more fun with the DMR

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by doug herr, Apr 7, 2006.

  1. I had a chance to photograph a local Anna's Hummingbird yesterday:
    [​IMG]
    Anna's Hummingbird Sacramento California
    Leica R8/DMR, 560mm f/6.8 Telyt, extension tube
    I must say I'm delighted with the DMR's dynamic range.
     
  2. Nice photo, Do you have any black capp chickadee photos?
     
  3. SCL

    SCL

    It's obvious you're enjoying your new DMR - you really had a short learning curve to produce such outstanding work. Thanks for sharing your outstanding wildlife photos.
     
  4. Nope, no Black-capped Chickadee photos. That would be a good test of the dynamic range. The local Yellow-billed Magpies would also be a good dynamic range test.
     
  5. Doug,

    I know it's on a monitor but that bird look REAL!

    Les
     
  6. yeah. it's not plasticky. ;-)


    now seriously, good shot Doug.
     
  7. Doug

    Another great image! and it's photographs like yours that have proved how wrong all those who said Leica digital would be 'no good' as only 10mps, or 'outdated etc' before going to market.


    I know you 've not had it long but is there anthing that you find could be improved - or is it pretty good as is?

    Regards

    Bruno
     
  8. Doug,

    Have you tried making hardcopy prints? Just wondering how the pixels stand up to a print.
     
  9. Bruno, On the DMR itself I'd like less bulk and weight, and longer battery life. The R8 would be perfect if it had an SL-quality viewfinder. I find the DMR's user interface to be excellent. I've hardly looked at the manual.
    <P>
    Operationally the firmware has one bug that hits me now and then: auto white balance will drop the blue channel a zone or two when using the camera in continuous mode. The buffer size and write speed have been fine for my use.
    <P>
    Arthur, since I'm a neophyte at RAW conversions and because this photo is a crop to about 50% or less of the original file I doubt a print of this photo would tell us much about the DMR's ultimate capabilies. Besides I haven't made any prints yet. As far as image quality goes, I'll reserve judgement until I use it at a variety of speed ratings. So far it's been great.
     
  10. Assuming he'll be shooting "local" more likely to get a Chestnut-backed Chickadee photo than a Black-capped. The Anna's Hummingbird and Black-capped Chickadee range do not overlap too much, except some in the extreme NW of the US and lower SW Canada.
     
  11. Oops. Meant to add: Nice one Douglas. Love the way you captured the irridescence at just the right angle of light. That DMR does a nice job.
     
  12. ky2

    ky2

    It's not dead. It's RESTING!
     
  13. Doug looking very nice , don't forget try C1 for the raw conversions. Doug that bug is a well known issue and stay away from the firmware upgrade until they fix it. But 1.1 does have color balance issues with continous.
     
  14. Beautiful, Doug. From the few examples you have posted so far, I notice a smoother bokeh in your DMR captures compared to the Provia shots?
    Do you notice that as a general trend?
     
  15. Vivek, I don't think that's because of the DMR. It's more likely due to the particular
    circumstances of the photo, i.e. the spatial relationship between the subject and
    background, and the particular lenses used.
     
  16. Douglas...if I may be so bold as to ask, what prompted you to go in the R8/DMR direction rather than simply buying a first-class scanner? Since you're clearly not one given to burning through film with a motor-driven body the cost of your new kit will not be paid for that quickly in film and laboratory savings, and as you've stated you've a considerable journey a-head in terms of learning the ins and outs of RAW processing. What specific advantages do you perceive as opposed to your prior modus operandi? I ask this from my perspective as someone who quite reluctantly shoots digital per client demand and finds it a bother moreso than not.
     
  17. Terence, I might have answered your question in another thread
    I have not used motor drives with film cameras aside from a few tests because using film in that manner is cost-prohibitive. Digital capture allows me to make more exposures, which can be handy when the wind is blowing the bird's perch in and out of the plane of focus at random intervals, the bird turns his head frequently and the flashes of color for the bird's gorgette are few and far between. In a couple hours' time I made about 60 exposures of this bird and after deleting the bad posture/turned head/motion blurred photos I ended up with a dozen I'll save. Variable cost is the price of a couple of CDs (for redundant backup) vs. a couple rolls of Provia 400F with processing, about US$30 - along with far better image quality.
    Before getting the DMR I also compared scans from my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 with a drum scan of the same slide, and the primary difference was that the drum scan was sharper in the corners and left my wallet much lighter.
     
