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

[david k.]

A very informative thread, thanks Marc for sharing.....many of us really do appreciate your observations and experiences.

[stuart_richardson]

Guy -- the M version is a "better" lens than the R version. At least it is a newer design. I have

both and the M version is definitely sharper and more contrasty, particularly wide open, but

the R version is better than the previous pre-ASPH m version. They are both superb, but the

M version more snap and is not quite as smooth. They are both absolutely superb lenses.

And Marc is correct, the 50/1.4 ASPH is very close in character to the 35/1.4 ASPH.

[Jim_Tardio]

I spent an hour reading this thread and have decided that my FM3a, loaded with the film of your choice, is probably as good as it's going to get for 35mm photography.

<p>

All this talk of "film-like" qualities, etc...We already have this available to us at bargin prices.

<p>

Do you sometimes get the feeling that digital is being forced on you? I enjoy my digital cameras, but I'm an old fart, too, who came from film. Digital is great and all...fantastic really (a godsend to pjs)...but the sheer joy of loading up a camera with film, setting the shutter speed and aperture, taking the shot, waiting to see the results...that's missing from when you use a digital.

<p>

I know you can manually do all these things with a digital body, but it's just not the same.

<p>

Does anybody else feel this way?<div></div>

[Jim_Tardio]

I mean it seems we're exerting all this time, energy, effort & EXPENSE to replicate the very thing we're leaving behind.

[geoffrey goldberg]

.I guess this thread ran out of gas, but here's a late 2 cents worth -

 

I'd separate comments on the DMR between those that have read about the back, and

those that have used it. This slightly obvious filter becomes more important if/when you

have used one.

 

Like Guy, Chuck and others, I came from another place: used an M2 for about 20 years,

moved to MF (Rollei) for quality and definition in the bigger piece of film. Looking to get

into a better digital camera, I tried the 20D, and found it nice, fine, but not magic. The AF

was great, the speed fantastic, the menus were (for some time, and even still) a bit

overwhelming. I'm always in the dark somehow with the camera.

 

So alongs comes the DMR, and Guy's enthusiastic description of dynamic range, less post

processing and the chance to use Leica glass again (anyone going from Rollei and

Schneider glass to Canon glass is none to happy!). Tried one at the dealer and found it big,

heavy a bit clunky, but kind of interesting, and easy to use. I cam eto the conclusion it was

a better investment than a MF digital back, had all the experience of great companies

behind it, and while more than 35MM digital, probably gave more too.

 

So the closet was raided, a bunch of sitting stuff sold off, and for a couple of grand, a new

system came into the house. Since I don't change often, it was a big deal. So what's the

result:

 

1) the DMR is the real thing. There is no doubt about it. The image quality is superb, and

essentially a step above (2 or more) anything else digital I have seen or shot. Its not the

same as scanned MF film but it has a warmth and a character that takes what was great

about 35mm and pushes it to the next generation.

 

2) the character of the DMR is very very hard to describe, but it is palpable, and easily

found in use. I am able to knock out credible nice 13x17" color prints that are sharp, have

great range and make you stop and pause with very little post-processing. Yes, you can

get good prints elsewhere, but there is a character in these that is different. A friend came

and looked at one and said it was not a photograph but was painterly. The tones in muted

grey skies are there, and very subtly so. Guy and Chuck have tried to show this, but the

web, screen shots etc. don't do justice.

 

3) my own work has grown significantly with this camera. At 50 years old, I'm struggling a

bit with manual focus and wide angle lenses, but this will get better. Yes, I miss the Rollei

format, the ease of operation, and don't like the weight, but I'm getting used to it. What I

love is the fact that each shot has the chnace (again) to be magic - not a shot, but the

quality of the gear allows the shot to become something more in the print. And that is

worth having.

 

4) the Canon is still around, and is great for snaps and documenting work on job sites,

teaching events, etc. It is fast, simple, and gets the job done. It is a good tool, a nice

camera, but not for me one I use for making art. It lives here with respect for a job well

done, but it isn't the same as the DMR.

 

Hope this helps pass some of this understanding along. A good photographer works with

the tools they are given. In some, the tools don't change, and the work grows. For others,

the tools change and the work responds. The DMR has a bit of both - the qualities of Leica

that we admire are transformed in this tool. Light, nimble...well, only in comparison to the

MF backs and the 1DS which are its real competitors. But the virtues of color rendition,

simple use, DR, and simple sheer quality are still there, and very worthwhile as well.

 

Geoff<div></div>

[geoffrey goldberg]

another try, another image: