DMRRAW files for downloading and experimenting

[djg]

Hi Francis,

I got the lens through the Buy & Sell forum at the Fred Miranda web site. And yes, it is the APO Macro 100/2.8. From what I understand, there are two incarnations, with the second having a revised focusing configuration. Mine (or when it gets here) is of the first incarnation by maybe 100 units, based on the S/N. I hope they're all of the same optical performance. I paid a bit less than half new retail for a somewhat used but in pristine optical condition (I hope) unit.

I have to say I don't miss developing film and wet printing

. I just gave away my ATL-3 processor to some close friends, as I hadn't used it in several years.

Ultimately, let's do what gives us joy and makes us smile! From what I've been told, now again by you, this lens will do such a thing

.

Mike, I don't think you're quite dead yet, not by a long shot. Hang on to those lenses!

 

[tigerish]

I didn't know that about the S/N of the 100/2.8. My SN is 3468327. I wonder where that puts it? I know this is all very subjective, but in my experience this lens is amongst the 'best' Leitz ever made. The other lens I use a lot on my R6 is the Angenieux 180/2.3. I bought my Leica gear about 20 years ago, but haven't added to my collection recently. I liked the R6 because I used to travel a lot to remote places and it's basically a manual camera as you know. It's also light, and as I get older I can't lug great hunks of metal all day any more. This would put me off the R8 or R9 + the data back. BTW I heard some rumours about Leica's financial position. This would also make me hesitate about making a big investment. I really like my Leica gear, but question whether there's still a market. I know it's heresy but the advances in lens manufacture techniques today have narrowed the gap between 'good' and 'superlative' glass to the point where price does become a factor.

Kind regards

 

[dirk]

@Murchu

"...I fail to see the advantage of paying over-the odds-prices for an under-the-spec Leica back..."

I strongly disagree. Neither you nor any of us has seen yet prints from that DMR, since it is not available yet. I have seen demo images on a laptop at a Leica booth. But I would never make a judgement just because of this.

If you think that 10mp in combination with Leica lenses is not enough for your desired print size, then I wonder why you did use Leica at all in the past. In that case only Medium Format or Large Format is the right choice, since obvious 35mm film would not be sufficient resolution for your print size.

"... Leica, and their over-the-top reliance on reputation have already priced themselves out of the 'affordable' digital market..."

Again I strongly disagree. Leica aimed never any kind of "affordarble market". They always offered a very good solution for a specific need in the market. And it was always more expensive than a Canon or Nikon. Even if you use in bothe cameras a Fuji Velvia, on one camera you have Leica lenses, on the other one something else

"...What's the price difference between a Leica back and a 5400 dpi scanner (using common-or-garden preferred film? Huh??)..."

You know, this is a rethorical question. The added value of a DMR is exactly the same as any kind of other DSLR on the market, if you compare it to using film and scan it.

1. The scanning option is ALWAYS cheaper as long as you do not shoot too many films/month. No difference between Leica DMR and other DSLRs

2. Scanning means always spending significant more time and effort in front of the computer

3. DSLRs/DMRs means always immediate control of the shot afterwards. If you do not need this and if you have still time in the evenings/on week-ends and you shoot not the amount of rolls of film like a pro, then there is absolutely no need to switch to a DSLR or DMR.

So this is not at all a DMR vs. the rest question. It is a question film vs. DSLR. Check all the pro and cons and decide afterwards for your specific need.

But to judge just by looking at the specs is not really meaningful. Just check the reviews at dpreview with the comparison Nikon D2X vs. Canon 1DsMark II. Looks not great for Canon, although it has 4MP more than the Nikon.

IMO we are at a point with 8-10MP, with which only few people will be able to see any further improvement beyond that barrier. Not because they are not capable of, but because you have make make so large prints, that it simply is nonsense to talk about thise differences.

Other issues will stay and will be improved over the years: crop factor, dynamic range, colours, more film-like look etc.

@Tigerish

"...I really like my Leica gear, but question whether there's still a market. I know it's heresy but the advances in lens manufacture techniques today have narrowed the gap between 'good' and 'superlative' glass to the point where price does become a factor..."

There is definitely still a market. You can see it because now all Canon users start buying Leica and Zeiss glass to adapt it to their Canon bodies. Just realise this:

Canon users are willing now to give up all kind of fancy techniques the Cabon bodies are capable of just for the sake of having a Leica or Zeiss glass in front of it. They go back to "manual everything" just for this! This is the proove even for people who never made a direct comparison themselves between the different lenses, that there must be a significant difference still there - even with the newest L lenses

You will see the difference less in snapshots with fairly easy light situations. But you will see it always on bad weather days and if a lot of straylight is around.

Nobody HAS TO switch to digital for the moment. Do not get in a hurry, just because all your neighbours buy DSLRs. Buy a good scanner and a good printer and see what is possible with this. You will be surprised. And wait and see what real tests of the final DMR version will show within the next weeks.

 

[lotusm50_is_Jensen]

> >>Posted by Dirk on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:20 pm: >> >>I strongly disagree. Neither you nor any of us has seen yet prints >>from that DMR, since it is not available yet. I have seen demo images >>on a laptop at a Leica booth. But I would never make a judgement just >>because of this. > Then why does Leica bother to show it? Especially if it doesn't make the DMR look competitive.

>>If you think that 10mp in combination with Leica lenses is not enough >>for your desired print size, then I wonder why you did use Leica at >>all in the past. In that case only Medium Format or Large Format is >>the right choice, since obvious 35mm film would not be sufficient >>resolution for your print size. > Judging from what I have seen, I think I need about 12 mp to give me 35mm film quality. I did move to Medium format because in many case 35mm just didn't cut it -- even with Zeiss and/or Leica lenses.

>>Again I strongly disagree. Leica aimed never any kind of "affordarble >>market". They always offered a very good solution for a specific need >>in the market. And it was always more expensive than a Canon or Nikon. >>Even if you use in bothe cameras a Fuji Velvia, on one camera you have >>Leica lenses, on the other one something else

> Yes, but. Leica was expensive but people paid because it offered something for it -- quality, image quality, that was not attainable elsewhere for less (OK, you probably could get it from Zeiss/Contax for less, but be won't go there). The DMR does not appear to offer ANY quality advantage. More than ever before is seems you are paying for the name only -- there doesn't seem to be anything special or worthwhile there the any more.

>>But to judge just by looking at the specs is not really meaningful. >>Just check the reviews at dpreview with the comparison Nikon D2X vs. >>Canon 1DsMark II. Looks not great for Canon, although it has 4MP more >>than the Nikon. > Part of that is that Canon lenses don't provide the resolution to fully take advantage of those 16 MP. Slap a Leica or Zeiss lens on the Canon and you might get a different result.

>>IMO we are at a point with 8-10MP, with which only few people will be >>able to see any further improvement beyond that barrier. Not because >>they are not capable of, but because you have make make so large >>prints, that it simply is nonsense to talk about thise differences. > But "some" DO see the difference. Probably the same people that see the difference in Leica lenses. There are those that say it is nonsense to talk about the differences between Leica and Canon lenses. it is the SAME issue. The difference is there, some see it, others don't. You don't need a 6x7 film camera to produce an acceptable 8x10 prints, but boy do they look better! The same is true of digital, more pixels are better -- even if there are diminishing returns to increasing the number of pixels. For some it will be worth it, others not.

>>@Tigerish >> >>"...I really like my Leica gear, but question whether there's still a >>market. I know it's heresy but the advances in lens manufacture >>techniques today have narrowed the gap between 'good' and >>'superlative' glass to the point where price does become a factor..." >> >>There is definitely still a market. You can see it because now all >>Canon users start buying Leica and Zeiss glass to adapt it to their >>Canon bodies. Just realise this: >> >>Canon users are willing now to give up all kind of fancy techniques >>the Cabon bodies are capable of just for the sake of having a Leica or >>Zeiss glass in front of it. They go back to "manual everything" just >>for this! This is the proove even for people who never made a direct >>comparison themselves between the different lenses, that there must be >>a significant difference still there - even with the newest L lenses >>

> All of which suggests that there is STILL a market for a Contax DSLR and perhaps a Leica DSLR -- in spite of their feeble attempts to date. (Why Contax abandoned the N digital after only try is beyond my comprehension. Every first try has a few bugs. It how they deal with them that matters and the Contax N Digital was such a promising start.)

>>Nobody HAS TO switch to digital for the moment. Do not get in a hurry, >>just because all your neighbours buy DSLRs. Buy a good scanner and a >>good printer and see what is possible with this. You will be >>surprised. And wait and see what real tests of the final DMR version >>will show within the next weeks. > I agree with this. I'm still using film and don't intend to jump into a new DLSR until at least the next round of improvements occur AND we see a new Contax DSLR (always an optimist). I want to see how that shakes out. I have a Olympus E-20, which is disappointing, but for now will due when the convenience of digital outweighs everything else).

 

[tigerish]

I got a little confused here as to who is replying. I'm not disputing the quality of Leitz glass; I own enough ex&les to know! Before I bought my R6 in 1990 I had an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic with some of the fine Super Takumar M42 lenses. A year ago I saw friends having a lot of fun with digital, and thought I would like to join in. My choices for a DSLR were: buy an R8 or R9 and wait for the Leica Digital back; buy a Canon and use my Leitz lenses on it; buy a Pentax *ist D and use my Super Taks on it.

I chose the last alternative and haven't regretted the choice. I've had more fun taking photographs than for many years past. From a practical point of view what I really like is the use of the histogram which enables me to see at a glance whether I've correctly exposed. Also, until recently, Super and SMC Takumars of a quality not far short of Leitz lenses could be bought extremely cheaply on ebay. (e.g. about $50 for one of the best, the 55/1.8) Pentax are also making the highest quality glass today; I have the 77/1.8 Limited, for ex&le.

I defer to other opinions, but I doubt that the investment necessary to 'go digital' with Leica is worth the extra money. Am I right in thinking that the R9 without any lens plus the digital back would cost at least $US 7,000?

 

[djg]

Dirk, I find it ironic that DPReview puts that big Nikon plug, yet they never deigned to do a full 1DsII review

. I believe in the long run, the 1DsII may have the edge in quality potential, but the two are capable of remarkable performance. For most it may come down to brand loyalty and / or feature set and handling preference. I for one am totally ecstatic there's finally something out there to kick Canon into motion

.

Francis, here's the link to the 100 APO data. See page 3. The demarcating S/N is 3469285. Yours is like mine, of the earlier version.

http://www.leica-camera.de/imperia/md/content/pdf/putskolumne/12.pdf

 

[Raviba]

> [Sorry. Are yo usaying that there is a way the Pentax M42 scre mount lenses csn be fit onto the *ist digital slr? Thank you!! This will be great news.] >

 

[tigerish]

CicLF> Yes, Pentax make an adaptor. (there are also third party CicLF> adaptors, not recommended because they stick) The screw mount CicLF> lenses can then be used in Manual mode. Manual focus of course CicLF> and also manual setting of the aperture, but then Pentax have a CicLF> special facility whereby at the press of a button the camera CicLF> calculates the correct shutter speed. So effectively Aperture CicLF> Priority. Pentax have taken the trouble to have backward CicLF> compatibilty with their fine M42 Super and SMC Takumar lenses which CicLF> is much appreciated. I think the current rise in the prices for CicLF> these lenses on ebay owes something to the fact that Pentax CicLF> DSLR users (there are two subsequent models to mine) have been CicLF> realising what bargains these old lenses are. The lenses I use CicLF> most are a 35/3.5, a 55/1.8 and a 85/1.9. There's a 1.55 crop CicLF> factor of course, so I'm not very well served for true wide CicLF> angle, but as most of my work is short-telephoto that doesn't CicLF> worry me.

 

[tigerish]

Many thanks for the link. On the general question of DSLR, I also looked at Nikon as well as Canon but was swayed in the end by the lens question I've addressed in another post. I must say that a feature that would appeal with the Leica set up is the ability to use film or digital.

Kind regards

 

[tigerish]

DJG, that's a really interesting reference, thanks. I didn't quite follow what this meant: 'The first version of the Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8/100mm used a mount with a double thread, later changed to a single thread' I've never noticed any lack of smoothness in the action. I've had my 100/2.8 since September 1989, so it's had plenty of use!