Difficult to compare with such small images.
You may see larger ones <font color="0000ff">here.
Best,
You may see larger ones <font color="0000ff">here.
Best,
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
Other ones <font color="0000ff">here.
From the larger s&les, what I can see is higher colour saturation with the Leica images while the ones from Sony was having more details. It is not easy to say which is a winner. By the end of the day it would be a matter of personal preference. By the way, LCT, I would very much like to learn more about the little trick you mentioned above but I could not get to the file indicated, please let me know where else could I get access to the "trick". Thanks.
W
wim
Or have a look on my website (www.wimdows.nl).
I have been posting Digilux 1 photo's for about a year now. As an amateur. And I wont go so far as to call the D1 a professional camera.
But I have been working with it under hugely differing circumstances. Mostly in P-mode or in one of the manual modes. I worked with standard (sharpness, contrast and saturation) settings, auto white balance, and solely in 100 ISO mode.
Most of the time I try to do as little work as possible on the pictures on my computer. I do sharpen most pictures and sometimes I change the levels (most of the times there is no need for that). Every now and then I do work on a picture for the sake of effect - dramatic or otherwise.
Lately I have also been printing my pictures (mostly A4 sized on an Epson 900) and the results are great. The responses of the people I show them to most of the times start with a well ment 'wow!', followed by a remark such as 'I didn't know such large digital prints could be this good'.
I can't compare the D1 to other digital camera's very well, since I haven't used any others. What I do know, is that I haven't seen pictures made with comparable camera's that I liked better than D1 pictures.
As LCT is trying to get across: there might be some noise in some of the D1 pictures, but that is outweighed entirely by that special (analog like?) quality one finds in D1 pictures.
It took me some time to learn to use the D1. I can only say it was worth my while.
Maybe the D1 isn't 'professional' enough to use it for 'working photography' (on a day to day basis that is - I know for sure the D1 has been used by professional photographers for commercial work). But I have the distinct impression the D2 will be suited for that (and I am not alone in that idea.) And I do intend to start using it in that fashion.
Regards,
I have been posting Digilux 1 photo's for about a year now. As an amateur. And I wont go so far as to call the D1 a professional camera.
But I have been working with it under hugely differing circumstances. Mostly in P-mode or in one of the manual modes. I worked with standard (sharpness, contrast and saturation) settings, auto white balance, and solely in 100 ISO mode.
Most of the time I try to do as little work as possible on the pictures on my computer. I do sharpen most pictures and sometimes I change the levels (most of the times there is no need for that). Every now and then I do work on a picture for the sake of effect - dramatic or otherwise.
Lately I have also been printing my pictures (mostly A4 sized on an Epson 900) and the results are great. The responses of the people I show them to most of the times start with a well ment 'wow!', followed by a remark such as 'I didn't know such large digital prints could be this good'.
I can't compare the D1 to other digital camera's very well, since I haven't used any others. What I do know, is that I haven't seen pictures made with comparable camera's that I liked better than D1 pictures.
As LCT is trying to get across: there might be some noise in some of the D1 pictures, but that is outweighed entirely by that special (analog like?) quality one finds in D1 pictures.
It took me some time to learn to use the D1. I can only say it was worth my while.
Maybe the D1 isn't 'professional' enough to use it for 'working photography' (on a day to day basis that is - I know for sure the D1 has been used by professional photographers for commercial work). But I have the distinct impression the D2 will be suited for that (and I am not alone in that idea.) And I do intend to start using it in that fashion.
Regards,
My experience with the D1 is very much like Wim's. I have been producing A4 prints from an Epson 2100 and they are, in the words of friends, stunning quality. I always stick to 100 ISO, usually P setting, occasionally using aperture priority. I have never had a problem with noise using the 100 ISO, only occasionally with 200 and above. The extraordinary detail produced by the Leica lens, and the natural colours of the images, make this an outstanding camera, regardless of the smug and arrogant comments to the contrary made by one correspondent above. As I said earlier, it does have limitations, however, and I am hoping, and expecting, that the D2 will address those. Meanwhile, the D1 fulfills my needs for digital photography -- I have not by any means abandoned film.
B
bowow
I like the D1; it produces great pictures even with its limitations. My greatest frustration with the camera is that it doesn't work that well under poorly lighting conditions, with a rather limited ISO range. D2 also has a very limited ISO range, I don't know how much better it will fare under similar poor lighting conditions. With a projected price tag of nearly $2000, I don't know if D2 would be the best for camera in its price class. Maybe one should consider the Canon Digital Rebel, or D10.
I always wanted D1 but when I compared specs, Sony S85 was so much better value for the money.
All I want in the camera is TIFF(RAW) mode, ISO range from 50(100)-800 and lens to start at 28 (35)mm than go to 90mm and have apperture of 2.0 - 2.8. All this should be in neat little package size of D1. As far as the res goes I settle for 5 MP but anything higher than that would be even better.
Now above was pretty much covered by Sony V1 except for the lens brightness. Also with Canon pledging to release 25 digital cameras next year we can expect G6 and G7 out there. They will not only be better in specs than D2 but also about half the money.
Now the main question that I have is: can the magic of Leica lens be captured and seen on the digital chip or is it only visible on film? After all I shoot my M6 becasue I love the lenses.
Matt J.
http:\brunerdog.tripod.com
All I want in the camera is TIFF(RAW) mode, ISO range from 50(100)-800 and lens to start at 28 (35)mm than go to 90mm and have apperture of 2.0 - 2.8. All this should be in neat little package size of D1. As far as the res goes I settle for 5 MP but anything higher than that would be even better.
Now above was pretty much covered by Sony V1 except for the lens brightness. Also with Canon pledging to release 25 digital cameras next year we can expect G6 and G7 out there. They will not only be better in specs than D2 but also about half the money.
Now the main question that I have is: can the magic of Leica lens be captured and seen on the digital chip or is it only visible on film? After all I shoot my M6 becasue I love the lenses.
Matt J.
http:\brunerdog.tripod.com