The best idea for the Digilux 4

[rsolomon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, the Digilux 3 wasn´t an upgrade.

 

Do you say this because the fundelmentals changed .... from P&S to DSLR ?

[johnastovall]

I would be very happy to see Leica bury it's relationship with Panosonic and focus on it's core business the new S2, the R and the M.

 

I have never understood why anyone ever considered these things to be Leicas.

[dugby]

I would be very happy to see Leica bury it's relationship with Panosonic and focus on it's core business the new S2, the R and the M.

 

I have never understood why anyone ever considered these things to be Leicas.

 

"Economics 101" ...."cash cow"

 

define: cash cow - Google Search

[rsolomon]

I have never understood why anyone ever considered these things to be Leicas.

 

With all due repsect i'm not sure you understand Leica.....Leica is about lenses, and lenses only - NOT camera bodies, and certainly not about computers (which is basically what a digital camera is):

 

Have you ever put an R lens on a Digilux 3 ? if not try the 80 1/4 or the 50 2.0

 

Also, outside of lenses (and even lenses in some cases) Leica has used partners for manufactuing camera components for many years.

[krabat]

....

Of course, a V-Lux with the above specs probably won't be a V-Lux anymore, it would be a Digilux!

And THIS is exactly what many of us want!

[elgenper]

Do you say this because the fundelmentals changed .... from P&S to DSLR ?

 

Well, not really; after all both cameras have "through-the-lens viewing" in some sense. It just isn´t a logical evolution step in my view.

 

Maybe I might clarify things a little by saying that the Digilux 2 was my only working camera for about 2 years. Then I felt I had to complement (not replace) it with a faster dSLR type for 2 kinds of images: running dogs & kids, and closeups of flowers. This was just when the Digilux 3 arrived, so I had a few good looks at it. My final reaction was that if I had to put up with that bulk and clamour anyway, I would be better off with a larger, brighter viewfinder and an even faster body. So I bought the Nikon D200, which I use with a 17-35/2.8 lens plus a 60/2.8 macro.

 

I still use the Digilux 2 for whenever I don´t absolutely HAVE to use the D200. Had I bought the Digilux 3 instead, I´m sure it would have been the same situation; it just wouldn´t have replaced the D2 either.

 

Now, the Panasonic G1 does look like the first glimmer at the horizon of something that might replace both of these cameras. As it´s presented now, it´s obviously inadequate, esp. with that cheap consumer zoom they adorn it with. But if that kind of viewfinder could be used on a speeded-up Digilux 2 type camera, then it might be something...

[J Mitchum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would be very happy to see Leica bury it's relationship with Panosonic and focus on it's core business the new S2, the R and the M.

 

I have never understood why anyone ever considered these things to be Leicas.

 

I think the Digilux 2 is an exception here. Although it is a rebadged Panasonic LC1 it is clear Leica had a lot of input on its design or perhaps even designed it for Panasonic.

 

The Digilux 3 was more of a sidegrade than an upgrade. It really wasn't what most of us were expecting. Most just wanted minor improvements. If they came out with a true Digilux 2 mkII, Digilux 4 or whatever they want to call it I'd buy two of them.

[bobtodrick]

A couple of things.

I too passed on the Digilux 2 because of the EVF and ante'd up for the Digilux 3 because of it's optical viewfinder.

I've not got a long list of things I'd have changed.

Leave it at 7.5mp...anymore and low-light sensitivity suffers.

Make the optical viewfinder brighter, and build the camera so you can see the effect of manually focusing without having to turn the camera on.

 

And about Leica abondoning the Panasonic lines. That, in my mind is crap. One, as mentioned it is cash in the bank. Secondly I remember when I had my CL when they were first introduced and everyone laughed how it wasn't a 'real Leica' (I also had a black paint original German M4). Well 30 years later, with many photos published and numerous gallery exhibits I can in no way tell which prints were taken with which camera.

[rsolomon]

I remember when I had my CL when they were first introduced and everyone laughed how it wasn't a 'real Leica' (I also had a black paint original German M4). Well 30 years later, with many photos published and numerous gallery exhibits I can in no way tell which prints were taken with which camera.

 

 

Very well said and i totally agree -- its the lens, NOT the body ! whether an M4, CL (which was a minolta that was leicaized) Leica is about lenses.

 

The upgrade of the Digilix 2 to the Digilux 3 was about the ability to use/change differnt lenses. Afterall if anything Leica has been a laggard in camera body technology for atleast 20 years in the M, R and last few in the D line.... maybe the future will be different but the past 20 years they have been behind the industry. I am a leica guy because of the lenses - not the body.

[John Thawley]

Well 30 years later, with many photos published and numerous gallery exhibits I can in no way tell which prints were taken with which camera.

 

Yes... BUT, if you look at all the measurements and specs "on paper"... they would absolutely tell you that your prints are crap! After all, who are you going to believe, the technicians and their technical white papers or (to quote Richard Pryor) your f**cking lying eyes.

 

Removing tongue from cheek now.

 

JT

[NZDavid]

I don't think so. I do think the Digilux 4 looks like a good camera as it is, but would love to see a few changes. Mainly, very much simpler controls, like the Digilux 2. Manual shutter speed dial, manual aperture ring with A on both. Even a manual zoom ring and manual ISo settings like the Canon G10. Don't mind a large accessory finder, though an optical one would be nicer, accessory flash is about a zillion times better than built-in red-eye generator. Fewer fiddly buttons. They are just too small for my chunky fingers, much like cellphones. I agree the case looks nice, though.

[John Thawley]

I don't think so. I do think the Digilux 4 looks like a good camera as it is, but would love to see a few changes. Mainly, very much simpler controls, like the Digilux 2. Manual shutter speed dial, manual aperture ring with A on both. Even a manual zoom ring and manual ISo settings like the Canon G10. Don't mind a large accessory finder, though an optical one would be nicer, accessory flash is about a zillion times better than built-in red-eye generator. Fewer fiddly buttons. They are just too small for my chunky fingers, much like cellphones. I agree the case looks nice, though.

 

What is a Digilux 4?

[HiredArm]

What is a Digilux 4?

 

I think he means D-Lux 4... Maybe Leica should look into differentiating product lines, or at least for abbreviations sake, a bit better.

[John Thawley]

I don't think so. I do think the Digilux 4 looks like a good camera as it is, but would love to see a few changes. Mainly, very much simpler controls, like the Digilux 2. Manual shutter speed dial, manual aperture ring with A on both. Even a manual zoom ring and manual ISo settings like the Canon G10. Don't mind a large accessory finder, though an optical one would be nicer, accessory flash is about a zillion times better than built-in red-eye generator. Fewer fiddly buttons. They are just too small for my chunky fingers, much like cellphones. I agree the case looks nice, though.

 

I haven't looked at the specs, but if the D-Lux 4 is the same size as the D-Lux 3, it's too small. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my D-Lux 3, but the size makes it "all thumbs" trying use the settings with any regularity. And, anything over ISO 200 fairly unusable.

 

So, therein lies the rub for me. My D-lux 3 is minuscule in my hands, and my Digilux 3 is cumbersome. And while the M8 physically sits between the two in size, it is astronomically outside the curve in cost.

 

Someone in another post made a comment about people who want a "CHEAP" Leica.... I don't think anyone in these discussions has mentioned cheap. There is such a thing as value and it is created by providing a good product at a fair and reasonable price. Without taking anything away from the M8 as a camera (technically speaking), it shouldn't have to cost as much as it does. Proper planning, marketing and manufacturing is where Leica has their collective heads up their behinds. Sorry.... I know people here want to throw stones at Canon and Nikon, but when you look at how much camera they put out there for $5000, the argument that Leica can't build a quality rangefinder for under $5000 is laughable.

 

Even with the D-Lux and the Digilux... how they get off charging 20% more than Panasonic speaks volumes for their inability to compete in the real world. And yet, I paid for the D-Lux 3 because I like the aesthetics of the camera. I paid the extra for the Digilux 3 because I wanted the silver and black... not all black as in the Panasonic.

