# Leica M8, Digilux 3



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

Even though discussing cameras on this forum somewhat stretches the accessory concept, it seemed worthwhile to ask about the relative merits of the two cameras as there is almost certain to be a forum member in the know


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

You can buy a couple of Lobbs (maybe 4 in the case of the spendy M8) for the price of those cameras!

I would suggest a Nikon D80 and a pair of Lobb or EG. 

Sorry, I am not directly able to help.


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

Very much akin to the question oft posed on the forum, "why spend xxx on xxx article of clothing, when something OTR from xxx is functionally the same?" Well, there are now many digital cameras that will do more, do it better, and do it cheaper than the cameras you mention. So... if it's pure function you're after, I agree with the previous poster that the Nikon D80 (or similar wares from Canon, Sony, etc... BTW I own a D70 and am very happy) is fine choice. But if you're looking at a camera as a "statement", I suppose a current model Leica would be okay, but then again I'd consider pushing the trad side a bit stronger and consider perhaps an antique Leica 35mm, maybe a vintage Nikon F, or maybe even a Hasselblad (non-digital). It's your money, your choice.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Artisan Fan said:


> You can buy a couple of Lobbs (maybe 4 in the case of the spendy M8) for the price of those cameras!
> 
> I would suggest a Nikon D80 and a pair of Lobb or EG.
> 
> Sorry, I am not directly able to help.


 As the happy owner of a D-80, you certainly can't beat the price/value ratio. Fabulous machine for the money.

But now I have to play moderator and move this to the Interchange. Nice try, guy. :icon_smile:


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

bystander said:


> Even though discussing cameras on this forum somewhat stretches the accessory concept, it seemed worthwhile to ask about the relative merits of the two cameras as there is almost certain to be a forum member in the know


As with most cameras it depends on what you are planing to use it for; however, I can offer some personal opinions.
The M-8 certainly has a lot of issues. Serious issues with purple blacks, etc. I would wait until Leica comes up with a better solution than telling you to buy special filters for all your lenses.

Digilux is interesting, but very overpriced for what you get.

Now I am not a Leica basher. I use an M3 almost every day. I own plenty of their marvelous glass, and in Film cameras they are the best there has ever been.....

In digital they are Hugo Boss, they are Kenneth Cole, they are a name you pay for with no equivalent quailty attatched.

I expect that to change, and believe fully that a mistake was made (with the m8 that is) and a product rushed to market before it was ready, out of fear of loosing their market share forever.

I am picky about cmeras, but not a brand loyalist as you can tell from this partial list

Digital:
Fuji s3
Canon G5
Panasonic fx7

Film:
Leica m3
Bessa R
Mamiya c330
Mamiya c33

I'm a big believer in buying the right camera for the job. Regardless of the name on the camera body.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

medhat said:


> but then again I'd consider pushing the trad side a bit stronger and consider perhaps an antique Leica 35mm


Fine Idea. I heartily concour in this recomendation.


----------



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

AOI Photo said:


> As with most cameras it depends on what you are planing to use it for; however, I can offer some personal opinions.
> The M-8 certainly has a lot of issues. Serious issues with purple blacks, etc. I would wait until Leica comes up with a better solution than telling you to buy special filters for all your lenses.
> 
> Digilux is interesting, but very overpriced for what you get.
> ...


Thank you for the comment and advice.

Of course when comparing Digilux 3 with M8 one is restricting the scope of the discussion to the digital world. Leica is reputed to produce some of the finest lenses, and the M series of lenses offers a good choice for different applications, and these can be used in most cases with the M8. The Digilux 3 is said to have a good lens as well and more are reported to be on the way.

If so, then the issue is whether there exists a choice of digital camera bodies cheaper than M8 or Digilux 3 which are fully compatible with one or the other series of Leica lenses. One would greatly appreciate comment on this point


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

--*7


bystander said:


> *
> If so, then the issue is whether there exists a choice of digital camera bodies cheaper than M8 or Digilux 3 which are fully compatible with one or the other series of Leica lenses. One would greatly appreciate comment on this point


Epson Rd-1. Compatible with the Leica M mont. It has some issues of it's own, but no more than the Leica, and costs around $2k. Nice little camera, but tough to find, and not many on the used market, owners don't seem to want to part with them.

In the point and shoot arena, most of the panasonic series cameras have pretty nice Leica lenses - not of the same rank as m or r glass of of course.

I was really waiting for the M8 I'd already figured out what other cameras to sell and how much to borrow to finance it. Then I read the very dissapointed comments of owners, then Leica's inadequate response to the problem. Then I got to try one for a day. .... then I decided not to buy one


----------



## arnach (Feb 3, 2007)

The Digilux got terrible reviews and is not worth $50 compared to today's second-hand DSLR offerings, let alone the asking price. It's only good for the looks, if such things matter to you in the camera arena.

I have a Canon 10D I bought used for $350 and two Canon L lenses. I am very pleased.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> In the point and shoot arena, most of the panasonic series cameras have pretty nice Leica lenses - not of the same rank as m or r glass of of course.


I ve been shooting with Panasonic's FZ series for several years now; I started with Leica's Digilux 1 as a transition from film (I've been shooting Leicas since before there was an M series), then, needing longer lenses than the Digilux provided, moved on to the Panasonic FZ10 with its Leica 35-420mm (equivalent) f2.8 lens. A 400 f2.8 lens for, say, a Canon, costs over $6500, so the $400 and change the Panasonic cost was a mere pittance. It was also very close in function to an SLR with the exception of interchangeable lenses (actually it had even some advantages over the digital SLRs on the market in that you could use the rear LCD screen in real time while shooting, plus it had a very bright LCD TTL viewfinder) and the lens produced superb quality images notwithstanding that it was only a 4 megapixel camera. I was able to produce 13x19" prints from a full-frame image shot at ISO 50 that were virtually indistinguishable from an equivalent print from a 35mm negative (granted, if you went in with a hi-powered loupe, you would see digital pixels rather than grain).

The downside, and one which has continued through the other Panasonic FZ cameras I have used, is the issue of noise at low light and high ISO levels. It's not good, and has actually gotten worse with the later models. That said, unless you are frequently shooting under extremely low light conditions, you could do much worse than the Panasonic FZ-30 8MP (the current FZ-50 10MP seems not as good. Cramming 10MP onto the same size CCD isn't always an improvement.) For your money, currently still only a little over $400, you get an extremely sophisticated camera with a large, articulated rear LCD, an extremely bright and sharp LCD viewfinder and a 28-420mm F2.8-3.5 (the newer lens gives away about 1/2 a stop at the long end) Leica lens with optical image stabilizing.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

rip;501742
The downside said:


> Absolutely. I often wish people understood that
> high megapixel = high quality, is not necessarily a true statement.
> Smaller pixels = less light per pixel = more amplification of signal = more noise.
> I also think the 30 is better than the 50 (though in camera's in current manufacture the 50 is the best in the class it is in.


----------



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

AOI Photo said:


> rip;501742
> The downside said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

bystander said:


> AOI Photo said:
> 
> 
> > What in your view would be a good "available light", i.e., minimal use of flash, digital camera?
> ...


----------



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

Within the set of digital cameras would a rangefinder have some advantage over a SLR in "available light" situations


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

bystander said:


> Within the set of digital cameras would a rangefinder have some advantage over a SLR in "available light" situations


Yes. 
No Mirror Slap does allow one to handhold in lower light, just as is true with film. Typically 1-2 shutter speeds slower depending on the person.

Now in camera noise reduction has been mentioned. I'm not ususally a fan of it, but I post-process everything in photoshop and use noise ninja to reduce noise when necessary.

The Following would be my list of recomendations for low light work.

SLR - Sony Alpha. Uses the minolta lens mount so lots of lenses available on the used market (Minolta went AF in 85 so most lenses from then on work) Has optical image stabalization built into the body, rather than as an expensive lens option - ala Canon and Nikon. I have ocassionaly rented these for theatre photography when I needed good low light performance, and the range a good zoom on an SLR could give me.
Second choice.... Used Minolta 7d for most of the same reasons

Rangefinder- Epson RD-1, full Leica lens compatability, great design reasonable(circa $2k) price tag

Non interchangable lens cameras. Now none of these have mirror slap so the choice is much wider. that said

Used Canon G5 or G6
Used Panasonic FZ30

FZ has been mentioned before and is great, but a big brute.
G's are first rate with good very fast lenses (helpful for low light) matched optical adapters for more wide angle, or telephoto available from Canon. More rangefinderlike in design.

