[LRflex] Re: DMR question .
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:40:43 -0800
Dr. Puritz 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?
>
Hi Elliot!
Questions like yours are very subjective, and like you, it is not my
intention to upset anyone. It's not even to justify to myself that I've
made the right decision... the jury is still out on that one, until I
climb a bit further on the DM-R's learning curve. I admit, however,
that so far it's looking very positive!
However, as I have said, film, scanned at 4000dpi can be startlingly good.
And, as Doug pointed out, the main reason for my switch to digital was
the relative unavailability of easy film processing here in rural, Logan
Lake. (I can get it done, but I must travel to a nearby town... $10 in
gas, each way. So, either I take my film in one week, and pick it up
the next, or I go digital.)
My disappointment with the 20D comes not from any aspect of the camera,
or it's maker, but from the camera's performance. My shots, though
crisp, in focus and well exposed all lacked the 'snap' that I'm used to
with Leica glass and film. The very fine details were missing...
apparently (and I cannot prove this, Jerry!) 'smeared' by the noise
reduction algorithms in the camera and/or the AA filter, which, as we
all know, lowers resolution.
I wanted something better. The Canon 5D was an option, but here it
costs nearly $5,000 inc. taxes. I could pick up the DM-R for just
$6,200 inc. shipping and taxes! For me, the convenience of automagic
diaphragm, a better finder and spot metering that works, not to mention
the convenience of mounting lenses without an adapter, was worth the
relatively small amount extra.
The Canon 1DsII (or whatever it's called) with it's 16mp and full frame
sensor might have been a better choice... but here it cost close to $9k
and I'd have to buy a slew of new lenses, or continue with stop down
metering... something I haven't really had to contend with since my
Practica days!
As I mentioned before, film + the Coolscan @ 4000dpi is incredible. But
the DM-R comes very, very, VERY (are you listening, Doug?) close to
scanned, well exposed film. And, if you shoot 150 rolls a year, as I do,
the ROI is not that bad. I figure cost less film savings less residual
value when sold = an ROI of about 3 to 4 years.
The DM-R is not without it's problems and foibles... and I'm pretty sure
that Leica will do better with the digi-M. The rumoured R10D (to follow
the Digi-M by 18months to 2 years, if the rumour mill is to be believed)
will likely be better still... and by then I may have saved enough to
warrant an upgrade!
Speaking of savings... I shot 2000+ shots in Costa Rica... I printed
about 200 of them for the album. I figure the cost savings over film
was $635 on that trip alone. Mind you, I spent about 20 hours sorting,
"developing" and sending the files to be printed. That still works out
to better than $30 per hour for my labours! Mind you, that alone may
discourage some folks; but for a retired cat like me....
> I am simply asking if the advantages of using digital are
>quite as obvious as the companies making digital cameras would have one
>believe.
>
>
For many folks ... and certainly for the masses who use digi point and
shoots... perhaps not.
For me, cost of film was becoming a major expense. I don't know how
Doug shoots, but I tend to find an animal, and shoot. I then try to get
a bit closer, for a better shot. Repeat until sitting on animal, or
animal has left. Because beasts and birds are easily spooked, or leave
of their own volition before you're finished with them, it means that a
roll of 36 can often be shot, to get the one shot you wanted when you
started. Worse, you can shoot most of the roll, and he (she?) leaves
before you get that shot. Digital cures this film expense and the long
drive/wait for film developing, with ease.
For those with access to good, fast, inexpensive film developing... film
may still be the answer. Sadly, whether we like it or not, film is
slowly dying, and that may eventually force the hands of us all; except,
perhaps, for the real die hards!
As for myself. I've found the quality of the DM-R so good, that I don't
think I'll ever go back to film. Something I would not have said, with
the 20D.
I hope this answers your questions.
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/
Other related posts:
