digilux 1, good buy etc?

[pc10pc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i like to keep an eye out for s/h leicas, and was wondering about the digilux 1

teh D2 seems to raved about, but i can't fond much on the D1. i was wondering what your opinion of it is, and what would be a reasonable used price?

also i have a d-lux 3 at the moment, would there be a considerable difference? i'd like to start taking some more 'serious' shots.

or should i just bite the bullet and wait on a D2

 

thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

The Digilux 1 is from 2002 - that's 6 years ago. The D-Lux 3 is a current camera.

 

A lot depends upon how much you can find a decent one for, but it really isn't a camera to a modern spec, I'm afraid.

 

In the right hands, however, it can take very nice photographs. As an example:-

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/31913-rained-again.html

[wparsonsgisnet]

If you are looking to acquire an older Leica digital, most of the raves about about the D2 -- now available for a give-away price in the $600's. You can get these at this price with the sensor replaced, a CLA, and a 1-year warranty. They take phenomenal pix, have some quirks like the slow write and the evf.

 

But, they take great pix.

[Overgaard]

There's something nice about the Digilux 1 and women love it. But as stated, it's not current technology. It's 4 MP (as far as I remember) but has some noise and isn't exactly a fast camera. More - much more in fact - a classic than Canon G5 that it was competing with at that time (the Digilux 1 has a strong f/2.0 lens whereas the Canon had the 400 ISO but used it all on the weak lens; so in a way they were equal).

 

But it's sold for close to nothing, so if one think it could be fun to use, get one. And go charm women and all

[lct]

The D1's main flaw is digital noise. Forget it is you want to use it at 400 or even 200 iso. It's 100 iso or nothing for me. And to get the best results our of it, better set contrast, sharpness and saturation to 'low'. Also forget it if you don't like Photoshop or same as it needs a bit of PP. Finally forget it if you need to chimp to take photographs as its LCD screen is almost useless outdoor.

Now its lens has not been made by Leica for sure but one could swear the contrary, it's open at f/2, it is fast, its IQ is very Leica like and it has an optical viewfinder.

Still the best compact digicam for me as i don't like the size of the Digilux 2, otherwise the latter is better.

As for the D-Lux 3, it can make wonderful images, with a better resolution than the D1, but its lens is not as fast as the latter's and it has no viewfinder. If you can take goods pics with chimping machines i would keep it if you're after a compact camera.

 

 

[Overgaard]

Oh, forgot. How stupid of me.

 

I did a page about the Digilux 1. Might answer some questions:

leica.overgaard.dk - Leica Digilux 1 D1 by Thorsten Overgaard - test photos

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hehe! makes not me feel younger Thorsten... Ah yes i forgot: better get serial numbers higher than 2812xxx, they have less digital noise. Most of them had PSE (Photoshop Elements) 2 instead of PSE 1 in the package.

[Ruhayat]

The Panasonic DMC-LC40 was my first digital camera. It's the cheaper version of the DMC-LC5, which was the Panasonic equivalent of the Digilux 1. The LC40 and LC5/D1 were basically the same camera in different bodies, the only significant differences being the bigger size and manual focus ring on the LC5/D1.

 

Anyway. I bought the LC40 mainly because of the Vario-Summicron lens, and I was not disappointed. It's contrasty and sharp, and takes gorgeous black and white JPEG images right out of the camera. Usually I don't need to do anything other than sharpen and adjust the levels a bit.

 

I still have the LC40 and it still works although the zoom is broken: I can only use it either at the widest or the longest ends. Took it out and about some weeks ago just to see how it's aged and it certainly holds up very well for black and white shooting. To my eyes there is certainly a common character between the D1 and D2 images because of that f2 lens.

[Ruhayat]

Some shots from the LC40 taken this year:

[earleygallery]

Hi have the LC5 (Panasonic version of the D1).

 

It actually looks just like an old rangefinder camera albeit with built in flash. With only 4MP the camera is limited in what you can do with it, but that said it still produces fine images.

 

I would agree with LCT in that you need to work with low settings and do PP. I last used it for shooting an engagement party, using it with a Metz hammerhead flash - for portraits its actually very good.

 

That said I wouldn't recommend it for what you appear to need. Your Dlux3 will produce better images and the D2 would be the better 'step up' although (and I know everyone loves their D2's) I'd probably buy a low end DSLR from Nikon, Pentax or Canon instead.

[pc10pc]

thanks for the help, what a difference from most forums!

as far as the D1 goes, i think i'll pass on it and hold fire for while until i see a D2.

 

thanks again