Digilux 2 vs D-LUX 4 lens

[ron4ld]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all, for those who have use both, which one has a better lens?

since they both have DC Vario Summicron ASPH, the former f/2.0-2.4 and

the later f/2.0-2.8.

[simon_hughes]

Had both... the lens on the DL4 is very good, but remember that some corrections are taking place in firmware, which I'm pretty sure was never the case with the Digilux 2. I'd say, based on that, that the Digilux 2's lens is probably superior. The question is, how does this really look in a finished image? That's the harder question to answer because you've got the added difference in sensor characteristics etc.

[farnz]

Better in what way? They're both sharp, handle colour superbly, aren't too contrasty and render fine detail.

 

The major difference is in the zoom range: 24 to 60 on the DL4 and 28 to 90 on the D2. I have both and I occasionally miss the telephoto end on the DL4 but the 24 mm super-wide is very useful.

 

If it helps, I was surprised at just how good the HD video is on the DL4.

 

Pete.

[ASpes]

Hello all, for those who have use both, which one has a better lens?

since they both have DC Vario Summicron ASPH, the former f/2.0-2.4 and

the later f/2.0-2.8.

 

To answer your question we ought to differentiate what you mean, from the optical point of view or by judging from the final results.

 

As you know the Dlux-4 lens is in need of a significant correction for distortion and CA, which is done pretty well by its firmware for jpegs, while for raws it depends on the converter you use.

The D/2 lens is not perfect maybe, as everything is always the result of a compromise, but anyway it's optically much better designed and it does not request such correction on the image you get from it.

 

Now I won't go into debating if, to keep cost down, the software should by default complement to that extent a lens design or not, this has been done a few times and will again, I'm sure.

 

In any case if you pragmatically look at the final pictures you get from them, after all that's *mostly* the reason we buy our cameras for, you can get excellent results from both.

 

If you let me, if your question is aimed at a buying choice, maybe you should consider other parameters, like size (either sensor and camera), the reach of the zoom at both ends, or even the speed of use, just to name a few, and see how they suit your possible use.

 

Hope this helps.

[ron4ld]

If you let me, if your question is aimed at a buying choice, maybe you should consider other parameters, like size (either sensor and camera), the reach of the zoom at both ends, or even the speed of use, just to name a few, and see how they suit your possible use.

 

Thanks ASpes, yes it's for buying choice, I think D-LUX 4 would be better in term

of size as it it smaller and lighter so I can just pocket it everywhere whereas Digilux 2

is bulkier.

 

I sort of assume because Digilux 2 has a "big" fixed lens hence it's better (sharper, etc),

compared to the D-LUX 4 which has a retractable lens. - I'm a newbie here

 

My purpose is to take candid street photography, especially in the evenings.

I think the best camera for this would be an M6/MP/M8 with Summilux 50mm f/1.4,

but they're out of my reach atm.

 

ps: this is one of the images that introduced me to Leica cameras.

[John Thawley]

ps: this is one of the images that introduced me to Leica cameras.

 

I am one that truly believes that what stands between me and greatness is what lies between my ears... not in my camera bag. However, when extreme shooting conditions are introduced, equipment CAN and DOES play a factor. A good photographer will FIND A WAY to make a shot despite the limits of his equipment.

 

In your case, you've posted a photo and in essence stated: I want to get the best camera to take this kind of shot. Well... that information is stated on the caption of that shot. Yes... there are other cameras that can capture the shot. But of the two you began comparing in this conversation probably aren't going to get you there. Certainly not with out a tripod and "set up."

 

Nothing personal, but I also have a slight hunch that your limited experience will challenge you getting this shot regardless of equipment. Nighttime shooting, back lit shooting and even some of the lesser obvious subtleties of that particular photo come with years of shooting.

 

My recommendation would be that you step back (if you're serious about accomplishing that level of work) and learn more about photography. In that respect, the Digilux 2 would be a FAR better camera to use in LEARNING the art of photography.

 

The D-Lux 4 is a GREAT point n' shoot that can be a GREAT camera.... in the hands of a CAPABLE photographer. In any other hands, they're all point n' shoots.

 

You'll point... you'll shoot... and you'll get what comes out of the camera. Nothing more... nothing less.

 

I'm a big fan of learning the basics and understanding exactly what it is you're doing. The only way you'll ever back engineer a photo like the one you posted is to be able to dissect what the photographer did. A point n' shoot camera can't do that for you.

 

JT

[ron4ld]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the feedback John, I am leaning towards the Digilux 2 as it's more

"manual", I want to master the basics first (shutter speed, depth of field, aperture) and

don't want to be bogged down by the unnecessary menus like scene modes etc.

[audidudi]

IMO, the Digilux 2 does a decent job -- i.e., not great, but adequate -- with low-light street photography. When possible, ISO 100 is the way to go, but ISO 200 is perfectly usable, as these photos I shot in Times Square last February demonstrate:

 

 

 

Yes, there is some digital noise visible, but it can be reduced quite a bit using various bits of software if you find it truly objectionable. IMO, the D2's ability to shoot at f2 with a fair amount of depth of field (thanks to the D2's smallish sensor) and at shutter speeds as slow as 1/8 of a second with a reasonable amount of sharpness, overcomes most of the camera's drawbacks.

[John Thawley]

This look great. Granted, though... is Times Square EVER dark? LOL These have a great look about them.

 

JT