DMR - Dead...So do I throw it away ?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DXO mark is fine and dandy, but is only a small part of the story. For one thing CCD sensors seem to be less successful in their valuation, making a number of small point-and-shoots better scoring than some digital backs…

At least they don’t pretend to measure “IQ” whatever that may be.

 

We differ again on the M+EVF for (long) R lenses. I am quite comfortable with the combo, and the results are impeccable.

I think using M lenses up to 90/135 mm on the RF and R for long reach with the EVF on the M is a worthy solution.

Edited April 14, 2014 by jaapv

[mb-de]

<<<statement on DXO removed>>>

We differ again on the M+EVF for (long) R lenses. I am quite comfortable with the combo, and the results are impeccable.

I think using M lenses up to 90/135 mm on the RF and R for long reach with the EVF on the M is a worthy solution.

 

It seems that on the sensor quality evaluation we shall not find an agreement, so let us simply agree to disagree - maybe this is not the best outcome, but at least it is a valid one .

 

Though, on the last sentence, we can - to an extend - agree - M lenses up to 90 mm on the M (MM or M240) is a worthy solution indeed.

 

R glass with adapter and the rather mediocre EVF is workable as well, if you want to stay inside the Leica system… so it is valid as an option.

 

I just conclude for myself that there are better options around if you do only have R glass…adaptation with Leitax or other 'semi-permanent' bayonet modifications ( f. i. Quenox…) to pro-grade DSLRs, f. i. the Nikon D800E/D4/D4S or some of the upper echelon Canon DSLRs are superior by ergonomics and in some cases by achievable IQ… or the 'mirror-less' options of Sony - each of them has an EVF far superior to the one adapted to the M240. Better ergonomics, at least equal IQ, more stable support and better price-to-performance ratio together make a good business case.

 

Regards,

 

Michael

=->

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Not really a good business case - the EVF2 is a lot cheaper than a D800 and it would entail schlepping a dual system around like in the past. Just the M, short M lenses, long R lenses and the EVF are a lot more practical to pack and carry.

[mb-de]

Not really a good business case - the EVF2 is a lot cheaper than a D800 and it would entail schlepping a dual system around like in the past. Just the M, short M lenses, long R lenses and the EVF are a lot more practical to pack and carry.

 

I disagree, if you do not have an M240 and Leica M-bayonet lenses already.

 

If you only have R lenses, your path though M240 + EVF2 + adapter is significantly more expensive than the path through D800E + third party focussing screen optimized for manual focus + Leitax bayonet rings (± 70 Euro per lens) (Quenox is cheaper at ±50 Euro per lens)…

 

I know at least of one person who went for a D3s + Leitax adaptation after trying out the M240 option - he did not like the ergonomics of the M240 combined with his Leica R glass, despite the fact that he had a considerable investment in M glass as well (which he continues to use with an M8 and some analogue M bodies…)… going from the near-perfect handling (for his hands) of an R8 to a solid DSLR body seemed logical to him, and superior to the M240 in all aspects.

 

But, as I noted before, we can continue to disagree either by mutual agreement, or by exchange of more posts…

 

Cheers,

 

M.

=->

[wildlightphoto]

I disagree, if you do not have an M240 and Leica M-bayonet lenses already.

 

If you only have R lenses, your path though M240 + EVF2 + adapter is significantly more expensive than the path through D800E + third party focussing screen optimized for manual focus + Leitax bayonet rings (± 70 Euro per lens) (Quenox is cheaper at ±50 Euro per lens)…

 

I'm guessing you don't have any R APO extenders.

[jaapv]

I'm guessing you don't have any R APO extenders.

 

Indeed, and I do not intend to trash them by choosing an inadequate solution.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So when comparing an M to FF DSLRs some people praise the savings in size and weight. Can't this same rationale be extended to favor the A7 over the DMR, the M with EVF and R lenses, and FF DSLRs?

[wildlightphoto]

So when comparing an M to FF DSLRs some people praise the savings in size and weight. Can't this same rationale be extended to favor the A7 over the DMR, the M with EVF and R lenses, and FF DSLRs?

 

Size & weight is a nice (IMHO) benefit of using the A7/A7r.

[jaapv]

[...]

If you only have R lenses, [...]

 

M.

=->

I don't...

[SteveYork]

Wow Jaapv, and your're still buying that Leica gear.

You must have more money then sence.

 

My 1969 Minolta SRT 101 is still working, unlike my Leica SL which has a stuffed light meter.

 

Ken.

 

But you can still get replacements parts for your Leicaflex SL -- the meter cell, the meter board, ect., -- and the user experience and optics are far, far, far nicer then the Minolta. I've owned both.

[SteveYork]

If my DMR had depreciated to zero (it hasn't) it would still be far more economical to use over the 8 years I've had it than an equivalent amount of film, and it has been far more productive. The R8 has required far more costly repair than the DMR has, and my backup R8 with a dead spot meter is now likely uneconomical to repair.

 

But a DMR is nowhere near as fun to use as a film camera.

 

And you still can get film cameras repaired, even an old Leicaflex. I'm not sure the notion of 'uneconomical to repair' makes sense, because if you use the repaired item, really use it, then it is generally worth the value of the repair. Plus, it's almost always less expensive to repair an old Leica then purchase a new one, given current prices.

[wildlightphoto]

But a DMR is nowhere near as fun to use as a film camera.

 

Agreed, but for me photography is about photographs, not cameras and the photographs I've made with the R8/DMR meet my needs much more than the photographs I made with the Leicaflex SL ever did. The SL is my all-time favorite camera, and the R8/DMR is by far more productive than the SL was. IMHO the perfect camera would be a Leicaflex SL that produced DMR image quality.

 

And you still can get film cameras repaired, even an old Leicaflex. I'm not sure the notion of 'uneconomical to repair' makes sense

 

'Uneconomical to repair' usually means the repair costs more than the value of a good working sample of the same model on the second-hand market.

Edited April 22, 2014 by wildlightphoto

[topoxforddoc]

Like Doug, I’m a huge fan of the DMR. The combination of a decent sensor (for its time, and which still produces great files at lower ISO), a top class optical VF, great ergonomics and lenses and an old fashioned intuitive interface with proper dials makes it unusual even to this day.

 

I will carry on using my two DMRs until they finally give up the ghost. Got plenty of batteries and chargers. There are a fair number of used DMRs too in UK dealers at reasonable prices, so a replacement would not be out of the question if one fails.

 

Charlie

[lm_user]

Maybe I am oversimplifying. However - Leica has the tooling for the R9 and a sensor etc with the M240 that is compatible with R lenses. It should not be too much of a leap to merge the 2 designs

 

I would like a camera like that

[hamey]

But you can still get replacements parts for your Leicaflex SL -- the meter cell, the meter board, ect., -- and the user experience and optics are far, far, far nicer then the Minolta. I've owned both.

 

Yes Steve, I wont deny it, the SL is a far better Camera then the Minolta SRT 101.

 

The most used lenses are the 50mmf2, 21-35 vario, 28-90mm vario and the 80=200mm f4 all are ROM Lenses, don't work on the SL,

I also need a Diopter for the SL, so simply it's not worth it.

Now it sits in my glass cabinet fully retired from photographic duties,

 

Ken.

[sc_rufctr]

Maybe I am oversimplifying. However - Leica has the tooling for the R9 and a sensor etc with the M240 that is compatible with R lenses. It should not be too much of a leap to merge the 2 designs

 

I would like a camera like that

 

That may sound good but the reality is it would be very expensive and a cropped sensor would still be required because of the film opening in the R8/9.

 

And then you only have existing manual focus R lenses... The problem with auto focus is that although Leica invented auto focus they never developed it for the R series.

The reason for this is not entirely clear but from some of the reading I've done the manufacturing tollerences need for the R lenses was not compatible with the looser tolerance required for Auto focus.

The S system being entirely new was designed for Auto Foucs from the outset.

[wildlightphoto]

The most used lenses are the 50mmf2, 21-35 vario, 28-90mm vario and the 80=200mm f4 all are ROM Lenses, don't work on the SL,

 

Many ROM lenses can be used on the SL with simple modifications. The 21-35 and 28-90 are not among them but the 50mm Summicron-R and 80-200mm f/4 are. The modifications are to trim the inner diameter of the camera's flange, in some cases replace the lens lock pin with a narrower R pin (or shave the sides of the SL's lock pin) and add the 2nd metering cam to the lens. Much easier than using an R lens on the SRT-101

[AlanG]

... The problem with auto focus is that although Leica invented auto focus they never developed it for the R series.

The reason for this is not entirely clear but from some of the reading I've done the manufacturing tollerences need for the R lenses was not compatible with the looser tolerance required for Auto focus.

 

The autofocus system that Leica came up with is nothing like what is in use today. The current system was pioneered by Honeywell, first refined by Minolta, and later refined by others of course. I don't know if Leica's system could have been practical once fully developed ,but it might have been a lot simpler for them to use whatever the rest were using rather than trying to develop their system further. This is what Leica has done with its AF cameras. So for whatever reasons, they abandoned the Correfot AF concept.

 

Once it became clear that the market was going to AF Leica could have joined in as other manufacturers did. Of course that would heave meant new cameras and new lenses. Perhaps they simply did not have the resources to do this.

 

As for camera gear not being repairable... this is not confined to Leica. Canon told me last fall that the AF motor in my 16-35 2.8 series 1 lens cannot be repaired due to lack of parts. And I couldn't locate another repair shop that had the parts either. That is only 7 years after my lens was discontinued. So now my plan is to sell any electronic camera or lens within a couple of years of when it is discontinued so that I don't get stuck with a paperweight.

 

And in this case I almost traded in my lens for the series II version when it first came out. But when I tested the new lens, I saw that it imaged point lights (as in many hanging dining room lights and others) as too much of a star pattern for my liking. So I kept using the old lens until it became worthless for resale. Although I can still use it it in manual mode... which is not the reason I bought it.

[hamey]

Many ROM lenses can be used on the SL with simple modifications. The 21-35 and 28-90 are not among them but the 50mm Summicron-R and 80-200mm f/4 are. The modifications are to trim the inner diameter of the camera's flange, in some cases replace the lens lock pin with a narrower R pin (or shave the sides of the SL's lock pin) and add the 2nd metering cam to the lens. Much easier than using an R lens on the SRT-101

 

Thanks for the information Doug, but with having 2 R7's one R8 and an R9 I simply couldn'd be bothered

Just happy to use what I got.

 

I have never used or attempted to use my R lenses on the Minolta SRT 101.

 

My two beloved beauties.

 

The Minolta was my first SLR from 1968, still works.

The Leica SL from 1973, meter is defective, but who needs it. NO BATTERIES REQUIRED.

 

Ken.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mjh]

The autofocus system that Leica came up with is nothing like what is in use today.

As a matter of fact the phase-detection AF systems in used today were pioneered by Leica’s Correfot system that they sold to Minolta, whereas Honeywell’s Visitronic system was more akin to an automated version of rangefinder focusing.