Canon 1DSMK2 or Leica R9 DMR?

[mike_holt1]

Hello everyone, after googling for nights on end, and scouring the

epic threads over on FM, I am still undecided. I've narrowed it down

to these two contenders. I shoot mostly fashion, portraits, and the

occasional wedding, and I'm ready to make a major upgrade, but not

quite ready to go the MF+digital back route or the H1D. I have a

well-rounded Lecia M rig, which has fostered a fondness for Leica

over the years. I have a couple Canon bodies and an assortment of

Canon L glass.

 

Pricewise, a 1Ds and a R9+DMR are just about equal. The artist in

mean screams for the Leica, while my practical side reaches for the

1Ds. What do you guys think?

[socke]

Personaly I'd try to avoid a third system :-)

 

In your case I'd go out and rent a 1DsMK2 and a R9+DMR for a weekend.

[wai_leong_lee]

Fashion = Medium Format digital backs, does it not? That's what we see on America's Top Models, The Apprentice, etc.

 

Anyway, AF is so productive when you have to shoot in the studio, and you can even hook up the Canon to a PC for shoot and immediate review on a big monitor-- not sure if you can do that for the DMR.

 

Artists don't make money, usually. Only commercial photographers do. And those use Canon.

[stuart_richardson]

You can shoot tethered with the DMR. I have the DMR, and it is great, but I bought it

because I already had a large investment in Leica R lenses and a body. If you already have

an investment in Canon L glass and bodies, it makes the most sense for you to get the

1DsMkII. Many of the areas where the Canon is reputadedly behind the Leica are in terms

of color rendition, and that is something that is easily cured in photoshop. Though not far

behind the 1DSMkII in real world resolution, the Canon still has more, which is an issue if

you print huge. I love the DMR,

but I doubt it would please the artist in you like the M system does. It is a big clunkly DSLR

just like the Canon. The difference is in the manual focus lenses and viewfinder, as well as

in a simpler interface, but the artist in you is still going to be fussing around with white

balance, ISO, RAW or jpeg settings just like the Canon user would. For your PARTICULAR

situation, I would say stick with Canon and bring along an M to take care of any artistic

leanings. Then, if you wait a year or so the M digital will come along and you can

supplement it that way.

[mark_chappell]

I think Stewart gave a very good summary. If you've got some Canon lenses, then use the

1Ds. You can always switch off the autofocus and use manual exposure if that helps you feel

artistic. Keep in mind that you would have to get not only the R9+DMR, but also new R

lenses, which are a lot more expensive than Canon equivalents (I'm not a Leica owner but I

don't think you can use M lenses very well on an R camera).

[stuart_richardson]

Mark has a point...if you don't already have R lenses, to buy new ones can be

catastrophically expensive. If you are into the super wide or super long glass, you could

quickly spend as much as you would have on the H1D kit. For example, the 15mm lens is

about 7 grand, the long zooms 70-180 and 105-280 are 6500 each, the apo telyt system?

Up to 19,000 dollars for the longest head and the 2x focus module. Even the reasonable

lenses cost massive amounts: 3600 for the 80/1.4, 3300 for the 100/2.8 macro, the

humble standard lens, the 50/1.4 is 2600 dollars. Of course, you can buy used lenses of

the previous generations for dramatically less, but the top notch glass in the R system is

astonishingly expensive, and a lot more than even the M system's glass. It performance is

as good as it gets (other than the M system), but the law of diminishing returns is clearly

in effect.

[derek_stanton2]

Visit www.robgalbraith.com.

 

The forums there are possibly the most informative that i have found. Look, specifically, for posts by Mark Tucker, and see his website (www.marktucker.com). He has used Canon digital, and many of the top MF backs, and his most recent conclusions are that the 1DsMk2 is close enough to the H1D that it's not worth the associated headaches/restrictions to use the MF stuff. You'll have to draw your own conclusions, though.

 

Also, you'll find that the new Canon 5D is held in very high regard (95% of 1ds quality), and at less than half the price of either the DMR or 1Ds, that might be a wise first step.

 

I have Leica M and R, and haven't used digital regularly since i sold my D60 a few years ago. I've been waiting for a 10+ Mp DSLR with a full-frame sensor, and i think the 5D is going to me my next acquisition.

