[LRflex] Re: DMR question .

  • From: Douglas Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:33:07 -0500 (EST)

Unfortunately one of the big reasons David stasrted using a digital camera is 
the availability of film processing in Logan Lake BC.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com


-----Original Message-----
>From: "Dr. Puritz" <drpuritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Feb 23, 2006 6:28 PM
>To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [LRflex] Re: DMR question .
>
>David:  Your examples were, as usual, spot on and quite wonderful.
>
>Might I pose a question with a somewhat different slant:  How would the 
>picture of your beautiful Granddaughter taken with the DMR compare with one 
>taken with film...same parameters?  I am not being difficult, nor is it my 
>desire to ignite an argument filled with vitriol from those on the thread 
>who are confirmed "digital photographers" ( sic ).  I am only asking what 
>advantage the DMR has versus film?  If one can shoot film, have the film 
>developed easily in an hour, and then have the dealer ( who knows you, and 
>works with you to slightly "tweak" your images on the Fuji "one hour 
>machine" ) immediately scan the images to a CD disc which then is inserted 
>into your computer for presentation, and dissemination ( and if need be 
>manipulation in PS )....well, what is the advantage for $6,000?  All of us 
>are comparing the images taken with digital to those that are taken with 
>film. From the time the image is taken (on film) to the dealer to the time 
>the image is on your computer....several hours at most with the full 
>knowledge that  you can bracket as needed, full use of all of your expensive 
>and wonderful R lenses is easily accomplished, no worry about batteries ( 
>usually! ), etc..  I am simply asking if the advantages of using digital are 
>quite as obvious as the companies making digital cameras would have one 
>believe.  I recognize that there are valid advantages to digital in the 
>publishing industry where wifi and quick turnaround are important.  Of 
>course I see that professional photographer shooting weddings, and certain 
>assignments, might have some advantage by dint of being able to recompose 
>and shoot a flubbed or inadequate picture immediately.  Of course I can see 
>that Doug or David shooting wild-life can have the opportunity to try to 
>shoot another image if one that you have taken is inadequate....but for most 
>of us with  a Leica R system?  Obviously the question can be reframed as to 
>the advantages of digital versus the disadvantages of film, but I still 
>wonder.
>
>Please, once again, NO criticism of those using digital for any reason, and 
>only a question to ( perhaps ) inspire some additional debate about film 
>versus digital.
>
>Once again....not a post meant in any way to negate or minimize those of us 
>who use digital and create wonderful images using their equipment.  Only 
>meant to ask again if the advantages of digital-at least for the R 
>system-are easily perceived.
>
>Elliot ( who is still thinking about a digital set up! )
>
>
>
>--- Original Message ----- 
>From: "David Young" <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:06 PM
>Subject: [LRflex] Re: DMR question .
>
>
>> Ted Grant wrote:
>>
>>>A friend of mine is shooting a dog sled racing event I think in Wisconsin 
>>>or
>>>in Alaska. ;-) OK OK snow looks like snow wherever it is, but it looks 
>>>cold
>>>as all get out.
>>>
>>>He being a long time Leica R user I knew he had a DMR for his R8, so I
>>>assumed he'd be shooting with it. When he sent me several e-posts of
>>>pictures I was more than impressed with the quality on the screen.
>>>
>>>Even the brilliant snow had detail in the sunlit frames. I was so 
>>>impressed
>>>I sent a congratulation on the great shots with the DMR.
>>>
>>>Here's his response a few minutes ago. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Actually it's the Canon 20D with the 100-400 4.5-5.6 L series with 
>>>>>>image
>>>>>>stabilization.Temperature was 4 degrees with a wind chill of minus 40
>>>>>>degrees. First battery lasted about three hours and about 100 
>>>>>>pictures.
>>>>>>Spare battery carried next to my body to keep warm. Photographer was
>>>>>>wearing Columbia boots rated to minus 45 degrees, snowmobile pant bib,
>>>>>>NorthFace Fleece covered with Columbia Omni-Tech Jacket Shell, and a
>>>>>>rabbit furred bomber musher hat. Quite warm. Gloves weren't up to it
>>>>>>though, I'll have to upgrade. With the right set up, you can stay
>>>>>>outside for hours. Bloody Mary slush does help. You know it's cold when
>>>>>>the bloody marys begin to freeze.<<<<<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Not a DMR in sight! :-(
>>>
>>>So I've sent him a note.... "OK where's the DMR frames you being a long 
>>>time
>>>Leica user?"
>>>
>>>When I get a response I'll send it along. In defence of the 20D there 
>>>wasn't
>>>any question when I saw the full image on a 21" screen I was looking at 
>>>some
>>>very detailed DMR images. Beards with individual hairs as sharp as all get
>>>out, dogs and fur similar.
>>>
>>>I am hoping he has his DMR just to see how much difference in "Musher
>>>beard's and dog's fur" there is, if any?
>>>
>>>ted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ted! (and Aram, too!)
>>
>> An interesting post.  The Canon 20D is capable of some amazing results,
>> there is no doubt.
>>
>> However, Aram asked for large file comparisons between  the 20D and the
>> DM-R.
>>
>> I have attempted to respond to his request at
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/comparisons.htm
>>
>> which you (and others) might also find interesting.
>>
>> This is not an apples to apples test, as that could only be done by
>> shooting a model, on a tripod, with both cameras, to get truly
>> comparable shots.
>>
>> However, I have rummaged through my Canon shots, trying to find
>> something close to the shot of my granddaughter, offered the other day.
>>
>> Both shots at ISO 400. Both 'developed' in SilkyPix with the same
>> parameters.  Both converted to .jpg's at 99% quality (5 & 7 mb files) as
>> my ISP didn't seem to care for the .tif files I was going to use (at 24
>> and 29mb!).  Neither had any additional processing (sharpening, noise
>> reduction etc.).
>>
>> There is no doubt, that both are technically OK shots... and in normal
>> prints it may be difficult to tell the difference... but I believe the
>> differences are obvious to those who look.
>>
>> Are those differences worth the extra cost.  Probably not, for most of
>> us.  But, if you, like me, are a bit persnikity , then perhaps, yes. Or,
>> if, like me, you have a large investment in Leica glass and don't wish
>> to start over again with another system.
>>
>> Advantages of the 20D...
>>
>> * Good results.
>> * Low (relatively) cost.
>> * Lightweight & compact.
>>
>> Drawbacks of the 20D with Leica lenses.
>>
>> * No auto aperture.
>> * No spot metering  (now cured with the new 30D)
>> * Not the greatest viewfinder.
>> * Poor balance with long lenses.
>>
>> Advantages of the DM-R
>>
>> * Very good results,
>> * Auto aperture (stop down metering at f8 makes it a pain to see the
>> finder!)
>> * Spot metering that works incredibly well.
>> * Good balance with long lenses.
>>
>> Drawbacks to the DM-R
>>
>> * Breathtaking price. (although not that much more than the 5D if one is
>> thinking of stepping up from the 20D - as I was.)
>> * Larger and heavier - but no more so that top of the line Canon digis.
>> * AWB not as accurate in tricky situations (such as indoors with deep
>> coloured walls and window light).
>> * Slow (3 second) warm up is a pain the patoot when going for a quick
>> grab shot.
>> * Poor battery life... about 150 to 200 shots or 3 hrs operation.  2 hr.
>> recharge time.  Good but large charger.
>>
>> Other Observations:
>>
>> [1]  I find the scribed lines on the viewfinder indicating the sensor
>> area to be much like a Leica M... and, frankly, I like being able to see
>> what's just outside the frame.  Makes it easier to  compose.
>>
>> [2] I find the results from the DM-R to show finer detail in the final
>> photos.  This I attribute to the lack of an anti-aliasing filter which
>> does reduce Moire patterns in the odd shot, but also lowers resolution.
>> Interestingly, every other dSLR has one... but no MF digi back does!
>>
>> [3] Curiously, I found the 90 Summicron to be not a nice lens to use on
>> the 20D.  The combination became front heavy and the FOV alteration to
>> 144 mm made it a bit "long" for "standard" lens use... something I've
>> done for years.  With the DM-R, the FOV changes to that of 123mm...
>> which seems to very 'comfortable' to my mind.  It also balances very
>> well on the R8/DM-R combo.
>>
>> [4] In sub zero temperatures, I find the 20D difficult to use with
>> gloves on.  The DM-R has two new release buttons... one on the front for
>> horizontal shots and one near the base, for verticals.  Both are very
>> easy to use with gloves or even mittens!
>>
>> Anyway, I'd appreciate comments on these shots.  Other viewpoints are
>> always illuminating!
>>
>> Oh... yes... these pages are best viewed with 1024x768 pixels or more.
>> The large files (for high speed users only) will still take a lot of
>> scrolling around!
>>
>> OK... Nomex suit is on... Kevlar vest is in place!
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> -- 
>> David Young,
>> Logan Lake, BC
>> CANADA.
>>
>> Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
>> Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>> Archives are at:
>>    //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ 
>
>------
>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>Archives are at:
>    //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: