As above!

I am looking to buy a nice DLSR and really like the look of the Leica Digilux 2/3 cameras. I am a total amateur when it comes to photography and want to buy a nice camera to hopefully take some decent photographs with!

The Nikon D5000 has been recommended to me by a friend who is a photographer, but I think a Leica would be a cooler camera. 

Would it be foolish to opt for a second hand digilux camera over a new D5000? Can the pictures taken on the Leica be worse purely down to spec? I always thought that a decent quality camera could produce great photos regardless of specification (similar to the old/new hifi debate I suppose!)

I just want something that is reliable with decent performance that is easy to use really. The camera won't be used for any kind of professional work!

Any advice appreciated

The Leica may well hold its value more in years to come - I would suggest the Nikon will take better pictures, as long as you adjust the nut behind the handle properly.... 

Peter you have a fair point! (Although I like to think I'm not too bad!)

Thanks for the info mbee. It is funny you should mention the BV5 because I have the same dilemma with this! New Loewe or top of the line Sony TV, or used BV5? I am tempted by the latter because to be honest sound is more important to me than HD!

I think the Nikon would be the better choice in this case :-)

I would wait 24 hours and see what the Leica enthusiasts say ... I believe they will enthuse over the engineering ... much like we do over B&O 

It's funny... I'm not a brand snob. I just love good design (or perhaps I mean aesthetics), to the point where sometimes I am willing to sacrifice performance to be honest! That goes for pretty much anything, not just electronics. I sat on an uncomfortable couch for years. It looked cool though. 

Leica fanboy on deck.

Nikon fanboy on deck.

To get started...

You said nonprofessional work, but...

1.) Just what sort of shooting do you want to do?

2.) Are you a "camera guy" or is it just a means to an end?

I just want to use it for holidays/weekends away, photographing things for fun (ie angular B&O/interior designy shots, angular classic car photos), basically casual use I guess!

I love a nice camera so I suppose I am a "camera guy", but delving into photography as a serious hobby is unchartered water for me. The only other cameras I own are a point and shoot and a couple of rare Polaroids (a mint condition Polaroid SX-70 and a Polaroid Spectra System from the mid-80s, also a serviceable camera!)

I will never need my photos blown up to huge proportions so a high mega-pixel rating is not important. Also I don't really need speed because I will never be doing any fast moving photography, I just want a nice camera with a decent lens that can take some great pictures I suppose. (The largest probably being something along the lines of 1920x1080 res or similar)

The Leica appeals to me because I like the old-fashioned styling and fully cast (or at least fully-cast looking) body design! It has also got some great reviews even though it is a few years old.  I wanted one when they first came out and still want one now :)

The Nikon appeals to me purely as the sensible choice, as opposed to being out of desire... 

IMHO...

Tangibles

Of the Digiluxes mentioned... (not considering any other Leicas?)

D2:

1.) Known best for its lens (stellar). NatGeo photogs were fans of the D2.

2.) It does have an electronic rather than optical VF (which drives me mad).

3.) Watch out for failed (Sony) sensors. It is the D2's weakness.

4.) Great camera -great prices today.

D3:

1.) Lens not as good, but it does incorporate the 4/3 mount -so you have quite a lot of selection.

2.) Optical VF, but at the cost of the addition of a mirror: rather un-Leica like, but very Nikon SLRish. Bulkier.

3.) New sensor. Not familiar w/ any reports of sensor issues.

4.) A good bit more expensive.

Nikon...

D5000/5100

Great cameras right out of the box. And that is pretty much that!

Keep in mind that the AF is driven in the body on these -so watch interchangeability there!!!

As far as lenses, the 18-55 kit is remarkably good, but I would recommend picking up a fast 35 or 50 prime as well.

For the extra money, I'd recommend a 7000.

Intangibles

Yes, Leica is arguably the B&o of the camera world. I always find such striking similarities to the two. From manufacturing, sales, support, etc... Leica is certainly more of a lifestyle product rather than the "blenderesqueness" of Canikon.

There is a price to pay though. They are expensive (can be very expensive). They are often classified as quirky, slow, often buggy -but when they are on, there is nothing like them. Using them is more like enjoying a fine wine and a cigar than chugging a beer and puffing a fig. If I wish to slow down, take in the world around me, and take some memorable pictures -I grab a Leica. If I am running out the door to a sporting event, birthday party, etc... -I grab a Nikon.

There is so much more to it than just this brief discussion, but they are both fantastic brands and you would not go wrong choosing either. Just remember: they are really just a tool. How much enjoyment you perceive from using them is measured in more ways than just the picture.

Thanks for taking the time to explain!

Sounds like I could get away with a Leica but the sensible choice would still probably be a Nikon...!

I haven't considered any other Leicas simply because I don't really know what is around in my price range other than the above. I am looking to spend £400-£800 for a body and lens. 

The M8 is clearly well over this measly budget! Any other recommendations?

Certainly the Nikon makes more sense!

The M's are the "real" Leicas and yes, they can be very expensive -not to mention the glass! I have an M6 and 8 now and love them to death. They feel like a Luger in your hand -nothing even comes close, but I still do grab my Nikons! 

The alternatives in your price range would be the Panasonic "joint effort" cameras.

They are compact cameras w/ fixed lenses.

C-Lux: I'd probably skip.

D-Lux models, namely a 4 or a 5 are rather nice and very pocketable. I own the predecessor, the 3, and it is a wonderful grab and go type of camera. These are all remarkably petite and have the fastest lenses of the compacts.

V-Lux: The 20 or 30 are interesting, but perhaps a bit too similar to the C-Luxes. The V-Lux 2 is something a bit different, being more bulky and handling more like a DSLR. It is, however, considered by many to not be as good at its predecessor, the V-Lux 1. I have a 1 and it is a very versatile camera with an immensely flexible encapsulated zoom. This is key in that it is truly sealed and does not suffer dust incursion typical to zooming lenses. It does have an electronic VF (which I mentioned drives me mad) but it is otherwise a great camera and rather affordable on the used market.

Curveball! The X1: Out of the price range new, but they have been descending and may be worth a look as well. They seem to be a bit of a LOVE/HATE camera.

If it were me and buying new, I would look at the D-Lux 5 if you want something small, unobtrusive, and very elegant. If used doesn't bother you, a V-Lux 1 if you wanted something a bit more hefty and versatile.

And don't discount the Digilux 2 that you started with...

I would suggest a Nikon D7000. Motor on the camera, will be able to use almost every Nikon lens made from the 1960's onward.