All of these will allow you to add an external flash, also useful in low light when available light just won't work.

If at all possible lay hands on these cameras before making a decision. The camera might have every spec you want, but just not feel right in the hand.


----------



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

FZ30 is worth a lot more than FZ50 (on Amazon.com): does the former have many advantages over the latter in limited light context; and is Leica V-Lux 1 something comparable in quality of output in your view as it is close in price to FZ30 (but almost twice the price of FZ50).


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

Well, in low light you tend to use higher iso settings. They are inherantly noisy, Add the nois from too many pixels in too small a space on the 50 and I would say the low light performance suffers.

On Amazon I see both new and used 30s for less than 50's; however, frankly the place to buy one is KEH https://www.keh.com The premier useds photo equiopment store since...... well forever.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> Well, in low light you tend to use higher iso settings. They are inherantly noisy, Add the nois from too many pixels in too small a space on the 50 and I would say the low light performance suffers.
> 
> On Amazon I see both new and used 30s for less than 50's; however, frankly the place to buy one is KEH https://www.keh.com The premier useds photo equiopment store since...... well forever.


Here's one of the most extensive tests of the FZ50 and comparison with the FZ30. BTW, this is an excellent website for examining and comparing cameras.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/


----------



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

Thanks all. This forum has been of great help.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

I've just realized I should have asked the question , "what kind of available light work are you going to be doing?"

If by available light you mean just after dusk than the fz30 recomendation holds.

If you mean midnight on a bar patio with two dim lamps..... well despite the noise the higher iso settings of the fz50 (or the Canon G7) might be more important.

Regardeless the photographer is more often the limitation than the camera, whether you are a beginner, a working pro, or Lord Snowdon


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I have two friends who have the Canon XTi, and, in daylight at least, they take phenomenal pictures. On the first day with the camera, one of my friends went walking around the campus he works taking random shots. He took a shot of a seagull in flight, and the detail is incredible. You can see the sun glinting off the trailing edge feathers of the bird's wings, the moistness in the eyes, the detailing on the head feathers. And that was just an off the cuff shot of an air rat. It's a great camera.


----------



## bystander (Jan 18, 2006)

AOI Photo said:


> I've just realized I should have asked the question , "what kind of available light work are you going to be doing?"
> 
> Regardeless the photographer is more often the limitation than the camera, whether you are a beginner, a working pro, or Lord Snowdon


Indoor shots including late evening with no more than the light that is ordinarily available in a family lounge, and outdoor pictures at dusk

Your second remark re photographer's personal capabilities: did you have something specific in view?


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

For quick hand held work I hear the Mamiya 7II rangefinder is hard to beat. A great 6x7 neg and excellent, sharp lenses.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> As the happy owner of a D-80, you certainly can't beat the price/value ratio. Fabulous machine for the money.


Heartily agree Alex. Sadly, I made a close call and bought a VPI Scoutmaster turntable instead for Christmas.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

bystander said:


> Indoor shots including late evening with no more than the light that is ordinarily available in a family lounge, and outdoor pictures at dusk
> 
> Your second remark re photographer's personal capabilities: did you have something specific in view?


I just meant that whatever equipment one has, your mind and eye limit you more. 
I have taken some horrible pictures with incrediblly expensive equipment, because I didn't visualize correctly, or made a boneheaded mistake. On the other hand, I have a 16x20 print up in my room made from an old Cirroflex camera (not high end stuff). 
Sorry if it came across as insulting, wasn't my intent. That's why I pointed out the statement was true for you, me , or even Lord Snowdon - who happens to be my favourite living photographer.

As for you low light requirements, anything but an slr, with a fast lens, and ISO 400 settings should be fine. I rarely have problems with my G5 in those conditions. If you like the ergonomics of rangefinders the G series is great, if you like the ergonomics of SLRs but don't want a full slr, then the Panasonics the 30's iso 400 should be fine.

IN SLR I stand by the alpha.

Whatever yo have happy shooting.


----------

