LEICA DMR OVER 1DSMK11?

[Jamie_Roberts]

Edmund,

Your tests are very interesting. For the record, I found the exact opposite when using a DMR (which I got to do recently).

This is far from a comprehensive test, but...first I should say that I quite like the DMR. I like the way the camera part of it handles, though that's probably nostalgia. For flexibility and event shooting, it's hard to beat the current 1 series bodies.

Using a Summilux 50 1.4 ROM (newest version), with the CQ adapter on the 1ds2 (and no adaptor on the Leica, of course):

--using natural light + reflector

--Highlights were about the same on the 1ds2, including range; shadows were much better than the Leica. Part of this is choice of RAW converter--DPP still blows highlights (C1 / RPP does not for Canon). So I used C1 3.7.4 for testing both.

I admittedly didn't try ACR for the Leica files; ACR is not my thing.

--Sharpness (after a sharpening workflow) is about the same in prints, if I keep the Canon size limited to the Leica's resolution and crop.

Resolution, though, is not the same--my 1ds2 is better. No contest. Saying anything different seems a bit silly to me.

But boyoboy I love that Leica glass.

--I like the skin tones better out of the 1ds2 and C1, actually. But that's me.

--The Leica 1.4 50 Summilux is fabulous. And yes, it's too sharp for some subjects. I also use a late 1980s Summicron 50 f2 (made here in Canada) and it certainly has a very different look, while still being sharp (it's not nearly as contrasty). That thing is a real steal at under $400 (but then, so is the Oly 1.4 OM).

** watch out for the old Summilux 1.4--it really is not so good IMO--it's quite soft before f4, though it gives an interesting effect when opened up (much like putting a soft-focusing Cokin filter on--with a built-in vignette! But too expensive IMO for a special effects lens.

--Using the 180 APO f2.8 Elmarit (a very, very nice lens), the differences between DMR and Canon were more pronounced. I truly liked the Canon better here in terms of detail and tone, and having the full-frame of the Canon was wonderful for what I was shooting (people).

So, on balance, I don't think I'll be buying a DMR.

Now--what I can't wait for is a real digital M--that's completely different.

YMMV, IMO

[Jamie_Roberts]

In the interests of full disclosure to my friends on the forum, it's time for me to eat some crow here.

I now also have a Leica R9 / DMR, and the reasons are simple:

1. I get to use their glass (which I was using on the 1ds2 anyway),
2. I can see what I'm focusing on (really see it),
3. "out of the camera color" from RAW files is second-to-none: it's superb.

Unlike Edmund R., I still find the 1ds2 has at least a stop more latitude in the highlights than the DMR (in other words, I can see detail in very bright objects when I've pushed the in-camera exposure up +2EV or so). I thought this just might be my metering method with the Canon, but shooting in controlled conditions with an external meter confirmed this for me.

However, when the highlights do blow out on the DMR, they do so really smoothly and just like transparency film. No "rainbow banding" there.

On the other side, the 1ds2 eats the DMR for lunch in high ISO mode, which also means it has better "push" ability in dark shots.

BUT--and this is a big but--thanks to the viewfinder in the R9, I can now hit critical focus properly with wide open Leica glass.

Microcontrast and color on DMR / DNG files processed in C1 is astounding. Kodachrome-like. Really. Little to no processing in PS to get the look I want. And--when you absolutely nail the exposure--the results are simply breathtaking.

So there you go. If I didn't need shutter speed and IS for about 5% of my shots, well, I hear Canon's next dSLR will have ISO 6400!

[DouglasUrner]

This thread piqued my curiosity and I went looking for info on the DMR. The specs at B&H say "48 bit color" -- is it really a 16 bit back? That would be cool.

Doug

[Jamie_Roberts]

Originally Posted by DouglasUrner

This thread piqued my curiosity and I went looking for info on the DMR. The specs at B&H say "48 bit color" -- is it really a 16 bit back? That would be cool.

Doug

Doug--yep, it really, really is 48 bit color (16 per channel). And I was the first to think that wouldn't matter so much--till I saw the shots. The shots are, in my opinion, just gorgeous when you nail the exposure. Saturated colors and gradients seem to be just different entirely. How much this is due to a difference between CCD and CMOS technology is an interesting question.

Of course, it's a manual camera too, so you have to like focusing manually, and you have to like a slower speed, and it's limited, pretty much to ISO 800 for high quality (though, interestingly, I've now found I can push ISO 400 to an effective 1600 through the RAW converter)--so it's a bit tricky, too. Not to mention the glass costs a not-so-small fortune (the very best stuff is very expensive) But it is a wonderful too to have in the bag, and because it's actually a great film camera, I found it took me exactly 30 minutes to figure out everything I needed to figure out.

So now I will sell my 1ds2 backup (it's time anyway, since Canon will be announcing something, if the rumour mill is to be believed, in September).