Matt, let's talk about the sensors. I'm guessing that if both Sony and Leica are using the same size sensor, yet the Sony has 3 million more pixels, there could be more noise in the sony chip. I have read the ideal size for a sensor is 7 - 9 micrometers. the leica, if i remember right, with 5 MM sensors, has a size 3.something microsensors...smaller than ideal. If sony is putting 3 MM more in, then their sensor size could be yet smaller. I'm guessing that the *ideal* size of 7 to 9 is related to a threshold where the noise levels and detail from more sensors balance out. Could someone with more knowledge in this area than myself clear this up? I do know that there are higher quality cameras out there with lower sensor counts that produce amazing photos. Hopefully all this means is that the Panasonic 2/3, 5 MM sensor chip will have a higher quality than the Sony. Scott
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Digilux 2
- Thread starter rockhopper1
- Start date
I have never owned a Leica M or R camera, but I have been using the Leica Digilux 1 for 18 months, and apart from a few operating niggles (which I'll explain), it has been a superb camera. I can't understand the comments above about build quality: it is beautifully made, rugged, handsome, and fits the hand very well. Most important, it takes superb photos. The lens is excellent, as is the metering system: together with the 4Mp sensor they produce A4 size prints of stunning quality, and A3 size of very acceptable quality (provided, of course, one uses a decent printer ike an Epson 2100). Indeed, only last weekend a professional media friend was visiting, and I showed him some A4 enlargements: he said they were so good he could not believe they came from a digital camera, or any camera. I'm therefore looking forward to the Digilux 2, not because the Digilux 1 has any major failings but because the 2 seems to address some of the shortcomings of the Digilux 1 that have become apparent to me in use.
First, the minimum aperture of f/8, along with a minimum shutter speed of 1/1,000th sec. sometimes means there is too much light for the camera, and unless one puts on a polarising filter or ND filter, the image is over-exposed. Second, while the large LCD screen is wonderful for reviewing images, I don't like it for composing photographs (it's awkward to hold like that), and since the optical viewfinder displays ZERO information on aperture or shutter speed or anything else, I feel handicapped. Third, the autofocus suffers, like all autofocus systems, from hesitatiuon in low light/low contrast situations.
The Digilux 2 will address all of these. Better lens, faster shutter, manual focus, manual zoom, innovative electronic viewfinder (which actually makes it more like an SLR than an M6 or M7). Moreover, the new 5Mp sensor promises to be outstanding. Remember, it's not just how many pixels there are, but what size they are and how they arranged. If you cram 27 million pixels into an area the size of a pin-head, you're going to get crap photographs. Put 5 million pixels of optimum size into a larger-than usual area, and you will get higher quality images. This is where the Canon/Nikon/Kodak/Fuji/Minolta etc. advertising can get so misleading: punters just buy the largest number of pixels they can afford without any thought to other relevant criteria. Look also, for ex&le, at the Olympus E-1, which has a 5Mp sensor yet garnered rave reviews in the press here: a 94% rating in Amateur Photography last month.}}
I know I sound like a salesman for Leica. Believe me, before I bought the Digilux I was as sceptical of the Leica myth as an Olympus user, but the results speak for themselves.
First, the minimum aperture of f/8, along with a minimum shutter speed of 1/1,000th sec. sometimes means there is too much light for the camera, and unless one puts on a polarising filter or ND filter, the image is over-exposed. Second, while the large LCD screen is wonderful for reviewing images, I don't like it for composing photographs (it's awkward to hold like that), and since the optical viewfinder displays ZERO information on aperture or shutter speed or anything else, I feel handicapped. Third, the autofocus suffers, like all autofocus systems, from hesitatiuon in low light/low contrast situations.
The Digilux 2 will address all of these. Better lens, faster shutter, manual focus, manual zoom, innovative electronic viewfinder (which actually makes it more like an SLR than an M6 or M7). Moreover, the new 5Mp sensor promises to be outstanding. Remember, it's not just how many pixels there are, but what size they are and how they arranged. If you cram 27 million pixels into an area the size of a pin-head, you're going to get crap photographs. Put 5 million pixels of optimum size into a larger-than usual area, and you will get higher quality images. This is where the Canon/Nikon/Kodak/Fuji/Minolta etc. advertising can get so misleading: punters just buy the largest number of pixels they can afford without any thought to other relevant criteria. Look also, for ex&le, at the Olympus E-1, which has a 5Mp sensor yet garnered rave reviews in the press here: a 94% rating in Amateur Photography last month.}}
I know I sound like a salesman for Leica. Believe me, before I bought the Digilux I was as sceptical of the Leica myth as an Olympus user, but the results speak for themselves.
