Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The strongest pro for me is Ithe analog style controls: no multi buttons pushing to obtain simple results, no quirky zoom button, etc. Typical Leica color (esp. skin tones). Not as cold as Canons, and not as contrasted and saturated as the Sonys. Auto white balance isn't that good (easily correctable in RAW), and you already mentioned some negatives yourself (although the EVF is something you get easily used to, if you don't move your camera too quickly). A very good and big LCD display. Low light is very good in auto mode (Ted made me understand that) at 100 ISO. 200 and 400 give a lot of 'grain-like' noise. Manual mode doesn't have a B setting. A good lens, if you can live with distortion in its widest setting. Most of these negatives can be easily corrected with all the software that is out there. Digital photography is going more an more in the software correction direction than in the good lens, good sensor, good body anyway. So quality wise, it's still a contender IMO. Price-wise... About RAW format: it gives you all the control you want or need afterwards, but the highest quality jpeg is very good on itself compared to the RAW. RAW tends to be a slow writer on the SD, even if you put Ultra cards in it. Op 27-nov-05, om 01:02 heeft Martin Krieger het volgende geschreven: > Is the Digilux-2 still a contender, now 2+ years after it was > introduced? What makes me want to own one is the f/2 lens, unheard > except in DSLRs. I read somewhere that the EVF is not so good, and > the noise correction is a problem. I'm not worried about > megapixels. I won't use RAW much, since I don't plan to spend time > with a computer. What I want is lots of resolution and detail, and > the ability to shoot in low light. > > MK > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >