Leica DMR vs. Canon 1Ds Mark II

I have just published a comparative analysis of the new DMR (in Spanish):

 

http://www.macuarium.com/cms/macu/pruebas/el-modulo-digital-r-de-leica.html

Or try <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%

2Fwww.macuarium.com%2Fcms%2Fmacu%2Fpruebas%2Fel-modulo-digital-r-de-

leica.html&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%

2Flanguage_tools">translation into English</a>.

Looks like a horse race...but the Canon is a throwaway because it's not modular...perhaps there will still be DMRs in a few years, but it's hard to imagine people wanting 1Ds Mark II then...they'll be wanting Mark IX or whatever.

Interesting. However, why are the Leica shots CONSISTENTLY overexposed compared to the Canon? It's hard to compare this way. Exposure should be locked on both cameras.

"perhaps there will still be DMRs in a few years, but it's hard to imagine people wanting 1Ds Mark II then...they'll be wanting Mark IX or"

 

It's hard for me to imagine anyone wanting a DMR when Canon's got the 1Ds Mark IX which will probably have some completely new sensor technology with higher resolution than 4x5 Velvia, zero noise up to ISO 25,600, and produce RAW files that need zero sharpening. Then again there will probably still be people who'll swear the DMR is better so you're probably right.

Well, reading the article it seems they say that the DMR has better color and dynamic range,

while the Canon has the obvious advantages in resolution that its greater megapixels provide

and much better higher ISO performance. They add that at moderate sizes of enlargement

the Leica is very comparable. It seems to be pretty much what most of the user reports are

saying.

Ben, I assume what he meant was the DMR version X+X or something. But I could be wrong.

 

Despite the obvious difficulties with matching the exposures, the Leica clearly doesn't have the resolution that the Canon has...all due respect to Leica and it's lenses, but this is NOT the "Canon Killer."

I did however find it interesting that the DMR showed red as red, rather than as pinkish with the Canon.

 

If only Leica had a billion (not Turkish Lira) and ten years of research behind them, then they might be on top. It's a real pity.

Much as I love Leica, I don't see this being much more than a niche item. Canon are streets ahead in every way. They have just announced an EOS 5D with 12.8M pixels and a full frame sensor, priced at $3500 (can be bought in the UK for ?2200).

I see this system doesn't recognise UK pound signs. That's 2200 UK pounds.

I do not think it takes the 1ds Mk II to "bye bye" the DMR.

 

The EOS 5d may be enough to sway potential DMR owners (and a leica R - EOS adaptor) at a wafer over half the price. Supplementing an R8 or R9 with a 5D means not having to dismantle the camera every time you need to change from film to digital.

 

The 5D is relatively compact compared to a DMR and with full frame means switching your R lens between bodies retains the correct focal length with no DMR 1.37X 'digital crop'.

 

Also 5D prices will drop after a short time to encourage more buyers whereas Leica are more likely to raise DMR prices over time.

I fail to see why Leica chose the DMR route when a well executed digital M mount rangefinder camera is what more people wanted.

Trevor - My college tutor says that Canon do not make a lens capable of getting the best from more than 5mp. He says their high mega pixel cameras are a confidence trick (basically simply a marketing ploy) He says that Leica also have not made a lens capable of handling 6mp to its best advantage. He says a big step forward is required in lens technology for 35mm cameras to handle more than 5-6 megapixels. Are you aware of this technical point ? It was new to me.

"Trevor - My college tutor says that Canon do not make a lens capable of getting the best

from more than 5mp. He says their high mega pixel cameras are a confidence trick

(basically simply a marketing ploy) He says that Leica also have not made a lens capable of

handling 6mp to its best advantage. He says a big step forward is required in lens

technology for 35mm cameras to handle more than 5-6 megapixels. Are you aware of this

technical point ? It was new to me."

 

Bless him (your teacher), that's the best fantasy I've ever heard! Made my day!

Anthony: is that Trevor the French Tutor? :-)

Panos. Are you saying he is wrong? Please tell me why ? The point was supported by a fellow student who works for a camera retailer. If you are so confident please explain because the tutor is highly experienced in film and digital. Or don't you have an answer ? I don't know what the technical point is, so please tell me.

It's pure BS.

 

I'm afraid that if you had enough technical knowledge to understand the answer, you wouldn't need to ask the question in the first place!

Anthony, that's pretty easy to proof.

 

Put a 50/1.4 on a Canon 20d and a Canon 1Ds MkII and compare the pictures.

Bob's is THE quintessential PN answer. Bravo... Now we all understand.

If you simply had the experience to see what the 20D can do with regard to resolution versus a Leica M7 (I have and use both), and compared prints from a Leica M7 with a 20D made by top equipment (drum scan to Lightjet or HP Designjet 130) in relatively large enlargements (12x18 inches image area and 17x24 inch image area) between those two cameras, you would understand why what you said was nonsense. Of course all kinds of off-topic discussions can be made as to why the "look" of film is superior-- and most of the time I would agree, as I happen to like the look and feel of E-6 chemistry much better than the linear Canon DSLR look, to pretend that modern DSLR's in the 8MP range don't match or exceed 35mm film in ultimate image to print resolution is silly.

oh, and the lenses I use on the 20D are a relatively cheap 28/2.8 Canon and the 14-24 Tamron aspherical. They hold up just fine on 12x18 enlargements, and weaken up (as expected) in a larger print size.

Hi Anthony, could you please let me know what college/university you are attending?

 

The advice you are being given is quite obviously wrong (and the technical reasons as to why are all available on these forums).

 

It's scary knowing you and others pay for this education...good luck

....and it was supported by a salesperson? When did that start meaning something? :)

 

Sorry man, it's not your fault

It's not true that Leica lacked millions for chip technology: they borrowed Kodak's.

 

Of course I agree that Leica's not going to survive much longer as a unit of a rubber apparel company! Who would disagree?

 

The images suggest the DMR is at least not absurd. That's a big accomplishment.

 

If you buy a DMR today and buy a $6000 Canon today, which one will you likely own in five years?

 

I'm guessing the 5D is an Edsel (Tatra to you Eastern Euros).

 

The modular design of the DMR MAY allow it to accept better chips in the future...perhaps even better CANON chips. Wouldn't that be nice?

"modern DSLR in the 8MP range ... EXCEED 35mm film in ultimate image to print resolution[.]" (Emphasis added)

 

Hyperbolic blunderbuss junkspeak...

Come on guys . Not one of you has answered the question. "to pretend that modern DSLR's in the 8MP range don't match or exceed 35mm film in ultimate image to print resolution is silly." I never mentioned anything about film versus digital. All I want to know is why the statement that no one currently makes a lens that will get the best from 10 mpixels on 35mm is untrue. The fact that 10m pixel cameras produce a better image than 5 mega pixels is totally irrelevant. I want the scientific proof that a modern Canon or Leica lens can get the maximum out of a 6 megapixel sensor and so far no one has given me the proof. I therefore continue to accept my tutor's point.