leica digilux 2 vs. panasonic fz-10

[nick127418]

wondering what everyones thoughts are on the similarities between these two cameras. i only care because, i would love a five megapixel point and shoot. i loved the canon g2. and sometimes think about getting one, because it was so much fun to shoot with, it was inspiring i guess. anyway ive played with the fz 10 a lot and i am excited about it.

similarities i see are the viewfinder and lcd screen look identical. many of the controls seem identical and or layed out very similarly. being released near same time. ok...... have different sensors in them. advantage going to the leica version. then with the lens... you have a lot more reach with the panasonic, but not as wide. and the leica is a tiny bit faster lens.

who here, wants either and if you do want one. which one and why?

by the way how cool would that be, if that were a removable lens, and was like a rangefinder and leica did a series of lenses for it!

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[nick127418]

oh my god!!!!!!!!!
i just saw the leica listed for $1850.

i am going to have a coronary... that's more than a d100 and a lens. i was thinking more like 900.00
aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

wondering what everyones thoughts are on the similarities between
these two cameras. i only care because, i would love a five
megapixel point and shoot. i loved the canon g2. and sometimes
think about getting one, because it was so much fun to shoot with,
it was inspiring i guess. anyway ive played with the fz 10 a lot
and i am excited about it.
similarities i see are the viewfinder and lcd screen look
identical. many of the controls seem identical and or layed out
very similarly. being released near same time. ok...... have
different sensors in them. advantage going to the leica version.
then with the lens... you have a lot more reach with the panasonic,
but not as wide. and the leica is a tiny bit faster lens.

who here, wants either and if you do want one. which one and why?
by the way how cool would that be, if that were a removable lens,
and was like a rangefinder and leica did a series of lenses for it!

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[calxn]

The Leica is for fanboys with too much money and not enough sense. Even for $900, you can get a Canon 300D, the future low end Nikon DSLR, or a Sigma SD9. Remember, photography is all about the lenses. With a DSLR, you can focus your money on lenses. Plus, the 300D's sensor is larger so it should be less noisy. The SD9 sensor is sharper. Why anyone would buy this sentimental Leica camera when the same money can buy a really nice DSLR cameras is beyond me. Of course, if the person is more a point-and-click automatic camera person, ...

wondering what everyones thoughts are on the similarities between
these two cameras. i only care because, i would love a five
megapixel point and shoot. i loved the canon g2. and sometimes
think about getting one, because it was so much fun to shoot with,
it was inspiring i guess. anyway ive played with the fz 10 a lot
and i am excited about it.
similarities i see are the viewfinder and lcd screen look
identical. many of the controls seem identical and or layed out
very similarly. being released near same time. ok...... have
different sensors in them. advantage going to the leica version.
then with the lens... you have a lot more reach with the panasonic,
but not as wide. and the leica is a tiny bit faster lens.

who here, wants either and if you do want one. which one and why?
by the way how cool would that be, if that were a removable lens,
and was like a rangefinder and leica did a series of lenses for it!

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[Jared Hunter]

The Leica is for fanboys with too much money and not enough sense.
Even for $900, you can get a Canon 300D, the future low end Nikon
DSLR, or a Sigma SD9. Remember, photography is all about the
lenses.

So why quote the price for the crippled bodies?

With a DSLR, you can focus your money on lenses. Plus,

the 300D's sensor is larger so it should be less noisy. The SD9
sensor is sharper. Why anyone would buy this sentimental Leica
camera when the same money can buy a really nice DSLR cameras is
beyond me. Of course, if the person is more a point-and-click
automatic camera person, ...

You contradict yourself. As you said - it's all about the lenses. After purchasing that crippled Canon for $900, you'd still need to buy the equivalent lens to the Leica. Hmmm..looks like the closest match would be the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM and even then, it wouldn't match the Leica's range of 28-90mm and bright f2.0-f2.4.

Total for the Rebel and 24-70mm f2.8?

$900 body + $1300 lens (BHPhoto) = $2200.

First, we all know that cameras will sell for a lot cheaper than list price. Second, a smart consumer will by the Panasonic version of the same camera for a much better price (and looks too being a black-bodied version with a better grip)

wondering what everyones thoughts are on the similarities between
these two cameras. i only care because, i would love a five
megapixel point and shoot. i loved the canon g2. and sometimes
think about getting one, because it was so much fun to shoot with,
it was inspiring i guess. anyway ive played with the fz 10 a lot
and i am excited about it.
similarities i see are the viewfinder and lcd screen look
identical. many of the controls seem identical and or layed out
very similarly. being released near same time. ok...... have
different sensors in them. advantage going to the leica version.
then with the lens... you have a lot more reach with the panasonic,
but not as wide. and the leica is a tiny bit faster lens.

who here, wants either and if you do want one. which one and why?
by the way how cool would that be, if that were a removable lens,
and was like a rangefinder and leica did a series of lenses for it!

