Digilux 2 vs Digilux 3-- opinions?

[sonare]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently own a Digilux 2. My only frustrations are maximum focal length (90mm in 35mm equiv), resolution of sensor (OK for 11x14 print) and max ISO (400).

 

As photographers tend to do, I find myself wondering if a Digilux 3 would offer noticeable improvements in those areas, so I am asking those who have used both models to opine.

 

Rich

[joppepop]

Yes, in both these areas, the Digilux 3 will make you happier, though ISO 400 still is the limit to me. ISO 800 gets very noisy on the Digilux 3, kind of like the Digilux 2 at ISO 400. Regarding lenses, there are many tele lenses that can be coupled with the Digilux 3, but only one that has image stabilisation, the Panasonic 14-150.

[Advertisement]

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

[rsolomon]

i own and use both cameras -- they are only similar in look.

 

A few advantages of the 3 over the 2 are:

interchangage lenses

4/3rds mount can take many lenses

R to 4/3rds adapter allows for the use of R lenses (fabulous results)

kit lens ovffers image stabilzation

 

a few advantages of the digilux 2 over the 3 are:

perfectly balanced weight

can be 100% silent (no mirror flapping)

the lens is terrific

jpegs are near flawless

[lkfosterl]

For me the biggest positive factor when I changed from a Digilux 2 to a 3 was the raw buffer. I shoot raw all the time and the wait was really frustrating.

 

On the negative side, the form factor of the larger Digilux 3 is a bit of a nuisance. I now use my D-Lux 4 virtually all the time.

[kievnut]

I have both cameras. If you don't matter on the size and shutter sound, Digilux 3 is much better than D-2 (at least for me). The monitor is sharper and the menu selections have more options and user-friendly. Better controls on white balance (although the WB in D-2 is pretty accurate) and image (film type) set up.

It takes lovely pictures for me with the LP 25mm f1.4 Summilux.

Edited July 26, 2009 by kievnut

[dugby]

I have and use both. If you can afford to, given the current prices, buy both....otherwise go Digilux 3.

 

This topic has been discussed many times in this forum...they are sufficiently

different in features and usability that one should not compare the two.

If they came from different manufacturers, most people would not be

comparing the two as their final two choices......

[sonare]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have and use both. If you can afford to, given the current prices, buy both....otherwise go Digilux 3.

 

This topic has been discussed many times in this forum...they are sufficiently

different in features and usability that one should not compare the two.

If they came from different manufacturers, most people would not be

comparing the two as their final two choices......

 

As I said -- I own the 2 but know little about the 3. Since you have both perhaps you can enlighten me on why I should not be comparing them?

 

As for searching-- I am often annoyed with posters who do not bother with this, but unfortunattely the search engine will not accept "2" or "3" -- it thinks they are words and that they are too short..

 

Rich

[ASpes]

I currently own a Digilux 2. My only frustrations are maximum focal length (90mm in 35mm equiv), resolution of sensor (OK for 11x14 print) and max ISO (400).

 

As photographers tend to do, I find myself wondering if a Digilux 3 would offer noticeable improvements in those areas, so I am asking those who have used both models to opine.

 

Rich

 

They share appearance and command layout, so if you're familiar with one you will feel quickly at home with the other.

Apart from that they are completely different cameras, from sensor size to the very feeling in hand, from lense stabilisation to the shutter sound, from finder to responsiveness, but these comparisons often look like bashing one over the other, a silly exercise sometimes, as each one comes with some ups and downs in it.

 

To talk about "noticeable improvements" guess it's rather personal, let's say you can surely find some, although in good hands and in *normal* situations they could both show comparable results. Anyway it's a given that a DSLR like the D/3 has many more options you can put to work, and interchangeable lenses are the first but certainly not the only one. Eventually what really counts is your use and how it can answer to your needs.

 

So to be more direct to your question, yes, I do think the D/3 could ease quite well some of the constraints you feel with the D/2.

My only suggestion is just not to look for one camera into the other, as this could raise different frustrations, but possibly use each one on its strengths. Happened to me, and the day I stopped, the D/3 began to grow on me and is now even my walk-around camera.

 

Just my 2(euro)cent of course.

[jhluxton]

My D2 suffered sensor failure and I took the discount upgrade offer for a D3 early in 2008.

 

I don't tend to use it as much as my V-Lux 1 due to the fact that the long zoom on the V-Lux 1 makes it more suitable for much of what I photograph. However, for subjects not requiring the long lens I will use the D3.

 

My observations are that whilst it is quite a satisfactory camera to use some neagtive points:

 

First the balance - over the years I have used many cameras 35mm mainly Contax 139/7 RTS II and G1 through D1 to the D3.

 

However, I am not sure the balance of the D3 is correct in the hand.

 

Too many of my photos are not level. T

 

I have not experienced this problem with any other camera film or digital. As a consequence I have bought a camera spirit level to try and reduce the problem with the D3 - but hand held it is difficult to use this effectively.

 

I find D3 exposure hit and miss compared to D1 and D2. I have tried various settings over the past 18 months. The bracket function helps here - though I am not entirely happy with the dynamic range.

 

Exposing foreground correctly can lead to washed out skies - which is disappointing.

 

Perhaps I have just not mastered the settings correctly yet!?

 

In my oppinion the D3 should have been a revised fixed lens version of the D2, less bulky better balanced and better made.

 

The construction quality of the D3 is certainly more impressive than the D2 as by the time my D2 was despatched with the sensor problems the rubber grips were coming unstuck and some silver paint was wearing off the "joystick" switch at the rear.

 

If a D4 comes along I hope Leica can go back to the D2 design but with better build quality slightly smaller size larger sensor.

