[LRflex] Re: Fall Colours
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:34:40 -0700
At 19/10/2007, you wrote:
David
A beautiful photograph. Your LeiCanon seems to work - so why a Leica
R10? A provocative question I know; but what components of your "wish
list" will be critical in your response to the "R10"?
Chris B
Hi Chris!
First of all, thank you for your kind comment on the Fall Colours shot.
As for "Why a Leica R10?", well, there are a number of reasons.
1) The Canon 30D has only 8.2 mpixels. This is adequate, with some
interpolation, for 8x12" (20x30cm) prints but only just. No room for
any cropping, unless very, very minor. The 10.2 mp of the DMR was
better, but pure pixels can be fixed by going to the, soon to be out,
10mp, 40D. Still, for wildlife work, you can never have too many pixels.
2) The R8/9+DMR combination was bigger, heavier and not so nice to
carry any distance. But it's ergonomics are superior. If I wish to
lock up the mirror, on the R8 I flip a lever. On the Canon, I must go
through 18 menu steps, and another 18 to turn it off! Simply put,
the Leica is a photographers camera ... the Canon is a programmer's camera.
3) No medium format camera, of any make, has an anti-aliasing (also
called "low pass" or "optical blur") filter. OTOH, every sub-mf
camera, with the exception of the Leica M8 and DMR, has one.
Such filters reduce the likelihood of moire patterns being introduced
by the interaction of repetitive geometric patterns (such as roofing
tiles) and the geometric pattern of the sensor. (Such problems do
not occur with film because of the random nature of the silver halide
distribution.) Essentially, these filters work by blurring the image
and then the image is re-sharpened, in the camera, to compensate. In
the process the fine detail in the image is lost, even though the
image looks sharp.
Of the major brands, Canon has the strongest AA filter, and thus
loses the most detail. A side benefit is that the stronger the
filter, the easier it becomes to reduce "noise"... which also
explains why Canon have such marvelous freedom from it.
Nikon uses a much less strong AA filter, which is why many Nikon
shooters will tell you they compared the images from Canon and Nikon
and bought Nikon.
Of course, since the M8 and DMR have no such filters, no detail is
lost other than that which is at the limits of resolution as
determined by the number of pixels.
BTW: in "real life", I suffered noticeable Moire patterns in just two
of 5000+ photos with the DMR. I suffered noticeable Moire patterns
in just one of 5000+ shots made with my old Canon 20D. So, though
the DMR is twice as bad, it's not a real problem, in my style of
shooting. YMMV.
If you were to come to my house, and I showed you an 8x12" print,
made with Leica glass on my Canon 20D or 30D, you would be quite
impressed. But, were I then to show you a print from the same lens,
made with the DMR, you'd be amazed how easily you can spot the
difference! (On the screen, it is impossible, even for me, to tell
which is which.)
4) Brilliance in the finder. The Canon finders (at least in the 20D
& 30D) are roughly equivalent to the R3... and adequate, but not
stunning finder. The finder in the R8/9 and in the SL/SL2 cameras
are in a league by themselves. The top line Canon's are good, but
more along the R6/R7 level. If you've not had a chance to compare
the SL or R9 finders to others, do so before you dismiss this. The
ease with which you can focus is incredible, if the finder is top notch.
So - I would buy an R10 because of the ease of use. If it is like
the R9, or the M8, it will prove intuitive to use... a
photographer's camera. Like Doug Herr, I want a brilliant finder ...
though I do not expect anything more than the R9 level, given that
some light will likely be filtered off to the AF (?) sensors. Above
all, I want the fine details in my photographs, which is why I came
to Leica in the first place.
If the coming R10 has anywhere above 16mp, I'll be happy. Personally,
because of the extra "reach" afforded my lenses by an APS sized
filter, and the nature of most of my work, a full frame sensor is not
a feature I'd want, but I'd put up with it, if I have enough pixels
to crop out the difference.
AF would be a bonus, but it's lack would not be a deal breaker for me
- though I am getting spoiled by the focus confirmation afforded
Leica glass on the Canons. IS, especially in-body IS would be a real plus!
Throw in size, weight and price, and it will yet to be seen if I
purchase and R10 or not. But if the combination is right, I'll be
first in line!
I hope this will shed some light on a very reasonable question.
Cheers!
---
David Young,
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4
Other related posts:
