Overgaard Posted August 2, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) We've talked about testing it, two Digilux 2 cameas side by side. Is there any difference? Well, today Itaped two cameras together and did some test shots: leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica Digilux 2 sample photos and tests (as well as Panasonic DMC-LC1) - Page 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here Digilux 2 tested against Digilux 2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Cirrus1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 2, 2009 Thank you Thorsten, your website has been a goldmine for me to get up to speed on all things Leica. I have a Digilux 2 I bought broken, getting its sensor replaced at Leica USA right now. I can't wait to get it back and see its performance for myself. Regards, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrethorst Posted August 3, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 3, 2009 Your web site continues to be an excellent resource, that in truth makes a great camera even better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 3, 2009 Thorsten, An interesting experiment with slightly surprising results. I'd speculate that the variances between the images produced by both cameras are more likely to be caused by slight variances in the physical and electrical components within the cameras. Both cameras must be running the same software because there's never been an update so unless the software in each camera was tweaked during replacement of its sensor (and why would it be?) there should be no difference between the two. On the other hand, electrical components are subject to manufacturing tolerances and, for example, a simple 5% tolerance 1000 Ohm resistor could insert anywhere between 950 to 1050 Ohms resistance, which could produce a significant effect in certain parts of the circuitry. Add to this physical tolerances from, say, lens grinding and injection molding processes and, imho, you have a recipe for the differences you've so skillfully identified. As the cameras gracefully age the physical tolerances are likely to degrade too, which will promote variances. What's interesting to me is that the end result can be markedly different, ie 1 stop difference in exposure at f/4 and the differences in interpretation of the colour temperature with AWB. Do you think that the level of variance you've found might be enough to lose the Digilux 2's "distinctive look" in a particular camera? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted August 3, 2009 There's also a difference in white balance when set to Tungsten, and Camera A is definitely the cooler one of the two. I think the magic look is the lens, and if one learns the camera he's using cold, he or she will tweak the results towards the desired look and get that magic result. In some regards, I like the warm look of Camera B (which I've found cold compared to the R9/DMR with I mostly use it with). But I also like the Camera A's filmlike cold look, whough I would have to adjust the EV generally in it. On the +/- 1 stop that could be that the lightmeter in one camera was pointed more towards the sky than the other. But in general they seem to differ 1/3 - 1/2 stop. In any case, it's good to compare cameras one thought were "probably the same." I doubt any is, and I wonder if I get a second DMR, if it's going to vary from the one I have. Now we just need some M8 or M8.2 owner to do this with those cameras ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted August 3, 2009 Share #6 Posted August 3, 2009 Pete - Actually there was a minor software upgrade. The first time that my D2 went back to Solms (replace the rubber covering, make the lens rings operate smoothly again) they told me they updated the software. As best as I could find out from them the software made the auto focus a bit faster and more accurate. I have no idea if it did or did not. Thorsten - Excellent work, as always. I wonder if there might be another explanation. Have you noticed that with the DMR and with the D2 if you have the units set to fire multiple shots the exposures sometimes look significantly different? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted August 3, 2009 Share #7 Posted August 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thorsten for reporting an interesting experiment. Instinctively I am not surprised that there are small differences in exposure and white balance which is more important to JPEG shooters. However, if shooting raw it would be quite simple to establish a processing preset in Lightroom (or similar) to produce the desired results every time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2009 Share #8 Posted August 3, 2009 Pete - Actually there was a minor software upgrade. The first time that my D2 went back to Solms (replace the rubber covering, make the lens rings operate smoothly again) they told me they updated the software. As best as I could find out from them the software made the auto focus a bit faster and more accurate. I have no idea if it did or did not.... Thanks, Stuart, I didn't know so I've learnt something today. I can't find anywhere in the D2's menu that states the software version, it's not mentioned in the manual and googling draws a blank so I can't post my version number for comparison. Has anybody found where/if it's displayed please? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted August 3, 2009 Share #9 Posted August 3, 2009 LOL - I love it. Totally insane... and genius at the same time. I wish you hadn't done this. I used to just "wonder" if I had something to worry about, now I "know" I have something to worry about. Fascinating. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 3, 2009 John, I'm looking forward to a picture of all 4 of your babies gaffa taped together ready for your own comparison. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chkphoto Posted August 3, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 3, 2009 It used to be that when I'd buy a new lens for my Nikon F2's, I would often go through 2 or 3 before I got one that was right-on sharp. This was a result of wider tolerances being built into the manufacturing lines which allowed for more lenses that were being mass produced to meet inspection. Restrictions grew looser so more lenses made it out the door and on the retail. The the specification tolerances grew so large that an instance of one lens being right-on and identical to another became more infrequent. So I'm not surprise, in this electronic day and age that Thornsten's test pretty much confirms that the tolerances not only the Digilux 2 is built to, but that any digital camera is built to these days will produce different results from the same camera. And it was a great Rube Goldberg approach - thanks Thorsten. So I wonder if you take four Digi 2's and tape them all together, if each would be a bit different? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted August 3, 2009 And it was a great Rube Goldberg approach - thanks Thorsten. So I wonder if you take four Digi 2's and tape them all together, if each would be a bit different? That's for John Thawley to perform ;-) He's the one who accumulated the worlds last Digilux 2 resources in his office. We did do one test-shot along my two with the Digilux 2 of my neighbor, but he forgot to mail it to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesh Posted August 4, 2009 Share #13 Posted August 4, 2009 What a crazy wheeze, with slightly surprising results, well done Thorsten more great work. Surely the next phase has to be a D2/LC1 comparison .............. somebody? Come on you, know it makes sense, to finally settle all the wordy speculation that's been debated over recent years. But who is this Rube Golberg character - surely Thorsten has actually revealed the Heath Robinson approach to photography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chkphoto Posted August 4, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 4, 2009 But who is this Rube Golberg character - surely Thorsten has actually revealed the Heath Robinson approach to photography? From Wikpedia "The expression has been dated as originating in the United States around 1930[1] to describe Rube Goldberg's illustrations of "absurdly-connected machines". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJSPhoto Posted August 4, 2009 Share #15 Posted August 4, 2009 Confirms my suspicions... My camera seems to be produce slightly underexposed images in comparison to the one that Thawley lent me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joppepop Posted August 4, 2009 Share #16 Posted August 4, 2009 Interesting! My first though when seeing the two cameras tied together like that was that it would make an excellent tool for taking playing card portraits. Your picture could have been the one's of a knight or a king. For what it's worth since the experiment has already been made. If the pictures with light sky against a less light ground are taken in portrait view, the light situations will be more similar for the two cameras. I know, it's easy to come up with such things after the show, but in case someone wants to continue doing the same... Great experiment! You have to truly know your tools to master them, and that is what it takes to make the very best out of this brilliant camera, especially if you have several of them and must chose which to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgenper Posted August 4, 2009 Share #17 Posted August 4, 2009 Well, there are good reasons why pro software like Lightroom allows presets and profiles for individual copies of camera bodies, even when they´re the same model and bought at the same time. And, most of us can recall several instances where two copies of the same lens (even Leitz...) had markedly different sharpness, and even exposed differently. Honestly, just now I´m glad I only own one D2; I´m just the type of person that would start worrying no end which one was the "best" for which type of shooting context if I had two of them and read all this... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted August 4, 2009 Author Share #18 Posted August 4, 2009 Worried? I find myself decide for A one day, then B the next day. Has to decide today which to bring as atmosphere camera for Copenhagen Fashion Week that starts tomorrow (the R9/DMR will be the main camera). First I was for Camera A which anyways has the most worn body and the warmer files. It would make sense to give it the rough assignments and let the nicely restored camera B stay in the closet. Then again ... Maybe I just need a third Digilux 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted August 5, 2009 Share #19 Posted August 5, 2009 That's just cool. Thanks for posting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrethorst Posted August 6, 2009 Share #20 Posted August 6, 2009 I find myself decide for A one day, then B the next day. Can I conclude that what's most important is not which one you choose, but that you spend enough time with that particular instrument to get just what you want out of it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.