 

But seriously, no one at Leica can stand up and definitively give you an answer for why the Digilux 3 cost more than it's Panasonic twin. For me, that say's a lot about the company's view of itself.

 

Sadly, that view is effecting their ability to create product that represents a good value. Not CHEAP... but a good value. If Leica thinks it is enough to tell the world, "we have a history for building the best... this is all we know how to build... and this is what it costs so you should pay it without question," the market will turn their back on them. There are many luxury brands that have created product lines that compete in the marketplace while STILL producing their flagship product lines successfully... Leica is NOT one of them.

 

JT

[rsolomon]

i think if you look closely there is a difference -- whether it's valuable to you is a different story ....

 

1. you get more in the box,.... software

2. you get a differnt version of the firmware (tweaked by leica)

3. you get a better/longer warranty

4. and i would argue better service if there is a problem

[John Thawley]

i think if you look closely there is a difference -- whether it's valuable to you is a different story ....

 

1. you get more in the box,.... software

2. you get a differnt version of the firmware (tweaked by leica)

3. you get a better/longer warranty

4. and i would argue better service if there is a problem

 

I've heard all of that before.

 

1. Does anyone really USE the software?

2. Firmware is firmware.... it may be different, but is it more expensive to develop? I don't get that.

3. If the product is a GOOD product, I'm not buying it for the warranty... but the argument is valid. Let's see how much money the would make selling an extended warranty. Follow me?

4. I shouldn't be blackmailed into paying for good service.... and it should fall under the warranty argued above. I think you're double dipping me on that one. LOL

 

So you see, that is the problem. Leica wants to be the company that is the pinnacle of quality and service... yet wants to make provide weak excuses for charging more. All the things you mention are valid. But they are NOT deal breakers... and they do nothing to endear me to the Leica brand or make me lust over the Leica line of products. They're not "value"... they are perceived "value."

 

I went through the 70's when one day they started offering gas for 5 cents a gallon less for self-serve. And, the whole country went, hey... that's a good idea. Me? I'm thinking.... hmmm... how long will that mean anything? How long before it's going to be the same price as it was going to be anyway... except now we're pumping it ourselves?

 

Leica should not be playing that game. Leica should be distinguishing itself by creating better products with unique character that is Leica's alone. That's not to say they shouldn't use existing components and technologies... they should. But they should be doing it creatively.

 

The S2 has a single concept beyond all else that makes it brilliant. They created a MF camera that you can hold in your hands and run around with the ease of an SLR. End of story. I suspect they'll get the rest right... and if there's a market, other's will follow.

 

The S2 in concept likens itself to what made Leica famous. They put some cinematography film in a hand held box and let photographers out of the studio.

 

What both these things say is "put as little between the photographer and his creativity as possible." Both concepts allow the photographer to spend more time being creative.

 

I suggest to you, there is market that wants a quality, simple digital rangefinder. And the kit doesn't have to cost $8000. And, maybe those that have already plopped down their money want to call us Leica "wannabes" ... but there is a long line of upscale buyers that would gladly spend $3000 - $4000 to have a Leica in their hands. There are a lot of people that simply want to set the ISO, pick and aperture and shutter speed, focus and make great pictures.

 

Need I point out the economies of scale? Sell more.... increased volume will increase margins. And, they've all gotta buy lenses.

 

I cringe at the Canon Rebel and the model of the month mentality. But let me tell you something, (I shoot motorsports professionally) I am STUNNED by the number of spectators I see at race the race tracks I work who are walking around with L lenses mounted on whatever flavor of the month body they have. I am telling you, I see Canon 70-200 white lenses EVERYWHERE! It is nothing short of staggering. So, you see, Canon's dirty little secret is treat the body like the razor in the "give em' the razor sell em' the blades" marketing scheme.

 

I'm NOT suggesting Leica build Rebels, or even a 40D. But a camera with 5D MkII "mindset" in a Leica rangefinder body would be easily worth $3000-$3500. And it wouldn't require a "we give you better firmware" apology.

 

Ok... I'm rambling. Sorry.

