Leica Digilux 2 Digital Camera Test

[Photo-John]

Read a hands-on report and view studio and other sample images taken with the Leica Digilux 2 digital camera.

Pros Great build, ergonomics, and classic Leica style Outstanding image quality Simple, effective controls and menus 7-22.5mm f/2.0-2.4 Leica DC Vario-Summicron lens Flash hot shoe Price: Approx. $1850 US

Cons Larger than comparable 5 megapixel cameras Electronic viewfinder Not practical for RAW shooting Expensive!

Leica Digilux 2 Test Images
	ISO 100 Sample >> ISO 200 Sample >> ISO 400 Sample >> Leica Digilux 2 Sample Gallery >> Leica Digilux 2 User Reviews >> Leica Web Site >>

Leica Digilux 2 Digital Camera Test

I hate to gush, but I love this camera. I had the pleasure of using it for a little over three weeks and during that time I didn't want to use anything else. I just wish it didn't cost so much. The image quality is wonderful and the camera is a dream to use. It's not the smallest, it's not the fanciest, and it's not the fastest. But it feels so good in my hands and I found myself taking pictures I don't think I'd take with any other camera. The proven, Leica rangefinder-based design, wonderful lens, excellent JPEG image quality, and the simplicity of the camera make it a pleasure to use.

Functionality and Features
The first two things I noticed about the camera were the solid, substantial feel and the huge, 2.5 inch LCD. The LCD is definitely the most striking feature of this camera. It's huge, the image quality is stunning, and it's a joy to compose and review photos on it. It almost compensates for the electronic viewfinder (ECF). I'm not a fan of electronic viewfinders and they're usually used on cameras with much longer zooms than this one. With the conservative 28-90mm (equivalent) zoom range on this Leica lens, I'm not sure why Leica chose to use an ECF instead of a traditional, optical viewfinder. The ECF does mean that you can see all the menu and exposure information as well as play back your photos in the viewfinder. And to be fair, the Digilux 2's 235,000 pixel ECF is one of the nicer ones that I've used. But I would still prefer a good optical viewfinder. And it would be nice to have a swiveling LCD like other high-end compact digital cameras have. Swiveling/rotating LCDs are a feature I've come to expect on non-SLR, high-end digital cameras.

Overall, the Digilux 2 is a simple and well-planned camera. The metal controls felt familiar and reassuring to me. That might not be the case if you've grown up with menu-driven compact digitals. The metal shutter speed dial, in the traditional location, on top of the camera made me feel even more at home. The manual zoom ring on the substantial (for a digital camera), 28-90mm Vario-Summicron lens completes the classic, traditional look and feel. The controls are all logically placed and it only took me a few minutes before I was using the camera without having to think about what I was doing. And isn't that one of the key elements of camera design? The less we have to think about what we're doing, the more we can concentrate on actually taking pictures.

Image Quality
I was very impressed with the Digilux 2's JPEG quality. All I shot with the Digilux 2 were highest quality, max resolution JPEGs. Compression is minimal so JPEG files are large and exhibit no apparent degradation. Images are rich in color and tonal gradation and the CCD has a great dynamic range. There's detail in the shadows that I wasn't expecting to be there. Most of the time I increase the contrast of my digital images in post-processing. Interestingly enough, with the Leica, I left most of the images pretty true to how the camera captured them. That says a lot for the sensor and processor. I also noticed that the Leica JPEG files were much, much larger than those from a 5-megapixel HP camera I was testing at the same time. Obviously, image quality was more important to the Digilux 2's engineers than the number of images that can stores on a memory card.

RAW Shooting
I generally test cameras in their basic, default settings. I want to use them more or less as they come out of the box. I mention this because some photographers have been complaining about shooting RAW with the Digilux 2. I didn't shoot any RAW files so I can't speak from experience. But enough photographers have complained about slow RAW write times that I thought it should be mentioned. From what I've heard and read, it can take somewhere between 10-45 seconds for the camera to write a RAW file. That's too long for most situations and the general consensus is that the Digilux is not a good choice if you like to shoot RAW. On the other hand, I never felt like I was giving up anything shooting JPEGs. The JPEG quality is so good that I'm not sure RAW capability is necessary. Sure, it would be nice. But if you make good exposures, and the JPEG quality is as good as it is, who cares?

Conclusion
In the end, all cameras should be judged on the images they produce. A camera's true potential is a combination of image quality, the physical functionality of the camera, and the vision of the photographer using it. There's an indefinable quality to the Leica M-Series and rangefinder cameras in general. Although the Digilux 2 isn't a true rangefinder, it shares some of the same handling qualities as its rangefinder ancestors. The simplicity and size of the camera encourage a different kind of photography than other compact digital cameras and SLRs. And I was thrilled with the photos I took with the Digilux 2. The combination of great image quality and quick, intuitive handling makes it a fine photographic instrument. It strikes a very good balance between a compact digital and a pro digital SLR. I kept it with me all the time and used it more spontaneously than most cameras I've used. It never felt like a chore to carry it or get it out of the bag to take a picture.

Between the handling and the image quality, I feel the Digilux 2 makes an admirable street and travel camera. I also think some photographers will find it makes a great environmental portrait camera. I could see it as a candid wedding or event camera. The only real issue I have with the camera is the price. The camera definitely fits a niche in my photo world, but at $1850 it's not a niche I can afford to fill. However, for a photographer looking for a unique, full-featured digital camera that's not an SLR and more than a point-and-shoot, the Digilux 2 could be the answer.

    -end-

Other Resources: Leica Digilux 2 User Reviews >> Post a Review >> Leica Web Site >> Discuss the Leica Digilux 2 >> Leica Digilux 2 Sample Gallery >> Studio Sample Images >> Buy Now >>

[Photo-John]

I took this picture the day the Digilux 2 arrived. The watermelons were in a box in front of the Safeway by our office. This small version has been lightened and otherwise optimized in Photoshop. You can view the untouched, full-sized version in the gallery, here >>

The thing I like about this image is that it has identifiable colors, smooth tonal blends, and you can really see the depth of detail the Digilux 2 delivers. Check the original, full-size file to really see.

[Photo-John]

I'm not much for portrait photography - unless it's portraits of mountain bikers on their bikes. But I found the Leica encouraged me to take fun, candid, people photos. I can't really say why, but it did. I think it may be a combination of the big LCD and the quick response time of the Digilux 2. In any case, here are a couple of people photos that I'm pretty sure wouldn't have happened if I'd been carrying a different camera.

[Photo-John]

I don't know that there's a whole lot to say about this photo. But I wanted to post it. It's of a doorway at Pomona College, where I learned the basics of photography and got hooked on pressing the shutter-release. One thing I can say about this photo is it makes me think about how nice it is to compose a photo with the big LCD on the Digilux 2. It's a rich, almost visceral experience using that LCD to set up an exposure - no kidding.

[Photo-John]

One of the main things I did with the Digilux 2 was take it on a roadtrip that covered about two-thirds of California. My friend, Elsa, came out from New York and we did a big loop from San Francisco to upper Yosemite, down the Eastern Sierra, through LA, then back up the coast to 101 and home. If I remember right, we traveled about 800 miles and did three nice hikes in three days. Not bad.

I love the Digilux 2 for landscape photography. For me, this is where the Leica DC Vario-Summicron lens really shines. It's amazing what you can do with a really good 28-90mm lens - and this one is excellent. I really like shooting wide but the lens also excells at the long end. One thing to watch out for is flare. You should always use the lens hood that comes with the camera. I never used it and I have a bunch of photos with obvious flare and sun spots. I can clone them out, but they shouldn't be there. I was just lazy and that's not a reasonable excuse.