 

John

[joppepop]

I have the same experiences both exposure-wise and with the levelling.

 

Since I have had both cameras (although only owning the Digilux 3 now), I could see what differences there were in exposures. Thing is that the Digilux 2 aggressively seemed to auto-expose so that there were never any blown out areas in the resulting photo, while the Digilux 3 auto function uses a less successful strategy... Exposing manually, you're on your own with both cameras.

 

About this levelling problem, I experienced exactly the same. I find it terrible to see all this slanted horizons and have started to think there must be some error in the camera or with me, like a tilted view finder or something. A me-factor might be that the view finder is too small and that I'm not seeing it all in one glance (I wear glasses). I have never experienced this to the same extent with any of my recent cameras.

[jvan01]

I suspect the culprit is due to the slight barrel distortion of the 14-50 lens at 14mm. It makes straight lines appear not so straight, even if you are perfectly level. Try zooming in a little to see if it resolves the problem, or use lens correction software like PTlens.

[jhluxton]

I suspect the culprit is due to the slight barrel distortion of the 14-50 lens at 14mm. It makes straight lines appear not so straight, even if you are perfectly level. Try zooming in a little to see if it resolves the problem, or use lens correction software like PTlens.

 

I appear to have levelling problems through the zoom range. So whilst I am aware of the slight barrel distortion - its the camera balance that appears to be the problem.

 

Incidentally I sometimes wear glasses, sometimes contact lenses and I cant't say the problem is any better with either!

 

John

Edited August 3, 2009 by jhluxton
adding a line

[fschubert]

I have the same experiences both exposure-wise and with the levelling.

 

Since I have had both cameras (although only owning the Digilux 3 now), I could see what differences there were in exposures. Thing is that the Digilux 2 aggressively seemed to auto-expose so that there were never any blown out areas in the resulting photo, while the Digilux 3 auto function uses a less successful strategy... Exposing manually, you're on your own with both cameras.

 

About this levelling problem, I experienced exactly the same. I find it terrible to see all this slanted horizons and have started to think there must be some error in the camera or with me, like a tilted view finder or something. A me-factor might be that the view finder is too small and that I'm not seeing it all in one glance (I wear glasses). I have never experienced this to the same extent with any of my recent cameras.

 

I have a Panasonic L1, the poor man's D3, so to speak. :-) I noticed that my view finder is not an exact rectangle. The left side seems to be shorter than the right side when I look out through it and the top side (and probably bottom side too) is slightly slanted because

of this. If I dont' watch out for this problem I often get slanted horizons.

 

I find that the Evaluative Metering (the middle choice) is a bit better than Center-Weighted Metering in avoiding blown highlights. I don't use Spot Metering that much.

[jaapv]

I have both (and a dmr and M8) and my take is that whilst the d3 is the more versatile camera, the D2 is more of photographers tool and a classic. I appreciate the D3 aka Olympus 320, I really admire the D2.

[joppepop]

I suspect the culprit is due to the slight barrel distortion of the 14-50 lens at 14mm. It makes straight lines appear not so straight, even if you are perfectly level.

 

This might be the reason when using that lens, but I have the same problem also with for instance the Zuiko 11-22 and my Summilux 25, where especially the latter should be free from barrel distortion.

 

I have a Panasonic L1, the poor man's D3, so to speak. :-) I noticed that my view finder is not an exact rectangle. The left side seems to be shorter than the right side when I look out through it and the top side (and probably bottom side too) is slightly slanted because

of this. If I dont' watch out for this problem I often get slanted horizons.

 

Interesting, this with the view not being a rectangle. If that is the case - which btw would be kind of surprising - you can't do much about it than adjust the technique... Will have a closer look at this later today. Thanks!

[joppepop]

I have both (and a dmr and M8) and my take is that whilst the d3 is the more versatile camera, the D2 is more of photographers tool and a classic. I appreciate the D3 aka Olympus 320, I really admire the D2.

 

While the L1 and the Digilux 3 could be said being non-identical twins, the 320 is the sibling having the same mother but another father. There are quite a few differences from the twins.

[jhluxton]

This might be the reason when using that lens, but I have the same problem also with for instance the Zuiko 11-22 and my Summilux 25, where especially the latter should be free from barrel distortion. Interesting, this with the view not being a rectangle. If that is the case - which btw would be kind of surprising - you can't do much about it than adjust the technique... Will have a closer look at this later today. Thanks!

 

This viewfinder problem will probably account for how, despite concentrating very hard one, can still end up with crooked pictures! I'll have to take a good look at mine as well. Never thought it could be a viewfinder problem.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have been in so much of a rush to accept the Leica trade in offer. Shoudl have had the D2 repaired and saved up a bit more and bought an M8.

 

Oh well as they say - buy in haste - repent at leisure!

 

John

[jaapv]

While the L1 and the Digilux 3 could be said being non-identical twins, the 320 is the sibling having the same mother but another father. There are quite a few differences from the twins.

Yep - the freckles and the carrot top come from the milkman.

[Etienne]

Well, nearly 7 years later I can say this;

In these times, for "digital-vintage" photography, the Digilux 2 is feels a bit on the chunky side. Going up in size to the format of the Digilux 3, even for somewhat better performance, is an enormous trade-off.

For me, one of the limiting factors for spontaneously bringing along my Digilux 2 is its size. Sure, it's OK, but quite often I leave it at home because it's simply too bulky. (Although keep in mind that this is coming from someone that primarily uses an RX100) 

 

Of course, looking back in time to when this thread was originally created, there were obviously performance-technical reasons to consider in case of an upgrade.

But today you don't buy any of these cameras for performance. Besides, design-wise I think the Digilux 2 has aged better than the Digilux 3. 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear