| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2004 03:54:34 AM · #1 |
Thinking into next year, should I follow my heart and get a Leica Digilux 2 (or the Panasonic version) or enter into the world of dSLR?
To be honest the biggest attraction of going for dSLR is the end of shutter lag, but then the investment side of many lenses, all the equipment to carry around etc makes the idea attractive of buying the Leica for general stuff (esp. landscape, street/candid, portraits) and then getting a Panasonic FZ20 to replace my FZ2 at a later date for times when I need a big zoom.
Any thoughts?
Darren |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 04:43:13 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by colda:
Thinking into next year, should I follow my heart and get a Leica Digilux 2 (or the Panasonic version) or enter into the world of dSLR? |
I read an review, I think on DPReview, about the Leica (we can all dream!), and I think the opinion was it wasn't worth the extra money over the Panasonic, which was practically identical. Just as a FYI..
I bet the Leica/Panasonic is a sweet camera, but for flexibility/extensibility I don't think it would compare to a DSLR, personally.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 05:06:04 AM · #3 |
I read the same review at Dpreview. The daylight pics are crisp but I didn't see too many low-light ones. There's one in there but it seemed to produce a lot of noise compared to most dslr's. It's the image with the store front fruits.
//www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=leicadigilux2_samples/
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 05:27:01 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 09:02:29 AM · #5 |
I have had the same debate many times. The traditional controls of the digilux2 definitely appeal to me and the lens is just amazing. The biggest issues for me would be the additional noise at ISO400,the lack of buffer when capturing RAW images, and the inability to get really shallow DOF. But, with the D2 I could have one camera and lens that works very well for 85% of the image that I want to take. I'm still debating!
You might want to look at Scott's D2 work as an example of what can be done with this camera.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 09:13:30 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I have had the same debate many times. The traditional controls of the digilux2 definitely appeal to me and the lens is just amazing. The biggest issues for me would be the additional noise at ISO400,the lack of buffer when capturing RAW images, and the inability to get really shallow DOF. But, with the D2 I could have one camera and lens that works very well for 85% of the image that I want to take. I'm still debating!
You might want to look at Scott's D2 work as an example of what can be done with this camera. |
I do see the noise and lack of RAW buffer as being negatives, but I'm no great fan of the shallow DOF effect.
I really like the manual handling idea, and the 90% fit that the camera has, but I battle with the concept that with spending so much money on a camera I really should be looking towards dSLR. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:13:53 PM · #7 |
| Colda, I think your decision depends mostly on what kind of shooting you do. There is a lot of sentiment on this site that would lead you to believe that everyone should have a DSLR. Think about what features you need for the kind of photography you do now and would like to try in the future. Maybe you can live with TIFF instead of RAW, limited low-light capability and slower shutter, at least for the near future. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:50:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by colda:
Thinking into next year, should I follow my heart and get a Leica Digilux 2 (or the Panasonic version) or enter into the world of dSLR?
To be honest the biggest attraction of going for dSLR is the end of shutter lag, but then the investment side of many lenses, all the equipment to carry around etc makes the idea attractive of buying the Leica for general stuff (esp. landscape, street/candid, portraits)... |
The perfect equipment available today to suit my needs and inclinations would include both a DSLR (for the immense range of focal lengths via interchangeable lenses while maintaining reasonable to excellent control of image quality) and the Digilux 2 (the most direct interaction between photographer and subject with a minimum of 'interference' by the form, weight, design, layout of controls and 'feel' of the camera).
While it is certainly possible to 'build' a DSLR 'system' which would cover the widest imaginable range of technical and qualitative objectives, such a 'system', unfortunately, also implies a high degree of 'removal' from what I understand to be 'basic, horse-sense' photography. I'm not talking about a point-and-shoot attitude toward taking pictures. I'm solely concerned with the quality of interaction between a photographer and his subject.
The Leica Digilux 2, IMO, addresses this concern more effectively than any other camera (I am aware of).
After having spent several thousand dollars on my 10D with all the hardware that goes with it, I simply can't afford such a precision instrument. Someone like me can, of course, resort to the much less expensive F717 or the F828 to 'approximate' its purpose.
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 12:51:47.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 01:04:44 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I have had the same debate many times. The traditional controls of the digilux2 definitely appeal to me and the lens is just amazing. The biggest issues for me would be the additional noise at ISO400,the lack of buffer when capturing RAW images, and the inability to get really shallow DOF. But, with the D2 I could have one camera and lens that works very well for 85% of the image that I want to take. I'm still debating!
You might want to look at Scott's D2 work as an example of what can be done with this camera. |
Wow that guy is really really talented! I love the wide DOF in a lot of his shots... I guess there isn't really anyway to replicate that on a DSLR is there? I mean even F22 won't give those results will it? |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 04:16:27 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I have had the same debate many times. The traditional controls of the digilux2 definitely appeal to me and the lens is just amazing. The biggest issues for me would be the additional noise at ISO400,the lack of buffer when capturing RAW images, and the inability to get really shallow DOF. But, with the D2 I could have one camera and lens that works very well for 85% of the image that I want to take. I'm still debating!
You might want to look at Scott's D2 work as an example of what can be done with this camera. |
Wow that guy is really really talented! I love the wide DOF in a lot of his shots... I guess there isn't really anyway to replicate that on a DSLR is there? I mean even F22 won't give those results will it? |
I would have to look at some charts, but minimum aperature on the D2 probably has a deeper DOF than a canon 50mm at f/22. The really interesting part comes when you want speed and a deep DOF. The D2 at f/2 has more depth of field than the 10D at f/4.0, so you pick up more than two stops of speed in the lens for a given DOF. This is a drawback if you like portraits with shallow depth of field but an advantage it you like street and landscape photography with deep DOF.
I still think about a D2 or LC1 often... every time I pick up my 10D and bag of lenses.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 07:19:55 AM EDT.