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[Wayne Larmon]

You contradict yourself. As you said - it's all about the lenses.
After purchasing that crippled Canon for $900, you'd still need to
buy the equivalent lens to the Leica. Hmmm..looks like the closest
match would be the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM and even then, it
wouldn't match the Leica's range of 28-90mm and bright f2.0-f2.4.

Total for the Rebel and 24-70mm f2.8?

$900 body + $1300 lens (BHPhoto) = $2200.

The Leica still loses, because it uses a tiny 2/3" sensor. The image, even with the f2.0 lens, will be much noiser than an image from a DSLR sensor, even with a f2.8 lens. Heck, a $500 Canon G3 has a f2.0 lens but nobody is claiming that it beats DSLRs.

And it hasn't been established that the Leica's lens is a match of the $1,300 Canon "L" lens. Maybe yes, maybe no. But we all know what kind of quality a 2/3" sensor will give, compared to the APS sized sensors that DSLRs use.

But this is all assuming that we know what market they are targeting. If they are targeting the market that buys Rolex watchs, and $900 Jimmy Choo handbags, etc., it will do fine. What kind of value comparison would you give to a $900 handbag?

Wayne Larmon

 

[Jared Hunter]

You contradict yourself. As you said - it's all about the lenses.
After purchasing that crippled Canon for $900, you'd still need to
buy the equivalent lens to the Leica. Hmmm..looks like the closest
match would be the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM and even then, it
wouldn't match the Leica's range of 28-90mm and bright f2.0-f2.4.

Total for the Rebel and 24-70mm f2.8?

$900 body + $1300 lens (BHPhoto) = $2200.

The Leica still loses, because it uses a tiny 2/3" sensor. The
image, even with the f2.0 lens, will be much noiser than an image
from a DSLR sensor, even with a f2.8 lens. Heck, a $500 Canon G3
has a f2.0 lens but nobody is claiming that it beats DSLRs.

It depends how you define 'beat'.

• If by virtue of it's size and weight (compared to the massive 24-70 f2.8) I have the Leica with me and I get the shot instead of leaving the huge SLR and lens at home then I'd the SLR was beat.

• If by virtue of the faster Leica lens, I happen to get the shot without camera shake, chalk one up for the Leica

• At f2.8 on a DSLR, shallow depth of field can be a mixed blessing. At the same aperture with a smaller sensor, you'll be able to get more in focus. If you have to stop down to such a low aperture that the DSLR shutter speed causes camera shake for the equivalent depth of field, that's yet another one in the Leica's favor.

But this is all assuming that we know what market they are
targeting. If they are targeting the market that buys Rolex
watchs, and $900 Jimmy Choo handbags, etc., it will do fine. What
kind of value comparison would you give to a $900 handbag?

Like I said, if you're stupid enough to buy a Honda Civic that's been rebadged as an Acura, you deserve to be ripped off. I'd prefer to buy mine directly from the source, Panasonic with the bonus that the camera even looks better:

 

[nick127418]

what about that seven millimeters of wide angle?
what about the extra megapixel?

You contradict yourself. As you said - it's all about the lenses.
After purchasing that crippled Canon for $900, you'd still need to
buy the equivalent lens to the Leica. Hmmm..looks like the closest
match would be the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM and even then, it
wouldn't match the Leica's range of 28-90mm and bright f2.0-f2.4.

Total for the Rebel and 24-70mm f2.8?

$900 body + $1300 lens (BHPhoto) = $2200.

The Leica still loses, because it uses a tiny 2/3" sensor. The
image, even with the f2.0 lens, will be much noiser than an image
from a DSLR sensor, even with a f2.8 lens. Heck, a $500 Canon G3
has a f2.0 lens but nobody is claiming that it beats DSLRs.

It depends how you define 'beat'.

• If by virtue of it's size and weight (compared to the massive

24-70 f2.8) I have the Leica with me and I get the shot instead of
leaving the huge SLR and lens at home then I'd the SLR was beat.

• If by virtue of the faster Leica lens, I happen to get the shot

without camera shake, chalk one up for the Leica

• At f2.8 on a DSLR, shallow depth of field can be a mixed

blessing. At the same aperture with a smaller sensor, you'll be
able to get more in focus. If you have to stop down to such a low
aperture that the DSLR shutter speed causes camera shake for the
equivalent depth of field, that's yet another one in the Leica's
favor.

