Nice to be an R8/R9 user ?

Now that digital is imposing itself on us it must be a nice time for owners

with R8s and R9s and the DMR. They must be snapping up all the desirable R

lenses at knock down prices. From what I have seen of DMR pictures this looks

like the digital outfit to have if you are not worried by bulk or weight. Is

this happening - you DMR owners ?

<i>From what I have seen of DMR pictures this looks like the digital outfit to have if you are not worried by bulk or weight.</i><P>

. . . or cost, or availability of rentals, or lack of autofocus.

Mike - Quality of images so far. Autofocus doesn't attract me at all and I should be surprised if many serious photographers use it except I suppose for action pictures.

<i>I should be surprised if many serious photographers use it except I suppose for action pictures.</i><P>

By "action pictures," do you mean only fast-moving sports (like baseball or football)? Or would situations like street photography, wedding photography, portrait photography, and photojournalism also qualify?<P>

In the real world (outside the Leica forum), the bulk, weight, cost, rental availability, and autofocus capabilities of a system are all important factors in determining "the digital system to have."

AF is a must for some photography IMO. For other parts it isn't necessary, or even desirable.

Depends on your needs and desires.

 

I find that Canon AF lenses are sloppy for manual focus because resistance is optimized for

swift movement of the elements ... where true manual focus lenses like Leica R are well

dampened and more precise.

Just to clarify (before someone starts in about "Leica bashing"), I don't dispute that the R digital back can produce excellent results. For some people, it might be the perfect combination of features and output to suit their needs. Some people might need the higher quality of a medium format back; some might need higher frame rates and fast autofocus; some (most!) might need a lower cost.

Leica was never a lower-cost product, it's always been for those who want high-quality

results. I'm delighted with the detail, color quality and dynamic range of the DMR's

output.

<P>

<CENTER>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com" target="_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/coha05.jpg">

</A>

<BR>

<B>Cooper's Hawk</B> - Sacramento County California<BR>

<I>Leica R8/DMR, Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R</I>

</CENTER>

<P>

Some of the best Leica-R lenses have seen huge price increases in the last year or so on

the second-hand market. Good luck finding a 280 f/4 for under US$3,000.

"Now that digital is imposing itself on us"

 

If you consider digital a forced imposition, I suggest you refrain from spending thousands on an R8/R9+DMR and a stash of Leica lenses. Shoot film until you can no longer locate any or a lab to process it, or buy a Rebel XT with the kit zoom and dip your toes into digital. If, as I predict, you quickly get over your attitude and find yourself not wanting to shoot film again, then is the time to revisit the possibility of the DMR, or another high-end digital.

I loved many examples from DMR posted here in the past. That being said I don't understand some of the opinions on AF usage. I shoot a lot of hockey and I also shoot street. Lots of times it is easier to shoot hockey with my camera on a tripod than getting a shot on the street where you only have a split second to raise, focus and shoot on fast moving people.

I will second Dougs comments and leave the rest of the BS to someone else on the need for AF.

"I'm delighted with the detail, color quality and dynamic range of the DMR's output."

 

Doug, curious, what other cameras have you shot raw with?

"I should be surprised if many serious photographers use (AF) except I suppose for action pictures."

 

That's the funniest thing i've read in quite a while. Can't see the forest for the Leica?

 

Anthony -

I recently sold my R8 kit. I liked it when i had it, but i don't miss it now. I was never seriously interested in the DMR. Sure, various people have posted lovely images from it. But, I've also seen garbage from it. Obviously, operator skill is critical, with any camera - digital no exception. The people who extract such fine imagery from a DMR could also do it with a Canon or Nikon. Personally, i was first put off by the price of the DMR. Secondly, i would want an AF in an SLR system. Thirdly, the DMR came out amid rumors and conjecture surrounding Leica's demise. And, lastly, i had sworn a few years ago, following a brief stint with a Canon D60, that i would be interested only in a full-frame solution. When the 5D came out, i went back to EOS for SLR digital and film. And, i'm in love with the 85/1.2L.....

"The people who extract such fine imagery from a DMR could also do it with a Canon or Nikon."

 

That's not the story many of them are telling.

"I will second Dougs comments and leave the rest of the BS to someone else on the need for AF."

 

Your images are impressive, but so are Marc Williams's. If he feels that certain shots benefit from AF, why do you insist his opinion is BS?

I'm curious, have any genuinely serious league photographers dumped their Canons for

the DMR? Marc has posted some nice clean looking images from the DMR, but he's done

the same with both Canon digital and with film. Doug's posted images from the DMR that

are nowhere near as pleasing technically (they look kind of flat, kind of digital...) as those

he's produced with film - though I'm guessing that's because he's fairly new to the

medium rather than any inherent shortcomings of the DMR. Guy, the biggest and loudest

proponent of the DMR, has posted images that've looked weak technically - though with

assertions that they look great in reality but somehow fall apart on photonet. Working

photographers generally ignored Leica Rs in the film era (despite the quality of the lenses)

and that isn't likely to change in the digital era. The camera people want is the digi M not

the R.

<I>"I'm curious, have any genuinely serious league photographers dumped their Canons

for the DMR??</I>

<P>

Guy Mancuso did. Say what you will about his photos but they pay his bills.

<P>

<I>"Doug's posted images from the DMR that are nowhere near as pleasing technically

(they look kind of flat, kind of digital...) as those he's produced with film - though I'm

guessing that's because he's fairly new to the medium rather than any inherent

shortcomings of the DMR."</I>

<P>

Possibly because my DMR photos are where film can't go with equivalent quality - high ISO

in particular. All the DMR photos I've posted were made at ISO 400 or higher. And also

possibly because I'm new to RAW conversion.

"Say what you will about his photos but they pay his bills."

 

Sure they do, but it doesn't automatically follow that he's operating at a particularly high

level. There are amateurs here, including yourself, who (at least to my eyes) are way more

credible when it comes to assessing the qualities or otherwise of a camera. I ask the

question because if the DMR was as astoundingly capable as Guy and a few others claim

then there's no very obvious reason why photographers aren't moving to the DMR en

masse. They've made radical shifts before in their choice of equipment, most notably from

Nikon to Canon EOS.

 

"I'm new to RAW conversion"

 

I did acknowledge that.

Pro's made the Titanic. An amateur built The Arc.

I've seen outstanding photos posted here from almost all camera brands.

 

What is odd, are people who say, "Well, you can't make quality judgement from a photo

posted online." Yet they're the same ones who will post photos online in order to make a

point about quality. You can't have it both ways.

Boris you have no idea what the hell your even talking about. www.guymancusophoto.com . Posting on this site , I cannot get good images for some reason. And also I will NOT post images from clients. That would be stupid because people steal your work. When you evry doubtful get to a pro level than maybe you may understand a few things like copyright, infringement and stuff we have to deal with. At least if images are stolen from my site i have legal recourse here i got nothing. learn something about the business before you put your size 11 in your mouth

Guy, what's your first language? Your postings read like Babelfish translations from a

Finno-Ugric

language (Finnish? Hungarian?) to English. I'm sure that in your native tongue you don't

come across as anywhere near so foolish, presumptuous, boastful, and bombastic. As a

courtesy I've looked at your website, and, I'll admit, I've misjudged you. I thought you were

humorless, but I find a wonderfully witty, post-modern, spoof of early 80s pr

photography.

C'est magnifique!

>Posting on this site , I cannot get good images for some reason.<

 

I agree. And because of this incapability, were others have no problem, many perhaps have concluded you're the last person to hear the merits of the DMR from.

Once again complete idiots here. As usually just like dpreview with people that have no clue what is good , bad or indifferent. Totally moroons, Boris stick it and same with the last poster. I just banned myself.

ROTFL

 

Thanks for the entertainment. About halfway through this I totally lost what the argument was all about.

;-)

Guy, I have some questions. Are you this angry in real life? Or just online? What's a

"moroon"? You don't seem to grasp that the whole

point of a discussion forum is that people offer differing opinions. Just repeating your

pro pro pro mantra doesn't entitle you to some kind of divine and unchallengeable

authority. If you want that I suggest you found some kind of DMR cult - you can be the

Big Barnack.