[LRflex] Re: DMR question .
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:23:57 -0800
David,
I will never forget in a college Logic class, hearing a definition
of the word "rationalization" it was "The replacement of the real
reason with a 'good' reason".
I just read the Pop Photography" review of the DMR+ R9 and
lens. 10 kilobucks and .5 kilograms Wow! That's $20 per
gram.
They held some hope for a digital M though.
Jerry
David Young wrote:
> Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>
> >David, Doug and Steve,
> >
> >In the engineering world when doing any testing, the motto always
> >must be "SEPARATE THE VARIABLES" in other words, change
> >one item at a time.
> >
> >Your tests would have validity if you had the same Leica lens on a
> >Canon and DMR, with the same subject, lighting and post processing.
> >Otherwise you are indulging in self abuse.
> >
> >Notify us if you have valid test data, not opinions.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >
> Hi Jerry!
>
> Sorry if I upset the scientist in you! My comparisons were not intended
> to be conclusive, nor even scientific. They were made, based on two
> photographs, as close as I could find to each other, made with similar
> exposures and similar lenses (both Leica, at least!) and with similar
> (though not identical) lighting and composition.
>
> I do not claim either to be marvelous photos... but I believe they do
> show, to an extent, the differences between the DM-R and the 20D.
>
> I've been very pleased with the 20D, and in some ways it is superior to
> the DM-R at 1/3 the price. But what I found lacking in the 20D was the
> lack (or, at least, the limited amount) of fine detail in, say, the
> feathers on a bird's wing. Film shot with the R8 and scanned in my
> Coolscan VED at 4000dpi is spectacular. And neither the 20D nor the DM-R
> can match it. But the DM-R comes very, very close, to my mind.
>
> There is, of course the problem with the noise levels in the DM-R. Much
> higher than with the 20D. However, the algorithms which reduce noise
> also tend to destroy fine detail (although to what extent depends on the
> individual software). The Canon's are famous for being quite noise free
> at high ISO's. but this in turn they have a 'plastic' look, as the fine
> details are blended into one another.
>
> When I shot film, I was quite willing to accept grain as the price of
> speed. I view noise the same way. It's personal, but I'd rather have a
> bit more noise, and all the fine detail that Leica lenses are capable of
> rendering. At least, this way, I can massage the photo afterwards, to
> reduce noise as necessary, rather than having the camera make that
> decision for me.
>
> Is the DM-R for everybody. Heck no! Is it for me. I think so! But I'm
> still learning it's foibles, and how to deal with them.
>
> Please look at the shots in the way they were intended. Look at things
> like the weave in the fabrics, etc. Check the naturalness of the
> colours. I believe the DM-R is much closer to the original scene.
> (Note the phrase "I believe".)
>
> And remember, that the Canon shot was taken with what I would consider
> the better of the two lenses... yet the DM-R shot still looks better, to me.
>
> If you want scientific tests, I will attempt to accommodate you. But
> not this week. Too busy. Of course, you could always buy a DM-R and
> 20D and make your own comparisons! ;-)
>
> 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/
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 02/23/2006
------
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:
