Leica Digilux 3 versus Leica M Typ 262
The Leica Digilux 3 and the Leica M (Typ 262) are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in September 2006 and November 2015. The Digilux 3 is a DSLR, while the M Typ 262 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. The cameras are based on a Four Thirds (Digilux 3) and a full frame sensor. The Digilux 3 has a resolution of 7.4 megapixel, whereas the M Typ 262 provides 23.7 MP.
The side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Leica Digilux 3 and the Leica M Typ 262. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All size dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter. If you prefer, you can also use the toggle button to switch to a comparison in percentage terms (in this case, the camera on the left – the Digilux 3 – represents the basis or 100 percent across all the size and weight measures).
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Leica M Typ 262 is notably smaller (12 percent) than the Leica Digilux 3. However, the M Typ 262 is markedly heavier (12 percent) than the Digilux 3. It is noteworthy in this context that the M Typ 262 is splash and dust-proof, while the Digilux 3 does not feature any corresponding weather-sealing.
The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete since they do not consider the interchangeable lenses that both of these cameras require. A larger imaging sensor will tend to go along with bigger and heavier lenses, although exceptions exist. You can find an overview of optics for the two cameras in the Four Thirds Lens Catalog (Digilux 3) and the Leica M Lens Catalog (M Typ 262).
The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, just select a new right or left comparator from among the camera models in the table. Alternatively, you can also move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible comparisons there.
|Camera Body Specifications
|Leica Digilux 3 (⇒ rgt)||5.7 in||3.4 in||3.0 in||21.4 oz||750||no||2006||1,499||discont.||check|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.7 in||24.0 oz||..||YES||2015||5,195||discont.||check|
|Canon M5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.6 in||3.5 in||2.4 in||15.1 oz||295||no||2016||979||latest||check|
|Canon 30D (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.7 in||4.2 in||2.9 in||27.7 oz||750||no||2006||1,399||discont.||check|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.5 in||23.3 oz||210||no||2017||6,595||latest||check|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.8 in||4.1 in||1.5 in||29.9 oz||400||YES||2015||7,450||latest||check|
|Leica Q Typ 116 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.1 in||3.7 in||22.6 oz||..||no||2015||4,249||latest||check|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.7 in||24.0 oz||..||YES||2012||6,950||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.6 in||2.1 in||15.3 oz||500||no||2007||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.4 in||3.6 in||2.7 in||19.0 oz||750||no||2007||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-330 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.5 in||3.4 in||2.8 in||22.5 oz||750||no||2006||999||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-400 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.6 in||2.1 in||15.3 oz||500||no||2006||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-500 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.7 in||2.6 in||16.9 oz||750||no||2005||599||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-300 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.8 in||3.3 in||2.5 in||22.0 oz||750||no||2004||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.6 in||4.1 in||3.2 in||26.0 oz||750||YES||2003||1,699||discont.||check|
|Panasonic L10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.3 in||3.8 in||3.1 in||19.6 oz||450||no||2007||599||discont.||check|
|Panasonic L1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.7 in||3.4 in||2.5 in||21.4 oz||750||no||2006||999||discont.||check|
The listed prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The Digilux 3 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 71 percent) than the M Typ 262, which puts it into a different market segment. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.
The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality. A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Moreover, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more control over depth-of-field in the image and, thus, the ability to better isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be more expensive and lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Leica Digilux 3 features a Four Thirds sensor and the Leica M Typ 262 a full frame sensor. The sensor area in the M Typ 262 is 280 percent bigger. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 2.0 and 1.0. The sensor in the Digilux 3 has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the M Typ 262 offers a 3:2 aspect.
With 23.7MP, the M Typ 262 offers a higher resolution than the Digilux 3 (7.4MP), but the M Typ 262 nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 6.01μm versus 5.51μm for the Digilux 3) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the M Typ 262 is a much more recent model (by 9 years and 2 months) than the Digilux 3, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixel-units. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the M Typ 262 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for most cameras. This service is based on lab testing and assigns an overall score to each camera sensor, as well as ratings for dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), color depth ("DXO Portrait"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"). The following table provides an overview of the physical sensor characteristics, as well as the sensor quality measurements for a selection of comparators.
|Leica Digilux 3 (⇒ rgt)||Four Thirds||7.4||3136||2352||no||-||-||-||-|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft)||Full Frame||23.7||5952||3976||no||-||-||-||-|
|Canon M5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||23.4||12.4||1262||77|
|Canon 30D (⇒ lft | rgt)||APS-C||8.2||3504||2336||no||21.5||10.8||736||59|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||23.8||5952||3992||no||..||..||..||..|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||24.0||6000||4000||4K/30p||25.0||13.4||1821||88|
|Leica Q Typ 116 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||24.3||12.7||2221||85|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||23.7||5952||3976||1080/25p||24.0||13.3||1860||84|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.1||10.0||494||51|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.2||10.0||442||52|
|Olympus E-330 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||7.4||3136||2352||no||-||-||-||-|
|Olympus E-400 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||-||-||-||-|
|Olympus E-500 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||8.0||3264||2448||no||-||-||-||-|
|Olympus E-300 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||8.0||3264||2448||no||-||-||-||-|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||4.9||2560||1920||no||-||-||-||-|
|Panasonic L10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.3||10.8||429||55|
|Panasonic L1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||7.4||3136||2352||no||-||-||-||-|
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The Digilux 3 and the M Typ 262 are similar in the sense that both have an optical viewfinder. The latter is useful for getting a clear image for framing even in brightly lit environments. The adjacent table lists some of the other core features of the Leica Digilux 3 and Leica M Typ 262 along with similar information for a selection of comparators. The full specs-sheets can be found in the camera manual or, for example, in the dpreview camera hub.
|Leica Digilux 3 (⇒ rgt)||optical||no||2.5||207||fixed||no||4000||3.0||13||no|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft)||optical||no||3.0||921||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||no|
|Canon M5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||2360||no||3.2||1620||tilting||YES||4000||9.0||5||no|
|Canon 30D (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||YES||2.5||230||fixed||no||8000||5.0||13||no|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||3.0||1037||fixed||no||4000||5.0||no||no|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||4400||YES||3.0||1040||fixed||YES||8000||11.0||no||no|
|Leica Q Typ 116 (⇒ lft | rgt)||3680||no||3.0||1040||fixed||YES||2000||10.0||no||no|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||3.0||920||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||no|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||fixed||no||4000||3.0||10||no|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||fixed||no||4000||3.0||12||YES|
|Olympus E-330 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||tilting||no||4000||3.0||13||no|
|Olympus E-400 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||fixed||no||4000||3.0||10||no|
|Olympus E-500 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||fixed||no||4000||2.5||13||no|
|Olympus E-300 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||1.8||134||fixed||no||4000||2.5||11||no|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||YES||1.8||134||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||no|
|Panasonic L10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||207||swivel||no||4000||3.0||11||no|
|Panasonic L1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||207||fixed||no||4000||3.0||13||no|
Both the Digilux 3 and the M Typ 262 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The M Typ 262 was replaced by the Leica M10, while the Digilux 3 does not have a direct successor.
So what conclusions can be drawn? Is there a clear favorite between the Leica Digilux 3 and the Leica Digilux 3? Below is a summary of the relative strengths of each of the two contestants.
Advantages of the Leica Digilux 3:
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- Less heavy: Is lighter (by 74g or 11 percent) and hence easier to carry around.
- Easier fill-in: Is equipped with a small onboard flash to brighten deep shadow areas.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (71 percent cheaper at launch).
- More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in September 2006).
Arguments in favor of the Leica M (Typ 262):
- More detail: Has more megapixels (23.7 vs 7.4MP), which boosts linear resolution by 83%.
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Better image quality: Is equipped with a larger and more technologically advanced sensor.
- Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (3.0" vs 2.5") for image review and settings control.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (921k vs 207k dots).
- More compact: Is smaller (139x80mm vs 146x87mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
- Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
- More modern: Reflects 9 years and 2 months of technical progress since the Digilux 3 launch.
If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the M Typ 262 emerges as the winner of the match-up (8 : 5 points). However, the relevance of individual strengths will vary across photographers, so that you might want to apply your own weighing scheme to the summary points.
In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras is instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it says nothing about, for example, the handling, responsiveness, and overall imaging quality of the Digilux 3 and the M Typ 262 in practical situations. User reviews that are available, for instance, at amazon can sometimes shed light on these issues, but such feedback is all too often partial, inconsistent, and inaccurate. This is why hands-on reviews by experts are important. The adjacent table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites. The full reviews are available, respectively, at cameralabs.com, dpreview.com, ephotozine.com, imaging-resource.com, and photographyblog.com.
|Leica Digilux 3 (⇒ rgt)||-||-||-||-||-||2006||1,499||discont.||check|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft)||-||-||-||-||-||2015||5,195||discont.||check|
|Canon M5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Rec||82/100 Silver||4/5||4.5/5||4/5||2016||979||latest||check|
|Canon 30D (⇒ lft | rgt)||87/100 HiRec||HiRec||reviewed||reviewed||-||2006||1,399||discont.||check|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||-||4/5||-||4.5/5||2017||6,595||latest||check|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||84/100||4.5/5||4/5||4/5||2015||7,450||latest||check|
|Leica Q Typ 116 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||80/100 Silver||4.5/5||-||4.5/5||2015||4,249||latest||check|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||-||4/5||-||-||2012||6,950||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||86/100||HiRec||4/5||reviewed||4.5/5||2007||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||89/100||HiRec||3.5/5||reviewed||4.5/5||2007||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-330 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||Rec||reviewed||3.5/5||-||2006||999||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-400 (⇒ lft | rgt)||85/100||-||4/5||-||4/5||2006||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-500 (⇒ lft | rgt)||76/100||HiRec||-||-||-||2005||599||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-300 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||Rec||reviewed||reviewed||4.5/5||2004||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||Rec||reviewed||reviewed||-||2003||1,699||discont.||check|
|Panasonic L10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||85/100||Rec||3.5/5||reviewed||4/5||2007||599||discont.||check|
|Panasonic L1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||85/100||Rec||-||reviewed||3.5/5||2006||999||discont.||check|
Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The ratings are only valid when refering to cameras in the same category and of the same age. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price of the camera, and comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.
In case you would like to check on the differences and similarities of other camera models, just make a corresponding selection in the search boxes below. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored. If the camera you are interested in is not available, please contact me, and I will try to update the database with the necessary infos.
- Canon T7i vs Canon 7D II
- Fujifilm X-Pro1 vs Fujifilm X-M1
- Fujifilm X20 vs Fujifilm X100S
- Leica M10 vs Canon T7i
- Nikon D700 vs Nikon D850
- Olympus E-M1 II vs Pentax K-1
- Olympus E-M10 III vs Olympus E-M10
- Olympus E-M10 III vs Olympus E-M5 II
- Panasonic FZ330 vs Panasonic FZ1000
- Panasonic G5 vs Leica X Typ 113
- Sony A6000 vs Nikon D3300
- Sony A7R II vs Leica SL