But this is all assuming that we know what market they are
targeting. If they are targeting the market that buys Rolex
watchs, and $900 Jimmy Choo handbags, etc., it will do fine. What
kind of value comparison would you give to a $900 handbag?

Like I said, if you're stupid enough to buy a Honda Civic that's
been rebadged as an Acura, you deserve to be ripped off. I'd prefer
to buy mine directly from the source, Panasonic with the bonus that
the camera even looks better:

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[Jared Hunter]

Not sure where you get the 7mm from.

The Canon Rebel and 10D have a 1.6X multiplier - therefore the 24mm at the wide end actually becomes the equivalent of a 38mm on the DSLR...not very wide at all. Chalk up another one for the Leica. In order to match the Leica's 28mm on the DSLR, you need 17mm lens. Sure, Canon makes a 17-40mm (27-64mm @ 1.6X) but it's only f4.0.

As for 5 vs 6Mp, it all depends on how large a print you intend to make. How many SUV owners actually take their vehicles off road? How many Rebel owners print poster size images?

You contradict yourself. As you said - it's all about the lenses.
After purchasing that crippled Canon for $900, you'd still need to
buy the equivalent lens to the Leica. Hmmm..looks like the closest
match would be the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM and even then, it
wouldn't match the Leica's range of 28-90mm and bright f2.0-f2.4.

Total for the Rebel and 24-70mm f2.8?

$900 body + $1300 lens (BHPhoto) = $2200.

The Leica still loses, because it uses a tiny 2/3" sensor. The
image, even with the f2.0 lens, will be much noiser than an image
from a DSLR sensor, even with a f2.8 lens. Heck, a $500 Canon G3
has a f2.0 lens but nobody is claiming that it beats DSLRs.

It depends how you define 'beat'.

• If by virtue of it's size and weight (compared to the massive

24-70 f2.8) I have the Leica with me and I get the shot instead of
leaving the huge SLR and lens at home then I'd the SLR was beat.

• If by virtue of the faster Leica lens, I happen to get the shot

without camera shake, chalk one up for the Leica

• At f2.8 on a DSLR, shallow depth of field can be a mixed

blessing. At the same aperture with a smaller sensor, you'll be
able to get more in focus. If you have to stop down to such a low
aperture that the DSLR shutter speed causes camera shake for the
equivalent depth of field, that's yet another one in the Leica's
favor.

But this is all assuming that we know what market they are
targeting. If they are targeting the market that buys Rolex
watchs, and $900 Jimmy Choo handbags, etc., it will do fine. What
kind of value comparison would you give to a $900 handbag?

Like I said, if you're stupid enough to buy a Honda Civic that's
been rebadged as an Acura, you deserve to be ripped off. I'd prefer
to buy mine directly from the source, Panasonic with the bonus that
the camera even looks better:

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[Zidar162589]

The Leica is for fanboys with too much money and not enough sense.

I got about 10 Leicas scattered about the house and I use them all. In the back room there's 35 years worth of slides, mostly Kodachrome 25, and if you don't believe that Leica lenses are superior you should stop by and take a look. I've used Nikon's best and Canon's best and they are great...but the Leica transparencies jump right up off the light table. I took a Leica reflex body to the best repair guys in Alaska and they said "no way." The guy explained that "normal" cameras work to tolerances of 0.1mm. Leicas tolerances are 0.01mm.

I don't know what a fanboy is and you could argue that I have too much money. But I got plenty of sense and I know how to shoot pictures.

Abu Mumia
Alaska
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'

• Apocalypse Now

 

[Robert Bedwell]

With digital photography its not all about lenses. You can put a Zeiss lens on a digital camera with a noisy chip and you are not going to get any better image than the chip. If all is equal I agree with you.

Bob

wondering what everyones thoughts are on the similarities between
these two cameras. i only care because, i would love a five
megapixel point and shoot. i loved the canon g2. and sometimes
think about getting one, because it was so much fun to shoot with,
it was inspiring i guess. anyway ive played with the fz 10 a lot
and i am excited about it.
similarities i see are the viewfinder and lcd screen look
identical. many of the controls seem identical and or layed out
very similarly. being released near same time. ok...... have
different sensors in them. advantage going to the leica version.
then with the lens... you have a lot more reach with the panasonic,
but not as wide. and the leica is a tiny bit faster lens.

who here, wants either and if you do want one. which one and why?
by the way how cool would that be, if that were a removable lens,
and was like a rangefinder and leica did a series of lenses for it!

