Definitely wins for sexiest looking camera on the market.

Oh, broeder Rico, question: Do you know of any product that replaces the WRIST strap on your digital camera for a NECK strap? My case has a neck strap, but you see how the Leica obviously has two lanyard attachment points for a neck strap? I think that's the way to go. I'm way more likely to wear the camera around my neck than I am my wrist.

Even if the same designed wrist lanyard on the Lumix was just LONGER so it could be worn around the neck, that would work.

Here is a Leica one. It is pricey.

Another one from Canon.

This one is cheaper still.

How is it that Leica even with a simple loop neck strap out does the competition.

Here is a whole list of straps. They are all not what you are looking for as there was no way to limit the search for just P&S loop neck straps.

Thanks, broeder.

Wow, the Leica one is nice with that pocket for SD cards, but forty bucks? Jeez.

Interesting, I've never seen METAL lanyards like that before.
This is a good idea, and opens up some options. This would clip to anything you wanted to wear around your neck.

The Adorama one actually has quick release clip too.

I think they are metal so people can not just cut them to steal your camera while you are traveling. At least I think that is the idea behind them being metal.

The new LX3 also has lanyard attachments on both sides.

That Leica does indeed look great. I love the old-school (looks like it's from the 50's) leather case that is shown in one of those links. I understand Rico's point about paying more for the same camera that Panasonic offers, but apparently the jpg processing in the Leica is noticeably better: "Last year I was able to shoot with both the Panasonic Lumic LX2 and its Leica twin, the D-Lux 3, at the same time. Both cameras’ RAW files looked the same - as they should. But the Leica JPEGs were much better, with smoother tonal blends and less artifacting."

Looks like you can't go wrong with either camera. They're not giving them away ($849.00 at B&H), but at least it looks like you'd be buying a very solid product. I like the top shutter speed of 1/2000 sec. Is that unusual for a digital camera? But it's a nice speed to have, although you'll likely need a butt-load of light to ever get to use it effectively. It's got a lot of flexible modes for movies. The only thing I didn't notice is whether it did voice recorder. That's just one of those feature you may find yourself using if you have it. Does it do time lapse? Here's the spec sheet I was looking at.

BN the previous models had what they termed flip animation which did up to 20 second clips. They may have dropped this feature.

Yes that's a viewfinder . Optional and costs extra, quite a bit extra I believe.

Not talking about the possible attributes of a Leica viewfinder, but I've found the LCD screens easier to use then jamming a camera in your eye. Besides, most of the viewfinders do a dodgy job of actually showing precisely what will be in the shot. And I seem to get a much better sense for composition when looking at the LCD. It looks more like a miniature of the actual photograph. And I just don't think battery life is that big of a deal. Just carry a spare set of batteries and you're good to go. And that LCD screen is handy for holding the camera up over your head, or to the side -- in situation where you can still see the LCD and something you couldn't do that with a viewfinder. I'm now a viewfinder agnostic, maybe even drifting over to atheism. I sure as heck wouldn't spend any money on the Leica viewfinder.

Nothing purtier than seeing that rainbow shine on a good glass (not plastic) lens. You ought to be able to take some awesome shots.

quote:

I like the top shutter speed of 1/2000 sec. Is that unusual for a digital camera?

Nothing special really.

quote:

Does it do time lapse?

Nope, time-lapse is more of a niche feature in compacts. All Ricohs offer it, some Nikons (P5100), Pentax... This is a thread i started at Dpreview

But hey -> "automatic bracketing (3 exposures with ± 1/3 to 1 EV steps)"
This is some great feature, that makes HDR Photography very effective. <howl> I expect some great shots from Yabor. :-) :-)

This is a thread i started at Dpreview

Time lapse is such a cool thing. It's a perfect feature for the home hobbyist. Maybe that's becoming somewhat of a lost art. And I think Rico's (or was that you who did that too, smithz) infra-red photography is extremely cool. I'm not sure I'd want to do all that fiddling with HDR, but the auto-bracketing of Yabor's upcoming camera (unless sister Petra changes her mind) will give him access to that.

But I do remember on SLRs that having the 1/2000 shutter speed was something usually only the more expensive cameras had. Many topped out at 1/1000.

Here's a collection of HDR pictures that are kind of cool.

Well, Rico is the IR-Guy and his shots he posted here looked amazing. Yabor can join in with some filters and his new Cam.

Those HDR-Shots you linked to look unreal and i'm too lazy to do some HDR, lol. But i WILL do some HDR some day in the future. WILL do...

And hey your Powershot also offers 1/2000. I'm not sure if all these compacts have "real" shutters or the expusre-time is done via electronics, so there may be no practical limit.

HDR (thanks for the links, Brad) looks like something I will love to experiment with. Some almost gauguinesque results seem achievable; some of these HDR color photos are very beautiful. No kidding.

quote:

Some almost gauguinesque results seem achievable;

I had the distinct impression that may be how things look when on meth. I remember that Huxley essay "Doors of Perception" mentioning how rich the colors were. I think our own brains, for whatever reason, compress the full dynamic range that we actually see down to our useful, but not too spectacular, RGB vision. Makes you think. We've obviously got the capability to subjectively experience colors differently than our brains typically do...as do our digital cameras. Wild.

I'm not sure I'd want to do all that fiddling with HDR,

According to this chap , there's really nothing to it. One just has to spend a bit of cash on the HDR software. Or is this somehow not the real thing?

As I'm reading Homer (wonderful stuff--you brothers should drop everything and learn Homeric Greek on the double), I was thinking that HDR pictures of Greece and the islands there and the Aegean sea would go great with the Odyssey. A HDR picture could look as if Apollo and the rest of the Olympian gang could walk into the frame at any moment.

Sister Petra says I may spend one thousand euros (that's 1,378.449 dollars) on all this. Isn't she sweet?

Sister Petra says I may spend one thousand euros (that's 1,378.449 dollars) on all this. Isn't she sweet?

You know how I feel about Sister Petra. If you don't treat her well, I'm going to find out what it takes to get a Dutch passport and take her away from you. But I'm a conservative. Is she okay with barefoot and pregnant?

According to this chap , there's really nothing to it. One just has to spend a bit of cash on the HDR software. Or is this somehow not the real thing?

Cool. And what I was particularly impressed with by those HDR photos I linked to was that site said about them was that all that color came from the photos. It wasn't artificial, per se. I guess I think of that from the perspective of the idea that an insect sees things much different than we do, as does a dog. And then you get down to the idea that nothing has intrinsic color to it. It's something added by the mind. Okay. I think I've just blown my mind again. Time for some more mescaline. But even then, we do see what we're seeing right now because of chemistry and drugs in our brains. It's not considered a "rush" when the rush is happening all the time. Perhaps that's what "enlightened" people and other friendly freaks have discovered.

As I'm reading Homer (wonderful stuff--you brothers should drop everything and learn Homeric Greek on the double), I was thinking that HDR pictures of Greece and the islands there and the Aegean sea would go great with the Odyssey. A HDR picture could look as if Apollo and the rest of the Olympian gang could walk into the frame at any moment.

That would make a fantastic edition of the book. I can't read long passages of narrative poetry. It just bores me to tears. But I'm glad someone else is able to appreciate it.

I think my favorite shot of all those HDR samples was the Devil's Hotel.

Ah, but Homer reads like a novel, or a drama by Shakespeare. The stuff doesn't rhyme or anything. It scans, but not in an obtrusive way. It hAd to scan for easier memorization. Half of it (I think) are speeches. I read it all like prose.

Damn the Leica is not yet for sale in Holland. It is for sale in the US (your link above) and in Germania. I'll have to wait a week maybe.

Ah, but Homer reads like a novel, or a drama by Shakespeare. The stuff doesn't rhyme or anything. It scans, but not in an obtrusive way. It hAd to scan for easier memorization. Half of it (I think) are speeches. I read it all like prose.

Are you reading the The Iliad or The Odyssey? And I'm actually quite impressed that you can do so in Homeric Greek. That's cool. Both texts are available online in English. Maybe when you hit a particularly rich passage, you could post it online.

I'm reading Iliad chapter One. Actually, I'm learning from a book by Clyde Pharr (no time to post a link now), where beginners jump right in at the deep end and learn the language by reading and memorizing Homer (i.e. first chapter Iliad) instead of by puzzling over boring constructed sentences. This is a fantastic method.

Broeder yabor Zuster Petra is being very generous indeed.

You can get quit a bit of bling with that kind of Euros. I didn't realize the Leica was going to be retailing for so much. I thought it would be more like $600US. $850 is pretty steep. Since Zuster Petra is allowing you a 1,000 euro budget you have many options. You could get the Panasonic version and have room left over to get her a DSLR. Some DSLR's are so cheap you might be able to get the Leica and a DSLR.

The basic extras you would need are additional batteries and SDHC media cards.

I certainly understand the allure of the Leica though. This was my first digital camera. I never regretted the purchase even though it to was alot of Euros. I think it cost me around $750US at the time.

I certainly understand the allure of the Leica though. This was my first digital camera. I never regretted the purchase even though it to was alot of Euros. I think it cost me around $750US at the time.

I feel brother Yabor's style pangs and enthusiasm from all the way over here regarding that jet-black Leica he's going to be buying. I, too, can get psyched about the idea of stylish, refined, and just damned good looking luxury items such as a digital camera. This would all, of course, just be the chimpification of electronics if the Leica didn't also, and primarily, have quality to underpin all that style. And let's be honest, although I love simple less-is-more black-only products, I think a good 50% of the Leica's so-called "style" is simply the lack of the kind of foolishness you tend to get on other consumer products, such as the stupid "for show" features thalo has mentioned on some of the guns he has reviewed. That Leica seems to have what it needs and no more. For me (and I might not speak for any of you in this regard), I don't point to the Leica and go "Oooooo.....look at the bobbles." Nor do I really say "Oooo....look at the styling." No, I think its style is much more about what it has underneath and what it doesn't have thrown in on top as stupid eye candy. The Leica that brother yabor is looking at doesn't insult your intelligence. It has style simply from a lack of chimpification, if you ask me. That's so rare in a consumer product these days. But it really wouldn't matter if they gave the thing a pink exterior with stupid bulbous curves all over the place if it took very damn good pictures for the money and was solidly built. The pink wouldn't help, of course, but I think you get my drift.

But a lot of people are going to look at that Leica and think "boring." And, yeah, to me the style of it *is* kind of boring, just like the functional handle of a good Craftsman hammer is boring or an exquisitely designed potato peeler is boring. We live more and more in a superficial The Sharper Image world where style alone tends to swamp and overwhelm function, where bulbous, colorful, and herky-jerky mod is the thing. Me, I used to love the simple, plain styling of the old Pioneer, Nakamichi, and Sony stereo equipment. But have you looked at what boom boxes look like lately in Best Buy? It's physically painful for me to walk down that aisle.

Anyway, I know I'm sounding more and more like thalo, and that's pretty scary. LOL. Love your old Leica, by the way, Rico. It reminds me sort of a raccoon.

That Digilux 1 looks great.

I think sister Petra should get herself the Digilux 3, which also looks great, but it's so damn expensive.

I've always wanted a small Leica, and now is my chance. This DLUX 4 is affordable. I wish the Lumix would cost a few hundred dollars more though.