DMR (Update) and M7, 50/1.4 ASPH ... Go to Hollywood.

[Brad_]

For the technically interested, "16 bit" sensor/ADC (ADC = analog-to-digital converter)

quantization is mostly marketing spin. Unless you cool your sensor down to below 0C

(noise halves for every 7C reduction in temperature), or, average multiple static frames

(SNR increases 3 dB (one half bit) for every doubling of frames averaged (ideally). And

then that assumes the ADC is perfect, which none are. It means sampled pixel data may

well be more precise, before all of the processing is performed in your computer. In the

end, processed data gets rounded to 8 bits before going to your printer as R, G, and B

values. I'm sure the DMR module is a fine digital imaging capture system, but no doubt

for reasons other than 16 bit capture at nominal room temperatures.

[fotografz]

Patrick, all fair and good questions.

 

I didn't dump my Canon gear for this camera, nor would I. I dumped an entire Contax N

system including 2 NDs and Zeiss glass to fund the DMR. Kyocera not only didn't develop

the Contax system further, it bailed on photography completely.

 

Before I bought into the DMR, I had already had used Imacon. So, I already had developed

a liking for the look of 16 bit CCD sensors. Some people don't see it, but I do.

 

The real point is the glass, not the freaking camera. The camera just has to be good

enough to use the lenses you want. IMO, this one is. If you don't see the difference in

different lenses, buy cheap and be happy ; -)

 

That there is a optional "look" you can get is nice IMO ... for when you're making PRINTS.

Of course, it's hard to see it on the "Great Equalizer" ... the web.

 

Based on a web compressed image, guess which camera was used to shoot this: (5D,

24-90/4; Leica DMR, 21-35/3.5, or a Leica M, 50/1.4 stopped down using 160NC neg) ...<div></div>

[paulmoore]

patrick, first off, I had no intention of coming off as I know better because I'm

professional,

I simply wanted to put out where I am coming from, I learn from non professionals every

day

but why I mention it is because the use of professioanl pictures, for reproduction in

everything from 72dpi screens to billboards, requires additional considerations,

knowledge of the final medium. I have no doubt that a canon or nikon can produce

wonderful shots, and I would not say the leica is "better".

but there is this misconception out there that only amateurs use the leicas and that

somehow makes them not as good as the japanese dslrs.

I used nikon as my 35mm for the past 30 years, I was not that thrilled by the d1( the

mechanics of the f5 style auto focus) and went into medium format digital when I switched

to all digital work. So when it came time to get a smaller camera I felt the leica fit my

needs.. manual camera with digital back, it was the same chip maker as my imacon med

format.., I was selling off, not dumping, my sinars, so I was use to a certain level of

mechanical function which I find with the leica equipment.

The field of photography is huge and I know a small part of it, I prefer to work with

equipment that I relate to and enjoy. I use to use velvia, it was pointless really for most of

my jobs, separaters, printers, presses could never give my clients the saturation or

dynamic range that my transparencies had, but it made me feel good to deliver the shot I

liked, that made the process enjoyable for me..I could have shot on my old burke and

james, but I loved the feel of that p2 sinar.

It is the subltle differnences in this process which make a difference to me.. 2880 on the

epson vs 1440, 16bit manipulation of the raw image, the focus ring of my 90mm.

Anyone who buys a leica is indulging themselves, sure I admit to that, guess I don't have

a problem with it, or a problem if someone wants to shoot with an alpa or a holga.

[feli]

>>"I'm surprised to hear that you are not seeing much of a difference >>between the pre-asph LUX and the current ASPH model.

 

>He didn't say he didn't see much of a difference, he said the >difference isn't commensurate with the cost differential. That's the >mindset of a professional which I was alluding to. -Terrence

 

Well, Terrence, myself being a professional in the movie busines, I am sometimes willing to pay a premium for a that extra edge in performance.

 

So, far the reports on the Lux ASPH indicate, that it delivers a noticeable improvement over the previous model, especially wide open and close up.

 

You may also want to take note of the fact, that both versions of the Lux, were priced similarly.

 

 

cheers,

 

Feli

[albert knapp md]

the debate rages... we will know how well the DMR is doing in about 10 months when Leica releases it's FY 2006 sales and TRENDS. This will hopefully enlighten us as to how many DMRs were sold and what the split was percentage-wise between NEW and old Leica users. The numbers should be pretty accurate as by that time, Leica will have hopefully eliminated the backlogue of pre-ordered DMRs. Given the positive reviews, I hope to see some NEW Leica users.

Can't wait for the R10D!!!!<div></div>

[EricM]

"cool your sensor down to below 0C (noise halves for every 7C reduction in temperature)"

 

Think I'll get Huw to pipe in some 1/16 copper tube from the outside. One end wrapping around the sensor, the other externally screwed to some small heat sink finned aluminum and I can give it a quick blast of up side down canned air every time I go over 400 iso

[bart feliciano]

Tangent Q:

 

Any rumors on R 28mm or wider summicrons/summiluxes?

[fotografz]

Just to be clear about the 50/1.4 ASPH. I said it was better. The question is what do you

want from the lens? The pre-asph 50 Lux was no slouch, and had very nice OOF

performance. I got the new ASPH one because I also have the 75/1.4 which is a champion

at OOF areas. So better close-up performance with the floating element and the wicked

sharpness of asph design made sense for me... like I get with the 35/1.4 ASPH (which is

my most used lens). I like to carry 2 to 3 M lenses with me, not all of them. so it's the 35 &

75, or the 28/50/90. Yep, that bit of edge mentioned can be important at times.

 

Here's one with the M7 and new 50/1.4 ASPH. In the full resolution 5400 ppi scan you can

read the serial number in the little box on the top back of the light. The lens is probably

capable of more than my scanner can reproduce.

 

BTW, the 16 bit CCD heat issue is true, (although less of an issue in smaller sensors).

That's why Imacon/Leica used certain "heat dissipating" or heat wicking metals in the

design of the DMR.<div></div>

[Brad_]

A very reasonable cooling system can be based on a thermo-electric cooler element, also

called a Peltier device. Push a DC current in one direction, and the device adds heat.

Switch the polarity and it removes heat. I'm guessing a simple system could cool to more

than 20 degrees below ambient. A multi-stage system can probably do more, maybe > 40

degrees below ambient.

 

But why stop there? The manly solution is cryogenic and would use a dewar of liquid

helium to get that sucker close to absolute zero - around -270C ... :=)

[EricM]

or stuff in one of those liquid nitrogen coolers that the gamers use when they over-clock their motherboards? little pumps and wires and...I'm such a geek.

[patricks]

thanks to all of those who contributed to help me understand the diff. it used to be that glass made all the difference, it is no longer so. the quality of the sensor and the processing algorithms are now equally, or perhaps more, important. my curiosity is around how well the Leica engineers have managed to master the latter parts.

 

if any photographer, pro or amateur, gets the desired results, even an competitive differentiator, from using the DMR, I'm all for it. I just hope it attract enough NEW users to the R system to make the company viable. Canon/Nikon sure needs some competition! :-)

[Brad_]

"I wonder what your opinion re operating temps Canon vs DMR might be?"

 

That's kind of a separate, though related issue, Pete. There are two factors - reliability,

and self-heating of the sensor which can raise the temperature and sensor noise level. All

semiconductors have a maximum junction temperature spec. Might be 110C to 125C,

depending on the company, reliability department, etc, etc. You really don't want to

operate close to that point because reliability is severely compromised.

 

All products are specified to operate over some temperature range. For commercial, it

might be 0C to +70C. For industrial apps it's usually -40 to +85 C. Usually you just worry

about the high end, So, for example, if you want to operate at +70C, and the maximum

junction temperature is +110, you can only tolerate a temperature rise of 40C at the

junction. What causes that temperture rise? The device itself - it's dissipating power in a

tiny tiny enclosed space, and that causes a huge temperature rise.