  18. Thanks, all that makes good sense. I never went back to that other thread after having my say, it looked like yet another which would quickly sink into the usual muck. I misunderstood that your avoidance of motor-drives wasn't purely philosophical, and didn't realise you were no longer shooting exclusively slow Kodachrome, must've missed that...impossible to read through all your posts! Good that you're happy with the DMR, since it is ghastly expensive especially for someone with heretofore a rather spartan outlook w. respect to kit. I wish I could muster as much enthusiasm for my 5D, which cost me rather less.
     
  19. You know it does sound expensive and i won't argue that but really the same price as the Canon 1dsMKII . The part that is really expensive is the glass and if you bought new than obviously you may want to buy a Porsche instead. But having said that all my glass is used and if a good shopper with some patience you can get some nice deals. Now there are lenses that are through the roof even used the 15 2.8 , 180 F2 come to mind immediately because I have them and even used expensive but the nice thing about leica glass is even there old not so popular lenses are still awesome and really not that expensive. But yes overall i have much more invested in the leica than i did the Canon system but on the other hand i am not crying about my wide angles anymore either. i mean today you can get a brand new DMR out of Germany for 4700 US and a R8 used for less than 1k at 5700 that is a great deal instead of the 5900 and 2500 R9that i paid for my first one. so really if someone wants to have leica it can be done just maybe at a slower pace to find some deals.

    Now regarding the DR on the DMR unoffically from what i have found is 2 stops better than the Canons and more of the MF world but i have not done a scientific test on this and at this point won't but it does have some fun attributes that I really like in my files so for me , i am really happy and honestly the next logical step is MF but i really have to justify that one more than i did this. People hate this thing because it was late to market , was not the M first and expensive and god knows what other reasons but really folks should try it and see what it is all about , the files will do the talking. Everyone that has bought one has nothing but nice things to say about the images , yea it may have a few quarks but what doesn't.
    Honestly if I was going to be buying a pro 35mm system from the start you just have to look at this also. I switched systems and not many may do that but i found it to be a great move for me.
     
  20. I wish I could muster as much enthusiasm for my 5D, which cost me rather less
    Yet another reminder that you get what you pay for. A big part of my resistance to digital capture until the DMR reports started showing up was image quality issues. Count all the pixels you want, measure line pairs per mm, they tell me little about image quality. The DMR delivers what I'd been waiting for: detail, dynamic range, color accuracy and gradation, seamless use of the best lenses there are, and a healthy dose of "credibility" that for one reason or another was missing from other DSLR cameras. It's not perfect but it meets my needs and in the long run the initial cost is far overshadowed by the quality of the output.
     
  21. Just to be fair, there are lots of people making images with superb quality with all brands of
    DSLRs.
     
  22. there are lots of people making images with superb quality with all brands of DSLRs.

    The DMR has superior dynamic range dude and does not give plastic images for people shots.

    How many times do you have to be told!
     
  23. The "Buyer Justification Manual" accompnying the DMR clearly states that in order to get the most out of the DMR, you must first bash - in clearly subjective terms, of course - all the other DSLRs and lenses before you will get any degree of satisfaction. It also awards bonus points for comparing the DMR with MF digital backs, and if you claim that it trumps the MF backs, they automatically enter you into sweepstakes where the winner gets a tour of the Solm factory guided by Oskar Barnack himself. Since multiple entries in this sweepstakes are allowed, we keep hearing the same things repeated to us like a stuck record being played.
     
  24. The "Buyer Justification Manual" accompanying the DMR clearly states that in order to get the most out of the DMR, you must first bash - in clearly subjective terms, of course - all the other DSLRs

    Obviously you do not understand the understandable conception or believe in the word 'superior'. Obviously you are financially challenged.
     
  25. Yea Nels and Micheal Canon is crap , let's face it. Now you two can go take your afternoon nap now. Don't want you to get to stressed out or tried from protecting those Canon investments and on this note it is obvious that i really don't give a rats butt what anyone thinks and you guys lose another Pro not that you guys care you know it all, not going to play this game . I like talking to Doug and Marc and a few others but just a handfull of babies here. Se ya have a great life
     
  26. Anyone have an extra Strunk and White that could be loaned to an above forum member?
     
  27. My wife loves that book Brad. (Its online as well)
     
  28. http://sut1.sut.ac.th/strunk/
     
  29. This pretty good for people starting out in writing also...

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743455967/102-2345662-3291357?v=glance&n=283155
     
  30. Wow Nels I don't know how I missed that during the obligatory DMR indoctrination/
    brainwashing. Can you point me toward a website where I can download it? You clearly
    know more about it than anyone else here.
     
  31. Congrat!, Doug. That's a splendid looking bird. It's look so real I feel it wants to fly out of my monitor screen.
     
  32. Such vitriol and spiteful words over a camera.

    Doug has personal criteria for the photographs he takes. He obviously is slow to adopt any
    new camera technology having jumped from the SL2 to a DMR ... while still praising some
    of the attributes of his old warhorse cameras. IMO, it's also obvious that his criteria isn't
    based on technology as much as the final result of it.

    So, I don't take his preferences as bashing, as much as how one piece of gear didn't fit his
    personal criteria as well as another.

    The DMR offers something different to the eye of some people. And some people find
    those differences fit their criteria better than others.

    What is so difficult to grasp about that?
     
  33. I love seeing people buying and shooting the DMR. It makes for better variety in the photo world that would otherwise be too dominated by Canon. Obviously people hold allegiances and it would be great if the threads stayed on topic instead of diverting about plasticky Canon people. Maybe that's why a lot of Leica shooters shot figurines and manequins. They might have a hard time separating reality from plasticky people.
     
  34. (I said)I wish I could muster as much enthusiasm for my 5D, which cost me rather less(Then Douglas said:) Yet another reminder that you get what you pay for.My choice of the 5D over a DMR had nothing whatsoever to do with being cheap and if that was your implication, you're a pompous twit. If not, then I apologise in advance. My disappointment with the 5D centres round the corner performance, both vignetting (somewhat fixable with enough time and effort in Photoshop)and resolution (not fixable at all). Had I to do it again I would buy a 20D for half the cost of the 5D, because I have compared files from both and there is no remarkable difference. If I were of a mind to spend what I would need to acquire a new DMR and a new R9 plus the requisite number of R lenses needed to fill out my needs, I would quite rather buy a digital back for my Hasselblad kit. Of course if I were a bird photographer I would not consider that as an option, the point being that one ought buy one's kit based upon need not price or the [perceived] status of the marque.
     
  35. Terence - apology accepted.
     
  36. Peter nice shot, the 24mm looks great on the DMR
     
  37. Douglas, I am sorry I misinterpreted your remarks and apologise again. Peter A Photo.net Patron Prolific Poster, apr 09, 2006; 06:51 p.m. Terence - my Leica lenses cost less than their Canon equivalents as did my R9 body as did teh DMR back - you need to go back to school and do the arithmetic proper like and stop whining like a puppy who needs to pee.. You Peter are a pompous twit, beside being either dyslexic or stupid or both, and are due no apology whatsoever. The cost comparison I made was a full R9+DMR kit including lenses, versus a unitary digital back for the Hasselblad kit which I already possess. The V96C is slightly more expensive than a new DMR+R9 alone, nevermind lenses. How whatever assortment of second-hand R lenses you own compares to a professional kit of new Canon "L" lenses (when one makes one's living from one's shooting one is pennywise and pound-foolish to risk upon second-hand kit) is of no relevance at all, least of all to me.
     
  38. The DMR delivers what I'd been waiting for: detail, dynamic range, color accuracy and gradation

    For a lot less money the Fuji S3 will produce even better results (dynamic range, film depth, etc.) for a lot less money. However, if you are committed to Leica glass and are happy with the results you are achieving....that is all what matters.

    My opinion from looking at actual prints from both.

    Regardless, Douglas, is so professional he is capable of getting great results from anything....including a banana ;)
     
  39. You Peter are a pompous twit, beside being either dyslexic or stupid or both, and are due no apology whatsoever

    Hey, don't call my mate,Petey,names...it's bad manners to say the least.

    Behave.
     
  40. He even talks out his arse about puppies, who don't whinge when they need to pee, they simply let go their bladder with abandon...much as Peter does with his comments.
     
  41. He even talks out his arse....

    Don't we all on occassion?It's Pete's sense of humour...hey, his a genuine sort bloke...trust me.

    These 'my camera is best posts' always lead to a bit of banter....best not to read too much personality into them.
     
  42. Agreed, and Peter certainly hasn't too much personality.
     
  43. Allen, the Fuji S3 can't use the 280 f/4 APO w/o major modification ($$$). Besides I didn't pay full price for the DMR, or for the R8.
     
  44. Folks you have to remember for Pro's money is a secondary consideration , we get what we need and than write it all off when it comes to the tax man. It's never about the money as it is for the hobbyist , this is our business and as such a expense.
     
  45. Quite the opposite in fact. Only a bloody fool wouldn't keep an eye on costs, which include kit. That it can offset revenues in the eyes of the tax collector doesn't mean that it does not subtract from profit...and trust me you whinging yanks have got it easy when it comes to taxes compared to the UK. Most successful professionals (and by successful I don't mean having captured the attention of amateur posters on internet fora, but rather succesful in terms of making a jolly good income from it)try to purchase only as much kit as it takes to do the job and satisfy the client, not their own artistic egos. The latter path leads to financial ruin. Cost means least to Leica-using amateurs, most of whom have incomes from their true professions or occupations that offer them significantly greater financial means than most professional photographers.
     
  46. "The DMR has superior dynamic range dude and does not give plastic images for people
    shots.

    How many times do you have to be told!"

    I haven't really seen any data that indicate the DMR has superior dynamic range, and
    certainly don't buy the typical BS line that most DSLRs give 'plastic' images for people shots.
     
  47. Most successful professionals (and by successful I don't mean having captured the attention of amateur posters on internet fora, but rather succesful in terms of making a jolly good income from it)try to purchase only as much kit as it takes to do the job and satisfy the client, not their own artistic egos.

    Hmmm i make a extremely good living and totally satisfy my clients and your advice is worthless. You really need a life , you must be some old fart that does not want to change his ways. Terence you have nothing ever to add that is postive or even remotely friendly, this place is run by whiners and dpreview devotes. What you all get kicked off that forum and decide to ruin another. Please all of you don't even consider buying a DMR, The ones that did actually know what they got and i won't be around to help with questions nor will anyone else. You guys actually think I care it says Leica in the name plate , show me something better and i will buy it tomorrow. This is a screwed up site , no i take that back there are way to many people here that don't take photography and good conversation seriously, you want to go play in the playground have fun. I have way more important things to do.
     
  48. >My disappointment with the 5D centres round the corner performance, >both vignetting (somewhat fixable with enough time and effort in >Photoshop)and resolution (not fixable at all).


    This has nothing to do with the 5D and everything to do with the lenses. Canon makes some excellent long glass, but below 35mm their wides aren't that great, especially wide open. This is why you see a lot of 1dsII/5D shooters buying Leica or Contax wides and using them via an adapter. I often shoot a 2/50 Summicron-R on my 5d, because it eats the 1.4/50 Canon for breakfast.


    Feli
     
  49. The Canon gets the best lunch table in town, though.
     
  50. Your absolutely right. Here is the bottom line guys I owned Canon and you folks think this is some war with them or i hate them or i lost money with them or i just like bashing them. Far from it, I like canon they make great stuff for the masses. I have gone head to head with the DMR , leica glass, Zeiss glass and canon glass. There simple is no comparision. I bought the 1ds when it first hit the streets , great camera was the first to make a FF sensor body , okay second to contax. But it was obvious from day one that Canon wide angles do not cut the mustard . I screamed this song for 4 years and has gone on deaf ears. I switched to Zeiss lenses to compensate for there lack of wide angle than started buying Leica glass and one day looked in my bag and there were 10 Leica lenses and 1 canon. Now guys no matter what the hell you think of me , I ain't crazy and i just don't throw money at nothing. so I tried the DMR and after exhautive testing and research which no one does , I found many things that are better . Now you want to argue the science of it all than I am not the guy , I am a shooter and a damn good one( my words) and i know what looks like crap and what don't. i have posted all this stuff and it is out there believe me or not could care less. But everyone that has bought the DMR has agreed with every word i said about it, so either there all idiots like me or i actually may know something. So get off the bloody armchair and go shoot and learn something , the comments around here are mostly guessing the info is out there , now go find it. I am not Leica's marketing dept. nor will I ever be unless they start writing some serious checks. But if i said there is a 2 stop DR difference than there is, I have no reason to lie. i have a reputation as a photographer that has a lot of answers and a wealth of info behind it, i am not going to lie. Buy these things or not i don't care but when there is someone that is has interest in it or wants advice on it than as a Pro that likes to help than I will what i don't need is crap from the peanut gallery, if you don't agree that is great and ask like a human being and be polite . i am 99 percent of the time but this is pissing me off the stuff that I , Marc and Doug and a few other great folks have dealt with. there is not a thread that goes on here without armchair idiots posting stuff about really nothing. Now if you want to learn something than listen to what good folks have to say , the stuff that Leica is putting out is quite interesting and a lot of it goes against a lot of logic like the 10 mpx vs 16 mpx from a Cmos with a AA filter. What people forget is this is a MF camera in a small format which makes for some amazing images.

    Okay second i want to apoligize for my rant , this is not something I do often but I am tired of this stuff and after 30 years of being a pro this stupidity that comes out on these forums is amazingly childish. You want a good forum that you can get good information from and learn something and make some good buying decisions on gear than folks all i can say to you is get rid of the trash by getting in the mods ears.
     
  51. Totally agree Peter have you some of these boats there selling these days . Whew
     
  52. Allen, when you say the S3 has good D.R and film depth, this is in comparison to what? can you kindly show some examples from the s3? thx
     
  53. It always comes back to money doesn't it? Perhaps because of the wallet altering impact
    of digital. Not so long ago we all gulped at the price of a professional level SLR creeping
    toward the $1,000.- $1,500 price range, where that barely gets you a pro-sumer digital
    these days.

    Now a Pro level Nikon D2x is $5,000. cropped frame and all, and you get to pay a demure
    $2,500 more to get a few centimeters extra sensor with a Canon 1DsMKII ... both of which
    are built like tanks to no avail since their "technical" life-span is just a few years ... making
    them obsolete well before they're worn out.

    The reference to MF digital backs is actually a worse financial scenario. A $800. film back
    (new) now cost you a minimum of $9,000. in it's digital form ... for a cropped frame
    version BTW since there are no full frame versions to be had.

    The moral of the story is: regardless of what brand name you tilt at windmills with, we are
    all being taken to the cleaners in the name of art : -)
     
  54. Allen, when you say the S3 has good D.R and film depth, this is in comparison to what? can you kindly show some examples from the s3? thx

    Lots of questions rolled into one simple sentence, Travis. Fuji looks to advance sensor technology to improve the final results rather than just adding more pixels to the equation. I suppose they are emulating their film products.

    I will post some photos but not on this thread (W/NW) as I do not want to be caught up in'my camera is better than yours' thing. However, I will say the S3 Pro will match and better the DSM for final print quality at a fraction of the price....at least to my eyes which are quite discerning.

    Of course that does not mean that the DSM is not a fine camera producing superb results as can be seen from the above photo.
     
  55. For Travis.....
    00G0Ba-29358984.jpg
     
  56. For Travis......
    00G0Bv-29359184.jpg
     
  57. There, i changed my mind.
     
  58. The Fuji is on it's way but has some more miles to go.
     
  59. This has nothing to do with the 5D and everything to do with the lenses. Canon makes some excellent long glass, but below 35mm their wides aren't that great, especially wide open. This is why you see a lot of 1dsII/5D shooters buying Leica or Contax wides and using them via an adapter.With all due respect to your opinion (which is to say, very little)it's 90% bollocks. Canon wides worked a treat with 35mm film, the problem is that a digital sensor is physically different from a flat piece of film and that's been stated authoritatively hundreds of times by people in the know. There are not "a lot" of people using Leica or Contax wides, just a few very vocal ones on the internet and some other who puppy after their internet heroes. In absolutes perhaps those Contax, and perhaps even one or two Leica, wides do in fact perform better in the corners wide open than the Canons, but the problems caused by the FF sensors aren't solved by simply cobbling another maker's lenses onto them. That I have indeed tried. A $800. film back (new) now cost you a minimum of $9,000. in it's digital form ..I had to read this a second time to make sure it wasn't Guy who said it, Marc. I've come to expect amateur thinking from him but you are a consummate pro. The film back is an empty shell with a spool, the digital back replaces 2, 3 or more years' worth of film and processing, which for most of us, and I suspect you too, amounts to much more than the cost of the back.
     
  60. Now a Pro level Nikon D2x is $5,000. cropped frame and all, and you get to pay a demure $2,500 more to get a few centimeters extra sensor with a Canon 1DsMKII ... both of which are built like tanks to no avail since their "technical" life-span is just a few years ... making them obsolete well before they're worn out.
    i'd love to hear why a 1ds mk 2 will be obsolete anytime in the near future. anyone who can't use that gun and get excellent results (now or in five years) is beyond help. a top of the line 39mp leaf aptus 75 digital back with a mamiya 645 afd II and lenses will cost you maybe 600 Euros a month to lease. if you're a working pro you know that's less than what you were paying for polaroids, film material, lab, drum scanning and yes(!) retouching/post or printing in a month. besides the fact that you're not spending more money you're writing it all off anyway.
    the only one who is "hit hard" is the hobby "fashion victim" photographer.
     
  61. if you're a working pro you know that's less than what you were paying for polaroids, film material, lab, drum scanning and yes(!) retouching/post or printing in a month.

    Yes, but these are costs traditionally added to the invoice - i.e. the client pays. It's often difficult to get the client to cough up for the digital investment and for the time involved in post processing.


    besides the fact that you're not spending more money you're writing it all off anyway.

    Maybe accounting systems are different outside of the UK (which is where I am based) but writing off the cost of buying or leasing gear against taxable income doesn't mean you get it for free (unless you have a tax rate of 100%). Writing off the cost of gear simply reduces your profit. This does mean you pay less tax but only because you are making less profit.
     
  62. >With all due respect to your opinion (which is to say, very little)it's 90% bollocks. Canon
    >wides worked a treat with 35mm film, the problem is that a digital sensor is physically
    >different from a flat piece of film and that's been stated authoritatively hundreds of times
    >by people in the know.

    Well Terence Mahoney, I don't know what you do for a living but I have made a living as a
    professional in the digital imaging field for the past 15 years, so I think I know a little
    more about this subject than most people. I own and shoot Leica M/R and Canon EOS
    digital/film, so I have actually used the gear in question.

    Yes, there are other issues involved that pertain to the actual sensor design, but the
    simple fact is that certain wide-angle lenses by Leica and Zeiss perform better on a 5D/
    1DsII, than the equivalent Canon lens. That has very little to do with the sensor, but a lot
    to do with economics and design choices (remember that lesson from industrial design
    class?)

    Canon walks a very fine line between performance, price, mass production and associated
    design criteria and this is reflected in the performance of their glass. I don't expect a
    plastic, mass produced auto-focus lens to perform as well as the equivalent $3000 dollar
    Leica lens, that is built to much higher tolerances and in vastly smaller quantities. Again, it
    mostly has to do with economics, not lack of engineering skill on Canon's part, but you
    knew that already, right?


    Feli
     
  63. Maybe accounting systems are different outside of the UK (which is where I am based) but writing off the cost of buying or leasing gear against taxable income doesn't mean you get it for free (unless you have a tax rate of 100%). Writing off the cost of gear simply reduces your profit. This does mean you pay less tax but only because you are making less profit.Exactly what I said too Ian, and though the tax situation in the US is less brutal than ours, that basic tenet holds true there as well. Guy's complete lack of comprehension of the issue is startling coming from someone who professes to be a successful pro.Yes, there are other issues involved that pertain to the actual sensor design, but the simple fact is that certain wide-angle lenses by Leica and Zeiss perform better on a 5D/ 1DsII, than the equivalent Canon lens. Exactly what I said as well. Some wide non-Canon lenses may peform better than Canon's wide lenses, as they would on 35mm film, due to lens design. But the corner performance with any wide lenses is degraded on the FF digital sensor.
     
