[LRFlex] Re: DMR vs. Canon 20D comparison shots
- From: Thomas Schofield <tdschofield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
I know so little about digital imaging, that I hate to step in, but I must ask
whether, in making these observations, you are controlling or accounting for
the exposure difference?
IIRC, there was a report that exposure was was on auto, and the DMR was giving
1 stop more exposure. Wouldn't that account for the more pastel look of the
DMR?
Tom Schofield
"Peter M.C. Werner" <pwerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Douglas,
> What I would add to the advantages of the Canon are more RAW files per
> storage card,adaption capability to some of the widest selections of
> modern, dedicated, high quality AF lenses by other manufacturers -
> Tokina, Tamron, Sigma etc etc - and the, for me, great advantage of
> being able to mount a whole existing collection of Zeiss, Leica
> (independent of the number of cams),Contax/Yashica and Pentax M42
screw
> lenses - oh yes, I nearly forgot, Canon too.
> With the difference in price between the combination of an R9+DMR and
a
> Canon 20D I can go out and buy (second hand) quite a few of even the
> most expensive high-end classic manual focus SLR lenses of the last
few
> decades.
My pro/con analysis is based on somebody who - like me - already owns
Leica R lenses and accessories and is looking for a digital body to use
his investment. I like the "look and feel" of Leica lenses and have been
frustrated by the poor results I got with them on the 20D.
Of course this is my very personal way of judging these results, mainly
because I do not like aggressive, clinical colors. I prefer the subtler,
pastel colors I can get from the DMR (or even the Panaleica FZ20 with
the excellent Vario Elmarit).
> you can make a
> hard image soft, but the other way around hardly ever works
I do not agree with you on this, at least not in the concrete case of
the DMR vs 20D. When making the comparison shots, I tried hard to tweak
the Canon shot to look like the DMR shot, without much success. Probably
it can be done, but I prefer to have the results directly without hours
of digital darkroom work.
If you start from scratch, without any prior investment in, nor
preference for Leica glass, your points are of course perfectly
plausible.
We are writing in a Leica forum, so my starting point was that there is
already some preference for Leica, whatever the reasons might be. I
surmised that readers might be interested in comparing the original (the
DMR) with a surrogate they had to live with as long as the DMR was not
available.
Cheers,
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leicareflex-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:leicareflex-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Douglas Sharp
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 15:48
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [LRFlex] Re: DMR vs. Canon 20D comparison shots
>
> Gruezi Peter,
> The DMR certainly is a unique and high quality piece of equipment.
> But, I do have a few comments and reservations about it.
> I agree with most of your plus-points for the DMR with the exception
of
> the purely subjective (personal) aspects and the noise
characteristics.
>
> The disadvantage of stop-down metering is a very small price to pay.
> Any camera owners who were using SLRs in the 60's probably wouldn't
even
> notice it, after over a year of Canon DSLRs it now comes as second
> nature to me.
> The somewhat clinical touch of the Canon, which I like - you can make
a
> hard image soft, but the other way around hardly ever works - is
similar
> to the old arguments between early Leica and Zeiss Ikon fanatics the
> "Leica Glow" against the proverbial sharpness of some Zeiss optics.
>
> I also think that if - which I don't really expect - Canon or Nikon,
> should they feel seriously challenged by the existence of the DMR,
both
> have the ability,assets and technology to get a "better" model up and
> running within a very short period of time, and at a quarter of the
price.
>
> A future DMR-2 would probably not be able to compete, neither in price
> nor in timing.
>
> All in all I don't think the differences will ever be resolved
> completely, it will all come down to the usual common denominator of
> what each of us can afford.
> cheers
> Douglas
>
> Peter M.C. Werner wrote:
>
> > To sum it up, in my view the main points in favor of the DMR are
> >
> > - Better viewer, easier focusing with manual focus lenses
> > - Better color TFT screen, really useful for checking the results of
a
> > shot even in bright sunlight
> > - open-lens TTL exposure measurement
> > - Better noise characteristics
> > - Subtler color rendition (very personal)
> > - Less post processing (very personal)
> > - Easier sensor cleaning
> > - Transmission of lens data to the camera and EXIM file.
> >
> > Points in favor of the 20D:
> >
> > - Price
> > - Smaller weight and size
> > - TTL flash. The DMR is fully manual in flash mode, no auto TTL
flash
> > measurement
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
Other related posts:
