I must have missed something, like a previous discussion. I had a look at the DMR vs Canon 20D comparison and am not sure what point you're making. In my experience a critical factor when making such comparisons is the RAW converter used. Which RAW converter was used here, and was the same converter used in each case? And were the images re-sized or adjusted, and if so in what way? Also were the images shot wide open in each case? As I say, I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that a Leica DMR produces a 'better' result than when the same lens is used on a Canon? Regards
>> > Hmmm. Why don't they compare the Leica to a Canon that that costs the same as the the Leica DMR? Comparing the $7-10,000 Leica DMR it to a cheap $1500 DSLR isn't a choice that most of us might be making and almost isn't fair. The sad part is, that apparently (if these tests are to be trusted) what you get for paying 5 times more than the Canon 20D is maybe bit less noise (It seems apparent in the little jpeg's, but its NOT really apparent in the TIF's -- and its only visible at such a large magnification that it practically would never be an issue). What perhaps is more important is for all that extra money, the expensive Leica seems to be blowing out the highlights -- and that is more critical than the noise. It seems to me that the Leica is not giving you all that much for all those extra thousands of dollars in cost (if these images can be relied on). If I was basing a decision on this test, I'd be buying a Canon, and putting the savings in the bank. Perhaps they should really be comparing the DMR is similarly price Canon 1Ds Mk II. It seems to me that the 1Ds would blow the DMR out of the water. If this is evidence of what the DMR can do, they are going to have to do a whole lot better to justify what they what they want to charge.
One must give credit on Canon dSLRs, especially the MK2 or 20D which all have the DIGIC II image processing engine which gives super clean image and excellent flash exposure. Leica or Zeiss lenses on 1Ds2 is a killer combo now.
Not sure what the purpose is here.
Trying to make an $8000 Leica look better than a camera costing a fifth of the price shouldn't be too difficult!. Why not compare it to the 1DsMk11 for a more realistic test. This DMR is again, too little ,too late and too much(money)This Leica back should at least 16mp and full frame.
My Leica is an R6, and I have a number of fine Leitz and Angenieux lenses to use with it. To take advantage of the Leica DMR, I would have to change to at least R8 as well as buying the DMR. There's no way that the expense is worth it. My local Kodak shop is now scanning film and putting the resulting images on a CD. So instead of spending a fortune on new equipment I'll continue to shoot film with my R6. For digital I have a Pentax *ist D and a number of very inexpensive Super and SMC Takumar lenses that are not far short of Leitz in quality.
I just picked up a used Leica 100/2.8 APO macro lens for my EOS 1DsII (actually it's in the mail). This will be my first Leica excursion and likely my last for a while, as I am flat broke after two months of gathering CZ & now R glass for this monster!
BTW, I actually like the D20 image better ... the highlights look blown in the DMR image. But as discussed, that could've easily been the raw conversion, not necessarily a worse raw image.
Maybe I'll do a comparo between the CZ 35-70 in macro mode and the 100 APO. Not really fair but should be interesting! I really like the CZ 35-70. Gets amazing results and it's a zoom!
Check it out. Not a great shot, plus it's a reduced (2048x1365), compressed jpeg, but shows a lot of the lens characteristics:
By looking at the pictures you can tell there is a slight shift in the position between the two, most likely having both cameras side by side. I'd like to see a comparison between the DMR and a Canon 1Ds using the same Leica lens, maybe a 80mm 1.4 seeing the DMR and the 1Ds are more closely together in terms of the numbers of pixels. Both should be shot in raw and both images processed by the same raw converter. Only then will there be a true indicator of the difference in the sensors. Anyone up to the task?? I have the 1Ds and 80mm but no DMR.
Albert, all processing was done in ACR3, then saved as TIFF from CS2 so I could add copyright etc. I've for the time being set my default ACR3 sharpening to 75, which seems to be working out alright.
The rest of the ACR3 basics were Exposure +0.60, Saturation +40, Contrast +15, Brightness +50 and the linear curve for reduced contrast. I tend to play between lowering the contrast while raising the saturation and viceversa to not lose detail while evaluating the effect.
On the camera the exposure bias was -0.5 using Av mode and matrix metering, ISO 100. I'm really very happy with the results I'm getting without too much tinkering, certainly more than an "advanced snapshooter" like me ought to be getting
CicLF> I wonder how many of 'the members' though are going to buy the CicLF> Leica Digital back? Do we know yet what it's going to cost? CicLF> Also if it's not full frame AND is hugely expensive, and even CicLF> if I had an R8 or R9 which I don't, will it be worth it?
> [I fail to see the advantage of paying over-the odds-prices for an > under-the-spec Leica back. Leica, and their over-the-top reliance on > reputation have already priced themselves out of the 'affordable' digital > market. What's the price difference between a Leica back and a 5400 dpi > scanner (using common-or-garden preferred film? Huh??). Sorry about the > hyphens.
Well, if it does deliver nicely rendered images, for some it may be worth it not to have to hassle with film development and scanning. At some point, the convenience overcomes the perceived or real difference in quality. Time will tell.
Meantime, my 100 APO is supposed to arrive on the 15th. Patience is a virtue
DJG, I'm not sure whether you're answering my post or not. I originally became a Leica user because of the quality of the lenses. I would really like to use my Leitz lenses with a digital outfit; failing a full frame and affordable Leica digital back I think it makes more sense to use my lenses on a Canon. Failing that, I'm quite content to use them on my R6 with film. I understand that the future of film isn't too rosy, but it will be around for a while. The '100 APO' you're getting is the APO MACRO 100/2.8? I've had this lens for a few years now and I'm sure you'll be delighted with it. I missed your original post, but did you buy it via ebay? Mine was extremely expensive when new but it was well worth the investment. Regards