Digilux 3 vs Digilux 2

[kievnut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

It seems that in this forum more people talking on (or favor) Digilux 2 than Digilux 3.

Is digilux 2 a better camera than digilux 3? If yes, any reasons?

Anyone have both digilux 2 and digilux3 and what is your comments?

 

Thanks for your output.

[Advertisement]

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

[joppepop]

I have had both and picture-wise I cannot say the D2 is better than the D3. With the right lens on the D3, it produces better pictures in many situations. It's a newer camera with a much larger sensor, after all. The D3 is however a lot bulkier than the D2. Many lenses are really heavy, as for instance the marvellous 25/1.4. This makes the D2 better in that aspect. From what I remember, it produced also better exposures when shooting in auto mode. That's my view on this.

[John Thawley]

Hi,

 

It seems that in this forum more people talking on (or favor) Digilux 2 than Digilux 3.

Is digilux 2 a better camera than digilux 3? If yes, any reasons?

Anyone have both digilux 2 and digilux3 and what is your comments?

 

Thanks for your output.

 

I bought the Digilux 3 under the false impression that it was the successor to the Digilux 2. Alas, it was not. The only similarity was appearance and the analog controls. Beyond that, the ingenious philosophy of the Digilux 2 was lost. I've since sold the Digilux 3 and now own three Digilux 2(s) and the sister camera, the Panasonic Lumix DMC LC1.

 

I can't say enough good things about the Digilux 2. To be sure, time has left it a bit short on features, but in the end, it's a phenomenal piece of kit. For me, the camera's strong suit is its ability to stay out of your mental creative process. Instead of intruding, it connects your hand, eye and brain.

 

Where the 3 became "less" was its attempt to do what my "big" cameras already do. While the image quality was good, I didn't want more lenses to carry. I didn't want the bulk... and I didn't want the DSLR mentality.

 

With respect to image quality, while the kit lens on the Digilux 3 is a fantastic lens, it does not provide the "Leica glow" that you get with the fixed lens on the Digilux 2. The DC Vario-Summicron f/2-2.4 combined with the small sensor is a perfect match that when used in the sweet spot (f/2 - f/56) will leave you speechless.

 

In the end, (again, for me) the Digilux 2 is a love affair. It's a complete connection.

 

You can read more on my blog The Leica Digilux2 - Journal - Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge or Thorsten Overgaard's leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1)

 

You might also enjoy this read too: Pimp MyRide!!! - Journal - Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge

[joppepop]

They might look the same from distant, but they are really two different species. It's like comparing apples with pears, M with R, and so on... They are both fine cameras, in different ways. Image quality with the D3 is dependent on what lens you use, making it even harder to compare. Not to say how subjective comparisons of the outcome would be. Some favor Leica glow and some loves perfectly lined up pixels.... We are different, like the cameras we use.

[John Thawley]

some loves perfectly lined up pixels....

 

I'm not sure I understand what that means?

[joppepop]

I'm not sure I understand what that means?

 

Sometimes I see discussions where people blows up 100% crops and compares them side by side - lined up pixels.

[John Thawley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sometimes I see discussions where people blows up 100% crops and compares them side by side - lined up pixels.

 

You've seen discussions or you've seen pixels not lined up? I'm really trying to qualify your statement as I'm quite curious about the source and an example. Can you show me?

 

Thanks,

 

JT

[joppepop]

Is there anything provoking in what I wrote, more than I think we have different ways viewing and qualifying things? Your way of asking me what I mean makes me think that. I should not have used a metaphor but been direct. What I mean is pixel-wise comparisons in between pictures from different cameras on the same object. Quite common here and everywhere.

[John Thawley]

Is there anything provoking in what I wrote, more than I think we have different ways viewing and qualifying things? Your way of asking me what I mean makes me think that. I should not have used a metaphor but been direct. What I mean is pixel-wise comparisons in between pictures from different cameras on the same object. Quite common here and everywhere.

 

Wow.. sorry.

 

When I hear a reference or a phrase completely foreign to me, I like to investigate.

 

Forgive my ignorance.

 

JT

[joppepop]

I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly, as you noted I'm not a native English speaker. Your direct questions made me think you were angry with me somehow. Might be a cultural thing.

Cheers,

Ove

[bobtodrick]

Yup...two different cameras/philosophies.

If you have a DSLR and want a good...very good, compact camera to carry around with you the Digilux 2 is the way to go. I had a chance to use one for a couple of weeks and it just blew my Canon G9 into the weeds and wasn't terribly bigger.

But I myself went for the Digilux 3. I went that route when I realized (after the Digilux 2) just how badly the small fingernail sized senors in the compacts performed.

But I didn't want to carry around a full blown DSLR. The Digilux 3 with the kit lens is a compact package, compared to most DSLR's. Add the Olympus TC-14 teleconvertor and a flash and you have a very potent kit in a small bag.

In my opinion the Digilux 2 is a more specialized camera. The best non-interchangeable compact there is, where as the Digilux 3 is, realistically a compromise camera...bigger than a compact (by far), smaller than a DSLR but with less capability.

They're both excellent machines when matched correctly to your needs.

[Overgaard]

Sometimes I'm a slow starter. In this case I sometimes get tempted to get a Digilux 3 and equip it with the 50mm/1.4. I think it could be fun, now that it's discontinued ;-)

 

But for all-round needs, 28-90mm, the Digilux 2 will do easily. As for ISO, the Digilux 2 on 100 ISO (never use anything else) you can handhold at 1/4 whereas any camera with a mirror, you need to be at 1/125. So there goes the ISO advantage.

 

But it really is two different cameras, though similar looking on the outside. Different philosophy.

 

Agree, by the way, with the pixel-peeping philosophy, aka lined up pixels. Unfortunately most reviews such as the dpreview.com are based on that type of comparison; and probably some idea that comparison must be very precise and just. It could be interesting to do a review page "The Bigger Picture" based on actual qualities the different cameras posses. Some cameras are good at some things, some are not that good but yet very lovable. Some again are great for some kind of professional use, but perhaps not lovable or fun. And some are pointless. This aspect has for some reason been left out of most reviews existing on cameras. For example a camera you want to bring with you because you love it is worth much more, no matter it's actual "pixel qualities," than having a camera at home which could do the job very well - but seldom get out.

 

Maybe we should do a website called "my favorite camera" with favorite cameras only. Who want's to read about all the other crap anyways

[joppepop]

Yeah, what a wonderful idea, my favourite camera! Me and myself, debating over nothing.

 

As I see it, if the pictures in general are pleasant to look at, and the camera makes me want to make plenty of them, that would rank as a favourite to me. The D2 certainly did, before some poor soul stole it from me. If that wouldn't have happened, I would probably still shooting with the D2.

 

But the D3 with the 25/1.4, that's another thing. This lens really makes that camera sing. I love it and use it as often as possible.

[ASpes]

Hi,

 

It seems that in this forum more people talking on (or favor) Digilux 2 than Digilux 3.

Is digilux 2 a better camera than digilux 3? If yes, any reasons?

Anyone have both digilux 2 and digilux3 and what is your comments?

 

Thanks for your output.

 

Guess it's hard to add something meaningful to what has already been said, anyway here's my try ...

 

The two cameras share command layout ergonomics, and size which is really close, though in the hand they feel quite different but that's only because of the lens. In a way you could say it's a sort of a miracle to have a full mirror box in just a few more millimeters, or, if you want to say it the other way round, this makes more of a pity that no real follow-up was made for the D/2 as that body could probably "endure" a lot of improvements inside it.

The D/3 in fact had everything a D/2 user could dream of, buffer size, AF speed, and res, just to name the main ones, but imo traded the versatility of a DSLR for what I call the almost "M feeling" of the D/2.

 

IQ wise, I think your results depend more on your use than on the camera specs, as both are quite capable of outstanding pictures. The bigger sensor of the D/3 will give you more room of course in later pp, but the silent D/2 will have the edge on speed in some situations if you accept to stay inside its limits, something that applies to any camera after all.

