dogberry Posted September 4, 2008 Share #1 Posted September 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) With apologies in advance for the length of this post - I hope you'll bear with me ... Disclaimer: I have no relationship, financial or otherwise with Leica or any of the Four Thirds consortium of companies, beyond being a customer for their products. Every year my wife and I try to attend the July 4th celebrations in the small Vermont town where she grew up and this year I took my Digilux 3 and small collection of Four Thirds lenses with me. Some of the pictures I took are shown below and if you click on the images, you can see larger versions. In spite of not having been a great commercial success for Leica, I feel that the Digilux 3 camera is a real triumph of ergonomics, design and image quality which coupled with some of the superb Four Thirds lenses, is capable of producing really stunning images. The combination of the aperture ring on the Panasonic/Leica lenses and the manual shutter speed dial on top of the camera are arguably one of the most intelligent pieces of digital camera design in recent years and it makes the transition from fully automatic exposure through the semi-automatic "priority" modes to fully manual exposure, seamless. The Panasonic and Olympus lenses I have used thus far are nothing short of amazing and on the Digilux 3 body they deliver fabulous images that are corner-to-corner sharp and remarkably free of any aberrations or vignetting. If it's true that Leica are quitting production of Four Thirds cameras, I feel that this would be a real shame. The Four Thirds system is undoubtedly somewhat ahead of its time and ironically the "pros" will probably be amongst the last to abandon the still-dominant legacy of 35mm-based gear, but given what I see as the encroachment of "less-professional" camera formats on what was once the pristine domain of the 35mm SLR, I feel sure that the days of the dominance of the legacy 35mm format in digital photography are numbered. Some might be tempted to scoff at this notion, pointing to the legions of digital "35mm"-wielding professional photographers and the huge market share of the Nikon and Canon "35mm" digital systems, but I feel sure that these new camera formats will prove to be a disruptive technology, even within digital photography - which was itself a disruptive technology when it first appeared. The 35mm format was after all, designed for collecting light on flat film, not on the 3D silicon structures of a digital sensor and the gear is still large and heavy in spite of all the "technology". Not that there weren't good things about the older cameras - there were plenty. The ergonomics of analog devices is so appealing that it is often emulated in digital interfaces. Give me a real ISO dial any day over the "hunt-and-peck" game of selecting option 4 in a menu list on an LCD screen. The appeal of many of the older cameras that are regularly discussed on this forum is that they allow for a very unencumbered style of photography in which the machinery becomes an extension of the photographer who is then freed to think about light, composition and focus. The interfaces of many digital cameras are the antithesis of this approach and this brings me back to the excellent Digilux 3. Sure it is not a perfect camera by any means, but to me it embodies something that Leica could (if they set their minds to it) do really, really well - and that is to leverage their decades of experience in the design and manufacture of photographic equipment to create a unique marriage of the best in modern digital technology with the best of the thoughtful ergonomics and design that made the older analog instruments such a joy to use. Much as I love what my M8 is capable of, I cannot in all honesty say that they achieved this goal with their first digital M, or even with the Digilux 3 for that matter, but in spirit, I feel that the Digilux 3 was a far more significant step in the right direction. I do of course realize that there will be some who paid (as I did) the best part of $5000 for their M8 and will be spitting blood to hear such blasphemy! Regarding the old "bigger is always better" argument about sensor size ... a poster on another well known Leica forum expressed it very eloquently when he said ... I see no real reason why in the future people don't forget all this full frame nonsense and embrace the superior performance and increased depth of field characteristics of smaller frame lenses. The argument that bigger is better is always true (for sensors and film stock), but it does not mean that we all have to carry 4 x 5s around with us. Once the 4/3 sensors achieve the same output as today's full frame sensors I see no real reason why people will not buy them. The current obsession with what I can only assume is night photography ("The D3 has such superb IQ at 64,000" etc. etc.) does not really reflect the conditions where most people actually take photos, so the quest for superior noise performance will soon be solved sufficiently for smaller sensors to be just as good in real terms for most photographers amateur or professional. The term "full frame" is itself simply a legacy of the 35mm system and only has any relevance at all when it is referring to a camera that uses lenses based upon the old 35mm system. All Four Thirds cameras are "full frame" for the Four Thirds system. When digital photography was just beginning, it made sense to make camera bodies that could mate with the wealth of 35mm lenses and accessories that were pre-existent. Some smart people at Olympus realized that once digital photography became mature, there were more optimal configurations for camera/lens systems if you didn't have to remain tied to the old 35mm standard whose configuration was sub-optimal for digital. The Four Thirds system is designed around the optics which is what you really want for the best image quality. The 35mm format arose almost by accident, from devices that had been designed to test batches of 35mm movie film. The Four Thirds system was designed from the ground up for digital image capture and its lenses are really stellar performers. In my experience, the image quality I get from the Four Thirds lenses I own is visibly better than I can get from my equivalent Canon L lenses. Sensor design and manufacture are still on a Moore's Law kind of trajectory since after all, sensors are pretty much light-gathering computer chips and as such, they benefit from a similar exponential growth law in their development. Sensor technology is advancing in leaps and bounds and there's really no doubt that they will continue to deliver better and better images under all kinds of light conditions. The developments in optics are ongoing but not nearly as rapid as the rate of sensor development and in the case of the 35mm format, they are even limited to some extent by the requirement to conform to a format that is sub-optimal for digital. Vignetting and resolution fall-off is likely to be something that "35mm" full frame digital photographers will have to continue to live with. Some of it can be partially corrected in post-processing but then you are effectively using your digital workflow to compensate for the optical shortcomings of your camera system. Other such arguments against smaller sensors arise from somebody reading in some technical photography review that smaller sensors are more "diffraction limited" and this then also gets repeated ad nauseam on forums like these as if this law of physics is somehow a reason not to use the Four Thirds system (the interminable "bigger is better" argument again). Given all of the far more pertinent optical parameters related to the quality of the lens/camera system, it is absurd to be fretting about potential diffraction limit effects on image resolution when the images you already have actually exhibit some of the more pressing (and apparent) optical shortcomings of your equipment such as resolution fall-off, aberrations, vignetting etc. (all of which by the way, are greatly ameliorated when using Four Thirds equipment). It is really carrying the "bigger is better" argument to a quite silly extreme to try and make the case for using "full frame" 35mm digital systems on the basis that the sensors are less "diffraction limited" (than Four thirds) while settling for the obvious compromises in image quality that must be made when using 35mm lenses with a "full frame" sensor! As I've said before, don't look to the pros to lead the way here. By definition, the most "professional" people in any field are more institutionalized in their thinking and under far more constraints to conform to certain norms in their work by virtue of their professional status. And then of course, just around the corner there's micro Four thirds ... I'll be very interested to see what's considered "amateur" in ten years from now. Watch this space! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 4, 2008 Posted September 4, 2008 Hi dogberry, Take a look here Why the Digilux 3 is a landmark camera for Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rjans Posted September 5, 2008 Share #2 Posted September 5, 2008 I think the Digilux 3, also the Panasonic L1 and the Olympus E 330 (the latter being the basis of both others; same sensor, porro viewfinder system) are the most underrated cameras. At introduction the price was too high when compared to other dslr's. Later on price's dropped, certainly the Oly (60 %). I'm afraid we will not see an evolution to a Digilux 4. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 5, 2008 Share #3 Posted September 5, 2008 A major factor for the less-than-spectacular succes of the Digilux 3 is the naming and styling of the camera. It was aimed at Digilux 2 users, but those took one look at it and ran the other way. Not for the sensor size, but for the lumpiness of the camera and the DSLR connection. The hope was for a sleeker Digilux 2, so the alledged successor was a disappointment. The majority of happy users now are , I think, newcomers without this prejudice. As it is, to many the real vintage Digilux is the Digilux 2. Having said that, there is no doubt that the Digilux 3 is an excellent camera, capable of taking outstanding photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogberry Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted September 5, 2008 You're right Jaap - the Digilux 2 certainly was considered a classic and has its own legion of fans (I even considered one myself at one point), but I didn't really include the Digilux 2 in my discussion since it's not a system camera. I actually like the styling of the Digilux 3 very much and in spite of its outwardly rather square shape, it really does feel good in your hands and has excellent ergonomics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted September 5, 2008 Share #5 Posted September 5, 2008 The trouble with the Digilux 3 to me is not the price, but that it did not deliver the key advantage of the 4/3 system: high quality in a smaller size and weight. If they had come up with a compact version of the D2 -- about the size of the MP, for example, with lens to match -- I would have bought it even at the same price as the D2. But when I took at a look at it and held it... yucks. Agree with you on the 4/3 being full frame, though. I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking "It's smaller than APS-C so it's not full frame". Thanks for pointing that out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpu Posted September 5, 2008 Share #6 Posted September 5, 2008 Dogberry, thanks for your statement. I cannot compare my Digilux 3 with other digital camera's, except the analoque OLY I have had in the past. The Digilux 3 for me is THE camera, as it does for me