Leica DMR sample iamge

This is literally frame #3 (plus a 500x800 pixel detail from the same frame) that I shot

with a Leica DMR. The detail, color fidelity and vividness are striking. I thought my

Canon 1Ds mk.2 was good, this I think is a better quality image. I was surprised.

 

Details:

Lens: 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-R

Exposure f/2.8 @ 1/180th @ ISO400; aperture priority metering was used all natural

light.

Camera's moire filter was turned off.

The Camera original DNG was processed in Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 , with slight

adjustments to shadow detail and brightness, I white balanced in ACR to the collar of

his T-shirt. 25% ACR sharpening (standard setting) was used as well. No further

processing or post processing was done.<div></div>

Hey Ellis welcome to the DMR world. The DMR is just killer be carefull those Canons will become extinct. Try C1 BTW much better out of the box. Also huge thread on FM on all the DMR stuff. E-mail if you have any questions , i have 2 now and had them since July. I just love the system

Ellis, excellent shot. Welcome to the group of very, very satisfied DMR users.

 

Kurt

having fun Ellis? :D

 

I'm liking alot of these images i'm seeing and am waiting on the mailman at the moment as a forum friend here made a dvd of raws for me to play with. can't tell from a monitor, obviously.

Guys,

 

I just wish I could say I own it. Leica has loaned ot to me to review.

We can already guess how the review is going to be :-)

 

Thanks for sharing, Ellis!

That is just trouble right there. Ellis mostly what you will see right away is better color, saturation and great punch to your images and the elusive leica look is there also. playing with those summiluxes has a certain signature to them that is very pleasing to the eye. they are very sharp but more important have a lot of charactor to them. The 100 macro will cut your eyes out it is so sharp but it has a more clinical look. as you start playing with it with different glass you will pick up some the differences. Since you are reviewing it , i won't give a opinion on it between the 1dsMKII. I did my share of testing this thing and it is something special but i will let you find that out, go have some fun with it.

too bad with the DMR - you can never achieve the same level of DOF as you can with a full frame SLR..

yang you are right but but it is not enough to say too bad..at least for me.. that is why the lux

lenses are needed.

yes, but f/1 at full fram <> f/1 at less than full

to the last poster:

 

Do you say this as a hypothetical or as something you have empirical proof of? i mean I think I know what you are saying --a 35mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 with a 1.3x crop factor has the angle of view ofa 45.5mm f/1.4 lens but retains the depth of field of a 35mm f/1.4 lens @ f/1.4 --but in realty the actual difference is pretty slight between 1x and 1.3x size sensors. especially once you stop down past maximum aperture. And frankly I'd rather have a little more depth of field for most things that I shoot.

 

While the DMR is actually quite impressive so far, there are several things that would give many professional photographers pause: no autofocus, no VR functionality in the lenses , a smallish CD on the back, the lenses are very expensive, and I haven't tried out the TTL flash system (I'm trying to get one from Metz), there isn't nearly as much rental gear outthere as there is Nikon or Canon. it uses SD cards exclusively,etc.

 

in short don't jump to conclusions about the final review but so far I am impressed.

Ellis

 

Nice image. I suspect I'll hear a lot of rebuttals to this post, but I feel it's a fine example of how even a very fine digital capture distorts an image. I only had to take a quick look at the eyebrow hairs in the close up (crop) to see the tell-tale digital artifacts I abhor. Examine this closely. I think you'll see similar artifacts across the entire image. Of course, this is a tight crop. However, it shows there's a some way to go before digital images meet my expectations. I don't mind a bit of grain in a photo. Somehow the pixellated artifacts seem more jarring.

WOW, that skin tone is perfect. I thought only Olympus (E-1) could pull off that rendition right out of the camera, without a lot of PS time. I'm impressed, despite my (Leica) dealer's recommendation that I get Canon if I wanted a DSLR. (I'm sticking with the E-1 for the moment.)

 

Magnificent.

Thanks,

Ray Hull

"Since you are reviewing it , i won't give a opinion on it between the 1dsMKII"

 

Guy, everyone knows your opinion on the DMR is a CLASSIFIED secret. And despite your temptation to spill the beans, on behalf of everyone concerned, I thank you for exercising your reserve and control.

Trying to hold my tongue Nels , kind of hard to do with a DMR in each hand . LOL

<I> I only had to take a quick look at the eyebrow hairs in the close up (crop) to see the tell-tale digital artifacts I abhor</I>What yo uare seeing here on photo.net is the rsult of the necessary jpeg comp[ression used to get a high rez image o nthe web i nthe first place; and i beleive photo.netthen apples some further compression as well. it just isn't there in the original.

it's also 400 iso. Not sure what Rons point was? Maybe Ron has 400iso something or other that can resolve better?

Ellis,

 

Ok, that makes sense. The original (uncompressed) must be spectacular!

Ron to be honest the web is nothing like like the files on a big LCD monitor with full 100 percent viewing. Which really if you went to print at 100 percent is a very large print. Out of the DSLR market the DMR is about the least digital looking and much closer to film

"Out of the DSLR market the DMR is about the least digital looking and much closer to film"

 

How come I only hear this from you? Besides, it silly to compare to film. They're two different beasts. Why not rave about a new e-6 emulsion and claim how close it is to c-41? Anyone wanting to replicate or reproduce film with digital, shouldn't go near digital.

Because a lot of DSLR looks plastic looking and people always are comparing digital to film, I agree they are different but plastic bubble wrap i can do without. The DMR files have a nice smooth look to them.

And off we go....

 

I have a feeling this thread has the potential to develop into a legit Leica Forum thread.

We're comparing film to digital, and "real-life" Leica look to "plastic" Canon look....is there anything else that's needed for a good thread here?

 

I'm getting popcorn and soda.

"Because a lot of DSLR looks plastic looking and people always are comparing digital to film, I agree they are different but plastic bubble wrap i can do without. The DMR files have a nice smooth look to them."

 

I agree mostly there, Guy. Canon has on board software, that you are familiar with, that deals with noise. I've never heard of, or witnessed, this plastic claim towards Nikon, raw or jpg (had to throw that in for Nels). Have you shot Nikon raw? All the DMR files I've seen on a monitor look great. I can't remember who posted the grand canon stuff, but it close to film too, E-6 :P

 

I'm looking forward to the DMR files arriving in the mail from a regualr here as Leica refuses to hand any out for the display cases in the retail shops here.

 

But, at the end of the day, all this film comparison comes from here, from photographers. I've never had a client go "oh, it does/doesn't looks like film! Thatﾒs great!" But is the opposite. Meaning, "oh man, digital is so nice and clean and sharp..." Whatever, I shoot for them for whatever they want. Why would I want to take a high iso raw file and make it look like EPJ pushed two? Or NPZ pushed one? I wouldn't. For me, I love slide film. Digi via Nikon is more than pleasing and worth the resources it takes to do on high volume.

"I've never heard of, or witnessed, this plastic claim towards Nikon, raw or jpg (had to throw that in for Nels)."

 

Nikon digital colors suck.

 

(the Nikon vs. Canon bit was missing from the thread, so thanks for throwing that in the mix as well, Eric)