[Leica] Further digital exploration

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

This weekend I went to Glazer's in Seattle.  I actually got to play with a 
few digital cameras, rather than just reading specs and reviews and looking 
at pictures.

I tried the Olympus C-5050, which had been on my list.  I really didn't 
like the way it felt in my (big) hands, and the response was just to slow 
for me.  And the menu system had a video games aspect to it I found 
irritating, constantly popping up the Olympus logo and playing beepy beeps.

I also tried the Nikon D100 and the Canon 10D.  When I first held the 
latter, all I could think of was  "TANK!"  Granted, the lens mounted on the 
10D was a monstrous, honking bazooka of a 35-70 f/2.8 (?),  which I think 
was heavier than the camera.  But I couldn't help thinking that my whole 
was of doing photography was "small and light," and this stuff was anything 
but.  Even with a prime lens.  I'm sure that eventually I could learn the 
operation of these beasts, but there would be a lot to learn.

Bottom line:  If I want to get the level of quality of a pro-level SLR, I 
would have to resign myself to the bigness.  Even a used D30 has a similar 
form factor.  The camera I shot with before going to Leica Ms (and 
occasionally still do) is an Olympus OM-2.  Again, small and light.  The 
antithesis of these humungous digital wunderbricks.  This is also why I 
stopped considering the Olympus E-10 and E-20, B.D.'s great results from 
the latter notwithstanding.  Bigger camera, but no bigger sensor.  The Sony 
F-717 is also just too big and awkward.

What digital camera *did* I like?  The Leica Digilux 1!  It was easy to 
figure out, even without a manual.  The big LCD was great.  The response 
was wonderfully fast.  It felt like a real 35mm camera.  It was so much 
easier to set some of the more often set parameters than on my Coolpix 
990.  It felt just right in my hands.  I'd prefer a handgrip, which the 
Panasonic Lumix LC5 version has.  It was perhaps a little big for an 
everyday walkabout camera, but only barely so.  I found myself *wanting* it.

Which puts me in a bit of a bind.  The LC5 is available for a very good 
price now.  I am very tempted to get one, despite having gotten a Coolpix 
990 a few months back.  I'm still put off by all the complaints about the 
"overprocessed" and "posterized" picture quality and high noise levels 
above ISO 100.  Yet I see that Graham and Sonny do very nicely with the 
LC5.  Tina is very pleased with hers.  I wonder how much of a difference I 
would see between Coolpix 990 pictures and LC5 pictures.

The other issue is that I didn't consider the Coolpix a truly serious 
camera.  It was a learning tool, something to with which to play and 
experiment--with its astounding macro abilities an added bonus.  But the 
Digilux/LC5 is another beast entirely.  It acts almost like a serious 
camera.  If I got an LC5, it would be very tempting to use it most of the 
time, and only use a Leica M for B&W, available light, and times when I 
knew in advance I'd truly need that level of quality.

Additional complications:  There is a firmware upgrade available for the 
Lumix from Panasonic USA which supposedly mitigates some of the picture 
quality issues.  And there is a rumor (I heard it here) that there will be 
an improved version of the Lumix coming out soon.

As I said earlier, I'm being seduced.  Anybody want to talk me out of 
it--or into it?

- --Peter

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html