leif_ivan Posted November 18, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 18, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) On my shelf rests my CL (and an old Yashicamat.. ) in untroubled peace. Very Satisfied with the Lx 1 for research, landscape, architecture etc. but to be honest not so rewarding with persons as motives... I don't get very satisfied, and of course I miss the CL that I find so easy. Had an M7 for a short while... and yes that was fantastic.... Any way, working with film/TV and not as photographer the M8 is just to much money. But the Digilux 3 .. now that is possible. V-Lux also have potential. And both have nice-looking design (yes looks is important). But... went to a local store on the net and saw the cost for: Canon 400 (the digital rebel). A Sony DSLR and the Olympus 4/3 E 330... and sighed. The cost (with a standard lens) is about 25 - 40% of Digilux 3... and V-lux with its many pixels but small sized chip is actually more expensive than the rebel. Up comes also Nikon D40.... They seem to having good ergonomics, Other lenses can be applied ( Leica R?), dust is being removed. No live-view .. but is that one worth 3 times the price? Now, my idea about getting the potential of a good quality is fast lens, good sensor (I used 50 ASA on the CL often, liked that) and a nice ergonomics... and Leica/Pana has that... But here I see a problem, the others seem to give that as well and the cost is very much lower.... What argument can I use to justify a choice of Digilux 3 (or V-lux for that matter) ...instead of the above mentioned. I am sure that this forum must be able to give me some perspectives... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Hi leif_ivan, Take a look here Help, I need argument . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted November 18, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 18, 2006 It's a good question - with the D3 you are getting a very good lens which will factor much in the overall price. I don't know much about the Vlux but on first impressions it seems expensive for what it offers. Leica as a company don't have the volumes of sales of other manufacturers so their cost base is that much higher, so to a degree you are paying for the name (if compared to the Panasonic equivalent cameras). However, they usually provide better software/g'tees than other manufacturers as well. The Canon 400 however offers high quality digital performance at a low price and with an adaptor you can use Leica R lenses on it, albeit with stop down metering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leif_ivan Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted November 18, 2006 yes... now the difference between LC 1 and Digilux 3 is quite low in my stores (around 7 % and around 120€ or s), so the Branding... is not to bad I think, considering different firmware and warranty. So, the bottom-line in your argument is actually that lens ok from Leica, body from someone else? Yes it is not a bad idea... but there must be a sensible reason for buying both Panasonic's and Leica version of the cameras... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTD Posted November 18, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 18, 2006 As I see it, the main 'advantage' of a Digilux 3 is it's analogue controls, if this way of working a camera suits your style. The lens looks very interesting as well. You might consider getting the Panasonic badged version to save money. With respect, I don't believe there will be any real difference in quality between the two. The Olympus E330 which is essentially the inards of the D3, looks quite expensive for what it is. When I bought my M6, the main reason (apart from build quality and just wanting to own a Leica) was the advantages a rangefinder had for a certain type of photography. If I could only keep one of my cameras it would have to be my Olympus E-1. From what I have read about the Nikon D40 (we have 2 D50s at work) it's very much an entry level camera and I would have thought you need to be looking more at the D80 and rivals to compare with the Leica and Panasonic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 18, 2006 Share #5 Posted November 18, 2006 The standard lens of the 400D, presumably the 18-55mm zoom, is awful. It would be better to compare the price as if the lens was not there. You would need the 17-55mm to get into the same quality-league as the Leica lens on the D3, and that lens costs over a thousand, I believe, making the comparison more even. The V-Lux has noise almost starting at ISO 100, according to tests. Other than that the images look good, but with the small sensor, I think it won't be great for people-pictures either. You just can't get the same shallow depth of field as with a larger sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 18, 2006 Share #6 Posted November 18, 2006 The standard lens of the 400D, presumably the 18-55mm zoom, is awful. It would be better to compare the price as if the lens was not there. You would need the 17-55mm to get into the same quality-league as the Leica lens on the D3, and that lens costs over a thousand, I believe, making the comparison more even. Agreed, hence my comments about a 400 with Leica glass. The price of the 400 body only is about £30 less than with the pack lens! £30! It's amazing it works at all for that price, and worth having if only to use as a body cap I'm thinking of taking this route myself now, for when I need digital capture - it could work well alongside my R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 18, 2006 Share #7 Posted November 18, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Have you seen the E330/L1/D3? They are really chunky cameras. I was surprised they weren't more compact, given that the sensor is half the size of FF. If I were going to the 4/3 system myself, I would probably wait for the E400, which should come out soon, and is much more compact. Then I would buy the Leica 24-50mm zoom. The E400 isn't a Leica though. To my mind, they have stuffed some questionable technology into the E330/L1/D3. I am sure that some people will use all that stuff, but wouldn't a straight DSLR have been better for most? Maybe I am wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted November 18, 2006 Share #8 Posted November 18, 2006 From what I have seen so far, the L-1/D3 produces very good images. The advantage of the D3 over the L-1 is the warranty (passport + 3 year) and possibly selected lenses that have tighter tolerances. Whether you prefer chrome to black is personal, but I did notice on a forum picture of the D3 box that it stated silver. Could this imply a black version to come? I'm not sure what Carsten means by "questionable technology"? IMO the V-lux is not as well made and has noise starting at lower ISO. Even though it does have a long lens and is more compact this rules it out for me at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 18, 2006 Share #9 Posted November 18, 2006 Hello Brian, I mean of questionable usefulness, not of questionable quality. I am sure the implementation will be fine. I am just not sure that all the thickness and weight added by the strange mirror path, the live view, the flip-out screen, and so on, is worth it. I guess like anything, in the end it will be worth it to some, but not others. To my mind, the D3 would have been better as a D2 with a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTD Posted November 18, 2006 Share #10 Posted November 18, 2006 The 'questionable technology' is a valid point. Olympus made a big point about live preview etc as this was the only thing that made the E330 stand out. The plus side of not having a pentaprism (size) has to be weighed against a dimmer viewfinder image. As I understand it from the BJP review of the Panasonic version, the LCD monitor does not pivot, which for me robs it of the big advantage of having this system. If I've understood things correctly, the live preview of the Panasonic only works when the mirror is up (unlike the Olympus). Using other lenses on the body also sounds a comprimise. The 4/3rds system made great play on the need to design new lenses for digital, having to manually stop down is far from ideal, but having to push a function button and operating a command dial to change aperture really negates the best thing about the camera (analogue controls). I don't want to sound too negative about this camera, because I think it's gone in a direction I'd like. And as an Olympus user I'm very keen for the 4/3rds format to succeed. But for me the lens sounds great, the body not so. But I'm sure for some people this would be an excellent camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted November 18, 2006 Share #11 Posted November 18, 2006 I have been using Panasonic with Leica lenses for over 4 years. FZ5, FZ20, FZ30 the combination of Panasonic's electronics and Leica's lenses is very good. If you read about Panasonic / Leica joing venture you will read a lot of complains about digital noise (normally from people who do not use these cameras, as usual...). Well, it is true, there is some noise but I normally always shoot at 100 ISO and use a tripod if needed. Picture quality is very very good. It seems that with the Venus 3 engine used on FZ 50 / V1, Panasonic L1 and Leica Digilux 3, noise has been reduced but you lose on details. I was going to get a Panasonic L1 or Digilux 3 but after thinking and thinking again, I'll go for the M8. Reasons for this decision... I want Leica lenses and the L1 / Digilux 3 has only 2 lenses in 4/3 format a 14/50 mm and soon a 25mm at 1.4, there are plans for more but until then only Sigma and Olympus offer lenses in this format. So not really interesting to buy L1 / or D3 and end up using non Leica lenses Another option is to buy the Olympus 330 (1000 Euros cheaper that L1 / D3) and buy a Leica 14/50 mm separatly as they can be now purshased without Leica or Panasonic body. If you still think Canon 400D is the right option for you, get the body only as the lense that comes with the kit is really limit quality wise (according to what I have read), and buy a more decent lens. Hope my opinion will help making up your mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leif_ivan Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share #12 Posted November 18, 2006 Well, it is not overwhelming support here for buying Leica, so far... I read somewhere ( don't remember if it was here?) a quote from Luminous Landscape that a 4/3 technology and a really good lens made really good sense. The photoes i've seen here are from my POV very good and interesting. But I note the remark och large. The E330 by the way can fold the LCD- right? And that one is a lot cheaper than Digilux 3/Pana LC1... and there is a E 400 on it's way... Seem pretty interesting... But, am I missing something? It must be something more than nice looks to justify the price.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leif_ivan Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share #13 Posted November 18, 2006 I have been using Panasonic with Leica lenses for over 4 years. FZ5, FZ20, FZ30 the combination of Panasonic's electronics and Leica's lenses is very good.If you read about Panasonic / Leica joing venture you will read a lot of complains about digital noise (normally from people who do not use these cameras, as usual...). Well, it is true, there is some noise but I normally always shoot at 100 ISO and use a tripod if needed. Picture quality is very very good. I totally agree from my experience... (Digilux 1, FZ20 and now LX). I got the FZ20 after we had been using it as a Crew-camera in a TV-drama (where a lot of the material for the web was done on this small camera with it's gigantic Lens..) as I was going to Brazil and the amazonas... Fun memory and no problem with high ISO :-) due to a white lovely light. I very seldom uses more than 100 ASA but escape a tripod down to 1/5. And Leica/Panny has further more a good thing. 16/9, very useful!!! and fun to... But I see your point. And I would guess that buying the Leica lens to 4/3.. and an Olympus.. will be as expensive..... So I guess... Rebel or Nkon D40 or so and buying second hand R-lenses ... is one option, 4/3... nevertheless is one to ... and then of course the M8 if you have the money... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted November 18, 2006 Share #14 Posted November 18, 2006 Hello Brian, I mean of questionable usefulness, not of questionable quality. I am sure the implementation will be fine. I am just not sure that all the thickness and weight added by the strange mirror path, the live view, the flip-out screen, and so on, is worth it. I guess like anything, in the end it will be worth it to some, but not others. To my mind, the D3 would have been better as a D2 with a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses. Well Carsten, the "D2 upgrade" argument has been thoroughly debated here and I quite agree with what you say - and could add lots more! Actually the D3 does not to me feel in the hand any thicker than the D2, heavier certainly due to the big lens, but without the lens the body is quite light. IMO they chose well, as to go for a conventional DSLR set up would I think have meant sacrificing the excellent inbuilt flash unit, apart from making the body bulkier. The viewfinder is adequately bright and certainly a vast improvement over the D2. I agree that it is a shame they did not make the screen pivotable, and live view operation seems clumsy to me. All in all I like it and want one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.