DMR vs Canon 1DsMkII test on FM forum

An interesting comparison of the two digital solutions on

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995/0

 

So far it seems like the DMR outperforms the Canon quite visibly in terms of color,

dynamic range as well as sharpness. The DMR which doesn't use an AA filter shows

aliasing in some pictures but the artifacts can be removed using specialized software

supplied by Leica/Imacon. What remains to be seen is whether the software is effective in

removing various serious moire.

 

Even more interesting is that at merely "10mp" the DMR gives visibly more "effective

resolution" than the Canon's 16mp. This shows that Leica was truthful all along that the

DMR would be a fully competitive (if not superior) solution and that people were too quick

to judge the DMR because of its 10mp. In the end not all pixels are equal.

 

The scences are not the most photogenic though.

Oh Please!

 

Its a forum discussion, not an in depth review.

When did I ever claim that this is an in-depth review?

<I>...Even more interesting is that at merely "10mp" the DMR gives visibly more "effective

resolution" than the Canon's 16mp. This shows that Leica was truthful all along...</i><P>

 

You're making those assertions based on what someone posted on a chat forum? I'll second

the <I>Oh Please!</I>

I started a VERY similar thread on FM a month or 2 ago in the canon forum and was banned! People complained that it was a canon forum and that my thread that the dmr had better resolving power than the canon due to its pixel size was uncalled for. So, now I am no longer allowed on there. It would be interesteing to see what they write but I cant even browse. oh well.

I started a VERY similar thread on FM a month or 2 ago in the canon forum and was banned! People complained that it was a canon forum and that my thread that the dmr had better resolving power than the canon due to its pixel size was uncalled for. So, now I am no longer allowed on there. It would be interesteing to see what they write but I cant even browse. oh well.

Brad: You can read into it however you want to, but this was never meant to be a definitive

"in-depth review", and the words in my original post ("comparison", "so far", "remains to be

seen" etc.) should suggest as much.

 

The passage you quoted was to point out that ever since the DMR was announced, there was

never any shortage of people who criticize it based on what was no more than a spec sheet.

It's just bizzare how some people can never seem to leave Leica alone yet always are willing

to accept other manufacturers hyped-up claims at the face value.

<I> It's just bizzare how some people can never seem to leave Leica alone yet always are

willing to accept other manufacturers hyped-up claims at the face value.</I><P>

 

Any examples?

It's just bizzare how some people can never seem to leave other camera brands alone

yet always are willing to accept Leica's and Leica-fanatic's hyped-up claims at the face

value.

I can't afford either a 1DS-II or a DMR, so I have no real interest in this particular face-off. But since my future, as it has been pointed out, is the "cheap grocery store film" quality of a <$2000 dSLR, I'm actually rooting for the DMR to be better than the 1DS-II. That way as subsequent generations of Canon's 1DS-xx make quantup leaps ahead of the DMR (which will probably not have a MK-II for years to come if ever) a so too the next generations of 20D might equal or even exceed the DMR's quality.

Folks. please try and be friendly. this is a simple discussion if that. no need to get angry just be glad you can all take pictures :)

That "review" (or "diary" or whatever you wanna call it) sometimes is blatantly false.

 

Take the side-by-side comparisons of a lodge called "glory bee's" on pageview 10. The 100% crop clearly shows higher resolution from 1dSii, while the poster declared DMR the winner. Just look at the ceramic insulator on the power lines. On 1DSII you can count the number of rings while for the DMR it's all a blur.

 

DMR already enjoys an advantage by cropping out the edges of the field of view, where a lens' resolution is at its worst. I am glad that FM poster is having a ton of fun, but a real comparison needs to be a little bit more careful than that, for fairness' sake.

If the person doing the test doesn't have a good understanding of the subject the tests can be as biased as the results seem to indicate.

 

"The problem with AA filters is they soften the image to use higher ISO' and elminate moire'. So with all Canons and Nikons you MUST apply sharpening to bring them back. The leica does not have this so noise is a factor at ISO 400 it is real good but above it gets noisey also there is a good chance of Moire, the good part is you are getting every ounce of lenses sharpeness from you lenses , i paid a lot for Leica glass and I want that sharpness but of course there is a down fall to this as explained."

 

Explain the difference between sharpness and resolution?

 

"The other isue to touch on the Leica DMR is 16 bit vs 12bit of the Canons so you get more color depth and more dynamic range something that is good on Canon but that needs to be increased to make there sensors better in the future."

 

Explain in a practical sense how more data bits gives you better dynamic range?

 

"One other note the leica shoots 16 bit the canon 12 bit all Leica files are processed at 16 bit and canon at 8 bit."

 

Explain why processing the Leica files in 16 bit and processing the Canon files in 8 bit gives you a fair test?

 

Testing is hard work. Eliminating bias is the first step.

 

I have downloaded RAW files from the DMR. This is an excellent first step for Leica. Everybody wants to knock off the big dog Canon. That sentiment is fine. Competition is great. But get your ducks in line first.

 

This isn't politics where the norm is to smear your opponent. Some of the statement I have read about Canon DSLR's, even from some professionals, make me shake my head. Plastic skin? My ass!

 

Let's take a close look at the DMR images. Let's give feedback to Leica. Make them work harder to improve the high ISO noise. We don't want that to appear on the digital M camera.

 

The DMR is out. It's selling. That's great news. Let's make this a positive experience.

would someone do me a favour on the FM site ? :)

 

Ask on that thread why I was banned when I posted a similar article.

 

just kidding.

I'm certain the Leica can whack out 50 superior frames before it has to back for replacement.

Wow, some really venon from the Canonaphiles on the "Leica Forum"???

 

I personally don't care which is better as both cameras are outrageously expensive, and beyond the the budget of most people who comment here.

 

Just glad to see that Leica actually knows how to produce a quality digital camera, something the Leicabashers have been disputing ever since the DMR was announced.

Even LFI -- who is more then a bit biased in favor of Leica -- gave the nod to the Canon when it compared the two in its most recent issue. Says LFI "It might surprise one to find that, performance-wise, the Digital Module R is not as far behind as the figures may lead one to believe."

Unlike all of the postulators who have posted so far, I've actually used the Leica DMR. I used it for 1 week and made around 200 exposures, in all kinds of different lighting conditions. So, to the last poster (or poseur), the back will function longer than 50 exposures (never miss a chance to knock Leica, even when you have no idea what you're talking about).

 

It does have a better dynamic range than the Canon. As for resolution - well, you still need pixels if you want to make a big print, so for large prints (16x20 or larger) - the Canon wins.

 

It has a built-in moire processing feature than can be activated or deactivated. I tried a shot that would create moire, and shot 1 frame with the processing on and one frame with the processing off. As is to be expected, the processing decreased the detail in the image a very, very, very tiny amount, but it did eliminate the moire.

 

What I liked about the DMR is the lack of menus. Camera setup is done through a 1 level menu. After that, all of the controls are accessed through switches on either the camera or back. Very intuitive and easy to use.

 

I only read the manual when I wanted to take the back off of the camera to see how it attached / detached. There is a specific sequence that has to be followed to do this or the back will not unlatch from the body.

 

The thing I find really funny on the FM sight is the guy using the camera doesn't seem to know the Leica Raw format (Adobe DNG file format), and the advantages to using it in conjunction with Photoshop, as opposed to shooting straight TIFF.

 

One really nice thing about the R9/DMR setup is the finder is very bright because it's 35mm format, with the finder screen showing the image area in a black outline box. I did some tests to see how accurate the finder and screen are so that I would know how to compose the image. The cropping area shown was dead accurate at both close-up, mid-range, and infinity.

 

It's a very nice digital camera setup. Other than the Leica-like prices for everything (especially the lenses), there's no need to try to invent reasons to knock the camera or the DMR; or to make snide remarks. It works, it makes nice images, it has very good dynamic range, it's easy to operate - what's the problem with that?

Hmm, anyone can make a big file size....but what about tonality and dynamics?<div></div>

Jorge: how did that Beatles song go? Back to the US...

Show me.

t has very good dynamic range, it's easy to operate

 

Show me.............

I really think that companies should empower photographers instead of the? mouth and trousers ?marketing types which infest these forums.

 

Having said that the lemmings will believe anything as we know?????sad really.

 

Acid test they nether have any photos.

Nice balance that photo....without grad filters.

I believe the DMR is a terrific Leica contribution to the digital world. As a Canon user, I congratulate them on the achievement (Just as I congratulationed Nikon for their D2X. Im a Nikonian too, btw). My take on the DMR vs. 1DSmk2 comparison is that Canon is at the shallower end of the pool more because of their lenses (and especially the ultra-wides), rather than their sensor technology. Leica's offering bests the 16~35/2.8L and the 17~40/4L EF zooms, and none of Canons ultra-wide primes fair any better.

 

At any case, this puts a little pressure on Canon; However, I have very little hope they will address their wide-angle lens portfolio (unless Nikon will mount additional pressure). Although the DMR lists for under $5k, a full fledged Leica DMR system is still MUCH MORE expensive than a comparable 1DsMk2, simply because the lenses are far more expensive, a zoom less :)