 

Lots of people use Leica lenses on the Canons, but, there are so many top level pros using Canon glass day in and day out that i'm only considering using Leica-R glass with an adapter for the focal lengths i don't want to buy twice.

 

Another factor in favor of the Canon solutions - low light/high ISO work. Much cleaner with Canon than the DMR, from posted reports/evidence. That might be a consideration for wedding work.

[peter_white2]

Don't forget the Canon 5D. It's smaller, lighter, less expensive than the 1D*. It's also less expensive with higher resolution than the DMR. The full frame viewfinder is wonderful. I've had mine for about three weeks and I'm very glad I spent the money on it. No buyer's remorse from this user.

 

I've ordered a Visoflex lens to EOS adapter from Cameraquest. It should be here on Monday. Then I'll be able to use my Leica bellows, the 65mm Elmar, and the 200 Telyt on the 5D!

 

I wonder how much magnification you can get with a 21mm Elmarit on the Leica bellows? ;-)

 

Life is good.

[stephen_w.]

A collector knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

Use what fits you.

[mark_dizengoff]

Good choice for bold financical status

[william_carter1]

I have them both (for now -- one will eventually be sold). I'm really enjoying

the DMR, but I just can't see giving up the low-light performance of the Canon

series. I find the "out of the box" DMR color more pleasing , but I guess that

can be corrected in Photoshop (depending on how good you are and how

much effort you're willing to put into it). DMR images are also significantly

sharper out of the camera, presumably b/c of the lack of an AA filter. I have

not found the difference in resolution to be discernable in print sizes up to

16x20. I'm still not liking the DMR's crop factor, though. I am, however, loving

the Leica lenses (obviously).

 

In short, there is no way to quanitify which is objectively 'better" -- each has

compromises. It's a question of whoch compromises you can handle. I'm still

deciding. I do think, however, if the question is "which is the most versatile

camera" (which is probably the key question if you make your living from

photography), the answer is clearly the Canon.

[jasper1]

The artist in mean screams for the Leica, while my practical side reaches for the 1Ds

 

Tell me about a practical artist!

 

The box tickers of the world would never understand.

[eliot_rosen1]

If you already have invested in Canon L lenses, the Canon digital body makes more sense than a new system (Leica R). Certainly, there are some great new Leica R lenses out there, but you will have to buy into a whole new system and the cost will exceed the cost of the R9 plus DMR. I would certainly go for the latter if I had a bunch of R lenses.

[ruben_osuna_guerrero]

I compared both cameras. The article is written in Spanish though:

 

http://www.macuarium.com/cms/macu/pruebas/el-modulo-digital-r-de-leica.html

[guy_mancuso]

Mike the DMR, been there and done that with the Canon . Fashion and Portraits the DMR will stand on end for skin tones.Speed and AF is another issue. I shoot commercially so here is were that really is not a issue. The DMR is like a 1ds in speed and the 1dsMKII is very fast for fashion shooters for some maybe not fast enough. What it comes down to is the glass , frankly nothing can touch leica in general and I owned everything Canon, Zeiss, Nikon and leica.But working with leica and the DMR is just a good pace system and I think it puts the Canon files to shame but that is ME. You read my thread and i still after 3 months with the DMR feel the same way as than. I have not seen this quality of file from any DSLR that i have ever owned . The DMR is very much like MF and not DSLR. Tough choice i know but in the end I sold the Canon gear except for a 5D that i use for backup and also modified the mirror so i can use my Leica glass. Working with leica glass on the Canon can be a hassle with stop down and for moving subjects even portraits i have missed focus. The DMR given all my leica glass was really the best soloution. i try to leave the money out of these decisions even though it means something. It means nothing when it comes to quality of file. Yes this did cost me a small fortune but some of that is my fault , I bought a very rare 35-70 2.8 which a DMR was cheaper.But there are many great lenses from Leica that are somewhat average price that you can get used. This works for me and may not for you and a good percentage of this board. also i am not one of those Leica do or die folks either . i am after the best i can get and forget the name. If you have any questions shoot me a e-mail and be glad to help

[greg lockrey]

I wonder how much magnification you can get with a 21mm Elmarit on the Leica bellows? ;-)

 

Take 21 and divide by the total distance from the lens nodual to sensor (about 165mm ?) that will give you the magnification of a 21 with extension bellows (7.857 ?). Have fun!