But I want knobs and dials on it!

September 5, 2006 7:21 PM

I've been drooling over the Leica Digilux 2 but it seems to be very expensive for what you get. I'm particularly keen though, on the manual shutter speed selector knob and the focusing ring... are there any other digital cameras (SLR or compact) out there that I could use in a similar way (the set the speed, set the focus then turn it on then take the shot kind of way).
posted by itsjustanalias to Technology (10 answers total)

The Leica is beautiful, but you're right: for what you get, it's pretty pricey.

You be better off with a dSLR. For $1,500 you could get a Canon/Nikon//whatever mid-range dSLR with a great prime or pretty good zoom. For $1,000 you can get an entry-level dSLR with those same lens options. Both are going to give you aperture and shutter priority modes, which is the "set the X and take the picture" mode you're looking for. A shutter priority mode gives you flexibility when shooting moving subjects, but aperture priority (and full manual) is what really makes you a better and more creative photographer.

Manual focusing? That's sounds sexy on paper, but it's tedious in practice. Most pros, unless they're doing macro work (or using old expensive equipment), use automatic focus. There's a good reason for that. (It works, and it saves time.)
posted by deadfather at 7:32 PM on September 5, 2006

"Most pros, unless they're doing macro work (or using old expensive equipment), use automatic focus. There's a good reason for that. (It works, and it saves time.)"

This is a tremendous generalization. Autofocus is useful, but many pros (myself included) prefer having 100% control over the image. Manual focus is a big part of this.
posted by blaneyphoto at 7:42 PM on September 5, 2006

Oh, I see the Leica does have an aperture priority mode. Sorry.

This is about as top-of-the line as a point-and-shoot can get. While it's absolutely drop-dead gorgeous, and the attached lens is pretty decent, I, personally, would balk, for the following reasons:

• No interchangeable lenses
• Max ISO of 400--making it a very poor low-light shooter
• 5MP--not terribly important, but it doesn't allow for much cropping

The problem with getting such a good P&S, like the Leica, that lets you get a taste of the SLR side, is that many times you'll be left hungry for more.
posted by deadfather at 7:49 PM on September 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

This is a tremendous generalization.
Yes, my post was full of them. I should have excluded studio work, not just macro. Was thinking more along photoj lines.
posted by deadfather at 7:50 PM on September 5, 2006

"set the speed, set the focus then turn it on then take the shot kind of way"
All DSLRs are of the auto variety, and all have both aperture and shutter speed via electronic buttons. The only digital camera that has a physical dial to set shutter speed is (I think) the VERY expensive Epson RD-1 which accepts Leica M lenses.
However, most (all?) DSLR lenses can be manually pre-set, and my Nikon turns on in whatever mode it was left at the same settings (for instance, Manual, 1/250, f8). Most (all?) lenses also have an adequate distance scale that can be preset.
If you want a Leica experience via digital, I don't think you'll get it with a DSLR. Unfortunately, you will have to pay Leica money regardless (unless Voigtlander suddenly comes out with a digital version of their Bessa range - don't hold your breath).
posted by johngumbo at 8:11 PM on September 5, 2006

You do know that the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 is virtually the same camera (the body is very slightly different) for about $300 less, right?

For a fixed-lens SLR, it's a very sexy design. But don't be fooled into thinking it'll operate just like a film Leica. The viewfinder, for example, is a digital projection. Also, a huge flaw in their design essentially locks the camera while writing RAW files. The lens is wonderful, but limited (~28mm - 90mm) and that's it. For two grand, I'd rather have even the cheapest consumer-level SLR from Canon or Nikon for $500 and get a couple of lenses on top of that. But for sheer portability... well, even then I'd just get a similar beast from Canon or Nikon and pocket the extra $1500 bucks.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:17 PM on September 5, 2006

Er, make that "quasi-rangefinder", not fixed-lens SLR.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:19 PM on September 5, 2006

The Leica is beautiful. But, as civil disobedient pointed out, it's exactly the same camera as the Panasonic.

Also, Leica has already announced a digital version of their M-Series rangefinder. It'll be completely compatible with all of their existing lenses and will undoubtedly be a beautiful piece of hardware.

Oh, and it will cost more money then you've ever had in your life.
posted by aladfar at 9:15 PM on September 5, 2006

As a former camera salesmen who played with this baby daily....

It's dog slow. Which totally defeats the 'shoot from the hip' aesthetic one tends to be after with a rangefinder.

And for folks claiming he'd be better off with an slr... you'll never get the candid shots with an slr. Too 'camery' A rangefinder slips by unnoticed...
posted by mmdei at 1:17 AM on September 6, 2006

The manual-focus feature is sort-of available on any SLR, but at least on Canon's lenses you can't pre-empt the autofocus without switching it off via a switch on the lens. Canon's L-series lenses have full-time manual focus where you can just grab the focus ring and force the camera to not move at any time.

Of course, the L stands for how much Lighter your wallet becomes so that may not be very useful.

You can get candid shots with a small SLR and a small lens. I find that a tiny point-and-shoot (an old Canon S200) makes a great carry-around camera, but there's nowhere near as much freedom as is on my 10D.

Honestly, dSLRs are cheap enough now that its almost silly not to get one if you want to experiment with focus/aperture. Plus, the component-nature of SLRs means you can get sexy glass on your crapo body and upgrade later.
posted by Skorgu at 9:53 AM on September 6, 2006