  64. Yes, but these are costs traditionally added to the invoice - i.e. the client pays. It's often difficult to get the client to cough up for the digital investment and for the time involved in post processing.
    it's a tough business, no one says it's a breeze to become a highly payed, profitable photographer. but the hurdle getting there isn't the cost of a digital camera. becoming a good businessman and a good salesman along side of being a talented photographer is the hurdle you have to overcome.
    if you're a low profit wedding shooter or photo journalist then a d200 or 5d will do the job as well. i think alex majoli did pretty well with a couple of 7 mp olympus consumer cams - at least i didn't hear anyone complaining about the quality of his work.
    if you're a fashion or commercial photographer then the cost of digital gear is steep but the equipment available already matches the quaily of 4x5 sheet film and all the mf back companies i know of allow for upgrades. why would this be an issue of the gear becomming obsolete in the next year or two?
    true. if you aren't making money then i guess it's not a good idea to calculate the write off as a way of shifting the cost of your gear. but then again if your not making money you have a big problem regargless of what medium you shoot in. studio space, lighting gear, assistants, lenses, studio equipment, material and on and on are not cheaper for film shooters.
     
  65. www.guymancusophoto.com

    Okay there it is . Now we have a section 179 in our tax code that you can write of the ENTIRE purchase of gear up to i think 130 K , it is a one time deal and no depreication. A tax advisor could explain it better but i have done this several times. Also when you spend 35k than you must look at it as 10-20 percent of your gross income. Do the math. 35 k for gear is nothing to a sucessful pro. Do you think I have to do this every year , not a chance . These lenses last a lifetime if you don't sell them. The bodies are the disposable part. so my 15k in 2 DMR's are the risk and only they are the risk of being outdated over a say 2 year time frame which is 7500 per yer which given the income is really not a issue. Terence give it up trying to make me the idiot here , it is obviously you that has no clue.
     
  66. But the corner performance with any wide lenses is degraded on the FF digital sensor Once again Terence you are so wrong as proof through this whole thread. There is NOT a canon lens that can do this shot PERIOD with there wide angles . And this is the Zeiss 21mm that gives this kind of performance on a digital camera, I believe this was the 1dsMKII. The leica 19mm can also do this along with a bunch of other alternate lenses but there is not a canon that can pull off edge performance like this in the wide angle area . i have dealt and tested this for 4 years.
    00G0Zd-29367584.jpg
     
  67. Here is a 100 percent crop
    00G0Zq-29367684.jpg
     
  68. Never paid for a roll of film or the processing on a commercial job in my life Terence. Clients
    did.

    Conversely, I paid $25,000. for a H2D out of my pocket not theirs. I do charge a digital fee
    per job, but that's tantamount to providing these Billion Dollar corporations a loan on the if/
    come that I'll recoup it over time.

    Wake up and smell the money burning.
     
  69. rj

    rj

    Slick site Guy.
     
  70. Terence give it up trying to make me the idiot hereNo need for me to try to make you the idiot as you have that task well in hand.Never paid for a roll of film or the processing on a commercial job in my life Terence. Clients did. Conversely, I paid $25,000. for a H2D out of my pocket not theirs. I have a base fee for a wedding (church, reception and posed portraits, any one of which may be omitted at the client's request, for a consummate reduction in cost) into which film and processing is a cost built-in, as does every other professional with whom I compete. Thus whilst shooting film means continuous expense, once the cost of the digital body has been equalled in terms of film/processing, my profits increase greatly, at least until it's time to buy a new body.
     
  71. Under those circumstances, and specifically for event shooting that may be true Terence.

    However, there are hidden costs for volume digital production, so the savings are less than
    many digital shooters project them to be. I know, I shoot both film and digital weddings.

    For example, the savings are in the cost of the film rolls and processing just the those
    rolls, the film or digital proofs cost the same.

    So, in reality you only save the $8 per roll expenses. Say you shoot 15 rolls ... that equals
    $105. per wedding for film and processing. The hidden cost of digital comes with
    managing the same 540 images before they ever go to print ... which can easily exceed
    $105. worth of time.

    In addition, with film, the camera you paid off 10 years ago still produces. The digital
    camera takes longer to pay off and is obsolete in 2-3 years ... often before you have
    recouped the costs it supposedly is saving you.

    There are good arguments for digital capture, money isn't one of them... unless you are
    able to charge a digital capture fee ... which is next to impossible with weddings.
     
  72. Obviously Terence you can't respond to the facts at hand that are shown to you. Just want to insult people is more your game . Screw off I am done with your tactics.
     
  73. Marc,

    Since the 1DsII has been out over a year now, and it will be obsoleted in your opinion in another year or two, I'll be happy to help you get rid of it - postage paid, and home pick-up.
     
  74. Thx Allen.
     
  75. Douglas - please have the bird pose on a more, dare I say, photogenic twig next time.

    Peter - I know what print I want of yours now...

    (add appropriate emoticons to the above gibberish)

    Stephen
     
  76. It would seem that folks are talking at cross purposes.Different tax breaks in different countries.
    00G1m8-29392984.jpg
     
  77. Some more Fuji photos for Travis....
    00G1mg-29393284.jpg
     
  78. Lets go for extreme lighting and chuck some snow in for the fun of it to spice it up.....
    00G1nD-29393484.jpg
     
  79. There, Douglas, and i should be given free gear and a large cheque each as we have demonstrated the potential of these two cams far more than the soft highly paid boys/girls running their marketing department..

    There�s a thought;)
     
  80. Finally a sort of absract photo for my my mate Trevor Hair.....
    00G1nw-29393684.jpg
     
  81. Thanks Allen.
     
  82. Ah the struggles of the net. People with strong feelings, people who'd rather be right than do their homework. Here's my .02 worth: Bought a Canon 20D about a year ago, amazed with it. Speedy, quick capable, but to my medium format eyes, just not there. The images worked great for sophisticated snapshots, but for fine art shots, wasn't getting it. Tried the Contax lens solution, but with the manual aperture setting, it was OK, but pretty slow. Felt a bit cludgy. After checking out the DMR, decided (based on the careful homework of Guy, Chuck Jones and others) to take the plunge. Here are some findings: - the color range is amazing. It truly is. I can get color prints (13x19) with more range on them than ever saw before out of a digital camera this side of MF back. - the ease of use is great compared to the Canon. Just falls to hand - the lens quality is also fine I had to send the camera back to Leica to get some back:lens focussing re-calibrated, so these aren't just "plug and play", pick'em up at Costco cameras. But they are fine pieces of machinery. The biggest complaint I have is that I still like to shoot through a piece of glass, like a MF Rollei, and compose on the glass. 35mm viewing is awkward for me, as is the format of the image (close to 35 mm slide). I've been shooting square format for 10 years, and find it hard to get serious shots with 1.5:1. No big theory there, just personal preference. But the quality of the Leica image is unquestioned. It really is a junior version of a medium format back, for about 1/2 that cost. The Canon stays around, and is used for quick shots, or for documenting stuff, where the Autofocus helps and you don't need superb image rendering. Its easy, fast, and works. The Leica is (for me) for art work. Another kettle of fish. Geoff
    00G2lZ-29416684.jpg
     
  83. [​IMG]
    Yellow-rumped Warbler Sacramento County California
    Leica R8/DMR, 560mm f/6.8 Telyt with extension tube, very big tripod
     
  84. Nice shots on the birds doug. From a fellow birder though, do you not sometimes wish you
    had AF for those action shots? I've never quite understood how a birder can chose not to
    embrace AF but u seem to have been able to cope quite well.
     
  85. Why are all of you so shy about posting yor images in your photo.net account. It's not going to kill you, is it? :)

    I would urge you DMR users to post your images in your photo.net account so that others who are contemplating on purchasing the DMR can go there to look at the samples whenever they need to. And, please post them BIG.
    Yes, yes, yes ... the 72dpi web images are poor representations of what the DMR can do, but don't you think it' better than NOTHING?


    Thanks!
     
  86. Douglas, What Awsome images!!!! One can actualy count the feathered layers on this birds.

    So Without reading this long posting. Have you switched completly to digital?
    Again, WOW!
     
  87. Felix, I haven't switched completely to digital but for highly kinetic subjects, particularly in poor light, I'll be using the DMR much more than the film cameras. The image quality with the DMR at higher ISO is much better than my high-speed film, Provia 400F and because of the crop factor for a comparable angle of view on a film camera I'd often use either a longer (slower) lens or the 1.4x extender, so when using the DMR I'll have a 1-stop advantage over 400F. The SL's exceptional viewfinder makes it the preferred camera for many subjects so at least for these situations I'll use film.
    Here's another of the Yellow-rumped Warblers that came through my yard in the last few days:
    [​IMG]
    Yellow-rumped Warbler, male - Sacramento County California
    R8/DMR, 560mm f/6.8 Telyt, very big tripod
     
  88. the 72dpi web images are poor representations .....but better than nothing.
    00G4zE-29473384.jpg
     

Share This Page