I think 5 MP may be a little too late in the megapixel wars. Yes, the Olympus was rated well, but also they stated in the dpreviews that it had a lot of NOISE compared to the Canon 10d, (and Nikon d2H). I love the idea of a self cleaning sensor, which they did get right. Now the idea of a Leica having manual functions like a regular 35mm camera is fine, but now that everyone is hopping on the 6mp and up band wagon, I wonder if Leica should have waited and produced an 8MP camera instead. What about the new Sigma digital, the SD10 or something like that? It has a foveon sensor. It looks impressive as well. Basically has 10mp! Only problem is it takes Sigma lenses. I prefer Nikon or better.
Hi Elaine.
You may well compare cameras like ordinary things, i mean by their performance, design and so on.
But you may also compare them like tools, i.e. by the quality of the PRINTS you get with them.
From this viewpoint the Digilux1 was the best compact digicam ever made IMHO.
So let's wait and see how will be the prints actually produced with the D2 in next february or so.
Best,
You may well compare cameras like ordinary things, i mean by their performance, design and so on.
But you may also compare them like tools, i.e. by the quality of the PRINTS you get with them.
From this viewpoint the Digilux1 was the best compact digicam ever made IMHO.
So let's wait and see how will be the prints actually produced with the D2 in next february or so.
Best,
F
fastfashn
Higher MP does NOT mean better imaging. Improperly done, higher MP can mean a lot more noise in the image because you've got a lot of transistors packed in and heat and RFI/EMI are high.
So... You might get more detail with higher MP counts, but the image may still be UGLY.
Just because you can do a thing does not mean that you should do a thing, right?
-Dana Kincaid
So... You might get more detail with higher MP counts, but the image may still be UGLY.
Just because you can do a thing does not mean that you should do a thing, right?
-Dana Kincaid
The Sigma SD10 (mentioned by Elaine above) got quite poor reviews in the UK camera press: 74% from Amateur Photographer compared to 94% for the Olympus E-1. The reviewers just didn't buy into the Foveon principle as producing better results. And as Dana says above, more pixels does not mean better quality. If the Digilux 2 is an improvement over the Digilux 1, it will produce amazing results. LCT's experience with the 1 is similar to mine: maybe there are only 4 million pixels, but boy do they produce great prints. How often are you enlarging to more than A3 size? Once every five years? Never? So, if the 2 has a redesigned 5Mp sensor, an even better Leica lens, I'm willing to trust the quality it will produce. Look at the 12Mp behemoth that Kodak makes: ugly, ugly, ugly. And the results are not noticeably better than a camera with half the pixels. It's important to remember, as Dana emphasises, that print quality is NOT just a function of pixel numbers, but also of pixel size and configuration, lens quality and lightmetering system. Leica and Panasonic excel on these criteria, and I am confident the cobination in the Digilux 2 will produce stunning results.
I am new in this forum and own both Leica-M and Contax-N systems. I am looking for a digital camera, either a Leica Digilux 2 or Sony 828 (with Zeiss T* glass). Unfortunately I have read some initial reviews of 828 producing heavy Purple Fringing and am anxiously waiting for reviews on the Digilux 2. Can anybody provide some insights into the qualities of Digilux 1 versus Sony 717?}}
> type your text here!can't comment on the sony other than the 828 looks like a teriffic value. my leica digilux 1 is well made and takes beautiful pictures within its' limitations; low light and HUGH depth of field. these are do to the image sensor being VERY small and noise problems at high ISO. it does not look like the leica digilux 2 adequately addressed these problems. the 4/3 sensor in the kodak-olympus is a major improvement. anyway it is not the camera but the photographer that makes the beatiful image.
Samuel, your comments is very valid, thanks. But I do believe in an old Chinese saying: To do a good job one needs to have a sharp tool. Otherwise no one would invest in Leica or Contax hardwares. Anyway, still appreciate your advice. I would apprceciate it very much if someone out there who had previous experience with both Digilux 1 and Sony 707/717 could shed some light.}
I have only had experience with the Digilux 1 and found the features great, but the sensor and processor lacking because the data was very noisy. I wouldn't buy this one again. I hope the Digilux 2 is a different story and indications may suggest as such given that a larger sensor and a different processor is being used. Time will tell. As far as comparing the Digilux 1 to the Sony 717, do they have the same sized sensor? If not, then it may prove fruitless to compare in order to anticipate whether one's sibling will outperform the other. My 2 cents. Scott