Leica DMR vs. Kodak SLR/(n) (c) series (Adapted Leica for digital)

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by wildflower art, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. Between adapting Leica glass, Has anyone compared these two Kodak sensor cameras?
    I know the Leica DMR has a key advantage, like all Leica, it does not need to use stop down metering and it does not feature the terrible"fee" error and you can set the aperature on camera. You can put the camera on any aperature and the camera will work fine. it's the luxury of Leica.
    I know one has a crop factor and is 10 mp (DMR), and the other is 12 mp and full frame (kodak SLR).
    I ask because I love the kodak sensors so much, they are better than any I've ever seen. It's just that the DMR is so expensive and hard to find.
    I know both do not work well at high ISOs. That is the proof to me that these cameras were made for artists, unlike these CMOS cameras that take pictures at 125,600 ISO. What's the point?
    Have you even seen the pictures capable with a Kodak SLR/c or n at an ISO of 6 or so? They are waterfalls of glass! That's the opposite of what other digital cameras are doing.
    I have the Kodak SLR/C which I have pressed into service with a novoflex adapter. I had heard, all of ten years ago, that the pictures were medium format quality. Boy are they. They are still. I don't know about how good anything is beyond that.
    There have been a rash of 18 MP and more MP cameras. How good are they with adapted glass? Are they better than medium format quality? I really haven't bought a new digital camera in five years. How are your adapted Leica glass on the new sensors? How many are still using the DMR?
    I have spent many years looking for a Kodak SLR/C for the purpose of using my Leica glass and if it breaks I will try to buy a new used Kodak SLR/n and adapt my glass to Nikon. Breaks my heart, but that camera is a work of art.
    What are you doing to keep your R platform alive in the digital age?
  2. Well maybe I should look at the Kodak SLR as well. I have two DMRs for my R9 and R8 and seven batteries. Hopefully that will keep me going for a while.
  3. Matt,
    I used my many R lenses on the 5dMkII. Works fine. But, I hate stopping down before most shots as if I was back with a 1948 Contax S, so I sold my R lenses and went fully over to Canon. My opinion is that current high res DSLRs are indeed the equivalent of medium format film -better as they are cleaner (no scratches or dust). An MF camera black and white darkroom print is still a thing of beauty that digital may have difficulty matching, but once you digitize MF film in my opinion you might as well go the DSLR route. Digital MF - well that is a different kettle of fish. Either the new Canon 5D MKIII or the Nikon D800 would be awesome (in the true sense of the world) for you - the Canon will take the R lenses much easier though, so I would go that way myself.
  4. Waterfalls of glass? I think you need to stop smoking whatever that is mate
  5. The Kodak SLR/n used a CMOS sensor made by someone else- LifePixel? I forget. I have never used one, but it was essentially a Nikon N80 with a sensor.

    The Kodak DCS760 was the last Kodak camera to use a real Kodak sensor. It is a 1.3x crop factor, 6MPixels CCD.
  6. Matthew - I am with Robin and suggest that you may do better to buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR and use adaptors. Live view helps a lot and the modern sensors are much better than they were in the DMR days. for the price of a DMR you can get a great Canon or Nikon body. It may not be what you want to hear but the development of sensors between 2005 and today has been quite dramatic. The improvements seem to have slowed but my 5DII significantly out performs the sensor in my 1DIIN
  7. Fillfactory made the sensor- bought out by Cyprus, and i think sold off again?
  8. [​IMG]
    Canon 5d m2 , dandelion EOS-R ADATPER +ELmarit R19
    Old German Protestant Church in Tsingdao
    Canon 5Dmark II +Elmarit R19
  9. ph.


    I used one of the last Kodak SLR Cs for some years, excellent colours & not too much noise below say 200 ASA. Kodaks raw file reader was OK, with good standard styles, but not up to photoshop versatility, so DNG conversion replaced it. I gave it up because of the dark viewfinder and the difficulties of manual focus. Canons autofocus glass worked fine.
    Snaps with my current Canon5DII with the manual focus screen seem to need more processing than the Kodak files, but the live-view helps focussing with the 21-35/3,5 zoom. From 60 and up one can do without the live-view.
    The need to dismount the lens before taking off the R-adapter means that either one adapter is needed for each lens, or changes will take time & lets more dust in.

Share This Page