 

As for me, guess I followed the same path of John Thawley as eventually I got to have three D/2, but then I was bitten by the sensor failure, or, better to say, by Leica. They always returned my cameras with dust on the new sensor and seemed unable to get it right, until I desperately accepted the exchange for a D/3. It got dust on the shelf for a long while then one day it came handy for a job, and began to grow on me. Now it has become my walk-around camera, still using sometimes my last D/2 but love more my D/3's now. Yes, that's a plural ... again. (:-))

[dugby]

I've posted my comments on my D3/L1 and D2 many times before in this forum.

 

I still cherish and use my D2 as a wonderful image capturer, but for me is mostly not as capable as the L1

 

The images from my L1 are always better than those from my D2, and the percentage of image "keepers'

from the L1 is always much higher than those from my D2.

 

BUT the L1 is heavier and mechanically noisier than my D2. So I take my D2 to music concerts and dinner parties (where an SLR is an obnoxious tool), and discrete silent shooting is favored.

 

I always grab my L1 as my preferred camera, but always stop to think "do I need to bring the D2" for some discrete silent shots......

 

As a side issue, I encouraged a friend into a Canon G10..................now that's a neat little camera that should have been Leica's "Digilux 1.2" or "Digilux 2.2"........ the images are very good and the camera profile if something I hope the Leica engineers could emulate.......

[J Mitchum]

Maybe if they make a Digilux 4 based on micro Four Thirds we'll all be happy. The size and weight of the Digilux 2 and the performance of the Digilux 3.

[Overgaard]

Larger sensor has been discussed before but would mean that the existing Digilux 2 lens, which is a light strong miracle lens, would have to be bigger. And nobody wants to change the lens performance or size of the lens. Look at the same zoom range at Digilux 3 which is not even a f/2 and you get an idea just how big the zoom would have to become.

 

My personal take on this is that sensor performance is improved all the time, just per Maxwells Law that also goes for computers and data storage.

 

Full-frame sensors now outperform medium format film, so why wouldn't a tiny censor as the one in the D2 be improved over a few years to outperform the current fullframe.

 

No reason to argue for or wish for bigger and bigger sensors in an age and time where everything gets smaller and more powerful.

 

In 1998 I bought a second-hand killer-computer that was equipped with 1 GB harddrive. It had belonged to a color studio and it was, man it was HUGE. Now, 10 years later this is considered a weak computer if the 1GB is the RAM. And i guess even the iPhone has much more computer power than that HUGE computer. So if we think this into the cameras, we'll be looking at a small-sensor Digilux 5 in 2019 with 37,5 or 60 megapixels.

 

The sensor is the weak spot in the Digilux 2, so let's change that, not the camera itself.

[ravduc]

I have both cameras as well and I think that comparing them is not possible. These are two very different cameras with very different faults and qualities. The D2 has a very classic look, is very light but cannot use any other lenses but its excellent on board lens. It is an excellent camera but could use a few makeovers; those would be its sensor (same size) which by today's standards could be better with about 8 or 10 megapixels, less noise, with a faster processor and better RAW buffer; and this without making any cosmetic changes. It could also easily handle an improved electronic viewfinder.

 

The D3 is an SLR with a porro prism similar to what the old Olympus PEN FT cameras had, and uses interchangeable lenses. It is heavier than the D2 but with its larger four thirds sensor can more readily produce prints that are sharper at moderately higher iso's. It also has a better RAW buffer and other qualities. It can use every single Olympus E mount lenses with auto focusing etc; and it can, with adapters use any M42, OM, Leica R etc mount lense in either manual or aperture preferred in stop down metering mode. It also has its faults, such as weight, small viewfinder and whatever you might not like. To each is own as they say.

 

I enjoy using both and would never part with either of them. I think that they both handle very well and look very classy. For many photographers, cameras are tools like scewdrivers. For me, I like to use a camera that has an esthetic quality that I can feel proud about. I usually adapt to its flaws. Why buy an ugly dog if you can get one that looks terrific?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rsolomon]

maybe if they make a digilux 4 based on micro four thirds we'll all be happy. The size and weight of the digilux 2 and the performance of the digilux 3.

 

exactly

[tmickan]

Full-frame sensors now outperform medium format film

 

Not likely, they are close to outperforming 35mm film though.