Considering jumping from Nikon D200 to Digilux 3

[cfc247]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone,

 

I have read quite a few of the posts from the archives concerning other people's switch from a similar set up. But not having the luxury of going to a local camera shop to handle the Digilux 3 in person (I think the closet place that would have it in store, though used, would be B and H which is 2 hrs away form me), I am hoping the feedback from the forum owners would be sufficient to provide the next best thing.

 

The Nikon D200 was my first DSLR. I love the manual controls and Nikon ergonomics. The 18-200VR lens is also very impressive for the money. However, after my purchase of the Dlux 4 and Digilux 2, I have been even more impressed with what these little guys can do in such small bodies and with smaller sensors than the Nikon. They are both keepers!

 

Having begun this romance with "Leica" look and feel, which I think really is there in both these cameras, especially the digilux 2. The photos just have much more of a 3D look to them. They are warm without being soft. In a way combining both strengths without the weaknesses of the Canon and Nikon distinctives.

 

Though I would love to venture into the M8 range, my finances won't allow me to do so for awhile. So in the meantime I am considering the Digilux 3 as a next step into the Leica experience. But I would have to sell my Nikon gear, which is not much. The D200, 18-200VR, 50mm 1.8, SB600 Flash. To Digilux 3 owners who have experience with Nikon DSLRs, my questions are as follows:

 

1. With my current equipment, dlux4, d2, and the d200, how much overlap will there be between the d2 and digilux 3 in terms of performance and practical application. To be more specific, would I have more of a complete and well rounded set up with the d200 instead of the d3 in terms of my gear? Or will it not make much of a difference. I am here referring to the speed, weather sealing and image size that the d200 is able to provide, along with various lens setups. How comparable would the d3 be?

 

2. The sensor on the d3 is smaller than the d200. How does the IQ and sensor compare to the Nikon DX CCD in terms of image quality, dr, color, etc.

 

3. Is the d3 a long term investment? Will Leica continue to open up the 4/3 segment to other lenses? Or will I simply have to use either the R lenses with adapter and Olympus? I have nothing against either, but if I was interested in the Oly lenses I would rather buy an E3. I am just wondering whether the d3 will be a "system" body like the Nikon DX or be stuck as a token-Leica in the 4/3 party.

 

4. Besides the kit lens, which I think covers 14-50, are there other zooms that could cover 50+ that you would recommend. Something under $1000 would be good.

 

5. What is a reasonable price for a d3? Best place to buy? Ebay? Or is the customer loyalty program I read about the better choice? How do I go through this process?

 

I know this is a lot. Sorry for dumping so much in one post. Thanks for looking.

 

Mark

[Advertisement]

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

[John Thawley]

Hmmmm.... well, other opinions may differ, but I've been down this road in a similar fashion.

 

I'm a Canon shooter.... I shoot professionally.

 

I used to own a Panasonic DMC LC1 (Digilux 2) - Liked it.. but didn't really "get it." Sold it and ended up with a D-Lux 3. Love that for what it is... small point n' shoot.

 

A few months ago, I bought a Digilux 3... loved it. Thought it was the coolest thing since sliced bread. But, ultimately, I started realizing, it wasn't "mentally" that much different than my carrying around one of my Canons. It was big... heavy.. and it was an SLR. Just old fashion looking and with analogue controls. I realized... I wanted a rangefinder. And, in all honesty, I probably wanted a film rangefinder. But, I'm too far gone digital and wasn't about to embark down the film road.

 

A friend let me try the Epson R-D1 - man, what a neat camera. It was everything I had imagined. Except... I couldn't see the focus screen wearing glasses. So, ultimately it was a pain in the butt.

 

But through it all, I realized that I wanted a camera for my personal use.... a camera, not a computer. I wanted to bring a camera up to my eye and not allow the technology to come between my head and the subject.

 

I suddenly realized (and after reading much here on the forum) that perhaps I'd been hasty in selling the Panasonic DMC LC1. So, I found a Digilux 2 and bought it. Within a day or two I was hooked. It is the most "film like" digital camera out there IMO. And what I mean by that is in how you shoot with it, how it responds, and how the photos look. The lens is magnificent... and I find myself shooting more and more in full manual operation and getting quicker and more accurate each and every time out.

 

So... short story long... I know have four Digilux 2 cameras. I'm selling one and I'm selling the Digilux 3. Unless Lecia makes a TRUE upgrade to the Digilux 2, I will own one forever. The camera is just that good.

