[LRflex] Re: DMR question .
- From: Andy Wagner <yxandy2001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:50:39 -0800 (PST)
Elliot
Please allow me to add my two cents here. What I haven't seen yet in any of
the comments is the cost effectivness of digital.
First Digital has come very close to film quality--I think we can all agree
on that
Second It seems to me that each manufactures sensor handles an image slightly
differently--kinda like different types of film
Now is the DMR worth it
It will allow us to use our all existing lenses automatic mode the way they
were designed to be used
Bright finder for focusing
And the biggie--even at $6,000 it is quite a deal-- do we spend a year on
film and processing
If you shoot like I do my ROI is less than 2 years
Just my 2 cents worth
"Dr. Puritz" <drpuritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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"
To:
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/
------ >--
Regards
YXAndy
------
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:
