AP review of Digital Modul R

[naturephoto1]

Ditto, given that you have lenses for both EOS and Leica R systems, anyone who picks the DMR over the 5D is a mad man.

Certainly the Leica DMR is extremely expensive. However, in 35mm at present only Leica, for both Leica R8 and R9 users, offers the opportunity to not only use the same lenses, but the same bodies, with the same shutters, meters, metering patterns etc. for both film and digital media. Regardless of its performance at this point, it is a tour de force that Leica, who is known for being somewhat slow in introduction of innovative products was the first company to introduce this option. When I have discussed this with other Pros that are friends, they indicated that they had a lot of respect for Leica's innovative offering. Only time will tell as to its performance and possible improvements.

As to the coming Digital M module, when I spoke to Roger Horn, President of Leica USA and Brenda Olefsen (Leica Service Director) they indicated the M module is on target for next year sometime. When I asked some of the people at Mamiya regarding a Digital Back for the Mamiya 7 or a Digital Mamiya 7 they said it could not be done (lenses would be too close to the sensors). Additionally, people from Mamiya said that communication was needed between the camera and the lenses. Even people as Leaf questioned that it could be done. When I mentioned that to Roger (I have known him, but not well for years), he indicated that the Leica designers had figured out how to get around these problems. He indicated that the Leica 21 mm lens was about the same distance away from the film plane as the Mamiya 7 lenses. We both agreed that when the Digital M module was released that Mamiya would at least have the opportunity to see the way that they had solved such problems.

I mentioned to some of the people at Mamiya that I know about my conversation with Roger Horn and that they should look at the Module M when released to see if the techniques could be applied to their Mamiya 7 system. Mamiya's main concern is their new digital 645 camera that they have put all efforts into to save the lost market share and trying to keep the company going. They are still not ready to release the new camera.

 

[jaapv]

???? Maybe AP had a bum camera or wrote what they thought their readers wanted to hear 😕 😕 NaturFoto, a very respected German semi-pro magazine: "the files impressed with extremely low noise. Noise became visible but not intrusive at 800 ISO and 1600 ISO is usable" I would call that very good for a CCD, and a small price to pay to avoid digitally dead CMos pictures. "White-balance is good, in some situations nearly too good as for instance sunrises might be considered too neutral", "balanced rendering of the most subtle colourshades""the dark parts are free of noise" "wird sowohl analog wie digital höschten ansprüchen gerecht" Sorry, this last one was beyond my translating powers. Read: The absolute top. So much for reviews in consumer magazines......

 

[fgianni]

???? Maybe AP had a bum camera or wrote what they thought their readers wanted to hear. NaturFoto, a very respected German semi-pro magazine: "the files impressed with extremely low noise. Noise became visible but not intrusive at 800 ISO and 1600 ISO is usable"

About noise that is exactly what AP said, they actually stated that given the low noise, Leica could have added a 3200 ISO mode, they did shoot a picture at 1600 underexposed by 1 stop, and adjusted levels afterwards to show it.

Their main gripes are:
1) White balance worse than a £100 compact digital.
2) Susceptible to reflections that very often cause a red Hot Spot in the pictures
3) Inability to render reds correctly.

And of course proabbly the biggest problem for something of that price: "NO FULL FRAME"

The "color dead" issue if CMOS sensor is actually a non-issue since it is mainly subjective, I certainly don't see the CMOS of my 20D more color dead than the CCD on my RD-1, just different; and should the difference really bother you, it can be anyway fixed very easily with any imaging software.

 

[jaapv]

I think we agree on many points, Francesco, but I must say I cannot get the "film-like look" from my 10D that I get from my Digilux2. I blame the very strong AA filter on the Canon plus the sensor technology. Maybe I should blame my PS skills. However, as you say it is a matter of taste. For me the full-frame matter is utterly uninteresting. At worst it means buying a lens that is one step wider and selling the longest tele to be able to afford it. The size of the sensor, imo should not be determined by the size of the cine-film Oscar Barnack used 100 years ago. Canon maybe has the right idea: FF for WA shooters and APS for tele adepts. Maybe that has been inspired by the trouble they have making top-quality WA zooms 😀. The only thing that remains is the opinion of AP about colour balance and rendering, and the reflection. In that they are in 180 degrees opposition to the general consensus, both in reviews and with most users. I would dearly love to try it out myself......

 

[Mark Wood]

I've been very impressed with AP's test reports of late as they seem to be most interested in how a camera copes with real picture taking situations. They appear to take little interest in feature count which seems to be the major obsession of the vast majority of "consumer" photographic magazines. They push cameras and lenses to the limit and if something is below standard, they have the nerve to say so. A good example of this is their constant revealing of the unacceptable level of barrel distortion (and other distortions) that plagues the vast majority of digital compact camera lenses - that seems to be missed (or conveniently forgotten so as not to upset manufacturers?) in just about every other magazine I've read yet it's blindingly obvious if you use one of these cameras.