 

Shooting with the Digilux 2, for me, fills that fantasy of walking around with an old M3... but digital. It's silent, and I'm getting very much at home shooting in manual mode. I'm not thrilled with the electronic viewfinder... but I'm getting used to it. Whould I like more megapixels? Sure.. why not. Would I like cleaner files at higher ISO settings? Of course.

 

But at the end of the day, when I want to make a really great photograph, I take out the Digilux 2.

 

Go to Thorsten Overgaard's website... leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1) and be prepared to be humbled.

 

JT

[cfc247]

Thanks for sharing your experience JT.

 

Though it has only been a couple of weeks, I certainly have impressions of the D2 similar to yours as well as the many on this forum. I have read every part of leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1) and found it to be a revolutionary point in the development of my philosophy of imaging.

 

Like you, I found in the D2 the camera I have instinctively always longed for without knowing how to spell it out. Except I don't have experience with rangefinders.

 

My only fear of being an "only" D2 photographer is the lack of ISO speed and Focal range I might need at certain times. That is where I have been comforted by the Nikon D200.

 

How do you deal with times when you need longer focal lengths or a more light with your D2?

[John Thawley]

Thanks for sharing your experience JT.

 

Though it has only been a couple of weeks, I certainly have impressions of the D2 similar to yours as well as the many on this forum. I have read every part of leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1) and found it to be a revolutionary point in the development of my philosophy of imaging.

 

Like you, I found in the D2 the camera I have instinctively always longed for without knowing how to spell it out. Except I don't have experience with rangefinders.

 

My only fear of being an "only" D2 photographer is the lack of ISO speed and Focal range I might need at certain times. That is where I have been comforted by the Nikon D200.

 

How do you deal with times when you need longer focal lengths or a more light with your D2?

 

 

How do I deal? .... a fair question to be sure.

 

If it were a pay check situation, I get out the Canons.

 

The Digilux 2 isn't a camera I rely upon for a pay check.... but that doesn't mean I can't use the images to command a pay check. I'm a motorsports shooter.... so you can understand why I need modern weapons to get my job done.

 

My Digilux 2 is about MAKING photographs. So, what I do is force myself to compose my shots and create my shots around the camera's limits. Trust me... that is not a bad thing.. and actually, it ultimately becomes a good thing. It forces me to THINK. I know I can tell a story... and I know I can find a way to tell that story with my camera and the tools I have. The camera makes me a better photographer.

 

WIth my Canons, I shoot pictures. With my Leica, I MAKE photographs.

 

If I need to get closer, I move. If I need more my light, I choose a slower shutter.... I find a way to steady the camera. I might even find a way to tell the story with an unsteady camera.

 

It's not a "workhorse" per se` - and I'd be hard pressed to recommend it as an ONLY camera. Think of Eric Clapton unplugged... it's not Cream and it's not Derik and the Dominos... but it IS Clapton and it sounds amazing...

 

You have to philosophically view it in those terms. Like I said, my meat and potatoes comes from panning 185mph race cars at 130th second and 8 frames per sec. Obviously, I'm not doing that with a Digilux 2. But I do walk the garage area and the paddock getting wonderful head shots of drivers and crews working on cars.... and the are MUCH better photographs than what I produce when I'm carrying my Canons. The camera makes me think, see and compose differently.

 

Hope that helps.

 

JT

[cfc247]

Thank you for getting me into the "mind" of the D2 user JT. That was certainly helpful! I guess from where you are coming from, the Digilux 3 is not much different from the D200 in terms of the photographic experience. Would you agree?

[John Thawley]

Thank you for getting me into the "mind" of the D2 user JT. That was certainly helpful! I guess from where you are coming from, the Digilux 3 is not much different from the D200 in terms of the photographic experience. Would you agree?

 

And then some... for me it was a bit of a "bastard".

 

First and foremost... the images were beautiful. Credit were credit is due. And... the lens is a beauty. No argument.

 

But... beyond that, it's just a slow DSLR with shutter lag. I can grab one of my 40Ds, throw on the 24-105 L series lens and go have at it at 10 megapixel, 1600 ISO, 6.5 frames per second.... and on and on. COMFORTABLY.

 

The Digilux 3 eludes to the romance of a Leica Rangefinder style street camera.. but only in appearance. In the end, I had to ask myself why am I not doing this with one of my Canons?

 

I'm off to the beach with the Digilux 2. See if we can't find something interesting and maybe shoot some sunsets...

 

JT

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm thrilled about all the D2 shooters.

 

Mark,

This might be far out. But eventual consider an R8 or R9 with DMR.

 

The DMR is usually sold with an R8 or R9 attached, thus in a range from 2,000 Pounds to 3,000 Pounds. As far as I know the Digilux 3 is in the 2,000 Pounds range though it is being phased out now and might be a little less.

 

The DMR is the ultimate in image quality right now, and you will get into R lenses which might not be a bad move for future use as well.

 

But one thing it doesn't have is speed. It can be used for many things without problems, such as fashion shows, portrait, concerts, etc. But not for race cars (unless they're in the pit ;-). No AF and only ca. 2 shots a second (for 8 shorts or so before the buffer request a timeout to get done). But the image quality is great.

 

If budget allows, work with DMR sellers. It might take 2-3-4 weeks to find the right deal. I bought a DMR+R9 for ca. 3,000 Pounds (incl. a 35mm f/2) after three weeks of searching, but the day after I was offered a DMR+R8 for 2,000 Pounds. And R8 or R9 doesn't matter, the R8 is just less money. I also saw a mint DMR in London a some weeks ago for 2,000 Pounds (it's gone now), and the R8 is in the 500 Pounds range these days.

 

The lenses can be gotten for reasonable prices if one has patience and stay alert (they can also be gotten for very high prices). I always suggest people who want to get into Leica M or Leica R to buy camera AND lenses as set. The reason being that people who sell a set have made a decision to move to something different and want to get rid of it. People only selling one item usually think it's worth more. To name some of the possible less expensive lenses which are outstanding, the 50mm f/2, 90mm f/2, 35mm f/2.8, 180mm f/3.4, 400mm f/6.8 (if one needs that range).

 

And R lenses, by the way, can also be used on Canon digital cameras, using a R to Canon adapter.

 

Being in the sensible and analytical corner, I can say I use the D2 and the DMR for professional use. I never do sport or race cars. But I did consider to get a Canon og Nikon gear (for reasons of AF) for fashion shows and other "fast moving objects." (I should mention that there's one American Football photographer who uses DMR and get great shots with manual focus). However, I thought about this thing, and I realized that I could actually - perhaps even easily - do fashion shows with DMR. After all, it's like 60 people in 15 minutes. So I decided at that time that I would use the DMR and consider Hasselblad as the next move. AF for convenience, but in the direction of image quality (Hasselblad) rather than speed (Canon and Nikon) in the event the digital R wouldn't come out. Now that we're looking at both the S2 and R10 coming, that is the direction I look in. If we can also do race cars, race horses and rockets with the R10, it's great. But actually, at that time I also decided that I would rather do work that required quality pictures rather than speed pictures. So I guess "what will I aim to do" is also part of choosing a camera (and probably more basic to it), not matter if one is doing it for a living, or just part of living.

 

Anyway, hope I didn't ruin your sleep completely by introducing this tempting and adventurous idea of full and complete self realization.

[cfc247]

Thorsten,

 

Thanks for the comment. Although I was already leaning towards the D2 by the time I came across your site, your photos and tips solidified it for me. It is truly a great camera!

 

I appreciate your suggestion on the DMR, but at the moment I'm on a budget. Hence, I was considering the D3 since it is the only thing close enough to my D200 in terms of $ in the Leica lineup w/exchangeable glass.

 

Have you had experience with the D3? Do you think the jump from the D200 to the D3 would be a waste of time and money?

[audidudi]

Have you had experience with the D3? Do you think the jump from the D200 to the D3 would be a waste of time and money?

 

I have never even seen a D200, let alone used one, but I do own both a D2 and an L1, the D3's Asian cousin, and use them both regularly, so I can offer you some input about how they compare.

 

Although I continue to be impressed by the D2's performance, the L1/D3 images are, in fact, better than D2/LC1 images in many important ways. Less noise, more resolution, more dynamic range, and larger files ... all of which you would naturally expect from a newer design. If I'm looking for the best quality digital image I can make, then I grab my L1 (and if I'm looking for the best quality image I can make, period, then I grab my 8x10 Toyo, which might give you some perspective as to my personal tastes and preferences).

 

That said, though, there are many times when I grab my D2/LC1 instead. For a start, it's physically smaller, which means it's easier to carry (in fact, I carry my D2 with me everywhere, as it fits nicely into one of the front compartments of my messenger bag), and it's nearly silent, which means it's possible to use it when / where attracting attention isn't desirable. Although the D2/LC1 lack image stabilization, the ability to shoot wide open at f2.0 gains you back a stop of shutter speed relative to the D3/L1 (and without a significant loss of resolution, I might add) and while I avoid ISO400 with my D2/LC1 whenever possible, to my eyes, the ISO200 performance is minimally acceptable.

 

The primary difference between the D2/LC1 and D3/L1 then, lies with the cameras themselves. Although they both have the traditional shutter speed dials and manual focus rings, I find the D2/LC1 is easier / more pleasurable to operate manually than the D3/L1. For instance, the focus ring on the D2/LC1 lens is mechanical, which not only means it has a much nicer tactile feel, but also that you can preset the focus while the camera is turned off or still warming up. The greater DoF of the D2/LC1's smaller sensor also means you can get away with scale focusing more often than you can with the D3/L1, which is helpful if you're trying to be stealthy or grab shots quickly.

 

On the other hand, while the D3/L1's optical viewfinder is frequently criticized, it's still quite a bit nicer than the D2/LC1's EVF, which is minimally acceptable. (Speaking of which, now that Panasonic has introduced the G1, the last piece that was needed to create an improved Digilux 2 Mk. II is now available from Panasonic's parts shelves ... hmmm).

 

The bottom line is that the D2/LC1 and D3/L1 are really two different camera designs, with different sets of compromises, and as such, they are really not replacements for one another. Just as you might wear brown shoes with one suit and black shoes with another, the D2/LC1 and D3/L1 are each the preferred choice in some situations and I personally wouldn't be without both of them.

[cnguyen]

I had Digilux 2 but sold it and now have Dlux3, Dlux4 and Digilux 3. I think the Digilux is a true gem. With a bigger chip the image is much smoother with all Leica optical signatures. It took awhile for Digilux 2 to gain recognition and so will the Digilux 3. being a sucker for Leica products I love everything they make . What can I say.

[petermcwerner]

I still have a Digilux 2 but use it less and less. For traveling and having it always with me, I prefer the M8 with - most of the time the 2/40 Summicron or a 20mm Avenon. It is less bulky and the image quality is better.

 

I was one of the earliest DMR users, but by now it is sleeping most of the time, just too bulky and heavy for my liking, although the results are great.

 

Like you, I also have a Nikon D200 and recently upgraded to the D700. I can re-use all of my great MF and AF Nikkors, some of them 30 years old and still excellent. "Full frame" is an unexpected added bonus. The quality improvement is significant.

 

I might have considered the R10 had it come out this year, but I did not want to wait another 2 years.

[ravduc]

I also have two D2's and D3 and they are, as others have mentioned, very different cameras. They are equally a joy to use for different reasons. I can't really compare the D3 to the Nikon but have compared it to my Olympus E1 and E3. The D3 has been way underated by reviewers. It produces outstanding prints which are very crisp. The viewfinder is not the best and certainly not as good as the E1 or even less so than the E3 (which has terrific viewfinder), but I just love using this camera. There is something about it which is hard to pinpoint. Once you get used to handling the camera, it becomes a joy to use. The lens that comes with it is well worth the price that this camera now sells for. I purchased my D3 three months ago on Ebay from a store calles Westcoast photo. I paid 1300 usd for a demo which came in its original box and was in mint condition (new). I have not regretted one moment for having purchased this camera. Impressed with this camera, I then spent more money on buying two D2's.

[cfc247]

Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions to my decision process. After many hours of reading and thinking I have decided to keep the Nikon D200 for now. I think I would rather wait and make my next move onto either the Nikon D700 or the R10. It just doesn't seem like Leica is all that interested in the 4/3 system.

[moipogi]

Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions to my decision process. After many hours of reading and thinking I have decided to keep the Nikon D200 for now. I think I would rather wait and make my next move onto either the Nikon D700 or the R10. It just doesn't seem like Leica is all that interested in the 4/3 system.

 

I may be late to the party but here's 2 cents worth, since I ditched my D200 for a Leica Digilux 3 last month .. .

 

My opinion is that it would depend on what you're currently using the camera for. I used my D200 for some weekend wedding and events gigs on the side, and for that purpose, the D200 + MBD200 grip + SB800 + 18-200 VR was the best tool. If you were an events guy, the D200 easily surpasses the Digilux 3 in all respects. Faster focusing, more FPS, more weather resistant, more robust build, good ergonomics, etc. . .

 

However, I've been doing less events and more hobby photography. The D200 is a robustly built camera. However, the sheer weight of the camera really weighs you down. And the pro features it had were being underutilized given that I was doing almost no events work. . .

 

Also, I was getting tired of the way Nikon (and Canon) DSLR bodies depreciate the moment you buy them. Events clients here always seem to prefer photogs who have the most megapixels, though only a handful can actually detect the difference between a 3.2 megapixel shot from a Canon D30 vs a 10 megapixel shot from a D200 vs a ISO 100 film scan. Sigh. . .

 

I must confess one of the big reasons I switched was that I've always wanted a Leica, and the Digilux 3 was an affordable DSLR entry point (compared to the M, R, and S). It was a smaller, lighter DSLR and while outgunned by the D200, I think for my purposes it was more that sufficient.

 

Some differences though:

 

Focusing - D200 winner hands down, but if you're just shooting a play of your daughter, you will not miss the 9 focus points of the D200. Come to think of it, I only used the center point for all the DSLRs I owned (D30, 10D, D200).

 

Shutter lag - D200 winner here as well. If you're shooting sports or fast action, the Digilux 3 is NOT the camera to have. I miss the quickness of the D200, but the more deliberate style needed by the Digilux 3 is actually a welcome change. In the D200 I used to first 3-5 shots in succession and hope that one came out ok. With the Digilux 3, a mroe deliberate style is needed, much like film, where you only get 36 shots per roll and you have to get more keepers the first time.

 

Ergonomics - this may be debatable, but I found the Digilux 3 easier to use out of the box (of course after the firmware upgrade) vs the D200. I like the shutter speed and aperture dials, and the large buttons at the back to control the most often used functions. I don't miss the top LCD of the D200, but using the LCD of the Digilux does eat into battery life.

 

Exposure - this may also be debatable but the Digilux seems to expose scenes better vs the D200. I like the way the scenes are rendered, which is surprising, since the D200 is technically the more superior camera.

 

Lens - no contest here. The 14-50 is superior to the 18-200 VR, with the VR's only advantage of reach. I may save up and get the 14-150 Panasonic lens, but for my uses the kit lens is more than enough.\

 

Live view - yes the D300 has live view, but buying that would negate the basic principles I was considering. Beside, live view is useful for mall and park guards here in the Philippines who seem to bother people with DSLRs (can't take pictures without a permit; they assume you're using it for a portfolio when you're only shooting a family pic) but pay no heed to point and shoots. I can shoot P/S style and fool them. . . hehehe

 

Verdict - no regrets so far on the Digilux purchase, though YMMV of course. . .

[cfc247]

moipogi,

 

Thank you for sharing your experience.

 

My biggest concern at the moment is the fact that should you use either the Oly or pany lens (14-150, 24mm), I don't think these have the aperture rings on the lens, forcing you to use the menu controls. Have you used the D3 with other lenses?

[ravduc]

Hello Mark,

 

The other two lenses that you mention also have aperture rings. The 14-150 is stabilized but not the 25mm lens. The D3 is an excellent camera which produces excellent results. I really enjoy using this camera. It can also use all of my four third Oly lenses and will work with my legacy lenses as well. You can buy adapters for all kinds legacy lenses (on ebay).When I need a fast camera, I use my Olympus E3. The D3 is a perfect camera for thoughtful shooting; in many respects similar to the D2 yet different as well. I just love the colors.

[ravduc]

I forgot to mention Mark, that if you use other four third lenses then you will have to use the control wheel on the back of the camera, just like on your Nikon. It is just located in a different place. Using other four third lenses is not a problem, but you loose the <analog feel> without that aperture ring. For example, you can still use Program or Aperture prefered by setting the speed dial on A and by rotating the control wheel until it indicates P or A in the viewfinder.

[jvan01]

The Digilux 3 renders great skin tones, especially in bounce flash mode with +1 EV.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[moipogi]

moipogi,

 

Thank you for sharing your experience.

 

My biggest concern at the moment is the fact that should you use either the Oly or pany lens (14-150, 24mm), I don't think these have the aperture rings on the lens, forcing you to use the menu controls. Have you used the D3 with other lenses?

 

Not yet, but I'm leaning towards the pancake Oly 25mm, since that makes the digilux 3 look like a rangefinder-like stealthly DSLR.

 

The 3 panaleica lenses (14-50, 14-150, 24mm) all have aperture rings so you have no problem.

[cfc247]

I thought I was settled on this issue but I am still vacillating. I think if the D3's startup and shutter are quick enough to take pictures of my kids, say around 1/250 without too much delay in the 3fps, I am willing to give it a try.

 

I don't intend to shoot races or sporting events. About the speed of kids playing will be the fastest shooting time I will need to cover. For all you D3 owners, what has been your experience in these situations? Also helpful would be your thoughts on the AF. Thanks