[Leica] Re: Leica Digilux Zoom experience

[LRZeitlin@aol.com]

<<Do any of you actually use a Digilux Zoom?  I checked previous LUG posts, 
and they are quite old regarding this camera...  Any comments would be most 
welcome.>>

I've had a Leica Digilux Zoom for about two weeks now and have taken about 
100 pictures. Now that the price has dropped from typical Leica astronomical 
levels, The Digilux is a reasonable buy as a substitute for P&S cameras. It 
is a very nicely built, beautifully finished piece of opto/electronic 
machinery on a par with most recent Leica gear. Mechanically and electrically 
it is identical to the Fuji MX1700. Only the cosmetics are different. The 
Leica has more faux leather on the body and that hypnotic red dot. The 
metallic surface has a slightly different color than its Fuji sibling. All in 
all, it is a jewel like accessory that will compliment any fashion statement. 
I would grade appearance as A to A+.

The camera is more difficult to use than some other digital cameras I am 
familiar with. Fuji/Leica has crammed the camera with many modes and functions
. The very compact dimensions necessitate tiny controls which require equally 
tiny fingers to operate precisely. This is not a camera which lends itself to 
intuitive use. In this regard it is inferior to the Kodak 240 and 280 
offerings. The 2" LCD viewing screen is bigger than would be expected on such 
a small camera and is easily visible in daylight. All pictures can be 
reviewed, edited, overwritten, etc. on the screen. It can also be turned off 
during picture taking to save battery power. Unfortunately, since I am a left 
eyed photographer, my nose is centered right in the middle of the screen when 
I put my eye to the clear but tiny zoom viewfinder and I periodically have to 
wipe the smudge of nose oil off with a paper tissue. I suppose that I will 
becore more familiar with the Digilux in time and may even be able to work it 
in the dark just as I can my other Leicas. That will take another couple of 
months. I would rate the camera's ergonomics as C+ to B-.

The picture quality is exceptionally good for a 1.3 megapixel camera. I was 
astounded at picture sharpness and clarity as they came to view on my 
Macintosh screen. Even the 640/480 resolution pics are outstanding and are 
thoroughly suitable for e-mail or web pages. Color is well saturated and 
reasonably faithful to the original scene. Automatic white balance is good. 
The 3x zoom lens is of high quality and provides sharpness enhancing optical, 
rather than digital, magnification. The 8mb SmartMedia card provided with the 
camera will hold 23 normal resolution shots and about 80 lower resolution 
shots. The camera will accomodate cards with up to 64mb capacity, enough 
memory for a long summer vacation. I have compared the Digilux images with 
those of the Canon A50 and the Kodak 240, both similar in optical and 
electronic specifications, and found the Fuji/Leica results to be superior by 
a slight margin. It is fair to say that none of those cameras would provide 
images would could print out to an 8 x 10" size although all could produce 
respectable 4 x 6" prints. Since 95% of all pictures taken in the USA are 
never printed larger than 4 x 6, the quality of image would suffice for most 
casual users and non-professionals. I would rate picture quality for the 
average photographer as A. For the critical user as B. For professionals as 
C-. 

Downloading images via the serial connection is glacially slow. At full 
resolution it takes more than a minute to download each frame. Lower 
resolutions download faster, of course. My first aftermarket expenditure was 
for a digital film reader that plugs into my computer's USB port. Leica 
provides more software for the Digilux Zoom than Fuji does with the MX1700. 
My camera came with an image importing package suitable for any image 
processing program that can use Photoshop plug ins. Also included was a copy 
of Photoshop 5.0 LE, virtually identical to the full version of Photoshop 
except for some pre-press functions that are irrelevant for the average user. 
This (and the red dot) may justify the $75 higher price of the Leica over the 
Fuji.The literature accompanying the camera weighed more than the camera 
itself and consisted of multi-language instructions for hardware and software 
use. To be honest, Photoshop has a fairly long learning curve and it would be 
wise for a new user to buy one of the many full sized manuals that clutter 
book store shelves. I would rate downloading ease as B, downloading speed 
without the digital reader as D, included software as A-.

All in all I am quite satisfied with the Leica Digilux Zoom. It serves as a 
compact image notetaker, very portable and convenient to use around the 
house, on vacations, and even on business. I will take it with me whenever I 
don't seriously intend to take pictures. It relegates my point-and-shoot 
cameras to the drawer, not for image quality but for the immediate access to 
results. Ultimately it should prove more economical too. I estimate my 
overall costs for buying and processing a 24 picture roll of color print film 
at about $10. This year alone I will more than pay for the cost of the camera.

Finally, it WILL NOT replace my other cameras. For serious picture taking 
where prints are to be made larger than  8 x 10", for presentation prints, 
for pictures where the highest quality is important, film is still king - at 
least for the moment. Still, my experience with the Digilux Zoom and other 
digital cameras is eyeopening. I don't think that I will be buying many $2000 
film cameras and lenses, even Leicas, for the long term. If Fuji/Leica, 
Canon, Kodak, Nikon etc. can combine the quality of their present optics with 
say 6 to 10 megapixel sensors at a reasonable cost, 35mm film cameras will 
join the slide rule in the technology dustbin. Given the fact that chip 
density and microcomputer power doubles every 18 months, I suggest that the 
breakeven point between digital and film photography will come within 5 
years, even for professional users. The 2004 Summer Olympics will be entirely 
digitally photographed.

LarryZ