Contax TVS vs Leica DLux

philip_m

New Member
In as much as neither camera is a complete design by either manufacturer and both with considerable draw backs my question is which would be a better choice. The contax 5meg or the Leica 3.2meg. Has anyone used both. I currently use a D1x which is with out question in my opinion the finest digital made irregardless of megapixels. In comparison to other high end cameras the Nikon's processing of the image is far superior. I am looking for a camera that will provide great images in a smaller package.
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
Pretty sweeping statement concerning the Nikon D1x Phillip. I know it is your opinion, but based on what performance aspects specifically? I shot with the Nikon for about 2 years before moving to a Canon 1Ds which I've had for about 7 months, (using all comparable prime lenses).

IMO, there is no comparison. The Canon is faster in every performance arena and the loads to the buffer so fast I've yet to experienced the down time I did with the Nikon when shooting weddings.

Neither manufactuerer's RAW processing software is worth a nickle compared to 3rd party post programs.

And the image quality is for sure better with the 11 meg Canon.

So, what's the basis? Just curioius.

BTW, the Contax TVSD produces a better file than the Leica. Even though I am a loyal Leica M shooter, I had to give the TVSD its' due.
 

irakly

Well-Known Member
The only real annoying drawback of TVSD is that its LCD is very dim in low light conditions, and framing via an optical viewfinder is virtually impossible. Other than that, I do not see any problems with this camera, which I shoon wherever my normal size cameras are not allowed or practical.
You should see how crappy Leica D-Lux files are at ISO400, and you won't need to ask the question again.
 

irakly

Well-Known Member
The only real annoying drawback of TVSD is that its LCD is very dim in low light conditions, and framing via an optical viewfinder is virtually impossible. Other than that, I do not see any problems with this camera, which I shoon wherever my normal size cameras are not allowed or practical.
You should see how crappy Leica D-Lux files are at ISO400, and you won't need to ask the question again.
 

philip_m

New Member
I did purchase the D-lux and could not be happier with the 8.5x10 prints. The quality of the lens must certainly make up for the 3.2 megs. Outdoor shots taken in Program or Landscape are vivid and tack sharp, if fact I duplicated a few shots that were taken with a M6. Impossible to tell the difference in 8.5 x 10.
 

afranklin

Well-Known Member
Hi Philip,

I'm glad you're happy with your camera...but

> if fact I duplicated a few shots that were taken with a M6 [vs Leica D-Lux]. > Impossible to tell the difference in 8.5 x 10.

I assume your dimension is mm ;-)

I'd be happy to take you up on a challenge to identify which print was made from one or the other. It's simply unreasonable to believe a 3.2M pixel P&S camera can produce the same images that a high end 35mm camera camera can produce, unless there is some serious flaw in the 35mm images being compared. I'm not trying to d&en your enthusiasm, but I believe your overstating the capabilities of your new camera.

Regards,

Austin
 

will8700

Member
>>"It's simply unreasonable to believe a 3.2M pixel P&S camera can produce the same images that a high end 35mm camera camera can produce, unless there is some serious flaw in the 35mm images being compared. I'm not trying to d&en your enthusiasm, but I believe your overstating the capabilities of your new camera."

I have a 4MP Sony with a Zeiss lens. The vast majority of the time there's no comparison with a film image, but even at <4M settings (if I'm trying to cram a lot of shots on to a memory card), in certain well-lit situations it is possible to get amazingly high quality exposures and subsequently prints at 8.5x10. I have no desire to restart the film v. digital debate, but it's not impossible that under some conditions, the D-Lux is producing results that look pretty darn good, even next to the M6's output.

- Will
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
A digital P&S equalling a shot from a Leica M @ 8X10? Perhaps when the Leica shot is brought into the digital domaine due to a mediocre scan.

I've shot the Contax TVSD (5 meg with a Zeiss lens) side-by-side in the same conditions with a Leica M. Even at the lowest ISO setting verses the Leica using ISO 400 film, there was no comparison even at 8X10.

The TVSD is a great little camera, and I dumped my Canon P&S digitals because it outperformed them all. But it should be kept in proper perspective. I know Leica Ms, and this is no Leica M.
 

jcheng

Member
Marc,
I just took delivery of the new Leica Digilux 2 and it blew me away with the creamy "Leica" colors and sharpness as compared to the TVSD and the new Sony 828. Best of all, it's the way it works in the traditional manner. No wheels or deals. Just plain old aperture ring and shutter knob. I would like to hear your comments comparing the Digi 2 with your TVSD. Regards.
 

irakly

Well-Known Member
I bought Leica Digilux 2 last Friday and shot some street stuff. I have very mixed feelings about the camera. Despite a very impressive lens, impeccable craftsmanship and obvious tank-like durability, by no means it is a professional piece of equipment. ISO100 is the lowest, ISO400 is unusable, RAW file takes about 30 seconds to write on a Sandisk SD card, and camera locks up while writing. JPEG is instantenious, but eeverybody knows advantages of RAW. Hell knows why it creates a full size JPEG along with the RAW file, and there is no way to turn it off. Built-in flash sucks because it cannot be compensated. I have not gotten a single decent flash shot with it except those in slow shutter mode. Electronic viewfinder is really annoying because there is no feeling of immediacy. It has neat manual focusing implementation, but I would prefer a traditional split image rangefinder. LCD is huge and brite, but it does not rotate. Considering the camera size (it is as big as Canon G5), there is no excuse for it. I am far from issuing verdicts, but it does not seem to me that $1900 price tag is justified.
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
Oh Irakly, I could've told you all that. I didn't know you were considering a Digilux 2. I played with a friend of mines and immediately hated the viewfinder and everything else you mentioned.
 

bobbl46

Well-Known Member
Sounds like the makings of a new thread


I TOLD YOU NOT TO BUY ONE OF THESE >>>>>>>

Cheers, Kyocera Kid.
 

wilsonlaidlaw

Well-Known Member
I presume the "2" after the Digilux 2 equals either the multiplier on the price or the number of faults on a Digilux 1 and having had a Digilux 1, that was bad enough. My new Contax SL300R takes twice as good photos as my Digilux did and is one quarter the size. I have not found a digital yet that takes really good flash photos and I have used a number up to consumer model DSLR's. The nearest I got to a satisfactory one was my old Leica Digilux 4.3, especially if you used a slave sensor connected to a big flash (Metz 45 CL-4) and compensated down about 1.5 to 2 stops. It is unfortunately difficult to do this on the SL300R as it does not have a tripod socket to fix onto the flash bottom bar. I think the Digilux 2 has a PC socket for an external flash. Wilson
 

msadat

Well-Known Member
shot in jpeg, which is what the intention (is/was) it is the best p&s camera on the market. the next version with 8 meg (after the bugs have been worked out), more buffer and better view finder will be the next M!!
 

jsmith45

Member
I think that folks who would like to use their digicam primarily for street photography might want to consider the new Casio 6mp model (1/100 of a second shutter lag). I've never read anything good about any Contax digital camera.

The dizzying array of digicams is frustrating. Every one seems to have a good point and an achilles heel. I've learned not to buy anything until there are enough positive reviews about it to make it an unmistakeable good purchase. But by then, it is discontinued and replaced by a better one that is worse than the one before it for some reason.
 

nickser

Well-Known Member
Hi Jeffery,

There are plenty of very good reports, (and some justified/unjustified knocking as well) on the Contax digitals within this forum. You may have to work a bit with the N digital to get to know it properly and it's foibles, but what class the pictures have!! Have a good browse around, and don't believe all you see or hear :)

Paul
 

irakly

Well-Known Member
James, this is a pretty bold statement. There are at least three people here who can tell you first hand a thing or two about Contax N Digital unique capabilities. But this is not the point here. The point here is that Leica Digilux 2 is not a professional camera by any standards, for any type of photography.
 

jsmith45

Member
The bad rap I keep reading on them is the software and electronics part, not the lenses. If they would make a 5mp Contax T3 with the equivalent of a 35mm lens, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
 
D

djg

"I've never read anything good about any Contax digital camera."

Obviously you don't hang out much in this forum
.

The only alternative I could currently consider to my ND is an EOS 1Ds, and some aspects aside from having to re-invest in a set of expensive L lenses to replace my Zeiss glass, such as size and ergonomics (for my taste) keep me from jumping. And zoom-wise, which I would use a lot even if FFL lenses were available, I think I would be coming up a bit short.

I can live with the smallish buffer and power shortcomings in my situation. Image-wise I'm happy with my ND results as I don't need to do posters, not that things can't be improved
. But if its 6MP is not state-of-the-art, the tonal range is excellent and having real wide-angle capability makes up for a lot.

I ain't going nowhere else, so far ... just waiting for Kyocera to wake up, which may be never.

DJ
 
D

djg

Jeffery,

The software shortcomings have been addressed by a couple of sources, SharpRaw and Adobe Raw Camera Plug-In (in beta). No worries there. The small buffer and power shortcomings may or may not be an issue depending your situation.

DJ
 
Top