So, if AP say the results from the DMR were below par (as they looked to be) and can produce the results to show it, I tend to believe them. Leica have clearly got something special here so let's hope this test helps them to sort the problems out.

 

[fgianni]

So, if AP say the results from the DMR were below par (as they looked to be) and can produce the results to show it, I tend to believe them.

If you read the article it shows several pictures ruined by a red hotspot caused by reflections.

AP is probably the oldest photographic magazine around, they celebrated their 120th anniversary last year giving away a special AP version of the leica MP (which I did not win 🙁 ) and world renowned experts like Geoffrey Crawley and RFF member Roger Hicks contribute to it.
They tend to give more weight to real photographic qualities of equipment rather than counting pixels and features, and Geoffrey's lens tests are probably the best ones you can find anywhere.

 

[jaapv]

Obviously I know (of) them and Roger (who sadly is not a RFF member any more) in particular. It is just that I am surprised that this problem (the reflection I mean)wasn't picked up earlier. That is why I suggested that it might be a fault with this particular camera (which shouldn't happen either-I agree).After all, it is something that a factory developement team would find in the early stages. It is interesting to note that some reviewers, in particular Erwin Puts, were rather critical of the Imacon software. Maybe we should be thankful that they will change that on the M8D.

 

[fgianni]

Maybe that has been inspired by the trouble they have making top-quality WA zooms 😀.

Well, yes that has always puzzled me, no doubt that Canon Long tele zooms are the best around, but when it comes to Wide angle ones they seem to have a bit of a problem, that seems to hold true with any wide lens, not only zooms.

On the other hand, a full frame sensor, beside making wide lenses wider, has a huge advantage in terms of noise, the 5D, with its very big photosites, can produce images at ISO 3200 that can be enlarged easily up to A3 without showing any disruptive noise. No other digicam around can claim that.

Also having full frame means the photographer finds bot the field of view and the depth of field he is used to with his lenses.
With an APS sensor FOV is reduced by a 1.5 crop factor, however DOF is only affected by a 1.22 factor (as shown in an earlier post) so all relationships between FOV and DOF to which a photographer is used to, are screwed up.

Only an insufficient Gear Aquisition Cash stops me from getting a 5D now, but as soon as a full frame DSLR is available for under £1500 ($2500) I'll be getting myself one.

 

[former member]

> And we all know Kodak has been known to make some great imaging sensors... <<chuckle>>....

My 12+ year old KAF-1600 is still going strong in the DCS200. Kodak did not use their own imaging sensor in the DCS SLR/n, DCS SLR/c and 14n cameras. The last Kodak SLR that used a Kodak sensor was the DCS760.

 

[fgianni]

> And we all know Kodak has been known to make some great imaging sensors... <<chuckle>>....

My 12+ year old KAF-1600 is still going strong in the DCS200. Kodak did not use their own imaging sensor in the DCS SLR/n, DCS SLR/c and 14n cameras. The last Kodak SLR that used a Kodak sensor was the DCS760.

Who did manufacture the full frame sensors inside the DCS SLR/n, DCS SLR/c and 14n cameras? I too always believed Kodak developed their own sensors.

 

[Hektor]

Also having full frame means the photographer finds bot the field of view and the depth of field he is used to with his lenses.
With an APS sensor FOV is reduced by a 1.5 crop factor, however DOF is only affected by a 1.22 factor (as shown in an earlier post) so all relationships between FOV and DOF to which a photographer is used to, are screwed up.

I am not at all convinced that FF is better than smaller size ccd, especially as far as dof is concerned........

For example, if we assume an acceptable coc is 0.03mm and 50mm is normal for 35mm, and 150 mm is normal for 4"x5", giving the same FoV in each case:-

Then a 150mm F2.8 lens gives a dof of .................. 2 feet,

And a 50mm F2.8 lens gives a dof of ...................... 20 feet,

Ah but, you say the 5x4 neg is bigger....... OK, so enlarge the 35mm neg to the same size, which is a 4x enlargement, so now..............

50mmF2.8 = 20/4 gives an apparent dof of..............5 feet,

Conclusion, the smaller format has over TWICE the depth of field for same size print.

That can be a huge pictorial advantage, so what about that then ............!!!!

 

[naturephoto1]

Some of us may be interested in discussions over at photo.net regarding the Leica DMR and the Canon Digital cameras. Here are several of the links:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DzLI&unified_p=1

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DcTa

 

[jaap]

for me the dmr is a real joke. specialy when you compare it to a eos 5D. For the price of the dmr you get a eos 5d with some state of the art optics. for example 24mm f1.4 or the 35mm f1.4. It is very painful for a brand as leica who introduced the 35mm format to see it going to canon. again leica is too late. the history is repeating itself!