 

JT

[HiredArm]

I agree with some of the statements above. First of all my personal feeling is that less expensive doesn't have to mean "cheap" and I think that's where many people are short in their thought. I would agree that a less expensive M body would caannibalize SOME M8 sales but only those who are realistic with themselves that they don't NEED a $10K system for a hobby camera. Those people probably would have passed on a M8 anyway so Leica getting some of their money is better than none. These are the folks who will spend $1-2K on the Canon/ Nikon prosumer bodies who want something better than entry level. It makes too business much sense for Leica not to target these people.

 

I think everyone can agree that the S2 is a great technical feat for the company and the output of the M8 images are a great credit to Leica optics which is their strength. I also believe that outside the handful of diehard Leicaphiles (the people who believe Leica can't improve it's business model in ANY way) a lot of people were scratching their heads as to if the S2 is being introduced at the absolute best time for the company. It's great from a "technical show of power" but let's face it - it's a niche company providing an product to an even smaller niche of people. For the average professional They would look at the presumed 10K-20K price as just a pipe dream and get the new 5DmkII or D700 for a very small fraction of the cost. I know it's not a popular idea around here but I'm sure most working professionals tend to go for the best bang for the buck especially in the digital age.

 

Despite how people feel Leica should have at least shown a prototype R10 (unless I missed it) and a budget body whether it used M lenses or not. It would be a bit smarter to make it M mount for those who would like to upgrade later, those who would like a second body to complement the M8, or those like myself who CAN afford an M8 but can't justify the cost to myself as I'm nothing more than a hobbyist. I really don't have any knocks on the quality of the M8 files, they are excellent (with a large part of that due to the Leica optics.) I also can't knock the Canon 40D, 5DmkII, Nikon D300, or D700 files either. I know some would tell me to just buy the Canon/ Nikon and go away but honestly I found interest this place about 6 months ago because I already have a Canon camera but I want a physically smaller digital camera with great IQ and interchangeable lenses. The M8 would seem to fit the bill but at the same time I can't justify spending that much in my head for "just a hobby." I guess what I'm saying is my perfect camera doesn't exist yet but I would really like Leica (Cosina Voigtlander/ Nikon/ or Olympus m4/3 even) to make it sooner rather than later.

[PedroSimao]

Hi!

I am a lucky onwner of a Lumix L1 (the twin sister of Digilux 3), and it is still a superb camera these days, delivering fantastic photos, due to the fantastic lens and because one holds the camera exactly the same way one held the manual SLR's 20 years ago (aperture ring in the lens and speed wheel). this is what makes this camera so different - and better - than the remaining ones.

 

if anything must be changed, so change the processor and the sensor, so that less noise is made in high sensitivity; use a 12 or more MPixel sensor, in 4/3 format, so that compatibility with the older lenses is possible, and opt for a pentaprism that delivers a brighter viewfinder, instead of the mirrors system of the L1. also a focusing microprism in the optical viewfinder would be very nice, to help manual focus operation.

 

But the most important part is: please keep the magic feeling of the older film manual SLR's cameras that L1/Digilux 3 have . it's what makes them magic.

 

I think that the micro 4/3 system may be perfect for a rangefinder camera, cheaper than the M8 - it would be a new class on its own

if the CEO's in Solms think Leica must compete in the full frame range - in this segment competition is very hot these days, with the new Canons, Nikons and Sonys, so make a full frame R10, compatible (if possible) with the R lenses and for professional use

 

to finalize one question: is it already known the target price of the new (fabulous) S2 camera and lenses?

 

Bye

Pedro

[J Mitchum]

i think if you look closely there is a difference -- whether it's valuable to you is a different story ....

 

1. you get more in the box,.... software

2. you get a different version of the firmware (tweaked by leica)

3. you get a better/longer warranty

4. and i would argue better service if there is a problem

 

The problem is the price gap has increased significantly. Checking Adorama shows the LX3 at $479 and the D-Lux 4 at $849, a $370 difference.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

Quite right, I meant D-Lux 4. Too many models. It's hard keeping up! How about a D-Lux 4 that's more like a Digilux 2, only smaller?! As for paying more for a different brand body with the same lens -- doesn't seem rational.