Digilux 3 vs Digilux 2

[krabat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

.....

 

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

Well, I am not an optic engineer or a physicist, and I am not sure about the possible size of a sensor with the present Digilux 2 lens. Does anybody know the diameter of the "image circle" of this lens? Would it really be impossible to built in a larger sensor?

I mean, I do not want to have 20 Megapixels, about 8 would completely do. The main issue is a considerable reduction of noise.

Hm, I even would accept a slightly bulkier lens, if it would be necessary to maintain the analogue feeling, image quality and f/2 for a larger sensor.

Apart from this, I agree that there is almost nothing that should be changed in the Digilux 2. Just built in some updated electronics (RAW buffer, better EVF, a sensor with a reduced noise), and that's it.

 

Edit: I also tried the Digilux 3. Although the sensor had less noise and more pixels, I did not buy it because I did not like the clumsy and bulky design, and I missed the analogue feeling of the lens when focussing manually.

[Advertisement]

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

[sfage]

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

 

1) No.

 

2) Not yet.

[ASpes]

Well, I am not an optic engineer or a physicist, and I am not sure about the possible size of a sensor with the present Digilux 2 lens. Does anybody know the diameter of the "image circle" of this lens? Would it really be impossible to built in a larger sensor?

I mean, I do not want to have 20 Megapixels, about 8 would completely do. The main issue is a considerable reduction of noise.

Hm, I even would accept a slightly bulkier lens, if it would be necessary to maintain the analogue feeling, image quality and f/2 for a larger sensor.

Apart from this, I agree that there is almost nothing that should be changed in the Digilux 2. Just built in some updated electronics (RAW buffer, better EVF, a sensor with a reduced noise), and that's it.

 

Edit: I also tried the Digilux 3. Although the sensor had less noise and more pixels, I did not buy it because I did not like the clumsy and bulky design, and I missed the analogue feeling of the lens when focussing manually.

 

 

It seems to me that you are using "colliding" arguments here ... you'd wish to accept a bigger sensor and a bigger lens because of it, and then you bash the D/3 that already has it all.

 

Anyway let's not confuse sensor size with sensor res, one will ask for a different lens, the other will not. In the latest crop of P&S we have smaller sensors boasting pretty high res, and they have been improving on the noise side at the same time. Just as a reference of what can be done, the G10 and the Dlux4 are a fair example.

 

Guess a D/2 body could probably withstand a new updated electronics with a higher res sensor while keeping the same lens. That's what we all would have wished for, and keeping that sort of a digital "M feel" to it.

 

Besides I admit I do not understand why you say the D/3 has a "clumsy and bulky design" as its command layout is mostly the same of the D/2, even the bodies are just a couple mm apart in size. What actually makes the difference is the lens, the bigger sensor makes for a heftier and heavvier one (but is also stabilised), thus giving a different balance and feel in the hand.

 

As I already said, this is the only real downside of the D/3 vs the D/2 (and shutter noise if you want to say it all), as for everything else it has fullfilled almost all wishes and dreams of a D/2 user, bigger buffer and sensor size, res, and AF speed, just to name a few, giving us a far more responsive camera, which is a real pleasure to use.

 

Just my 2(euro)cent of course.

[krabat]

You are right, the size difference taken in millimetres is not that high, and it is a little bit strange that the Digilux 3 makes such a bulkier feeling to me. What troubled me, e.g., was the sticking out viewfinder. Well, that is my personal feeling.

And when I was talking about a slightly larger lens, I really meant slightly. The best would be, of course, to keep the present size of the lens.

All in all I am afraid that this is a "ghost discussion", because until now I did not hear anything that Leica will come with an improved Digilux 2.

 

Best regards, Peter.

[ASpes]

You are right, the size difference taken in millimetres is not that high, and it is a little bit strange that the Digilux 3 makes such a bulkier feeling to me. What troubled me, e.g., was the sticking out viewfinder. Well, that is my personal feeling.

...

All in all I am afraid that this is a "ghost discussion", because until now I did not hear anything that Leica will come with an improved Digilux 2.

 

Best regards, Peter.

 

if you were aiming with your left eye like I do, you'd love it and your nose would be real thankful ... :-)

 

As for our speculations here, you're right, but anyway it's nice sometimes to exercise ourselves at it, after all we are mostly talking about what we like in our cameras and would like to have again.

 

I always wonder if these comments possibly get to the powers-to-be and maybe get some attention from them. Guess that after all we are their golden egg, so to say ... so I just add that I hope that this sort of analog, even minimalist, approach that is a beautifully applied on the D/2/3 (and the M line) will not be dropped on future models in favour of the fancy try-it-once things that marketing departments seem to like so much to differentiate a product.

 

All the best.