 

A good design, for the above parameters, would employ thermal management techniques

to keep the temperature rise less than 40C. The semiconductor's power dissipation and

package type along with other techniques play important roles in removing heat. Also,

one needs to determine how close to maximum junction temperature you want to operate.

Semiconductor reliability (how long the device will last) is a huge function of temperature.

Something like doubling for every 10C reduction in junction temp, but I probably have that

wrong - I'm working from memory.

 

So as in all designs, different techniques are used to "get the heat out." That's a

paramount element of good design. I suspect leica's method is no bettor or worse that

what canon uses, though I wouldn't be surprised if canon was a bit ahead because they've

been doing electronics for decades. But really, all of that is pretty common engineering,

differentiated only be cleverness to reduce internal costs.

 

But, imaging systems employing CCD or CMOS sensors have other issues to contend with.

And that's thermal noise impacting sensor dynamic range. The lower the temperature, the

better. Noise halves for every 7C (or so) in temperature. Unless one camera has a fan

and/or a huge heat sink on the back, I suspect it they will be about equal on intrinsic

sensor noise. Signal/image processing can reduce noise with no doubt some trades in the

process. CCD and CMOS sensors cannot take advantage of 16 bit analog to digital

conversion unless the sensor is actively cooled, or maybe if your shooting in Siberia.

 

Astronomy cameras will employ active cooling techniques to reduce the temperature of

the sensor to levels where a 16 bit, or greater ADC will actually provide some benefit with

sensitivity. Thermo-electric coolers (Peltier device) with radiator and fan can reduce

sensor temperature to maybe 50C below ambient (25C - 50C= -25C). To reduce the dark

noise even more, liquid nitrogen or helium can be used - that involves plumbing and

pumps and a huge amount of maintenance hassle, cost, etc.

 

If Huw was interested, he could probably design a Peltier system and get at least an extra

couple stops of dynamic range, to where the 14 bit ADCs he's selected would be a

commensurate match (integration can still provide benefits). But that kind of thermal

engineering is a pain - need to design a special board, cold block, massive heatsink on the

back, and a fan to remove heat from the sink. And a power supply for the fan. OTOH, it's a

pretty neat opportunity for a supercam. Something leica could never do just because of

the size...

[guy_mancuso]

If i may jump back to this comment here by Terence.

 

For myself, a professional as well, spending lavishly on equipment that returns an improvement in image quality that I can see but my clients cannot,

 

This is simply not the case , I have some very large corporate clients and they picked up on the difference immediately that something was different in my files for the better i might ad. Actually i was quite surprised they did, but i do have well educated clients that also know photography quite well.

 

What is enternaining to me when I read these post is the money end of it. yes this stuff is expensive so is Canons but if you sit there and think about the ROI on this stuff it really comes down to maybe 10-20 percent of doing business in a year. Now i am not a rocket scientist but there are many many business out there that spend a lot more on capital gear to be competitive in the market place. Also you buy a leica r lens today used which all of mine are it will last until you go in the box. These are built for a lifetime of service, do you honestly think you can do that with a canon lens, come on guys . we know how well built these are. The DMR itself may only be on the shelf for 2 years divide that buy 6 k and the number becomes pretty small on usage over the cost of 2 years. Folks you need to get over the money angle. You have to buy gear to work why not buy gear that lasts does the job extremely well and get the quality that you can't get anywhere else . is it for everyone , no way but it does do a better job in overall image than anyone else. if i need the speed of a 1dMKII than i would use that.

 

Interesting i was on the golf course today shooting the FDR open Pro AM with my slow DMR with a 180 F2 than there was another pro there with his 1dMKII. Now at a couple points in time we were close enough to hear shutters going . My lonely 2 FPS against the mighty 8 fps per second. So i hear this hail mary coming from his camera just lay on the shutter and pray you get something, sorry guys you can shoot sports with a DMR and just wait for the decisive moment just like the old farts i grew up with that did it everyday like this. There is no magic in laying on the shutter and saying a Hail Mary, Magic comes from the one frame when you nail it. Moral of the story you can shoot anything if you know your gear and know how to shoot.Buying a 1dMKII or a DMR is worthless if you don't take advantage of the gear and your brain

[EricM]

"There is no magic in laying on the shutter and saying a Hail Mary, Magic comes from the one frame when you nail it."

 

There's no magic showing the editor 4 images to chose from either when they'd rather chose from 16.

[nels]

"The trouble with crank theories is that they are not even wrong."

 

- Wolfgang Pauli, the famous Physicist, when asked what he thought of all the bizarre theories about nature that people often asked him to pursue in greater detail.

[feli]

Thanks for the extra information, regarding the Lux ASPH.

[paulmoore]

eric, I'm sorry for you if you are at the mercy of photoeditors who look at quanity first.

I have been lucky to have avoided such clients, although I have jumped and dodged hoops

for clients and shot things not "my way" enough times. there are ways around such folks,

I worked with very wiley creative director on an epson scanner product shoot and after

numerous polaroids and with the shot worked out to our satisfaction, he then asked me

to take a polaroid with a major component in a weird position, I do so and he went with it

over to the where the epson marketing client was working on her laptop. She looked and

then as if on que said, " I think that item looks a little off" the cd, not missing a beat said "

oh, right, paul can you fix that", she was happy to feel she contributed and we got what we

wanted. Point is that very few pros shoot what and how they want to shoot all the time.

I think for editors looking for quanity I would find a way to fire off some filler.

[fotografz]

"There is no magic in laying on the shutter and saying a Hail Mary, Magic comes from the

one frame when you nail it."

There's no magic showing the editor 4 images to chose from either when they'd rather

chose from 16.

 

Come on guys, there's no right answer here. Let's face it, a Canon 1DMKIIn or Nikon

equivalent is the usual weapon of choice for sports or action photography. It's why they

exist in the first place ... and are absolute over-kill for most other people who buy them.

 

This doesn't eliminate those who use different shooting techniques requiring different skill

sets. But personally I sure would hate to shoot some of my f/1.4 stuff in dark reception

halls without AF. And if I had to cover a basketball game using a DMR/R9 and a 180/2 @

f/2, it would be me saying the "Hail Mary" : -)

 

The idea of the DMR competing with Canon or Nikon is a strange notion IMO. Leica has

rarely done been that (at least not in my shooting lifetime). It's always been an alternative

or supplementary system in my mind. Not everyone wants or needs all the functionality

available in modern gear. Face it, if not for the lenses, Leica wouldn't still exist today.

 

I see the DMR in that light. Not as Patrick seems to. The body/sensor is a necessary evil

required to get to the lenses. All it needs to do is be good enough and easy enough to use

the lenses. If one could attach Leica glass to a Canon 1DsMKII or Nikon D2X and have fully

coupled stopped down aperture functionality there may have been less reason for the DMR

to exist ... at least in my gear closet. For folks with R systems, it's a different matter.

 

When they developed the DMR it used alternative technology from Imacon, which is fine by

me, because after all the tech explanations offered here implying it's all marketing hype,

actual shooting experience with the camera says differently ... the files look different TO

ME, and that's all that matters... no matter how they got there technically.

 

BTW, it is Imacon who should be the one that "electronics" comparisons to Canon should

be made ... not less experience Leica. Imacon is not inexperienced, nor a "Johnny-come-

lately" when it comes to digital electronics.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Addendum, as I scan more stuff from the 50/1.4 ASPH, I've noticed excellent sharpness out

to the corners. I'm starting to like this lens.<div></div>

[EricM]

I'm looking forward to using<a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/965_zeiss_zf.jpg"> these.</a> That 85/1.4 on a D2x...

[fotografz]

Yeah Eric, sweet.

 

That's got me thinkin' 'cause it all about the glass no matter who's name is on the camera.

Here's hoping they release the 28/2 and 21/2.8 Distagons in F mount.

 

How's that D2x at ISO 800? I got the Want's 'n Gimmes for that Nikon 200/2 VR ... I can

make some money with that sucker.

[fotografz]

Positively filthy Peter.

 

Speaking of forbidden sin, have you investigated high-end scanners?

[guy_mancuso]

From Marc

 

Come on guys, there's no right answer here. Let's face it, a Canon 1DMKIIn or Nikon equivalent is the usual weapon of choice for sports or action photography. It's why they exist in the first place ... and are absolute over-kill for most other people who buy them.

 

This was more my point was just because you have a 1dMKII is not going to make you any better , it still is up to you, If my main job was shooting sports i certainly would use this than the DMR but my point is that to many rely on the gear and not there brain. yes you can get by with a DMR but that is not what it is intended to do. I agree here the best tool for the job, but the comment about a editor wanting 16 instead of 4 is totally a wrong approch to shooting anything also a editor that is a idiot in my mind. Sports is and always will be about catching the moment, no matter what gear. Honestly guys the DMR is a slow boat to China the buffer is slow it takes long to write when getting near the end of the card it's 2fps but i think it is worth it because TO ME the images are worth it. It is about the glass but the sensor is a MF design and it does make the images better when i compared it head to head with the 1dsMKII with the same glass , that is were the difference was evident to me to actually completely switch . Did I leave something behind getting away from canon , sure i did. No system is perfect but find me a wide angle lens that is actually good below the 35mm in Canon, there is none. Now i bought everyone and tested everyone and they simply do not cut it. That is what has started this alternative lens issue to begin with for many shooters. One day i realized i had 9 leica lenses in my bag and a 1dsMKII and 1dMKII, now something was very wrong there. This was more out of need than choice to switch over , now for me it was the best mov,e for some not worth it. trust me i don't work for leica and could care less what anyone buys or not. Just giving you a different prespective here and really it is so petty to hear well it sucks and way to much money when people don't even try it , how the heck do you know if you don't try something is beyond me.

 

Here is another comment Marc made were the rubber hits the road. Sorry Marc for stealing your comments.

 

As I practice with this camera, I am loving the images from many old favorite lenses: 35/1.4, 80/1.4 and 180/2.8. The images continue to delight, and look more film like than the Canon's produce, as well as render skin more lifelike.

 

That is more the bottom line to all of this Leica glass and DMR camera. The images just look better and i may add more like Kodachrome than anything else i have seen

[guy_mancuso]

Thanks Peter just making a small point , hope I did not sound coming on too strong . Need my Starbucks . LOL

 

It's that I have done a ton of testing in the last 6 months that really made me see some interesting develpments. Like spec sheets and mpx count are all worthless to some degree. Part of my issue is i am not a engineer that understand the hard tech side of things , like early mentioning the cooling of the CCD sensor and such. i find that somewhat fasinating to a point , than at some point you need to just go shoot the damn thing. LOL

 

Sometimes it is hard to justify why spend a ton of money on the gear end when some things already work pretty well, I guess it is like anything else you always want to improve and be in the lead of yourself and i guess good gear is part of that internal desire to be the best you can. Not sure , i think it is time for some Starbucks . Sorry if i sounded grumpy but honestly I am not , in a good mood this morning even though it is 6 am.

 

OT a little Chuck Jones a very good shooter out of Mexico have bothed switched over to the leica system and Chuck is 56 and i am 49 and what we seem to chat about is the feel of going back to shooting those mechnical bodies that are simply to use and built to take the hit from us. i look at the menu in the canon and honestly for a year owning the thing , i would actually have to think HARD how to change something in the menu. That is not photography that i grew up with, you put a lens on a camera meter and shoot and controlled that whole thinking process. maybe i am crazy but with the Canons i seemed to get lazy , oh let the camera do it for me and for some folks that is great but when i manually focus and work the camera I actually think so much better when my eye is in the eyecup. Okay i am babling off for some coffee. LOL

[working camera]

This had been a seriously informative thread. And great banter.

 

Always appreciate you thoughts over the dig. scene Marc. And brad for sharing your insight to the technical side of things.

 

Cheers C.