AP review of Digital Modul R

[naturephoto1]

Naturephoto1, well I did say "broadly speaking", and the examples you quote are exceptions to some extent, but some of those guys used Contax's and Nikon copies of contaxes.

For the broad range of commercial work, 35mm negs were rejected as being "too small"

In regards to the 35mm format size that is correct. That is where the success of Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Rollei SLRs (and TLRs) and the large format cameras of the likes of Linhof, Sinar, Deardorf, and Arca Swiss come to bear. And these cameras are still in use today with film and digital.

 

[Hektor]

I'll stick my neck out and say the only people who will buy the DMR are those who already own an R8 or R9.

Everyone else will look at the cost and the facilities provided and buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR.

OK, there will be a small number who will specifically want a quality manual focus SLR, but they sure are a small minority, that's why Leica are in trouble now. They mis-judged the number of DMR's and R cameras they can sell !

It's written in black and white, (and red !), in the company accounts and bank balance.

 

[jaap]

We guys should no that size does matter ! and the beautiful dmr is just to small !

 

[Hektor]

Some of those Leica reflex lenses sure are nice to use though, Jaap.

I even own quite a few myself,

Now what am I gonna do with them, Hmmmmm.....................buy a DMR ??? surely not !!!!!

 

[naturephoto1]

Some of those Leica reflex lenses sure are nice to use though, Jaap.

I even own quite a few myself,

Now what am I gonna do with them, Hmmmmm.....................buy a DMR ??? surely not !!!!!

No, but with an adapter you could put them on your M with or without an M Module. Problem of focus would be a problem however.

 

[Hektor]

Hey,,,!!!!!!

R lenses on a digital M, and focus with the back display...!!!!!!!!!!

What a great idea........!!!!!!

 

[Hektor]

With the right viewer it would be a digital visoflex !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[naturephoto1]

Hey,,,!!!!!!

R lenses on a digital M, and focus with the back display...!!!!!!!!!!

What a great idea........!!!!!!

Hektor,

That was my original thought, I suspected that it would, but I wasn't sure if it would work. Could potentially save a lot of money.

 

[ywenz]

Hektor,

That was my original thought, I suspected that it would, but I wasn't sure if it would work. Could potentially save a lot of money.

Yes use the large sensor for live preview and the camera will also have battery life somewhere in the range of 50 shots per charge. Maybe they'll put a grip on the digi M for extended battery capacity....

 

[fgianni]

I agree Jaap,

If you want a sports, and paparazzi, "prof" camera it's Canon or Nikon, no contest.

If you want to do low-light, reportage, then they are a heap of junk, it's an MP and a Noctilux.

Leica reflex cameras are beautiful to own and use, but they're just not where it's at anymore.

I could not agree more John, that's why I struggle to find room for the Leica R, to me SLR is either Nikon or Canon, and RF is Leica (and strangely enough Epson and Cosina)
I'd like to see a Leica M, but if they can't make it full frame, 1.37 crop factor compared to the 1.5 of the RD-1 will only make the mental conversion more difficult, while having a very minor impact on picture quality.
Come on Leica, you can make a full frame digital M, get your act together!

 

[fgianni]

I'll stick my neck out and say the only people who will buy the DMR are those who already own an R8 or R9.

Everyone else will look at the cost and the facilities provided and buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR.

OK, there will be a small number who will specifically want a quality manual focus SLR, but they sure are a small minority, that's why Leica are in trouble now. They mis-judged the number of DMR's and R cameras they can sell !

It's written in black and white, (and red !), in the company accounts and bank balance.

I could not have said it better.

 

[Hektor]

It's all Minolta's fault......they encouraged Leica to invest their future in manual focus SLR's by providing all the technology (R3, R4 etc) at a knock down price........

And then........WHAM......Dynax AUTOFOCUS SLR's..........the world changed forever that day, and Leica (with Minolta's help) had shot their bolt, and were in a commercially irrecoverable position.

Nikon and Canon were caught by surprise as well but had big finances to help them develop their autofocus models.

Once the majority of "professionals" wanted autofocus, Leica were out of the game.

 

[naturephoto1]

There are still Pros, including myself (and I have used the R System for over 20 years [not all as a Pro], that are not interested or in need of autofocus and just want to have the best quality optics and equipment (that is not too heavy to carry) to aid us in the creation of our images. This is where the Leica R System and the DMR comes in, but we as a group are in the minority.

 

[StuartR]

I was not trying to call anyone out. I was trying to 1. indicate that my experience with the DMR has been entirely positive. 2. Suggest that using a camera before you denounce it is a wiser course of action than taking the advice of a reviewer who might have entirely different expectations, requirements or practices than you. What may be a problematic camera for him may be ideal for you and vice versa. I am not saying you need to buy every single product, but you can make informed decisions about the ones that are likely to be right for you and then try them out yourself. Neither the DMR, nor any other camera is the sum total of its spec sheet. The best examples of this are cameras like the Leica M or the Konica Hexar AF. If you had never heard of them before and were presented with a spec sheet for them you might balk at purchasing one, but in reality they can be ideal cameras for many situations. The DMR is similar in that sense. The number of megapixels and the crop factor may not be as high as on canon models, but THE PICTURES it produces are very different, and in a way that is not inferior. Whether you prefer these results or not is up to you to decide on the basis of the prints.

Beyond that, there are the myriad subjective factors like how much of an investment you already have in the R system or in EOS, what you intend to use the camera for, and whether a 3000, 5000, or 8000 dollar camera has a negligible, moderate, or catastrophic impact on your finances. For most people these criteria will push them to EOS, but for others it will push them to the DMR. For me, my situation made the DMR a better choice.

As for the R system sinking Leica and the DMR being the latest debacle. I doubt it. If it was such a ball and chain on the company, they would have axed it years ago...particularly after the M6 came out and the company began doing well again. There was a sales report posted on photo.net a few days ago that said that the DMR was doing well. I quote:

The integration of digital technology into the existing product range was also decisive for the 30.5 % growth experienced in the Leica system cameras division, which posted sales of ? 16.6 million. The delivery of the LEICA DIGITAL-MODUL-R had a favourable effect on the sales of this division. The module is a globally unique digital complement to existing 35mm SLR cameras, as well as an example of the combination of classic Leica values and useful system complements. The demand for LEICA DIGITAL-MODUL-R will continue to exceed the Company?s manufacturing capacities.

The sales report can be found here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7Te

In any case, that is my view. I think the R9/DMR is a great camera system but it is not for everyone. It is a totally different thing than the 1Ds or 5D. It is like comparing the hasselblad V system with the Hasselblad H system. What's the point? Use the one that works best for you.

 

[naturephoto1]

The DMR is similar in that sense. The number of megapixels and the crop factor may not be as high as on canon models, but THE PICTURES it produces are very different, and in a way that is not inferior. Whether you prefer these results or not is up to you to decide on the basis of the prints.

Beyond that, there are the myriad subjective factors like how much of an investment you already have in the R system or in EOS, what you intend to use the camera for, and whether a 3000, 5000, or 8000 dollar camera has a negligible, moderate, or catastrophic impact on your finances. For most people these criteria will push them to EOS, but for others it will push them to the DMR. For me, my situation made the DMR a better choice.

As for the R system sinking Leica and the DMR being the latest debacle. I doubt it. If it was such a ball and chain on the company, they would have axed it years ago...particularly after the M6 came out and the company began doing well again. There was a sales report posted on photo.net a few days ago that said that the DMR was doing well. I quote:

The integration of digital technology into the existing product range was also decisive for the 30.5 % growth experienced in the Leica system cameras division, which posted sales of ? 16.6 million. The delivery of the LEICA DIGITAL-MODUL-R had a favourable effect on the sales of this division. The module is a globally unique digital complement to existing 35mm SLR cameras, as well as an example of the combination of classic Leica values and useful system complements. The demand for LEICA DIGITAL-MODUL-R will continue to exceed the Company?s manufacturing capacities.

The sales report can be found here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7Te

In any case, that is my view. I think the R9/DMR is a great camera system but it is not for everyone. It is a totally different thing than the 1Ds or 5D. It is like comparing the hasselblad V system with the Hasselblad H system. What's the point? Use the one that works best for you.

Stuart,

Thanks for the input. This supports many of the comments to which I was alluding through many of my posts. Your comment about the "look" of the images produced by the DMR supports my observation at Photo Plus and what I have read about the unit. I do hope to be able to get a DMR in the future to compliment my R8 and the rest of my Leica R System. I Knew that there was a long waiting list for the DMR and am glad that it is aiding in the success of the sales for the company. I do believe that it may be the salvation for the company and that the DMR and the upcoming Digital M will breath new life into the company.

 

[jaapv]

Those 30.5 % were in the first halfyear; I doubt that the DMR did much to boost those. It probably was Leica a la Carte that did the trick. However, it is interesting to note that sales in Germany were down 12.7 % (as opposed to all other markets.) Is it the wobbly economic situation over there or are the Germans -smart lads those- saving their Deutscheuro's for the M8??

 

[StuartR]

Well, I don't know about the rest of it, but the fact that they are selling every single DMR they can make and they are envisioning being able to keep that up is a good thing. There still has not been a truly professional quality digital rangefinder (the RD-1 is only 6mp, a 1.5x crop, can't focus 50/1, 75/1.4, 90/2 or 135mm lenses with accuracy and cost over 3000), so when the digital M comes out I think there will be a large number of people to buy it, particularly if they keep their price goal of under 5000. In any case, if it can produce images as good as the DMR that will be fantastic. The only areas that I think would need improvement for an M camera would be better high ISO performance. Full frame would be ideal, but I am not sure that they are technologically there yet, and it would add a very great deal to the cost given the rejection rate.

 

[jaapv]

General opinion is staring to realise that the sensor size is normally not a very valid parameter. It is very difficult if not impossible to build a 35 mm sensor for RF camera's. At present the acceptance-angle problems cannot be overcome.

 

[jaap]

General opinion is staring to realise that the sensor size is normally not a very valid parameter. It is very difficult if not impossible to build a 35 mm sensor for RF camera's. At present the acceptance-angle problems cannot be overcome.

Watch the Carl Zeiss guys in the future. The folluw up of the now new introduced Zeiss Ikon will be probably be a full frame digi rf. You can see it in the way they designed the new lenses for the ZI. And i'm certenlay not suprised if in the future a new Contax digital Slr will come with the old MM bayonet.

 

[StuartR]

I thought Contax was dead? Weren't they just the Kyocera cameras that mounted Zeiss lenses? With Kyocera no longer making cameras, Rollei dying and Hasselblad now using Fuji lenses, I think any future Zeiss cameras will have to be of their own brand name...

Actually, I am curious why Hasselblad is involved with the Ikon at all. Is it just that they have better distribution networks than Cosina?

Don't get me wrong, I don't fear for Zeiss -- they have a very diverse company with strong involvement in scientific imaging, cine lenses, desigining the lenses for Sony digicams and so on, but having a digital SLR of their own does not seem likely to me at the moment. Perhaps if they can convince Sony or Cosina to make one...