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

--
nikon d-100
nikon 24-85 G
sigma 15-30 EX
SB-80dx
currently borrowing a sigma 70-200 2.8
work in camera store...borrow lots of other stuff..

 

[james j cash]

With digital photography its not all about lenses. You can put a
Zeiss lens on a digital camera with a noisy chip and you are not
going to get any better image than the chip. If all is equal I
agree with you.

Bob

I agree with what you say, in this case the Leica has a Panasonic chip and this is a new chip[as far as I know] could very well be a good chip maybe better than most 2/3. So if this Leica lens is a up to their standards and the chip is good and if the biggest print will be say 13X19, it could be a good camera choice for some.

All I know when you get into high end lenses their damn near as much as this Leica may cast.

I may be nuts but if it will give me a good 13x19 and end up costing about $1500, I may be in. By the way I have a 300d also. Jim

--

My first language is English, my second is, trying to get the first one right. Photography is a reflection of the heart and mind. JJC

 

[dog010]

This is kinda interesting- off the information sheet from the Adorama page about the Digilux 2:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=10640813724359629&sku=ILCD2

"The 2/3-inch image sensor is extremely large and gives a resolution of 5 million pixels. Each individual pixel has a size of 3.4 µm thus has more surface than is normal in this class of digital cameras."

I think DSLRs- please confirm this- have an individual pixel size of 6-7µm or roughly twice the size?

--
Michael King
Melbourne, Australia
http://mk.fpic.co.uk
1 Canon digital camera, 1 Nikon camera + film

 

[Jared Hunter]

I'd ignore that blurb - it's just marketing. IMO, it's ridiculous to expect the image quality to approach DSLR levels or to be even making the comparison. But for many, including myself, the entire package makes up for it. (not to say I wouldn't consider an SLR for other reasons such as shutter and focus lock response)

This is kinda interesting- off the information sheet from the
Adorama page about the Digilux 2:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=10640813724359629&sku=ILCD2

"The 2/3-inch image sensor is extremely large and gives a
resolution of 5 million pixels. Each individual pixel has a size of
3.4 µm thus has more surface than is normal in this class of
digital cameras."

I think DSLRs- please confirm this- have an individual pixel size
of 6-7µm or roughly twice the size?

--
Michael King
Melbourne, Australia
http://mk.fpic.co.uk
1 Canon digital camera, 1 Nikon camera + film

 

[deecy//]

The Leica is for fanboys with too much money and not enough sense.

Yes, for "fanboys" (whatever they are), and apparently for National Geographic and news photographers as well. Leica's new camera will prove to be a great and lasting design. They are made for professionals, not snap-shooters. And as for it being a glorified Panasonic just because Leica uses some Panasonic parts - nonsense! A Leica is a Leica is a Leica. It will be around and working after we're dead.

Why do people trash a camera just because they can't afford it or because they chose another?
Look up the meaning of "rationalization"!
Oh! And how much money is "too much"? Don't I wish!
--
deecy//

 

[Jared Hunter]

Check out this page:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/1202/leica.htm

This camera is actually a Panasonic using some Leica parts. If you check the bottom of the Leica, it says made in Japan. At least Panasonic is sensible enough to offer a grip for improved handling and a better looking black body on their version.

Too many ill-informed consumers fall for brand names and smart marketing.
Honda slapped an Acura badge on a Civic and the car sold like hot-cakes.

Why do people judge a camera based on the name-plate rather than on its merits? The camera itself looks promising. However, it seems that those buying the Leica over the Panasonic version have more money than sense. I do agree that the Leica version offers more for 'posers', if you're into that sort of thing.

The Leica is for fanboys with too much money and not enough sense.

Yes, for "fanboys" (whatever they are), and apparently for National
Geographic and news photographers as well. Leica's new camera will
prove to be a great and lasting design. They are made for
professionals, not snap-shooters. And as for it being a glorified
Panasonic just because Leica uses some Panasonic parts - nonsense!
A Leica is a Leica is a Leica. It will be around and working after
we're dead.
Why do people trash a camera just because they can't afford it or
because they chose another?
Look up the meaning of "rationalization"!
Oh! And how much money is "too much"? Don't I wish!
--
deecy//

 

[Fred Klaiss]

If half as many people buy the Leicasonic as are lusting after it on this and similar threads, it'll be a runaway best seller. Of course no one knows yet what the camera willl really be like. And imagination nearly always is better than reality.