AP review of Digital Modul R

At the very least, Leica has given Canon and Nikon something to look at and consider. I do not necessarily agree that the DMR will lose money nor that the Digital M will lose money as well. What Leica has done is to show up the two big companies- Canon and Nikon what can be done with exhisting systems that will allow the same camera body to function with either film or digital media.

As to the age, design, and performance of the Leica lens and in large measure related to the Leica wide angle lenses, many of these lenses have gone through modification and iterations over the years. Hence changes in (but not necessarily in names) as to the Summicrons, Elmars, Elmarits, Telyts, and Apo Telyts etc. The lens names refer to the design and speed of their optics. Leica was in fact one of the first companies to utilize computers for design of their lenses. Many of the Leica R lenses that I own, be they wide angle, macro, or telephoto, will still perform very well and frequently superior to the new offerings by many of the other makers including Nikon and Canon. And many of my lenses are at least 15 to 20 years old. In fact, many of these lenses will perform close to the performance of even the newer designs by Leica.

As to the performance of their super telephotos, Leica's design of 2 Apo Telyt modular systems introduced in about 1996 are still remarkable and the only system of its kind of mix and match focusing units and heads. They are perhaps the finest Super Telephoto lenses available. Leica was kind enough to allow me to use the combination of the 400 mm f 2.8 and the 800 mm f5.6 Apo Telyt modular lenses for a month of testing back in 1998. Leica has subsequently used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800 mm. The lens performance is extraordinary. These same photos are award winning photos by Professional Photographers of America.

Though restrictive in size (for reasons of concern of usage of images), if interested, you can see these two bird photos on my website:

http://www.nelridge.com/picturepages/lookingtowardtheheavens.htm

http://www.nelridge.com/picturepages/heronhim.htm

Both images were shot on either Fujichrome Provia 100 or Astia 100. Images can easily print digitally to 16"x 24" or 20" x30". Camera was I believe Leica R 7 (I had an R8 with me, but the motor winders had not been distributed at this time), 800mm f5.6 Apo Telyt Modular Leica mounted on Arca B1 Ball on a Gitzo Studex 320 tripod. Looking Toward the Heavens was stopped down to f11 because the male anhinga, in breeding plummage was only about 14 feet away (close to near focus capabilities of the lens) and needed more depth of field (only a few millimeters or so at this focal length and distance.
 
Last edited:
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?
[quote/]


If you are still hung up on the resolution and megapixel thing there is no hope for salvation... Please don't ask me to repeat about 400 pages of knowlegable professional photographers with real experience of the DMR on the discussions pointed out to you in this thread, read them for yourself or, alternately show me comparisons you made yourself to back up your attitude.
 
naturephoto1: You are the type of user where an upgrade to DMR makes perfect sense. You already own a plethora of R lenses and have used them with great success.

Unfortunately, for Leica, short of the profits from the DMR unit, they wouldn't expect to make any more money from you on lens sales. This is reason why I believe they'll lose money on the low volume DMR and digital Ms
 
naturephoto1 said:
At the very least, Leica has given Canon and Nikon something to look at and consider. I do not necessarily agree that the DMR will lose money nor that the Digital M will lose money as well. What Leica has done is to show up the two big companies- Canon and Nikon what can be done with exhisting systems that will allow the same camera body to function with either film or digital media.

As to the age, design, and performance of the Leica lens and in large measure related to the Leica wide angle lenses, many of these lenses have gone through modification and iterations over the years. Hence changes in (but not necessarily in names) as to the Summicrons, Elmars, Elmarits, Telyts, and Apo Telyts etc. The lens names refer to the design and speed of their optics. Leica was in fact one of the first companies to utilize computers for design of their lenses. Many of the Leica R lenses that I own, be they wide angle, macro, or telephoto, will still perform very well and frequently superior to the new offerings by many of the other makers including Nikon and Canon. And many of my lenses are at least 15 to 20 years old. In fact, many of these lenses will perform close to the performance of even the newer designs by Leica.

As to the performance of their super telephotos, Leica's design of 2 Apo Telyt modular systems introduced in about 1996 are still remarkable and the only system of its kind of mix and match focusing units and heads. They are perhaps the finest Super Telephoto lenses available. Leica was kind enough to allow me to use the combination of the 400 mm f 2.8 and the 800 mm f5.6 Apo Telyt modular lenses for a month of testing back in 1998. Leica has subsequently used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800 mm. The lens performance is extraordinary. These same photos are award winning photos by Professional Photographers of America.

Though restrictive in size (for reasons of concern of usage of images), if interested, you can see these two bird photos on my website:

http://www.nelridge.com/picturepages/lookingtowardtheheavens.htm

http://www.nelridge.com/picturepages/heronhim.htm

Both images were shot on either Fujichrome Provia 100 or Astia 100. Images can easily print digitally to 16"x 24" or 20" x30". Camera was I believe Leica R 7 (I had an R8 with me, but the motor winders had not been distributed at this time), 800mm f5.6 Apo Telyt Modular Leica mounted on Arca B1 Ball on a Gitzo Studex 320 tripod. Looking Toward the Heavens was stopped down to f11 because the male anhinga, in breeding plummage was only about 14 feet away (close to near focus capabilities of the lens) and needed more depth of field (only a few millimeters or so at this focal length and distance.



I totally agree. I was talking about comparable "consumer-grade" lenses.(if you can call them that.) That the Apo-modul system is something else is clear- but no other company manufactures anything that even comes close for comparison.
 
jaapv said:
If you are still hung up on the resolution and megapixel thing there is no hope for salvation... Please don't ask me to repeat about 400 pages of knowlegable professional photographers with real experience of the DMR on the discussions pointed out to you in this thread, read them for yourself or, alternately show me comparisons you made yourself to back up your attitude.

If all things being equal, the 5D should have even less noisier sensor than the 1DsMKII due to the larger photo site. By your own assertion, you too have not given your own technical reason why the 5D is inferior to the 1DsMKII from an imaging quality perspective. Any reviews you read on the 5D would agree wit my notion that short of resolution, the 5D provides the same image quality as the 1DS2. Don't try to trump up the DMR to a level where it does not belong.
 
I'm not saying the D5 is inferior, I'm saying the DMR has been compared to the 1DsII up till now.And come off rather well btw. Byyour reasoning the 1DsII should have the same problem maintaining a level "where it doesn't belong". Lets wait until the comparisons between all three camera's come on the net and judge then. I haven't seen one serious evaluation of the 5D yet....And that opens another question: as a hybrid system, on what level should the DMR belong? picture quality being, as you say,equal between camera's rangeing from 3500 to 9500 Euro? Even the future 30D could be a player in that field.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
I'm not saying the D5 is inferior, I'm saying the DMR has been compared to the 1DsII up till now.And come off rather well btw. By the your reasoning the 1DsII should have the same problem maintaining a level "where it doesn't belong". Lets wait until the comparisons between all three camera's come on the net and judge then. I haven't seen one serious evaluation of the 5D yet....

Okay, so you basically doesn't know anything about the 5D.. You just did a 180 from calling the 5D lowly to saying 5D is not inferior. When the 1DsII was in the picture, the Leica supporters' argument was the similar price point of the two bodies. Now that Canon offers a $3000 5D that offers the same peformance.... oh you know we're in a different game now...
 
jaapv said:
If you are still hung up on the resolution and megapixel thing there is no hope for salvation... Please don't ask me to repeat about 400 pages of knowlegable professional photographers with real experience of the DMR on the discussions pointed out to you in this thread, read them for yourself or, alternately show me comparisons you made yourself to back up your attitude.

Everyone here knows that resolution is not the only important feature in a DSLR, however it is not to be disregarded either, you can have all the sharpness and dynamic range you like, with one megapixel you don't go too far, so the "megapixel thing" is still one of the parameters, together with others, that allow us to define the quality of digital photographic equipment.

Very few people can afford to personally do comparisons on high end equipment,
and even fewer people has the knowledge and the experience of doing the comparison to a very high standard.

1, 2, or even 100 pictures on which the DMR copes better than the 5D prove very little since there may be another 100 or more pictures, taken under different conditions, on which the opposite may be true.

That's why I tend to give more weight to a professional review made by reputable practitioners, than to unscientific comparisons often made without using the camera in extreme lighting conditions, and without reaching the technical limits of the equipment.
 
Okay, so you basically doesn't know anything about the 5D.. You just did a 180 from calling the 5D lowly to saying 5D is not inferior. When the 1DsII was in the picture, the Leica supporters' argument was the similar price point of the two bodies. Now that Canon offers a $3000 5D that offers the same peformance.... oh you know we're in a different game now...

Don't twist my words please there are plenty of reasons for the price-difference between the 5 D and the 1DsII -and the DMR for that matter -as you well know. From what I have seen up till now -and it is not much but probably as much as you have, given the similarity of our sources, the main difference will be in the be the subtelity of colour rendering and plasticity of the image. Which has been the main reason for switching from Canon 1DsII to DMR for a considerable number of photographers, as borne out by the threads already linked in earlier posts.

What about the price of the 1DsII now then, as compared to the 5D???
 
Last edited:
fgianni said:
Everyone here knows that resolution is not the only important feature in a DSLR, however it is not to be disregarded either, you can have all the sharpness and dynamic range you like, with one megapixel you don't go too far,
.


Depends on the size of your print, if you're in the postage-stamp-making business, you should be fine... 😀
 
jaapv said:
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.

Leica wa aren't superior to any other brand .maybe that is what you read all the times. That's wat a lot of people like to think wile the prices of a leica lens is so high. The high price however is because they are produced in germany in little quantities. There is not a direct relation to the age of lens design and lens quality,but productions methods do get better al the times and the lens demands do increase
 
jaap said:
Leica wa aren't superior to any other brand .maybe that is what you read all the times. That's wat a lot of people like to think wile the prices of a leica lens is so high. The high price however is because they are produced in germany in little quantities. There is not a direct relation to the age of lens design and lens quality,but productions methods do get better al the times and the lens demands do increase

I will not necessarily say that Leica wide angle lenses are superior to any other brand. However, Leica does tend to design their lenses a bit differently than just about any other maker. First, they tend to design lenses to be more even in sharpness from center to the edges (this is part of the reason for comments regarding how sharp Leica lenses are toward the corners and their overall performance). Leica also tends to use a larger lens mount than their competition (Canon widened their lens mount for the EOS system for the acceptance of all the electical contacts as compared with their older FT and FD lenses).

Leica's lens designs tend to have a larger image circle than those of other 35mm makers which contributes to the eveness of ilumination and sharpness from center to the edges (Leica lenses use the core portion of the image circle for their optics- the image circle extends considerably beyond what is projected on the film). This is also why with adapters some people have used some of the Leica f 6.8 400mm and 560 mm Telyt lenses on (and had sufficient coverage for) Pentax 6 x7 cameras [if you question this, you can ask my friend Jim Lager, the author of so many of the books on Leica cameras].

Leica also tends to be more careful and put more effort in the alignment of the elements that are assembled in their lenses. Additionally as a result of design, coatings, etc., Leica lenses are known for being able to be used wide open and record points of light as disks while lenses made by their competition will exhibit some type of abberation. In general there seems to be some noticable difference between the German Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, and Rodenstock lenses and the Japanese Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc. lenses. Some of this can be attributed to design, glass, and coatings. Some claim that they are able to differentiate between and select transparencies taken with a Leica lens as compared to those taken by other make lens.

Additionally, if you are unaware Leica has higher standards for their optics than their competition. As an example when Minolta used to make some of the zoom lenses for Leica, Minolta (as an example) used the a 1/3 stop industry standard for accuracy requirements while the Leica requirement for the same lens was a 1/6 of a stop. This helps in contributing to the accuracy of on-film performance and exposure accuracy. This is part of the reason that a lens that sold with the Minolta badge sold for $200 while the Leica badged lens sold for $2000.

Mechanically, Leica lenses are different from their competion as well. They are unlike any other manually focused lenses made. This you can demonstrate for yourself if you handle them. Not only will you notice the heft of the lens (they are relatively heavy) but they have a buttery feel to their focus. This is due to their helicoids being made of the self lubricating metals, brass on aluminum. As a result, Leica lenses need only be lubricated with a very light oil. Leica lenses therefore are very precise and accurate in focus with no backlash in their motion. Just about any other manually focused lens made by Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Mamiya, etc. require the use of much heavier greases as lubricants.
 
Last edited:
jaap said:
jaapv said:
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.

Leica wa aren't superior to any other brand .maybe that is what you read all the times. That's wat a lot of people like to think wile the prices of a leica lens is so high. The high price however is because they are produced in germany in little quantities. There is not a direct relation to the age of lens design and lens quality,but productions methods do get better al the times and the lens demands do increase


Just as a matter of interest: if you are not interested in Leica, don't like Leica,don't know anything about Leica and don't
own a Leica,why are you posting on a Leica forum?
 
i think i know something about leica. i like leica, especially the m line and i am intersetet in leica. thats why i visit last summer leica in wetzlar and in solms. and had a good conversation with the kind people there. But i don,t like to asume that leica is the best just because it demands the highest price !
 
Last edited:
jaap said:
i think i know something about leica. i like leica, especially the m line and i am intersetet in leica. thats why i visit last summer leica in wetzlar and in solms. and had a good conversation with the kind people there. But i don,t like to asume that leica is the best just because it demands the highest price !

OK. But who on this forum was assuming that Leica was the best because of the high price???
 
jaapv said:
What about the price of the 1DsII now then, as compared to the 5D???

Ok since you asked for it...

The 1DsII has a different sensor with a higher pixel count. It has larger internal memory buffer. It has a superior auto focus system and an entirely superior metering system. The 1Ds2 also has a pro-grade body with weather sealing. It is a better camera than the 5D, but none of those upgraded features means the 1Ds2 is capable of producing a better image than the 5D. Also I'm sure youre savvy enough to know that marketing dictates that Canon has to price the 1DsII in a higher category to suit its "pro" status. I mean is the Leica M7 worth $3500? Hells no..

jaapv said:
OK. But who on this forum was assuming that Leica was the best because of the high price???

Well you kind of inadverdently let out that assertion by saying 1DsII is better than 5D because it costs more.
 
Last edited:
ywenz said:
Ok since you asked for it...

The 1DsII has a different sensor with a higher pixel count. It has larger internal memory buffer. It has a superior auto focus system and an entirely superior metering system. The 1Ds2 also has a pro-grade body with weather sealing. It is a better camera than the 5D, but none of those upgraded features means the 1Ds2 is capable of producing a better image than the 5D. Also I'm sure youre savvy enough to know that marketing dictates that Canon has to price the 1DsII in a higher category to suit its "pro" status. I mean is the Leica M7 worth $3500? Hells no..



Well you kind of inadverdently let out that assertion by saying 1DsII is better than 5D because it costs more.

Have you looked at the discussions in the following forums?

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
 
ywenz said:
Ok since you asked for it...

The 1DsII has a different sensor with a higher pixel count. It has larger internal memory buffer. It has a superior auto focus system and an entirely superior metering system. The 1Ds2 also has a pro-grade body with weather sealing. It is a better camera than the 5D, but none of those upgraded features means the 1Ds2 is capable of producing a better image than the 5D. Also I'm sure youre savvy enough to know that marketing dictates that Canon has to price the 1DsII in a higher category to suit its "pro" status. I mean is the Leica M7 worth $3500? Hells no..



Well you kind of inadverdently let out that assertion by saying 1DsII is better than 5D because it costs more.

I think you probably consider people who prefer a Morgan over a better specified
and far more comfortable Hyundai, a 100.000 UDS Blancpain watch over a more accurate
Swatch, a 1000 $ Mont Blanc pen over a 10 $ Parker etc.as mad as Leica buyers..
Hell, you probably buy your wife Zirconia jewelry instead of diamonds! 😀
 
jaapv said:
OK. But who on this forum was assuming that Leica was the best because of the high price???

I think of nobody particular but there a tendency to think that way.
Everyone who is buying something expencive is trying to judge for himself the invesment
 
Back
Top Bottom