[LRflex] Re: DMR question .
- From: "Tim Bedsted" <Tim.Bedsted@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:37:40 +0100
Gary,
Spot on.
I have been following the discussions on the DM-R on the net for some time now.
What can be concluded?
1. Reviews almost always give a bad report for the DM-R
2. People switching to it are ecstatic about the wulity of the reuslt and the
easy with which it is obtained
3. The combination R8+Dm-R or R9+DM-R has its quirks.
4. The real world tests/comparisons between Canon 1d, Nikon.. and Leica Dm-R to
me at least show a remarkable difference in subjective picture quality
5. clinical resolution tests a la dpreview seems to sell the DM-R short
Regards,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: leicareflex-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gary Pinkerton
Sent: Fri 24/02/2006 5:02 AM
To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: [LRflex] Re: DMR question .
The Pop Photo review was a joke. Less than a page written about a, if
nothing else, unique piece of equipment.
On the other hand, Shutterbug reviewed the DMR and called it the ''Holy
Grail of Imaging".
Somewhere in between is the fine piece of gear that more and more folks
are
considering.
GaryP
>From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [LRflex] Re: DMR question .
>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/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef
-- File: winmail.dat
------
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:
