But if you start to pixel-peep and compare ISO in all different surroundings and settings, you will always find dslrs that may produce "better" images in some people's view.

 

So, once you simply want us to present results for your evaluation, you should end your jumping back and forth in comparing different animals like VLux to Digilux 3 to Canon 40 (maybe later to Nikon D 300 to Nikon D 3 etc. etc.) and simply go for Canon or Nikon and spend your money there! You'll be happy.

 

Stefan.

[bobtodrick]

I'll second the last poster.

Through my work I have access to all the new gear (we are a pro photo retailer).

I've held off on digital for a long time...waiting for something that 'felt' right.

Tried a couple of Nikons and Canons but hated the way the menus worked.

I just recently purchased a Lumix L1 (the 'other' Digilux) because the shutter dial, aperture ring and general feel of the camera just felt 'right'.

I know that specs-wise it is outperfomed easily by 1/2 dozen cameras that are cheaper....but the way it feels in my hands helps me make better images.

[tbracher]

thank you both, I appreciate your advice and I think you are both completely right. It is challenging making a purchase like this with all of the millions of opinions circling about pixels and pro's and con's...

 

In the end, I think I really want to stay with Leica. I have the two compact camera's from Leica and love them and to be honest are frustrated by them from time to time in lower light (indoors). Thus the desire to move 'up' to one that has much more range.

 

in the end I would love to focus on portrait and indoor non flash photography with a shallow DOF. Does this Digilux 3 Kit lens fit the bill? If not then I would probably look elsewhere.

 

It was easier when I bought my car.

Thanks again

Todd

[Thomas Edwards]

in the end I would love to focus on portrait and indoor non flash photography with a shallow DOF. Does this Digilux 3 Kit lens fit the bill? If not then I would probably look elsewhere.

 

...most certainly yes in the form of the supplementary leica/lumix 25mm/f1.4 summilux lens...

[tbracher]

...most certainly yes in the form of the supplementary leica/lumix 25mm/f1.4 summilux lens...

 

Hi Thomas, can you send a link to locate this lens? And would I need an adapter? I assume no and assume all inherent functionality of the camera ill still be present?

 

And lastly, in your opinion do you feel that the kit lens just does not have enough for portrait shallow DOF work?

 

thanks!

Todd

[Thomas Edwards]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...if you are in the states you can pick up the lens (on-line) from bh and adorama or go to panasonic's web site (that said, there is frequently a long que, as the lens is in high demand)...no adaptors required...lens retains all original functionality, bar the vario function...

 

...imho, the bokeh (shallow dof) of the kit lens on portraits is even better than that of the digilux 2 at lower apertures in normal lighting situations...but for on-demand bokeh and true low-light situations the supplementary 25mm/f1.4 summilux is unbeatable, again imho...

[xx_trdiaz]

Hi Thomas, can you send a link to locate this lens? And would I need an adapter? I assume no and assume all inherent functionality of the camera ill still be present?

 

And lastly, in your opinion do you feel that the kit lens just does not have enough for portrait shallow DOF work?

 

thanks!

Todd

 

 

Todd, the kit lens is a fantastic lens, but its minimum aperture is too small for good shallow DOF pictures. I also practice that style quite a bit, and partly for that reason I bought the 25mm f/1.4 Summilux. It is an excellent lens--wonderful, in fact--and you should consider it if you go with this camera. The quality of these lenses is much of what justifies the Leica label in my view.

 

Having said that, I have to advise you to reconsider and think about the Canon if you are into available light work. I have owned the Canon SLRs including the 30D, and their low light performance is fantastic. I got the Digilux 3 because I am only an occasional SLR shooter these days. I also like its mechanical dials and handling very much, but if you are into available light shooting you would be happier with what the Canon produces. And I think they are at or near the top on that basis--there are not a bunch of other brands that can compete with them in that dimension--great performance at very high ISOs like 1600 or even 3200. With a 40D and a fast Canon lens you would be thrilled with your available light results, whereas the Digilux 3 with the Summilux would be more the usual struggle.

 

In available light I like quieter cameras like RFs, so that's what I try to use. My Digilux is for outdoors. A Canon shooting at 1600 will give you better results in low light than film at 400. If I were going back into dark places a lot I would think about re-investing in Canon gear myself.

[tbracher]

thank you! Super clear advice... please keep it coming guys, all of this is very much appreciated!

[Clive Murray-White]

Hi, I had my first D3 stolen, so when I started to work out what I may replace it with (insurance helped), I considered both Canon 40D and Nikon D300 but decided to get another Digilux 3. For 2 reasons, price value, you need to put good expensive lenses on N's and C's for them to compete with D3. But most important D3 invites you to have a relationship with it, no good if you want to treat it like a robot but once you let it have a say then it becomes a very rewarding friend - All the best Clive

[Clive Murray-White]

Hi again,

 

I too was biased against flash, but complicated light situations led me to buy a Metz 54MZ 4-i, first pictures looked like "the rabbit in the headlights" you hear about but a little experimentation with bounce, home made diffusers etc had me wondering why I ever thought that I shouldn't use flash. Clive

[tbracher]

OK, decision made. I've chosen the L1. (the Digi3 just seemed to not warrent the price and besides I prefer the black finish of the L1)

 

It was a long process but I feel that my conclusion was based on the fact that I feel the Canon 40D is a 'better camera' (low light, speed etc) I feel that is was too 'computery' too techy and not enough nuts and bolts photography. I expect the L1 to be a pretty good camera with ok some possible limitations in lower light, but with the right approach still a heck of a camera, and in the end it offers a more personal 'low tech' feel and honesty I am looking for in a camera. It is the difference between a japanese sport bike and a chopper in my opinion... both are valid bikes just choose what you feel best with.

 

So thank you all and wish me luck. I hope to put some thoughts up when I get the kit in hand.

 

Todd

[Mauribix]

Apples and Oranges here.

Buy both, keeping in mind what's the use you're gonna make of 'em.

[Mauribix]

OK, decision made. I've chosen the L1. (the Digi3 just seemed to not warrent the price and besides I prefer the black finish of the L1)

 

It was a long process but I feel that my conclusion was based on the fact that I feel the Canon 40D is a 'better camera' (low light, speed etc) I feel that is was too 'computery' too techy and not enough nuts and bolts photography. I expect the L1 to be a pretty good camera with ok some possible limitations in lower light, but with the right approach still a heck of a camera, and in the end it offers a more personal 'low tech' feel and honesty I am looking for in a camera. It is the difference between a japanese sport bike and a chopper in my opinion... both are valid bikes just choose what you feel best with.

 

So thank you all and wish me luck. I hope to put some thoughts up when I get the kit in hand.

 

Todd

 

sorry if I didn't read your last post.

BTW my compliments, you won't regret the choice.