This first of these photos was taken in Bennetville, an old silver mining ghost town, just outside the eastern boundary of Yosemite. Bennetville is one of my favorite places because it's a short hike to a perfect little mountain valley, and since it's outside the park, hardly anyone actually goes there. This photo was taken in early June and we actually hiked through snow and snowmelt to get to there. It was awesome. The image has hardly been touched at all aside from a small contrast adjustment, resizing, and sharpening.

[Photo-John]

Here's a photo of another one of my favorite places in California. Alabama Hills is just outside of Lone Pine, on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. It's right below the Mt. Whitney Portal Trail and you drive through it if you go to Mt. Whitney from Lone Pine. Ad for those of you who don't know, Mt. Whitney is the highest peak in the Continental US, at 14,494 ft. / 4,418 meters. That's about 10,000 feet, straight up from Alabama Hills. Mt. Whitney is the spiky peak in the very middle of the mountains.

This photo has been tweaked a bunch in Photoshop. That's not to say that it was a bad exposure and needed help. But it there were a lot of different light and color values. The original JPEG looked good but only suggested the real power and beauty of the landscape. Using Photoshop adjustment layers to optimize contrast and color allowed me to tune the image to the way I wanted it to look and feel.

[Photo-John]

Here are a couple of untouched, 100% resolution samples from the Alabama Hills image. These have only been cropped and resaved. No color or contrast adjustments have been made and no sharpening has been applied.

[Photo-John]

My friend, Elsa, standing below some rocks in the Alabama Hills. Tons of movies have been filmed at Alabama Hills and some of the restaurants and motels in Lone Pine have photos of movie stars and stills from old cowboy movies. My dad grew up thinking that this was what real cowboy country looked like.

To bring this back to the Leica, this is another photo that I think I might have ignored if I'd taken it with another camera. But the Digilux 2 seems to help make otherwise mundane photos special. On one level this is a typical tourist snapshot. But it's also got a great tonal range and the camera helped me make a composition that really pulls the viewer in.

[Photo-John]

Fossil Falls is another magical, unknown spot in California. It's on Hwy 395, near Little Lake and one of the roads to Death Valley. It's barely marked and I think the only people that go there are rock climbers. It's an ancient lava canyon formed by a waterfall. Lava bubbles and tunnels followed by the action of water, sand, and rocks have carved out all kinds of man-sized holes in the rock. The canyon was sacred to the local indians and there are easy to find petroglyphs. The canyon itself is probably less than 100 feet deep and it's easy to climb in and around the rocks. It's a great place to take pictures.

This story is becoming as much a travelogue as a Digilux 2 review, isn't it? Well, that's fine. It shows how many photos I took on my trip and how well the Leica lends itself to travel photography. One thing readers might like to know is I was also carrying my Canon 10D when I took most of these photos. But I usually preferred to use the Leica. It was simpler, faster, and more pleasant to use. Sure - ultimately, the Canon is more powerful. But if the Leica Digilux 2 is easier and delivers the goods, why bother with the SLR?

[Photo-John]

I'm going to close this review with what I think is a fitting photo. This is Mission San Juan Bautista, near Salinas, California. It's one of the more beautiful missions and also one of the more famous - it was in one of Hitchcock's best movies, Vertigo. And we reached it at the end of our California road trip. In fact, the decision to stop was made last minute. The sun was getting really low and I wasn't sure how conditions would be. As you can see, they were perfect. And the Leica did just fine, even without shooting RAW.

In going through these photos I've come to the realization that the Digilux 2 is a camera made for the heart. It's not the fastest, doesn't have the best resolution, and it isn't part of a powerful system. But I love the photos I took with while I had it. They all have a little something extra, something unquantifiable and magic. It's hard to test or review something like that, but I'm sure it's there. And I think it's what Leica rangefinder users have been talking about for decades. I don't know what the Leicaphiles are saying about this camera. I don't know if they think it measures up. But I'm positive it's a special camera. And the proof is in the results. Specs and features are nice, but photos are better.