[LRflex] Re: DMR vs. Leicanon - a DMR owner's experience
- From: "David Young" <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:59:57 -0700
Good Mornin' Peter!
I am delighted that you are delighted with the DM-R. :-)
Your observations are good ones... and I have no doubt that the DM-R is a
marvellous piece of kit. Its problems, for most of us, are not with its
performance, but with its price.
That being said, I have two comments on your comments... and a couple of
questons.
You said: "
>- Exposure was often off. At the small apertures I had to use, the TTL
>exposure meter of the 20D was no longer reliable, I got a lot of under-
>and overexposed pictures. Of course, you could make a test shot, look at
>the histogram and then take more shots with different settings:
>Complicated, time-consuming and very frustrating. In the meantime, the
>bee that I was trying to capture had flown away.
As reported here, by Bob Palmieri, last August 1st, Canon had this explanation.
The EOS 20D focusing screen is optimized for superior brightness at moderate
apertures from about f/3.5 and smaller, compared to conventional ground glass
designs. This makes the viewfinder image brighter and easier to focus at those
moderate apertures, but the trade-off is that it passes disproportionately more
light to the metering system. When a Canon EF lens is mounted to an EOS camera,
a variable exposure compensation factor (a program curve, not just a fixed
compensation factor) for this phenomenon is fed through the system in order to
provide correct metering for all apertures. However, when using a non-coupled
manual diaphragm lens as you describe, no such communication takes place, so
the responsibility for exposure compensation reverts to you. It's unnecessary
to use an external meter. Instead, you can take a series of test shots at the
working aperture(s) you plan to use, then analyze the test photos to determine
the most desirable exposure compensation factor for each aperture. The 20D's
auto exposure bracketing (AEB) function speeds up the process of taking the
test photos, and you can use the Info palette in Photoshop [or the EOS Viewer,
which ships with the camera] to determine the most accurate exposure. If you
can standardize on one particular aperture you plan to use (for maximum
sharpness, desired depth of field, etc.), that will simplify the calibration
process by eliminating the need for tests at other apertures.
Best Regards,
Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Though cumbersome, it is not a difficult task to undertake, and the exposure
compensation factors are constant for any given aperture. So if, like me, you
take very few close-ups, this is not a big hindrance. At normal apertures, I
have never experienced a problem with exposure.
OTOH, if someone makes a lot of close-up/Macro shots, then this becomes a very
valid point.
Contrary to your experience, I"ve found the 20d's finder quite adequate for
close focusing. The exposure problem is, however, a pain in the patoot.
>- The sharpness was excellent, better than the 20D, but that had not
>been one of my problems, I do not usually print larger than A3 (11x16)
>and at that magnification, the Canon was already sharp enough.
This doesn't surprise me. Every dSLR, except the DM-R, has an anti-alaising
filter to help reduce moire patterns. The problem is that they also reduce
sharpness. However, reports elsewhere on the net indicate that problems with
moire patterns have been more noticeable with the DM-R.. How has your
experience been, in this regard?
Now, a couple of questions about the R8/9+DM-R in use.
How do you find it for bulk/weight compared to the 20D?
The LCD panel on the back protrudes several mm, making the viewfinder
recessed, relative to the back. Do you find any problems with this
positioning? And, do you wear eyeglasses?
Lastly... I was very dissppointed in the photos displayed on Digital Outback's
DM-R review web pages, at higher ISO's. The digital noise shown there, at ISO
800 is much poorer than I am getting with the 20D at ISO 1600.
Like the small aperture exposure compensation, this is not a concern for a lot
of people. But I do a lot of work with the 400/f6.8 Telyt at ISO 1600. For me,
it has enabled the capture of many images that would otherwise be lost to
camera shake. My experience with the Canon 20D is that digital noise is lower
at ISO3200 (which I almost never use) than shown on DO's site, with the DM-R at
ISO 800.
Your comments on the DM-R's noise, at high ISO's would be welcomed.
Many thanks.
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:
