Maybe I shouldn't have....

[topoxforddoc]

Well I did...

...Buy a second DMR last week! I just love my DMR and decided to get a backup. The 180 cron and 280/4 apo are just such fantastic lenses that I would be upset if I couldn't use them in the future. My second DMR plus R8 cost me significantly less than second hand M8. It's not to say that I don't like Ms. I do, but I prefer using film Ms (I have 2, M6TTL and a CLE).

Charlie

[rob_x2004]

I still haven't seen a valid 1:1 comparison! In fact, the pictures posted here don't look to well at all and I don't see where the DMR wins hands down!?

There are some really aweful DMR images posted from time to time, and for whatever reason Ive always been able to fix them or find a direction to fix them really easily.
There are some really aweful M8 images posted from time to time, and for whatever reason they have been shot ducks.
I cant remember seeing a bad DMR file and they are only small jpgs by the time they reach here..

[dhsimmonds]

An interesting comparison JAAP. However all that happens with these types of comparisons is to bring out the M8 devotees against the DMR's!

I wonder how many similar comparisons were made with an R8/9 film camera and then fitted with the DMR back on the same camera using exactly the same lens?

This might be a very meaningful comparison and it might not necessarily mean that film would win!

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

There are some really aweful DMR images posted from time to time, and for whatever reason Ive always been able to fix them or find a direction to fix them really easily.
There are some really aweful M8 images posted from time to time, and for whatever reason they have been shot ducks.
I cant remember seeing a bad DMR file and they are only small jpgs by the time they reach here..

Yes--but I think at least one of the reasons for that is that people post high ISO M8 shots which are not exposed optimally for high ISO. I don't think DMR users use the highest ISO level much I know I don't, ever... but I'll chance an ISO 2500 shot on the M8 if the conditions are just right.

@ Dave--there's lots of us who use (and like) both systems, and as far as this comparison goes, though, there's a processing difference that doesn't tell the tale of how the systems differ, IMO.

[wildlightphoto]

Originally Posted by dhsimmonds

I wonder how many similar comparisons were made with an R8/9 film camera and then fitted with the DMR back on the same camera using exactly the same lens?

I've done a DMR/K25 comparison with the K25 in an SL. DMR, no contest. Even with the DMR at ISO 400.

[dhsimmonds]

Thanks Doug

It is exactly what I would have expected. Add the other advantages including the opportunity of changing ISO every frame if required and it's not surprising that DMR owners either never or very rarely take the digital back off their R8 or R9. I know that I haven't.

On a recent shoot in bad light I needed to use ISO800 for the first time in over two years of using my DMR. Developing the DNG image with C1 and printing at 18 x 12, I could see no noise at all either in the print or on screen. As I am usually an ISO100/200 photographer, this came as a real surprise to me. See http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...forgotten.html

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by dhsimmonds

An interesting comparison JAAP. However all that happens with these types of comparisons is to bring out the M8 devotees against the DMR's!!

My problem is that I like both cameras, each within their special use.

[georg]

@wildlightphoto

Kodachrome25 is too grainy and difficult to scan.
Try Velvia100 and scan it with an Imacon @6300/8000ppi!

I'll prefer B/W-film with my MP but occassionally I still use Velvia and love the results. Properly done (scanning, sharpening, noise/grain reduction) are excellent.

This is a picture I printed and framed in DINA3+ (32x48cm) and it can stand my M8-files!
Digital-files have a little bit more resolution in low-contrast, while the Velvia-scan shows more detail at high-contrast. The grain & scanner-noise is barely noticeable in the print and it's free from digital artifacts e.g. caused by the bayer-pattern.

I noticed that digital can "pretend" resolution and bigger formats very well when shooting large, uniform areas (sky, architecture, soft portraits) and you can enlarge them pretty well even when mediocre technology (lenses, older sensors) was used. But when you're looking for real resolution/information (landscape with trees...) you'll notice that behind this "clearness" is no real detail (or not more than with modern film - you have to use bigger formats).

But you're right, digital can stand higher sensitivities much better, a 400ASA slide-film is much worse. While B/W-document-film (25ASA Imagelink) is clearly superior to every sensor.

The JPG-compression destroys many details and adds artifacts, but remember, this is a 100% crop @ 6300ppi, a 53MPixel-file from a 35mm-slide!

[wildlightphoto]

Originally Posted by georg

Try Velvia100 and scan it with an Imacon @6300/8000ppi!

I bought a few rolls of Velvia 100, used one, then gave the rest away. Contrast was excessive, colors might be OK if you're using a 20-element zoom but with a 2-element achromat it was just gaudy blobs of excess saturation. Not my kind of film.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by georg

@wildlightphoto

Kodachrome25 is too grainy and difficult to scan.
Try Velvia100 and scan it with an Imacon @6300/8000ppi!

I'll prefer B/W-film with my MP but occassionally I still use Velvia and love the results. Properly done (scanning, sharpening, noise/grain reduction) are excellent.

This is a picture I printed and framed in DINA3+ (32x48cm) and it can stand my M8-files!
Digital-files have a little bit more resolution in low-contrast, while the Velvia-scan shows more detail at high-contrast. The grain & scanner-noise is barely noticeable in the print and it's free from digital artifacts e.g. caused by the bayer-pattern.

I noticed that digital can "pretend" resolution and bigger formats very well when shooting large, uniform areas (sky, architecture, soft portraits) and you can enlarge them pretty well even when mediocre technology (lenses, older sensors) was used. But when you're looking for real resolution/information (landscape with trees...) you'll notice that behind this "clearness" is no real detail (or not more than with modern film - you have to use bigger formats).

But you're right, digital can stand higher sensitivities much better, a 400ASA slide-film is much worse. While B/W-document-film (25ASA Imagelink) is clearly superior to every sensor.

The JPG-compression destroys many details and adds artifacts, but remember, this is a 100% crop @ 6300ppi, a 53MPixel-file from a 35mm-slide!

Ummm.. Georg, you'll find Doug is fairly expert at this game....

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by georg

Kodachrome25 is too grainy and difficult to scan.
Try Velvia100 and scan it with an Imacon @6300/8000ppi!

I'll prefer B/W-film with my MP but occassionally I still use Velvia and love the results. Properly done (scanning, sharpening, noise/grain reduction) are excellent.

The problem is that you use to be able to compare 2 slide films pretty accurately because they both got run thru the same chems in an automated processing machine. Now you have to take in to a count the type of scanner, the scanning software, and the skill of the person scanning and the almost infinately variable permutations of possible settings.

[zernikepolynom]

Sorry for joining in late - I would expect the sensor of a R10 to be different from DMR (and M8). In earlier statements from Leica, an over-sized sensor (in my understanding larger than 24mm x 36mm) has been mentioned. This would hint at targetting the R10 between the D3 and the Hasselblad price- and sensorwise. Oh dear, again no full frame

Since I'm already speculating - another nice feature would be to keep compatibility to the existing R-lenses, maybe in style of the Nikon D3, where lenses, which will not project the full sensor, will switch off the border pixels. If there will be a new lens system anyhow, it would be a logical step to include auto-focus into this new lens-system.

Just looking for the English word of Bildkreis, the projected circle of a lens in the image plane...

Stefan

[wildlightphoto]

Originally Posted by jimmy pro

The problem is that you use to be able to compare 2 slide films pretty accurately because they both got run thru the same chems in an automated processing machine.

Except K25 and Velvia 100 are not processed in the same chemistry or by the same machines.

Originally Posted by zernikepolynom

Just looking for the English word of Bildkreis, the projected circle of a lens in the image plane...

Image Circle.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by wildlightphoto

Except K25 and Velvia 100 are not processed in the same chemistry or by the same machines.

That's true of course, shame on me. Nonetheless, there both processed in automated machines useing the same chemistry for each type (K14, E6). Nowheres near the wide variances you get with comparisons of scans or digital camera's on the internet who's files have been run through a gazillion and one different workflows. Or just as bad, comparing just the RAW/DNG's without any post. It's similar in a way to b&w where you've got the film, and then you've got a gazillion guy's with different dev's, time's temp's etc. What you end up with is more a comparison of developing/post processing then the capture media itself.

[andybarton]

Jimmy

I couldn't agree with you more.

But that's part of the fun. Hundreds of different types of film. Hundreds of different developers. Millions of different photographers.

[rob_x2004]

And only one right way .........

[farnz]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

And only one right way .........

Do you mean two ways, Rob: my way and the wrong way?

Pete.