 

[naturephoto1]

for me the dmr is a real joke. specialy when you compare it to a eos 5D. For the price of the dmr you get a eos 5d with some state of the art optics. for example 24mm f1.4 or the 35mm f1.4. It is very painful for a brand as leica who introduced the 35mm format to see it going to canon. again leica is too late. the history is repeating itself!

It appears to be anything but a joke. And Leica does not necessarily seem to be too late. You should read the 2 forum discussions that I listed above! Unless you are too stuburn to not have an open mind, in part read and read carefully the comments regarding the use of the DMR with the Leica R lenses and the results of using Leica R lenses on the various Canon EOS digital bodies. Also, read about the short comings of the Canon wide angle lenses including those that you have mentioned.

 

[jaap]

Hello Rich,
I think i have an open mind and that's why i not automaticly focus on a brand like leica. Although they make beautiful stuff. And i hope they will continue to make it. But a lot of wide angles from leica are from a very old design. They never had the capabilities (money) to introduce new ones. I read opninions but in the end it's my own knowledge wich makes the choices. But that is just my opinion. Everyone should buy the brands that fits his needs the most.

 

[ywenz]

It appears to be anything but a joke. And Leica does not necessarily seem to be too late. You should read the 2 forum discussions that I listed above! Unless you are too stuburn to not have an open mind, in part read and read carefully the comments regarding the use of the DMR with the Leica R lenses and the results of using Leica R lenses on the various Canon EOS digital bodies. Also, read about the short comings of the Canon wide angle lenses including those that you have mentioned.

That's just more reason why Leica should get into the business of buliding lens for Canon / Nikon mounts and forget about their own hack job DSLR.. They need to stop pretending that they have a relevance in the Digital camera world. Just look at their hack-job P&Ss in conjunction with Fuji and Panasonic. It is obvious that they're just trying anything to have some digital presence, even at the risk of brand dilution. With regards to this DMR, only small numbers of people will start fresh with the Leica SLR system simply because their superior lenses at wide angles. Software algorithms today is able to fix most(not all) of the short comings of the inferior Canon wides. You think Canon depends on the 1DsMKII sales for most of their revenue? Heck no, it's the DRebels, the 20Ds, and to a much greater extend, their P&S cameras that bring in cash for Canon... Just watch.. Leica will ultimately lose money from this DMR endeavour.. This is indeed a very hostile environment for the niche brand.

 

[jaapv]

Hello Rich,
I think i have an open mind and that's why i not automaticly focus on a brand like leica. Although they make beautiful stuff. And i hope they will continue to make it. But a lot of wide angles from leica are from a very old design. They never had the capabilities (money) to introduce new ones. I read opninions but in the end it's my own knowledge wich makes the choices. But that is just my opinion. Everyone should buy the brands that fits his needs the most.

Leica renewed far more of their lens designs than either Canon or Nikon the last decade. What has age of a design to do with lens quality anyway? For the moment Leica WA lenses are agnowledged to be far superior to any other brand.
The DMR should be compared to the D1sII, not the lowly D5. Read this thread by a considerable number of professionals that after trying the DMR sold their Canon equipment and moved (back) to Leica because of the superior results. Warning! it is 280 pages. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995
Btw I had the 35 1.4 and returned it because it was not up to my standards compared to my summilux-M 35 asph- yes I tried it on film by putting it on my old Eos 600 body.Since then all my canon lenses shorter than 90 mm have been sold. The corners were -well.... wide-angle corners. I believe the Leica design is considerably newer than the Canon one.You see, lens design is not a matter of capital but of know-how.
Now if you had been telling us that Canon, and to a lesser extent Nikon have been holding their own against Leica in telelens design it would have been more to the point. Indeed the price difference between the Leica 280 APO 4.0 and Canon's 300-4.0 IS is not justified by the small quality difference, and there are other examples, like Canon's 135/2.0.

 

[fgianni]

The DMR should be compared to the D1sII, not the lowly D5.

12.8 MPixel, full frame sensor, negligible noise at iso 3200, and more than 90% scored on AP review are extremely far from my concept of "lowly"

 

[ywenz]

The DMR should be compared to the D1sII, not the lowly D5.

The 5D resolution is closer to the DMR than the 1DsII is.. What is so "lowly" about the 5D compared to the 1DsII and DMR? Please I'd like to hear your reasoning.. I assume you're not the type who is easily impressed by a bigger camera body?

 

[fgianni]

That's just more reason why Leica should get into the business of buliding lens for Canon / Nikon mounts and forget about their own hack job DSLR.

Now that is an idea, I am sure a lot of Canon/Nikon owners would be glad to be able to use Leica glass on their gear, even if R Leica glass is not really M Leica glass.