I entered the digital age with a Leica
Digilux 2 in 2006, a time when I was still very skeptical of digital
photography. But it had become obvious
that traditional film photography was quickly becoming a thing of the
past. Besides, the idea of not having to
buy film and pay for processing did appeal to me. After all, lowering overhead is always a good
thing when running a business.
At that time I was doing a lot of
architectural photography, mostly with a Rolleiflex SL66. Could this relatively small digital camera
really be considered a replacement for the medium format Rollei? There was no doubt that the Rolleiflex was a
superior camera in the final analysis.
But I also had to consider that many of my clients began to ask for
digital files, and I was more and more in need of having the negs from the
Rollei scanned to accommodate them.
I shot my first assignment with the Digilux
2 on a cold, Minnesota January day and evening.
It was about 10 degrees and I was wondering of this all electronic piece
of equipment was even able to function properly under those conditions.
Well, it did, not only did it function properly;
it rendered results which I had no hesitation to give to my client. From that day on I did all of my professional
work with that camera. The Rolleiflex
has long been sold. As a matter of fact,
I don’t recall when I shot my last roll of film, but I am sure it was around
the time of the appearance of the Leica Digilux 2 as part of my camera outfit. I still have that camera and yes, I still use
it. It still is a fun and extremely well
working camera.
One aspect that drew me to this
particular camera was the fact that it operated very much like my Leica M6 at
that time. The layout was very similar,
and most of the controls were very much the same. No need to punch a bunch of buttons and to
look at LCD displays to set shutter speeds and apertures, this was all done in
a very familiar manner.
Of course there was a bit of a learning
curve. Instead of turning a dial for the
film speed, I now had to go into the camera menu to set ISO speed and a number
of other, formerly unnecessary things like white balance, for instance. But this was done on the display screen in
back of the camera.
I was actually a bit concerned about
that screen. I had seen a lot of such
screens that became difficult to use in bright light. Not so with the Digilux 2. To my surprise, It functioned every bit as
good, even in direct sunlight, as it did in a darkened environment. To this day, I consider the Digilux 2 screen
one of the best I have ever used, better than even the screen on my Leica M8.
Another aspect of the camera that did
require some getting used to was the viewfinder. Even though it looked outwardly very similar
to the viewfinder on my Leica M6, it proved to be entirely different. The viewfinder on the Leica Digilux 2 was one
of the first electronic viewfinders ever used.
It has a bit of a lag when used with rapid camera movements and it is
difficult to use under very dark lighting conditions. But I have never felt that I was missing out
on shots because of it. Once used to it,
I was able to use it like most any other viewfinder as well.
The electronic viewfinder incidentally
made the Leica Digilux 2 the first mirrorless digital camera, which put it
quite a bit ahead of its time when it was introduced in 2004..
Of course there is no rangefinder, but
the automatic focusing makes up for that in most situations. The camera also has manual focusing. I found it difficult to focus the lens
manually at first, which is until I discovered the magnifying feature. Once activated, it switches the standard viewfinder
image to a greatly magnified portion of it.
The moment you are done focusing, the viewfinder image switches back to
the full viewing field. That proved to
be highly accurate, with the result that I have never experienced any focusing
problems to speak of.
A great part of the rather good
performance of this camera is, of course, the lens. The Leica DC Vario-Summicron ASPH 7-22.5 mm f/2.0-2.4
lens is a gem, a definite Leica lens.
Because of the relatively small sensor of the Digilux 2, the lens could
be designed as a 7 – 22.5 mm lens which corresponds to a full frame equivalent
of 28 – 90 mm. Here is actually an
example where a smaller sensor does have some definite advantages. To have a 28 – 90 mm lens with a full frame
sensor at a maximum aperture of f/2 would make that lens gigantic in size and
weight and, with the same performance level, extremely expensive.
Full frame image Cropped left eye of the model
But there is another, hidden advantage
to the small sensor combination with this lens.
Being of a design that entered the market in 2004, the high ISO sensitivity
of the sensor is limited to just ISO 400.
Even so, going beyond the standard ISO 100, the camera does display
considerable noise, especially in the dark areas of the image. This might be considered a definite handicap,
but we must not forget that ISO 100 at f/2 is the equivalent of ISO 400 at f/4
or ISO 800 at f/5.6, all aperture setting that are displayed by many of the
slower zoom lenses we see in cameras today.
With other words, one would have to go to much more recent and more
expensive cameras to gain any advantage.
The camera does have a built-in flash
which pops up at the press of a button.
But unlike most other cameras, this is a two position flash with the
first position being for bounce flash.
Here the flash is pointing upwards in about a 45 degree angle. A second push of the button will position the
flash with the reflector facing forward.
There have been numerous instances where the bounce flash enabled me to
get very naturally looking results which in no way revealed that on-camera
flash was actually used.
The two flash positions
Unfortunately, the camera does not have
a PC outlet. Instead I use a hot shoe
adapter to be able to use the Digilux 2 with studio flash, or I use a wireless
connector in the hot shoe to trigger the flash.
So Far I have had no reason to eliminate
the Digilux 2 from my list of cameras. I
still use it and I still like to use it.
There definitely is little chance that I will ever get rid of it. Besides, my wife has been using it for a
while now, and she likes it just the same.
I guess that makes it her camera now, but I still borrow it from time to
time.
More sample images taken with the Lewica Digilux 2:
More sample images taken with the Lewica Digilux 2:
Weilburg, Germany
Braunfels Castle, Braunfels, Germany
Frankfurt, Germany
At "Josephs Ristorante" Weilburg, Germany
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP
Photography
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP
Photography
Click on ad to enlarge
These results are astonishing for a 5 megapixel camera.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed. The Digilux 2 is a great example that shows that a low pixel count (by today's standards) does not automatically mean poor results. But the general public has been brainwashed into thinking that more pixels automatically means better pictures.
DeleteThese results are definitely very impressive. Especially the cropped eye shows what this camera is capable of. That quality compares very favorably with cameras of substantially larger sensors and much higher resolution.
DeleteI just took a closer look at the cropped eye. The detail is amazing, you can even make out some detail in the reflection of the umbrella light. Are you sure this was not taken with another camera?
DeleteYes, I can assure you that all pictures in this article (except the product shots) were taken with the Leica Digilux 2
DeleteWhat other Leicas besides the Digilux 2 do you have?
ReplyDeleteI also have a Digilux 3 which I use primarily with long lenses and a Leica M8. In addition, there is also a Leica III, a IIIf and a Russian Leica II copy, but I don't shoot film any longer.
ReplyDeleteThe Digilux 2 is obviously limited to its 28 - 90 mm zoom since it has no interchangeable lenses. Besides the standard 28 - 100 mm Zoom on the Digilux 3, i also have a 200 mm and a 400 mm Novoflex and a 55 mm and 105 mm Micro Nikkor. I also have a 250 mm Meyer Tele Megor that would fit the Digilux 3, but I rarely use it.
ReplyDeleteAny other cameras that you use or own?
DeleteYes, I have a Palybel Makina with wide angle, normal and tele lenses and also a 5x7 Plaubel Peco Universal. In addition there are a variety of other cameras in my collection, too many to mention.
DeleteOf course this was supposed to say Plaubel Makina...
DeleteYou didn't mention any lenses on the M8.
DeleteSorry. I currently use a 50mm f/3.5 Elamr. This has to be the ultimate pancake lens when collapsed. I also have a 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit and a 15mm f/4.5 Voigtländer Heliar.
DeleteI am planning to add a 28mm Leica lens shortly.
I purchased the panasonic version of this camera earlier this year after reading many positive reviews over the years. I agree that the files are most impressive, but I disliked using the camera and especially disliked the viewfinder. I sold it shortly afterwards and went back to my M3 and Nikon digital system.
ReplyDeleteWhat about using the camera didn't you like and what Nikon digital camera are you using instead?
DeleteI disliked the shutter release but mostly disliked the EVF. I infinitely prefer an optical viewfinder. I still use a Nikon D2h, so I know how well a camera with a limited number of pixels can perform.
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly not the only one that disliked the viewfinder of the Digilux 2. It took me a while too to get used to it. Obviously, I agree with your assessment of the performance potential of a limited number of pixels. As a matter of fact, I think the pixel race is not happening out of necessity, but for advertising-saleability reasons.
DeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteVery helpful article.
Can you tell me what hotshoe wireless connector/trigger you use?
I understand there may be a surge into the camera that may damage it if the wrong voltage is used.
Thank you.
Terry in Wyoming
I built a wireless trigger myself. I use a simple, small electronic flash in the hotshoe of the camera. It allows to set the power to 1/4 of full power. In addition I partially blocked the reflector to a level that underexposes any light from the flash by at least 5 stops which makes it invisible in the actual exposure. I then connected two simple slave triggers, strategically placed to set off the two power packs I use for my studio flash. Not as sophisticated as some of the modern wireless triggering devices, but this system has worked flawlessly for several years.
ReplyDelete