leica vs canon
leica vs canon
There's a new issue of some magazine out -- I'm afraid I left it at my office, but I think it's the latest issue of Photo Techniques -- which has a lengthy comparison between the DMR and the 1Ds2 (and I think also the Olympus 4/3, but I didn't pay much attention to that aspect, because he quickly said that the 4/3 camera was out of its class.) The bio on the reviewer said that he was a well-known photographer who had work in several big museums, and also a PhD in physics from Cal/Berkley. The test seemed quite fair, and quite severe (he outlines his methods; he carried it to the extent of only wearing black clothing in a color-neutral room for viewing the tests.) In any case, the conclusion was unusual -- and that is, for all practical purposes, the two cameras tied in effectiveness; the 1Ds2 having superior resolution at large print sizes, and the DMR having much better sharpness and color. Neither held up to MF cameras, and after about 19x13, the quality declined quickly. Other odd bits: the Canon looked better on a monitor, but the Leica looked better in prints made on an Epson 9800. The DMR produced prints that were more three-dimensional, with more "pop." The Canon was a lot more flexible, but also a lot bigger and heavier.
But then he tried Leica lenses on the Canon, using an adapter, and said the results were amazingly good. That was apparently the best combo -- the Leica lenses were way better than the Canon L's that he tested. On the other hand, there aren't Canon-usable lenses at all focal lengths.
Interesting article. I believed him.
JC