Re: [Leica] Digilux

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

Jordan, Bob, Dave, thanks for the feedback.

$595 list for Leica's version? Sounds like these folks *do* have a sense of
reality, and maybe I'll pick up a Digilux when then ole finances pick up
again! $50 extra for the red dot and a more stylish housing seem okay on a
$500+ product.

I got into digital photography fairly early, with the purchase of an Apple
QuickTake 100 camera. I actually did manage to take some low-quality (but
useable) product photos with it, but found it's lack of TTL viewing and
weak, glary flash a problem. I suspect it would've worked much better if I
had the internal flash triggering off a number of larger strobes, for much
brighter, even illumination.

Best results came in bright daylight (the effective "film" speed was only
25, with a minimum shutter speed of about 1/30th), on fairly low-contrast
subject matter. I did see some strange artifacts, such as some seemingly
random white or bright pink pixels in regions between very bright and very
dark surfaces, and the blue skies would sometimes take on a ruddy cast (the
QuickTake 150 added IR filtering to it's optics, which maybe would've
fixed?). It didn't handle underexposure well, and neither did it retain
shadow detail--it tended to look kind of muddy and featureless in those
areas--hoping these newfangled megapixel cameras will allow for lots more
creative possibility.

But I'm rambling! As for your printouts, try using papers specifically
designed for photographic reproduction, or at least some good-quality coated
stock. The difference, particularly in terms of brilliance, is remarkable.
For pastels and weak blacks, use cheap paper :-) Look carefully at
manufacturer's sample prints, and you will notice too that they've chosen
subject matter carefully: Most of the subject matter has rich color, but the
lighting's usually very uniform, and they go so far as to provide blurred,
sometimes textured, multicolor backgrounds which nicely mask the worst
effects of dithering, which you would see pretty well in a picture of the
sky, for instance. Still would hesitate to call this "Photo Quality", but
it's handier than your average Polaroid, and lots cheaper to operate :-)