dogberry Posted September 7, 2008 Author Share #21 Posted September 7, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, the in-camera stabilization that the Olympus has is really a great feature. If Leica were ever to decide to continue making cameras for the Four Thirds system, I would hope that this feature would be included. It's a real boon for low light work or for using a telephoto hand held. I would be curious to know what happens if you are using a stabilized lens and a stabilized camera together. Do the two systems work synergistically or do they screw each other up? Has anybody ever tried this experiment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 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!
mampito Posted September 7, 2008 Share #22 Posted September 7, 2008 I would be curious to know what happens if you are using a stabilized lens and a stabilized camera together. Do the two systems work synergistically or do they screw each other up? Has anybody ever tried this experiment? Yes, several, with disastrous results. google it on the web. The problem is that you have two systems designed to work on its own and not designed to cooperate: If both try to compensate, you will of course get over-compensation with worse results than no compensation of motion. Cheers, Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogberry Posted September 7, 2008 Author Share #23 Posted September 7, 2008 Thanks Martin, That's kind of what I imagined would happen - something like trying to synchronize two pendulums that are each influencing the other. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 7, 2008 Share #24 Posted September 7, 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 Leica's marketing intention was clearly otherwise; they copied the look of the Digilux2 as closely as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogberry Posted September 7, 2008 Author Share #25 Posted September 7, 2008 I agree with you Jaap about Leica wanting to give the 3 some of the 2's styling, but I feel that as cameras, they fulfill quite different roles. The 2 is a kind of standalone, high-end (not so) compact camera with its fixed lens whereas the 3 is really a system camera, designed to give the user access to the world of 4/3 lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted September 10, 2008 Share #26 Posted September 10, 2008 Personally, I'm head over heels about my DIgilux 3. I had the "2" in the Lumix flavor and, to be honest, never really felt at home with it. Perhaps the viewfinder? The similarities are what attracted me to the Digilux 3, though. I like the look of the styling. The analog positioning of the aperture and shutter settings.. "had me at hello." And, the glass on the Digilux 3 sealed the deal. If I had one complaint, (other than lower noise at higher ISO) it would be to ask for a little more refinement of the vintage look. Just scale it back a touch and give it a little more finesse. As it is, it's a touch too utilitarian looking. I guess I'd like to see a hint of M heritage to the styling. But for the photographs... it's a winner. With all my Canon gear I feel I'm relying heavily on the equipment to take good photos. With the Leica, it's more about ME making good photos. I like what it does for my head and how I process my approach to taking a picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogberry Posted September 11, 2008 Author Share #27 Posted September 11, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) But for the photographs... it's a winner. With all my Canon gear I feel I'm relying heavily on the equipment to take good photos. With the Leica, it's more about ME making good photos. I like what it does for my head and how I process my approach to taking a picture. Well put John. I think one of the things that Leica does best is making cameras that put as little as possible between the photographer and the photography. I hope Olympus or Panasonic can learn a thing or two from them since I'm anticipating that my next SLR will more than likely not be a Leica given that they seem to have given up on the Four Thirds system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika K Posted September 11, 2008 Share #28 Posted September 11, 2008 I hope Olympus or Panasonic can learn a thing or two from them since I'm anticipating that my next SLR will more than likely not be a Leica given that they seem to have given up on the Four Thirds system. Just ordered Pana DMC-L1 from sale with that fabulous Leica elmarit lens. Think I'm going to love that camera and still hoping that Leica would continue with the Four Thirds system so that could update in future.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Flatline Posted September 12, 2008 Share #29 Posted September 12, 2008 The Digilux 3 was a brilliant direction - I loved the design, the kind of quirkiness that could have easily set Leica apart in a dSLR universe that is highly competitive. Too bad, I have the feeling this camera will not come around again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.