what it has to do. The handling is great. You make it very clear that: All Four Thirds cameras are "full frame" for the Four Thirds system.. Also that the system was designed aroud the optics. And let us be honest, the Zuiko/Oly glasses are excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 5, 2008 Share #7 Posted September 5, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) At the old times before M8.... - I was tempted to switch to digital when saw thw Digilux2 - passed away.. - Ditto, when saw the ANNOUNCEMENT of the Digilux 3 - passed away when SAW IT.. I agree that handling can probably be fine, but the styling, imho, is the real culprit for this camera commercial unsuccess (that, I think, applies to its Panasonic twin, too). Personally, I have nothing against the 4/3 idea... and few months before buying M8 my last digital temptation was towards the Oly 400... I think that if Panasonic and Leica would have came out from the start with a pair of cameras styled like the present Pana L10 all the story could have been different: for me, I'm anyway happy that it hadn't been so... probably I'd have bought such a Leica 4/3 DSLR, at a price probably Digilux3 - like... and I would have found myself in great trouble when M8 appeared... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogberry Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted September 5, 2008 You guys make a good point about the styling. Personally I rather liked it but I could see that it might have something of a "niche" appeal. If Leica were to continue with 4/3, it would be nice however to see them make something distinctive with the look and feel of a manual camera. The Olympus E3 for example is a great camera but very generic in its look and feel. The biggest turn-off for me with the E3 is that a lot of its controls are buried in menus. The inclusion of the aperture ring and shutter speed dial on the Digilux 3 was a stroke of genius. It makes the camera so much easier to use. An ISO speed dial should also now be a prerequisite on digital cameras. In the days of film, the ISO setting was not an on-the-fly adjustable parameter since it was essentially fixed for the whole roll of film you were using. These days however, the ISO setting should most definitely be considered as a parameter to be adjusted when making an exposure, just like shutter speed and aperture. To their great credit, Canon realized this and added an ISO dial to the G9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJLogan Posted September 5, 2008 Share #9 Posted September 5, 2008 The "styling" is what makes the Digilux 3 a success for me. I hate the word, because it implies a superficiality that I think does the subject injustice. In the same way that an M8 feels more-or-less the same as an M7 in use, a Digilux 3 feels like a film DSLR. Granted, it's a lot bigger, especially thicker, than my OM-1 (and that's a bad thing), but all the controls are where they belong. I find it quite comfortable in my hands. I don't have to deal with on-screen menus. I can concentrate on taking pictures. The entire rest of the DSLR world feels wrong and alien to me in use. The "ergonomic" grips and the weird forward placement of the shutter release just annoy me. The multiplicity of buttons and (again) menus more than annoy me--they p*ss me off. The lack of an aperture ring on the lenses is just wrong. And (to get superficial for just a moment) the things are so extremely ugly. If that makes me sound like an old Luddite fart, so be it. But I'm not--I'm very up-to-date with personal technology. I keep up with what the kids (at least the cool kids) are listening to. I can converse with geeky 20-year-olds and understand what they're saying. So it's not nostalgia, or plain bloody-mindedness. It's a set of deeply-held opinions about how taking pictures should work. If the Digilux 3's "styling" is a dead-end in DSLR land, I'll keep mine til it dies, then learn to use a rangefinder and buy into the M system--or I'll have to get over myself and adapt to how everybody else thinks taking pictures should work. Maybe something in the µ4/3 future will combine old and new in a way that excites me. That would be nice. Oh--and the lenses are fantastic (if, again, a bit too big). None of this would matter without stellar optics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krabat Posted September 5, 2008 Share #10 Posted September 5, 2008 A major factor for the less-than-spectacular succes of the Digilux 3 is the naming and styling of the camera. It was aimed at Digilux 2 users, but those took one look at it and ran the other way. Not for the sensor size, but for the lumpiness of the camera and the DSLR connection. The hope was for a sleeker Digilux 2, so the alledged successor was a disappointment. ....As it is, to many the real vintage Digilux is the Digilux 2.... Yes, you described exactly what I did feel when the Digilux 3 was released... A real successor of the Digilux 2, how should it be? The size would be alright, and the lens should be of comparable speed, focal lenght range and quality. Very important - the manual handling! No other compact digicam beats the Digilux 2 regarding the handling. A larger sensor, of course, no need of more than 8 Mpix, but less noise at higher ISO levels. A RAW buffer, and a higher-resolution electronic viewfinder. The quality of the jpeg files should be maintained. Anything else? I think I have mentioned all important things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted September 5, 2008 Share #11 Posted September 5, 2008 I think my Digilux 2 is nigh on perfect, or at least very difficult to improve upon (well, okay, perhaps it is a little too light for its size, it doesn't feel hefty). That said, if they came out with a D4 with the same fixed lens in a slightly smaller, heavier package (with the feel and balance of a film M) and a bigger (4/3) 8MP sensor, I'd buy one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogberry Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share #12 Posted September 5, 2008 A real successor of the Digilux 2, how should it be? The Digilux 2 was an interesting camera but I would not consider it really to be a part of the Digilux 3 lineage, even though they had the same name. I would consider any kind of successor to the Digilux 2 with the same kind of compact camera/fixed lens format to be a totally different branch of the Leica tree as it were since these 2 cameras are so different in their aim and target audience. I don't think it's really valid to compare the Digilux 2 and Digilux 3. It's kind of like comparing the R and M systems. Beyond the fact that they are designed to capture digital images, they are quite different beasts Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJLogan Posted September 6, 2008 Share #13 Posted September 6, 2008 A real successor of the Digilux 2, how should it be? The size would be alright, and the lens should be of comparable speed, focal lenght range and quality. Very important - the manual handling! No other compact digicam beats the Digilux 2 regarding the handling. A larger sensor, of course, no need of more than 8 Mpix, but less noise at higher ISO levels. A RAW buffer, and a higher-resolution electronic viewfinder. The quality of the jpeg files should be maintained. Anything else? I think I have mentioned all important things. While I love my Digilux 3, I have high hopes that µ4/3 will bring a camera like the one you describe, as long as Leica keep their hand in Panasonic's lens designs. It's a pity that µ4/3 didn't pop up a couple of years ago, then the Digilux 3 might have been quite a bit smaller and pleased a lot more of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted September 6, 2008 Share #14 Posted September 6, 2008 Digilux 3 is a great camera with outstanding capabilities. Don;t forget about the use of R lenses as well for even better and more outstanding results. My Digilux 3 replaced my DMR - i found myself out in the field using the camera much more wit hthe Digilux 3, the DMR while had more capability REQUIRES much more post processing.....im a camera guy, not a computer guy. i wish leica to produce a Digilux 4....or at least more lenses for 4/3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mampito Posted September 6, 2008 Share #15 Posted September 6, 2008 Thank your for the positive post about the Digilux 3. I also really like the camera despite several of its shortcomings. Its handling is outstanding and is very intuitive for me. Things missing are a better link to the R-glass (transferred aperture), but in general this camera has a special feeling not delivered by other cameras. The results are also excellent (within the known limitations). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveleo Posted September 6, 2008 Share #16 Posted September 6, 2008 I think my Digilux 2 is nigh on perfect, or at least very difficult to improve upon (well, okay, perhaps it is a little too light for its size, it doesn't feel hefty). That said, if they came out with a D4 with the same fixed lens in a slightly smaller, heavier package (with the feel and balance of a film M) and a bigger (4/3) 8MP sensor, I'd buy one. Ruhayat ..... you can take D4 S/N 1 .... i get S/N 2 and S/N 3. regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted September 6, 2008 Share #17 Posted September 6, 2008 Ruhayat ..... you can take D4 S/N 1 .... i get S/N 2 and S/N 3. regards Can't see why they can't do it, honestly... all they have to do is take the Olympus E520 package (the E520 has a VERY nice heft and balance in my hands, by the way; much better than the E420), and stick a fixed version of the Lumix LX-3 Vario-Summicron with manual focus ring on it (maybe make it 28-75mm). Voila! A CL for the 21st Century. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravduc Posted September 6, 2008 Share #18 Posted September 6, 2008 I purchased the D3 about five weeks ago and I am impressed by the colors and results from this camera. I also own an Olympus E1, E300 and E3 and the Digilux 3 has become my favourite with the E1. Picture quality reminds me of the old Agfachrome I used in the late 70's. The other four thirds cameras are also excellent but this one has something special about it. Prints produced from this camera are excellent and the tones, DR and colors are excellent. Now that the price has come down, I would recommend this camera to anyone. Small viewfinder, no dept of field button to activate stop down through the viewfinder would be the only faults that this camera has. As for the the other four third cameras, they are all excellent with the E1 having excellent dynamic range as well (those 5 megapixels are really high quality), and kodachrome colors. The E-3 is also an excellent camera with high resolution, but looses out, in my opinion, on dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes58 Posted September 7, 2008 Share #19 Posted September 7, 2008 I really like Digilux 3, but i "miss" OIS on my Olympus SWD 50/200. I believe that none of the olympus or other four-third lenses have OIS......... Greetz from Holland Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravduc Posted September 7, 2008 Share #20 Posted September 7, 2008 Olympus doesn't need to produce stabilized lenses now that it it has in body stabilization, such as with the E520 and E3. Every single lens that I use with the E3 is stabilized even the fully manual legacy lenses such as M42 mount lenses. By using an adapter you can use almost every kind of legacy lenses and manually key in the focal lenght for in body stabilization. I have been using a lot of these legacy lenses such as Meyer Gorlitz, Carl Zeiss Jena, etc. This is its main advantage over the Digilux 3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.