guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I asked the boys to come and give you some thoughts on the subject . Thanks Chuck and Jack for jumping in and giving some input. You guys just say it better than me. LOL Again let me say it is not for everyone but what it is good for is R lens owners that have a large investment in there glass without having to sell them off to go Canon or Nikon. The DMR is the first step for Leica and they delivered a great product right out of the gate. That is only good news for them with the upcoming M and other products i won't mention but will be here soon. Also there are folks like me that had Nikon and Canon and there needs were not meet , wide angles suck on Canon and I told them to there face a thousand times so no love on that end but it did bring me to Zeiss glass than eventually to Leica's. Canon and Nikon have made great strides in the digital arena and they need to continue those strides as leica needs to continue , this only brings better product to you guessed it US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Thanks for calming down, guys. I am all for competition. The trouble is, by no stretch of the imagination can one consider the DMR to be a competition to Nikon or Canon offerings because of its positioning and other features or lack thereof. I really wish it were. Leica has always produced a differentiated product, and that is a trait to be admired. I can only hope, for their own sake, that they come out with better future iterations of their digital offerings that appeal to a slightly broader and new audience who don't have to be Hermes shoppers to buy into Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 <I>The third reason is the dynamic range and color the DMR delivers. For the record, the Kodak CCD sensor has got a S/N ratio of 74. And they do use a 16 bit A/D converter. </I><P> Heh, well, there you go. I speculated on a dynamic range of 73 dB for the Kodak sensor and indeed I estimated pretty close. Still doesn't explain the use of a 16 ADC, which offers no benefits - especially since without active cooling the sensor cannot be at a temperature lower than ambient; nominally +25C, even with "special metals," box, etc. It is good press and supports my first post at 5:21 PM.<P> As I mentioned in the other thread, so far, only the active-cooled Jenoptik MF back can make a case for touting 16 bit ADCs. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 integrate the noise-profile over the duration of the shutter interval. exactly as Canon (and others) implement .. the A/D is not the limiting contributor. Peltier-effect devices are very inefficient and not a solution (at least, not in a portable/battery limited-power camera implementation). personally, four-bits works fine for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Nels, Don't you think $8,000. for a Canon digital body to also be "Hermes" territory? Besides, what does Hermes have to do with Leica R? They don't offer supple calf skin covered R9s with a scarf like matching straps. And since the days of the Nikon F, Leica SLRs have always been a niche system based solely on the lens performance. Why do you insist that they become something else where they'll most certainly get killed by Canon? It seems to me that only by offering some alternative option to those who want it (or more importantly, can see it) will they survive. Which is exactly what those who actually use the DMR say it delivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think it's great that DMR delivers good picture quality. At the beginning the naysayers were saying that 'the picture quality isn't very good' or the picture quality is similar to Digital Rebel. I think that it's fair to asume that they were wrong. DMR seems to provide equal or better picture quality at 100-400 iso than any leading DSLR out there. Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Nels... I'm a Canon shooter and I have to say you simply aren't making any sense with your claim. Leica has not missed any target here, but rather done what it always has: Made a camera for a very specific clientelle. The fact you don't agree with the cost/benefit/features of what they've produced is certainly your prerogative, but the fact remains there are many who relish what it offers. And I include myslef in that mix even though I don't own one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Marc, Being better diversified, Canon does not limit itself to its (agreeably) Hermes territory offering to make a profit. Looking at Leica's financial situation, I doubt if their strategy is the right one, but time will tell. I merely expressed a "hope" that they offer something else to get more "new" customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Jack, Buy yourself a DMR and sleep better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I sleep just fine, thank you. But at least now I understand your thinking completely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 [group hug][aaah] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I don't understand half of what was said, but I still learned a lot. This is one of the best threads that I have ever seen on PN. I remain a bit sceptical about the advantages of Leica glass, but then, I used to think that all of the talk about "bokeh" was nonsense, too. (I learned my lesson there pretty quickly.) I do think that I can see something even on the web about the special quality of the Leica optics (and in Marc's pictures in particular). I can't prove it, and it is subtle and intangible, but I do believe that it is real, and I think that it is mostly about DR. How much of that is the equipment and how much is Marc's expertise is hard to say. Unfortunately, I'll never be able to afford the DMR (or any Leica product), but I am glad that someone who can see the difference can afford one--and make the most of it. If you can see the difference, and if it matters to you, then it really doesn't matter if anyone else sees it or not when making the decision to buy. The Canon Mexico shots were impressive, too. I'm shooting mostly Nikon glass these days, when I am not fiddling with my old Mamiya TLRs or my low end Toyoview 4x5. There is expense there too: it's called "time." Is it worth it? It is to me. If I can see the difference, I don't give a hang whether someone else thinks that "Eight megapixels is enough" (a NYTimes.com article yesterday) or "No one will ever need more than 640K" (attributed to Bill Gates). It is those who want something just a little bit better who keep this whole photographic enterprise really interesting. It's finally about glass. Even with my Kodak 14n, I come up against the limits of the optics all the time. --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Hip-hip-hooray!! A nice old fashioned photo.net thread on the Leica forum...it's been a long, long time. (...and welcome back, Jack Flesher!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 "But at least now I understand your thinking completely..." Jack, have you been speaking with any of my ex-girlfriends? That line sounds eerily familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I look at the DMR as a compact MF camera than a DSLR . Here is why i say this the back itself and the guts contained in it the CCd Sensor the 16 bit lower ISO and no AA filter you are essentail talking a smaller sensor MF back , really there is no difference there but than you take the versitile 35mm and all those lenses and you marry the two together. So really at the end of the day you are shooting a MF back with a SLR camera. So it is differnt than the Canons and the Nikons and leica built this for there R users that still like to shoot film once in awhile, It really takes about 2 minutes to switch the back out to film, really kind of cool. Never done it but it is there. For the guys that shot Hassy 's and Film camera's of mechnical nature and did everything manual it really is a dream camera. I love to focus and like many points Chuck made all that electronic stuff going on with the Canons you lose sight of you controlling the camera and not the other way around . Now for the young guns that never used a manual camera or even film for that matter this is old stuff and very foreign to them. But us old farts that grew up with 4x5 and Hassy and Nikon F2, F3 and such this is like a old friend in your hand, I really love getting back to this space that I grew up with but still have that modern technology in digital. One of the first things I was noticing when i bought this and it really was not a intentionally planned purchase, I just got lucky to get one in 2 days when everyone was on a waiting list, i jumped on it to try , anyway what i saw was the images looked very Kodachrome like to me. Which i loved Kodachrome. Also the files looked 3 dimensional , now this is really hard to even describe let alone see in 3d but there is just something about the look of these files that i have not found elsewhere except maybe the 1ds. I was coming back to this statement from earlier. I still to this day contend the 1ds files look better than the 1dsMKII as far as having more a film look , it had other issues like noise in the shadows but a good exposed image looked more film like than what I see out of the 1dsMKII, to me the 1dsMKII has more detail but has a more plastic look to it than the 1ds files do. I think this is part of the reason why i liked the DMR better than the 1dsMKII it is more or actually better than the look of the 1ds files. one must remember I have been using leica glass on all of these, so the lense have been the same. Now maybe i am crazy on this but it is just what i see and i have to go by that because testing between them there is no scientific fact but what you see to your eyes. Let's touch on another area because it really is so important and to anyone wanting to learn about shooting digital , you better learn very fast how to do Raw processing,sharpening, color management, profiles and working in PS and all that goes on in post processing. it does make a differnce . reason i said something about Jacks ability to work files , look at those canon shots the are gorgoeus because he knows what he is doing not just behind the camera but in processing. We are the lab now and to be really good at making your files look good you really need to pay attention here. I still am a diehart when it comes to shooting everything in camera and no PS tricks after the fact. if you want to be a good shooter you need to learn to do it in camera , forget PS is out there. Think in your head your shooting slide and it better be in the file, not a trick in the computer. Yes you can do many things after the fact and enhance what you have done but it is much easier to have the best in camera and go from there than try and cheatting ( bad word ) it after you hit the shutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Lannie you may not be able to afford the DMR but there is something coming that you may be able to buy. PMA there will be a announcement. No I am not talking. Big s..t eating grin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 That is way too high for the antiquated software of p.net, Daniel. 2 is more than enuf. Let us just view text and line drawings to make things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 This was shot with the 35-70 2.8 zoom for a annual report<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 with the 180 F2 summricon at f4<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Last of this series<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Even catwalk stuff at ISO 400 still looks very clean Shot with the 80 summilux at f4<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Showing you some range with the DMR . One from Yosemite with a 15mm 2.8 lens<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Here is one that is hard to see here with the detail , that is just amazing shot ( as far as detail)with a 180 F2 with a 2x apo extender at a effective aperture of 6.8. This is one of those image that really sold me on the sharpness and micro detail of the leica lenses<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Here is one where even the highlights in the wood just hang in there with the rest of the image. i really don't get any blown highlights very often at all. 15mm 2.8 again<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Chuck Jones said:<p> << ... I've sat here reading with great interest, deciding not to post anything myself until cooler heads seemed to prevail. ... >> An understandable approach, but it carries considerable risk: One might have to wait years between posts. Chuck registered at photo.net in 2003, and it seems this may well have been his first post. I rest my case :) Just rattling your cage, Chuck. I do hope you post more frequently, and the photos are what make the Forum in my opinion. [incidentally, you may legitimately avoid the width limitation of 511 pixels by linking photos from your site, a photo.net gallery, or another hosting site by typing the following: <center><img src="precise url of your photo here"></center> Then you select "HTML" from the drop-down menu before hitting the 'Submit' button. You'll then be able to 'preview' your photo before hitting the 'Confirm' button. Even though you can post wider than 511, you should still keep to reasonable dimensions (perhaps 750 - 800 wide and not terribly long) to avoid requiring us to scroll to see your photo. And overall file size should be watched as well -- the suggested size is 100k.] 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