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

[fotografz]

Thanks Ray, I have to agree that CCDs are somewhat mature. I wonder if the preference for

the look I and others have mentioned is technically due (at least in part) more to the

Sensor being an unfiltered CCD verses a filtered CMOS?

 

The two characteristics I've noted in CCD sensor cameras is more lifelike rendition of skin

(also noted sometimes as being more film like), and apparent better dynamic range. The

downside, is that the CCD sensor cameras have limited higher ISO performance. An

example of this was the Contax ND which had a 6 meg, full frame Philips 12 bit CCD

sensor. This camera exhibited a similar look and feel to the DMR but had poor noise noise

performance characteristics above ISO 400. It also looked more film like and had better

ability to fender shadow detail while holding the highlights. I also noted this about the

Epson RD-1 which I also believe was a CCD, likewise the first Canon 1D was a CCD.

 

All of the MF backs I've used to date are CCDs, including the older 12 bit Kodak backs and

now the 16 bit Imacon 22/39 meg H2D. They have an amazing dynamic range (also due in

part to the large pixel size I'd surmise?), and also look more film like in rendition ... but

top out at ISO 400 (800 for some backs).

 

Whatever is going on, the characteristics are there, and offer an alternative look to the

Canon look (which there is nothing wrong with BTW).

 

Here's an example of a shot I know my Canon would have a little more difficulty with

based on experience shooting Canon digital for years now. No award winner, just a

snapshot that was requested by the Line Producer and the Prop Master on my TV shoot...

 

The available light was extremely directional and harsh yet the DMR held the highlight

detail decently while not blocking up the shadowed faces ...<div></div>

[fotografz]

Mani, I'll try to answer as best I can.

 

1) I also have been shooting many different lenses for a dump truck full of years. When

processing using high res images I also see a decided difference in the base RAW files

from different lens makers. In general, Zeiss feels cooler, Leica warmer, Canon a bit more

pastel.

 

All of those aspects can be easily altered in PS to make them similar. I try not to make

them so, and preserve the native characteristic ... perhaps a throw back to using film and

knowing what it should look like. I also feel the more you screw with images in PS, the

more you can effect some other characteristic.

 

I think other characteristics, like sharpness, may have more to do with the sensor type.

The DMR doesn't have a anti- aliasing filter and the 5D&1DsMKII do. In my experience, the

Canon images require more unsharp mask work than the DMR images. Strictly as a

subjective observation I've noted that Leica images blown way up and compared to Canon

L lenses look less sharp ... but at viewing size the Leica images look better and just as

sharp if not sharper. I've had this explained to me as the difference between the use of

micro-contrast verses edge sharpness. I've no idea if that is true. I just go with what I see.

 

Other than that, the look you see in film from any given lens is there with digital. If you

detect (rational or not) a difference between lenses, it'll be there in digital also.

 

2) Apart from setting the Adobe RAW Converter (ARC) defaults differently for each camera,

there are no details. If I try to use the default settings I have for my Canon cameras, the

DMR files are to red, and are a bit to contrasy.

 

3) Some people believe you can do anything in PS. (which is pretty much true if you're a

highly skilled retoucher). My experience is that the more you fuss, the more you effect

other characteristics with the possible repercussion of degrading the image. I saw a

presentation on preparing files for printing by the Piezographic guys at a show in NYC,

and their mantra was to do the least possible work in PS possible ... which they

demonstrated with techniques so simple it amazed me. I'd like to take a seminar on those

techniques someday.

 

I'm not a highly technical oriented person, so what I've just written is simply based on

observations while making thousands of wedding images and printing them myself. I'm

sure there are a million other factors to consider. But I don't have time for all that when

producing so much work every year. I have to find the path of least resistance to get to the

quality needed. Get it closer in the camera, and don't try to make it something it isn't in

PS, cuts the processing time for 500 wedding images considerably.

[feli]

Wasn't there a massive discussion on www.fredmiranda.com about the DMR and how

everyone was shocked by how good it's image quality was (high ISO noise performance

excluded).

 

By the way Marc, I really miss eating lunch at that French bistro, in Venice.

 

 

PS:You guys should also know that Douglas Herr is a very talented wildlife photographer.

He mostly shoots with and SL. http://www.wildlightphoto.com/

[fotografz]

Yes Feli, delicious food there. I think we were the only non French speaking people in the

place when we went. A good sign when it comes to the cooking ; -)

 

Thanks, I'll check out the Fred Miranda discussion.

[guy_mancuso]

The Fred Miranda discussion is the one I started about 4 months ago maybe longer . It is still going , I believe there are over 500 pages and over 5000 posts. In the begining i compared the 1dsMKII to the DMR than it has turned completely into a DMR thread with many pro's and hobbyist alike. Also there are many many images that frankly show up better for some reason than this site, don't know why that is but there are some incrediable images posted from the DMR . The earlier images have disappeared do to a timing issue on the site but certainly there is still plenty to see and read

[terence_mahoney]

"Guy Mancuso , feb 02, 2006; 02:15 p.m.

Terence I have to admit a statement like this is off the top .Because clearly you do not know what the DMR does good , bad or indifferent and to call folks elitist for switching systems is a little over the top don't you think. Personally I find that comment a little insulting. Just a reminder of what you said that others read into. Not trying to cause a holy war here but you have to admit the comment is a little off center IMHO

 

here is your comment as quoted

 

I believe in the world you will find the number of professionals who have "dumped" as it were their Canon or Nikon equipment for Leica R infintessimally small in number though large in elitist posturing. This in no way detracts from what the DMR does well, whatever that might be."

 

I'm quite surprised you took it as a personal insult. I would not have expected a professional photographer to have an emotional involvement with his tools. Prove my statement wrong and I will gladly retract it.

[guy_mancuso]

If you don't think that holding cameras in your hand for 30 years that it is not part of your body and personal involvement than you got to be crazy Terrence. Come on your a Pro this things are a extension of your eyes and hands of course they are part of you. Honestly would you buy a camera that was uncomfortable to even hold and use , no you would sell it right away and get soemthing that makes you work more flawlessly . The comment that is upsetting is the Elitist part that is pure bunk , sorry . I would dumb these in a heartbeat if brand X came out with something better both in body and lenses. From what you said it is the money and that is the part i don't understand coming from a pro that generates just a number here 150k a year than what is it to spend 10 k a year on gear x 5 years to get a great system . Frankly that is peanuts compared to the income generated from the gear. That is the part you only hear about is what it costs, i am so sick of hearing it , it's stupid . People forget what it brings in to the bank account , not that the gear does that alone but what your tools can help you accomplish in your work. Coming from a pro like yourself that baffles me more and why i don't get your comment. Hope you understand were I am coming from , you have to pay something to play in this ballpark. My clients demand files almost the same day i shoot them , i could not survive as a film shooter anymore. It is expected now, trust me your lucky to get away with shooting film, I can't.

[guy_mancuso]

Anyway let's move on we dumped enough on Marc's thread and i feel bad. I have no ill feelings on anything you said just wondering what your thinking that's all. Hopefully I did not offend you either

[vivek iyer]

I like the DMR image renditions that I see. Wish I could afford one.

 

Does any of the experts know if there is a custom curve out there that will replicate the DMR results? I wouldn't even mind buying a OES dSLR, if I can do that cheaply.

[guy_mancuso]

Let me just show a couple of examples from the DMR while on a trip in Mexico just to give you a idea of color and the dynamic range this camera can produce. All of these are processed in C1 with there generic default that converted to my favorite workspace<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

watch the DR on this one<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Look at the hard showdows under the kids hat<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Look at the color here<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Now the last one there was a little saturation added. One thing i have noticed working with these files is they are very robust to work with , you can make some sweeping changes to the files without degrading it. They can take a lot or very little sharpening and still look razor sharp and i don't care what anyone says , leica glass is razor sharp with tons of micro detail in almost all of there line, yes there are some okay ones but overall some of the best glass i have used. i want a 135 F2 APO . Okay that was a dream<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

I have hundreds of these kinds of images from this trip but just to give some example what the camera can do . This shot had major nbacklighting and the meter just nailed it anyway<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Well I found one that illustrates a point on the DR . The two ladies sitting down are in open shade the 2 in the back are in full sun. I shot this at 1/90 at f4 and i think it was with a 35 1.4<div></div>

[brambor]

I have to say that I like the shots from the DMR but I don't see anything different in it than from Canon DSLR (namely 5D) that I also own. If we were talking Canon D30 that would be a different story. I used to own one also but IMHO the 5D's output is similar to a point that I would say it's all a matter of right light at the right time to produce a top image from either DSLR.

[brambor]

I also think there is a mental aspect to this. Power of suggestion does wonders to judgement. Using sports analogy I know in hockey some players are 100% convinced the puck went across the goal line until video proves them wrong. I believe if you really believe that your [insert brand name here] SLR produces better shots and shoot it side by side with another SLR then your mind will do a great job at tricking you into believing yours is better.

 

Aside from this, I think it's awesome that DMR is out there. There has got to be more competition against Canon. It's only healthy, so I'm pulling for any competitor even though I also use Canon's products.

[vivek iyer]

Power of suggestion (aka Marketing hype?)?

 

Yes, that must be the reason why those over priced Leitz wide angles and Zeiss Distagons should be sought after by EOS folks.

[nels]

Rene,

 

You interrupted just when I was enjoying the thread. In fact I was going to suggest to Guy that he should consider writing a book on DMR, but I first wanted him to finish uploading all his wonderful images showing dynamic range.

[brambor]

Vivek,

 

Relax. I love Leica glass just as the next guy but I'm not going to soil my pants over them. The Canon 35L and up are up to par with Leica. The Canon 24 L has some issues at 1.4 but NOBODY ELSE makes it in 1.4 and at 2.8 it totally rocks. I would agree that the Canon 20mm pretty bad (at least it was for me) The only noticeable advantage is in the M mount where the lenses are much more portable than Canon's.

 

But let's not sway from the topic. What I'm saying is that both systems are great. The rest is really nitpicking which is easily overcame by "believing" and delivering.

[Brad_]

I somewhat agree with Rene on this.

 

Also, with respect to what people are reacting to on Marc's photos, I suspect it's 99% Marc

and not the camera/lens. Marc obviously knows how to shoot and everything he posts is

always bathed in exquisite light, especially the first three photos. And, as a result, people

come to expect that look. It's the light...

[guy_mancuso]

I am biting my lip hard

[doug herr]

Guy and Marc, thanks for posting the pics, they speak much louder than specs and marketing words.

[vivek iyer]

Canon should rope in Marc for the suggestive power.

 

Oh, yes! Excellent demonstration Marc and Guy.