Lucky me as I have the D-Lux2 and M5

I say this because I'm still using my D-Lux2 when I want to use a small digital p&s camera. I do not see any real significant differences between the D-Lux 2 and the new p&s cameras. I did pay $784 back in December 2005 and I feel satisfied. I have 13" x 19" prints hanging on my walls from my D-Lux2 that compare favorably with my Canon 20D using an L lens. So I am able to resist purchasing a new high quality p&s camera.

But, I'm also satisfied with my newly aquired Barnack film camera, so much so that I ordered another one. This time in EX- condition and all for the sum of $65.

I like being able to change lenses from 28, 35 & 50mm as I have these LTM lenses. So I also ordered the 28-35-50-85-135 finder for $95. Who knows perhaps I may oder the Elmar 90 and 135mm LTM lenses. Probably not as I have them in the M mount for my M5 as well as a nice Summilux 50mm f/1,4. The Elmar 90mm f/4 is a collapsible lens and this makes the M5 size bearable.

All in all, these old LTM lenses are giving me enough image quality for most of my need's. I shoot a lot just for personal enjoyment. Landscapes, buildings, people and a lot of my wife. I would guess from viewing some of my film images and then some images from the new D-Lux4 or even the Canon G10 that the IQ is close-but different. Each image that I shoot is different, as are those that I compare with on the forums. So the IQ judgements are also related to this. If I need more image quality then I will just use the M series camera and lenses.

The Barnack camera is so small. It is able to fit in the same belt pouch as does the D-Lux2. So I switch between these camera somrtimes. It's fun to use the Sunny 16 Rule when shooting film. Well back to my D-Lux 2. I just added some stick on velcro around various slippery parts of the camera. Now the D-Lux 2 feel's much more secure in my hand. I'm sure the camera will last many more years. Perhaps not as long as my Barnack and M camera, but still long enough for me.

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Hi Peter,

I also think that the improvement in most of the P&Ss are rather marginal in the IQ department, (feature-wise it is a different story, such as face-detection, auto ISO, etc.), and even in vain in the quest for more mega pixels. In the end, it is the shooting itself that brings us the majority of enjoyment in photography. No point to argue seriously whether some models are real Leica or not!

Happy shooting with whatever gears you have!

Best,

Choi

Hi Choi,

I remember you from when I first reveived my D-Lux2. You asked me if I thought the camera would become a classic. At the time I had no opinion.

My answer today is "Yes" the D-Lux2 is a classic Leica box shape digital p&s camera.

As it is clear it has served as the physical model for the subsequent versions. Also the IQ is very good.

I wish someone could the me the correct spelling for the name for the Leica box shape camera. As close and I can get is bahoure or bahouse, which is so very clearly inncorrect.

Choi said:

Hi Peter,

I also think that the improvement in most of the P&Ss are rather
marginal in the IQ department, (feature-wise it is a different story,
such as face-detection, auto ISO, etc.), and even in vain in the
quest for more mega pixels. In the end, it is the shooting itself
that brings us the majority of enjoyment in photography. No point to
argue seriously whether some models are real Leica or not!

Happy shooting with whatever gears you have!

Best,

Choi

Click to expand...

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes