guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I don't have these on the net but need to put them up to link too but anyway we were talking a little on the DR stuff, just ran across this image i shot on a clear day in Atlantic city just before Christmas for a client . The sun is coming over the boat from the right side but the shadow side even in the way back there is plenty of detail.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 One more from the same shoot. This is tough for any camera complete white wall with pur sun hitting it and yet look at the shadow side. okay that's it just wanted to show a couple conditions that the DMR can work in<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 DR with no blown highlights. Hmmmm. . . . Guy, I might just might to hit that Brinks truck after all. Teachers have a right to live, too, and anything worth doing or having is going to entail some risks. Catch me if you can, coppers. Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Leica DMR. If not, I'll find a way. You're right. It IS a like an MF back. Thanks for the photos. --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Hmmm ... <p> Leica APO, Canon lens, Nikon ED lens or Zeiss Superachromat? <p> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3701809-lg.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Arthur ... the answer is ... web upload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Let�s us go for a dose of reality. I very much doubt if any of you could tell the difference between any of these cameras after a bit of work and effort in photo shop on a 10 by 8 print or larger and I would include a Nikon D50 at a fraction of the price. Camera hype nothing else dudes. The truth is out there you just need the eyes to see it. Spitting hairs when you should be creating a photographic vision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I would like to add that Marcus Williams posts some technically excellent pixs, with creative vision, unsurpassed in technical skills on this site. They are a joy to behold but not with the DMR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david k. Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Quote from the Bob Atkins DMR PREview: "Field reports so far suggest performance is good, though overall image quality doesn't seem to be significantly better then a $800 8MP Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT using the same lens. It may be a little better, but performance probably lies somewhere between the $800 Digital Rebel XT and the $3300 full frame EOS 5. I'm sure some will debate that and since I haven't personally shot with a DMR, I'll defer to their better judgement... So overall I think the DMR gets a "B" grade." Maybe Bob should have tried the DMR......people who have, seem to like it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 B+ Happy now? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 So overall I think the DMR gets a "B" grade." Let us move it to A for those who have the need to spend a lot of dollars. 1. Built like the proverbial sh..t house. 2. Leica lenses got to have some impact. 3. Do you really need anything better? Upgrade dudes with little talent will always chase the pixies like some chase the old man upstairs as an insurance policy. Forget the Word I went to church every week for 10 years dudes. Coughed up the tax free charity money dues ,which hurt ,now open the gates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Truly it is easier for a Camel to get through the eye of a needle............ Let you all fill the rest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Truly it is easier for a Camel to get through the eye of a needle............ than it is for some people to hide their financial inferiority complex? : -) Don't worry Michael, I give lots of money to the poor, the Church, the Fireman's Association, Clean Water Act, Save the Whales, Sierra Club, Vets, and that poor old Uncle Sammy ... and have plenty left over to pop for a DMR just for the fun of it. But I don't think for a minute that the charity efforts will get me an engraved invitation to heaven signed by Jesus ... well, maybe buying the Leica might earn me Brownie Points ... since it's rumored that his Dad shoots with one ... LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_jones2 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 There have been lots of reviews, positive and negative, on every camera made. Reviews are great, but they don't make images. I do. I had Nikon's system, until Canon brought out the 1Ds. I switched for the higher quality. I had five pro Canon bodies through the 1Ds2. I switched again when the DMR came out, again for the higher quality and much better "use ability" for my needs. When Canon or Nikon, or Maymia, or whatchamaycallit brings out a professional system that beats what the DMR does for my kind of work, I will likely buy one of those and give it a try. If it's that much better, I'll buy a second one, and switch again. I could honestly care less what "brand" is on the front of my cameras. I care about how they fit my shooting style, and what the images look like. I don't even care how many megapixels they are, or what the cost is as long as I can afford to buy it. My tools pay for themselves over the time I own them. And honestly? I really don't care one whit if what I posted doesn't mean anything to you. You didn't pay me to write any of this, and neither does Leica. My clients pay me to do a quality job for them. I posted it as information to share for those who do care to know what other photographers working with the Leica system think of it. I respect your views, and your rite to have them. I would suggest though that if you want others to continue to share theirs, some of you may want to consider how your words come across before you post insulting, degrading remarks. Or some of us may decide to just keep silent, and our experience to ourselves. The truth is always appearant to those who have eyes to see it. Jack asked for me to post this image he shot with my DMR. So here it is.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Michael, I have a few Canon and Nikon lenses (among others), and I have been shooting digital seriously for four years. (I shoot film, too, up to medium and large format.) If you think that you can get comparable results with a D50 to what is being shown here, then you are the one who needs a dose of reality. Heck, even three megapixels can look impressive on the screen. Sure, you can PS all you want and get good uploads on the screen and fool lots of people. Try it with prints. Anybody who is fooled by Digital Fractals enlargements doesn't know what to look for. I don't care what Atkins says, and not merely because he has never used the DMR. I'm not saying that he is on Canon's payroll, just that he has tunnel vision where digital v. film is concerned, and where megapixels are concerned as well if one is shooting digital. He thinks that we have arrived because digital is now matching 35mm film. (Doesn't he realize that some persons liked MF and LF versus 35mm before digital was ever an issue?) I can tell the difference when things are printed, but I can't prove that here, and don't care to try. If you want to believe that the D50 will match anything out there, then you are entitled to your fantasy, but don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone who has tried something better--and put it through the wringer of print, not PS or Digital Fractals or some such. (I use that kind of software, too. It has its uses, but it doesn't give resolution that isn't there.) As for the DMR, I haven't tried it. I haven't tried the D50, either, but I have shot digital with up to 14 megapixels, and don't let anyone tell you that all of this is just money talking. Yes, it takes money to shoot the best, and I don't have the best, but I have good and better, and I can sure see the difference. Canon makes incredibly good digital cameras. I just hate it when I hear people say that we have gotten as good as we are going to get, or need to get. This digital thing is barely off the ground. Maybe Atkins is right that most people will never want more than what is already available, but I am not interested in what "most people" like or have to say about anything. I'm sorry if that sounds elitist. I don't have the money to be elitist, but I am not yet quite blind. I can remember when I came home in 1977 with a second-hand ($100)Miranda with a 50 f/1.4, snapped a few, showed them to my ex-wife, and compared them to what we had been getting of the kids with an Instamatic. She said that she couldn't tell the difference. I believe her. She couldn't tell the difference. --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 What kills me here is you have several top pros here that are sharing information on the vitues of the DMR that is positive than we get accused of camera hyping. Really we don't get paid for this, nothing was given to us from Leica, we probably paid full retail price our bank accounts are in the hurting phase of out putting tons of money for it but we are hyping it for what reason is what i want to know. Why would we do this if it simply did not provide us something better for our work. Than get accused of chasing pixels , excuse me I went from 16 to 10 there is no chasing there, you have the math wrong. What is it do you have some complex that someone may have better gear than you or your a wannabe pro that can't shoot to save your life so lets just discredit anyone that actually knows something. Or are you so bored with your life this just gives you pleasure and makes you feel special. Really why are you questioning folks that have been shooting for years and live this business everyday and come in here and try to help folks. Marc hangs out her more than Chuck or myself and honestly not sure why he does put up with the crap. What you detractors do not even come close to undersatnding at ALL is pros like to give something back to our art and help others . I know that is my motivation and Chucks as well and frankly i am just going to say that is probably Marc's as well , we get nothing in return for helping except that we have helped some folks out and we get some personal satisfaction for that , that's all folks. to me that is enough but getting blantant crap for giving our professional viewpoints is uncalled for. Do you do this to Doctors and Lawyers and others that are professionals in there field. Than why do it to folks that want to share and why in the world would you even think we would lie or hype something is beyond me. We get nothing for this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I'm just happy that you guys demonstrated what I already thought - that Leica DMR is on par with the best DSLR's out there. It wasn't fun to read the posts that basically incinuated in various ways that the DMR customers are fools and how dare they to think to challenge Canon. I'm not quite in agreement on your comparison shots made with Canon Zooms to your R lenses (even though the flower shot looked better with the Canon but that's only better shooting technique and light) and I don't quite agree with Marc's assesment of the Canon 35L or the 24L. Speaking from personal experience I have shot the best Hexanons out there, the best Canon L's out there and latest M Summicrons in 35, 50 and 90. I try to catalog my images in a database and record what I shot with. Every single brand query has a few outstanding (for my level) photos. If you choose your lens carefully and then it is more about light , framing and subject matter. But I understand your opinion and in a way I agree. You guys shot a lot of hardware and settled on DMR. Thanks for the demo's and reviews. Please stay here and post more in W/NW threads too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 This is a great thread with a bunch of actual users of the equipment giving honest opinions, thanks for it. I hope this is an indication of what the Digital M might be like, my digital money will go to a camera that doesn't have a flapping mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I agree with RJ. The best news out of this is what it means for digital M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Thanks Renee what some folks don't undertsand is we do like Nikon and Canon , I made a lot of money from using those systems. I really think Canon is is one of the best OEM's out there in the digital field they constantly come out with new product that in most cases is a improvement the Series 1 camera are very good for what they do and speed is one of them, the DMR can be very slow in some shooting spots , no question and is my biggest issue with it. i hit the buffer at times and I am dead in the water , one reason i bought 2 of them is i can switch to the other when i hit the buffer. But every system has limitations , there is NOT a perfect camera and most pro's live with limitations in there gear. No question about this even going back to 4x5 days what a pain it was to use them, but they delivered what no camera could do swings and tilts. Right now i would kill for the Canon 90 TSE lens , the Zeiss 35 mm PC lens to fit my leica. I even thought about having them custom fitted somehow. Honestly we would never dream of dumping this kind of money into something that was not as good or better than what we already had. Hell i have 2 kids a wife a mortgage and 2 expensive cars just like everyone else. The money tree i keep telling my kids is dead in the backyard. What i think we are saying to the largest degree we found something that at the end of the day counts and that is the image quality from the DMR , it is different in many ways. There is some magic there that just does not come across in words of even on the web,but it is there and only our expreienced eyes can see it. I have a very long thread on Fred's site there that many folks have actually gone out and bought the DMR and honestly they keep selling off there canons they like the images coming from it and to them it is worth the money to switch. hey it is expensive as hell to switch , I did it twice in 4 years and it hurts . Went from Nikon, Kodak system to a full Canon system and from a full Canon to full Leica sytem. I must be nuts from a money point of view but i believe i found a better imaging box. Now we all said the same thing it is not for everyone or every budget and some don't want to give up what they have in there system. believe me I am not asking anyone to switch systems at all and go buy leica. What we are saying is we did for a reason , here is the info take a look at it and understand what it can do. take the info for what it is and use it to your advantage and learn from it. What I don't understand is why tear people apart when there trying to share. that thread i mentioned at Freds there is no fighting, no battle lines just sharing info with nice folks that want to learn something and this has been going on for 6 months. Why people go after each other on the net is beyond me , looks at dpreview it is a constant my gear is better than your gear scene , frankly i could give a rats you know what. LOL Anyway if you read between some of the posts this was a informative thread, so thanks to Marc for starting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Just wait till the M comes it is the same sensor as the DMR but with different electronics but you M folks will be going nuts over it. The news i hear is nothing but good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Mission accomplished if the DMR Camera at least gets a once over by possible future users. Back to the M 50/1.4 ASPH. As I scan my first rolls, I'm changing my assessment. I'm starting to take note that the characteristics of this lens reminds me more of the 35/1.4 ASPH than he older 50 Lux. The older lens is still a viable choice IMO due to it's own set of characteristic. Here's a shot of workers spiffing up downtown Detroit in anticipation of hosting the Super Bowl today ... then I'll post a severe crop ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Here's the crop ... that you can read the "Caution" sticker on the crane, and see the eye glass stem on the far right walker is pretty impressive resolving power IMO.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Man that is a pretty sweet lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Marc from what i was told the new R 50mm 1.4 is the same design as this M version , do you know if that is correct. I am finding it to be a stellar performer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Thanks, Marc, Guy, et al. You have indeed alerted us as to what to look for, and a lot of us do appreciate it. I understand now why you guys don't post pics in the critique forums, but I'm glad you hang around the discussion forums. --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now