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

[hamey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not Kodachrome, E-6 only with much effort, and no color film ever looked as good as the DMR at the same ISO.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Well if your R8's should stuff up, your DMR will become useless won't it, unless you can find another R8 or R9, I will sell you mine for 10,000 Dollars US....in working order of course...otherwise you might as well throw your DMR away.....here today gone tomorrow.... lol.

 

At this time I don't have to worry about that BS, I can use my slide film on any of my 5 Film Cameras, all still in working order.

It's called versatilely, however if any of my Film Cameras should fail, I will not bother to repair them, however the M7 might be an exception ?????

 

You should try Fuji Provia 100F sometimes, it defecates all over Kodachrome and most likely your DMR.

It's only around 10 dollars.

 

Ken.

[Advertisement]

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

[masjah]

Well, a large UK scond-hand camera dealer has 6 R9 and 3 R8 (plus another with a DMR attached) and two separate DMRs to boot, so things aren't exactly in short supply.

[hamey]

Hmm. I don’t know what to make of that, having gone through three “uneconomical to repair” R8 and R9 bodies on my DMR…

 

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.

[hamey]

Well, a large UK scond-hand camera dealer has 6 R9 and 3 R8 (plus another with a DMR attached) and two separate DMRs to boot, so things aren't exactly in short supply.

 

Well there you're Doug, you can fly over to the UK and buy the lot, you will have planty of parts to play with.

 

Ken.

[wildlightphoto]

Well if your R8's should stuff up, your DMR will become useless won't it, unless you can find another R8 or R9, I will sell you mine for 10,000 Dollars US....in working order of course...otherwise you might as well throw your DMR away.....here today gone tomorrow.... lol.

 

At this time I don't have to worry about that BS, I can use my slide film on any of my 5 Film Cameras, all still in working order.

It's called versatilely, however if any of my Film Cameras should fail, I will not bother to repair them, however the M7 might be an exception ?????

 

You should try Fuji Provia 100F sometimes, it defecates all over Kodachrome and most likely your DMR.

It's only around 10 dollars.

 

Ken.

 

The $10 for a roll of Provia 100F is for 36 exposures, without processing. Add a processing mailer and the cost for 36 exposures is about $20, 1 roll/week (what I was using on average) * 52 weeks/year * 8 years = $8320, more than I paid for the 2 second-hand DMRs I have, including the 2 R8 bodies.

 

I've compared the DMR's output with Provia 100F (I preferred E100G, but I actually did make the comparison) and the DMR works better for me even when the DMR is used at ISO 400, I can make bigger prints from the DMR's files and the ability to review the histogram in the field before my subjects depart means I'm more likely to fit a high tonal range subject (i.e., birds with both white and black feathers) into the dynamic range of the camera. I threw out hundreds of film images of many difficult-to-meter species.

 

Aside from image quality I also found that using the DMR I don't need 5 film cameras because I don't need to carry a pre-loaded spare body for each film speed, The DMR even at ISO 400 eliminated the desire for a pair of film bodies dedicated to ISO 100.

 

If your primary interest is cameras, a mechanical film body from the 1960s or early 1970s is a great value. I'm more interested in photographs and having compared numerous films in Nikon and Leica film cameras with the DMR the conclusion was obvious. Lower net cost has been an unexpected bonus, and the near-real-time feedback is priceless.

 

BTW I still have a few film cameras. My favorite SL still has a half-finished roll of film in it from 8 years ago. After seeing the image quality from the DMR I saw no reason to use film any more.

[Tim Aston]

Thanks for all the comments.

 

Leica certainly never mentioned the upgrade path discussed earlier in this thread.

 

I am going to look at a Sony A7R and Adapter. If it works as I hope, I think I am also going to get out of the M9 and just use the Sony.

 

As for sending the DMR to Germany, I don't think its worth it. I will dig out all the boxes,batteries pouch etc and put it on ebay with the R8 and R9.

 

-Tim

[topoxforddoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the comments.

 

Leica certainly never mentioned the upgrade path discussed earlier in this thread.

 

I am going to look at a Sony A7R and Adapter. If it works as I hope, I think I am also going to get out of the M9 and just use the Sony.

 

As for sending the DMR to Germany, I don't think its worth it. I will dig out all the boxes,batteries pouch etc and put it on ebay with the R8 and R9.

 

-Tim

 

Tim

 

You might consider just selling the bits that work ie batteries, charger etc.

 

A working battery is GBP200

A charger is GBP150-200

A DMR focussing screen is about GBP100

[james.liam]

I am going to look at a Sony A7R and Adapter. If it works as I hope, I think I am also going to get out of the M9 and just use the Sony.

 

 

-Tim

 

Before you do so, you might want to read Lloyd Chambers' comments regarding vibration issues and the a7R. This is but one of a series of commentaries addressing this problem that makes it a less than desirable R or Alt solution, particularly at FL 90mm and longer. May give you some pause on that purchase.

 

diglloyd blog - Photographers Ask Sony to Address the A7R Shutter Vibration Issue

[mb-de]

As for the vibration issue of the A7R, I shall throw in my two cents:

 

I am a happy owner of the A7. Before that, I tried the A7R and returned it to my dealer after one weekend of use, as the first shutter shock made it unusable for one of my 'use cases' - attaching it to my 750mm f/6 APO. Even on a heavy tripod, vibration after first shutter shock made exposure times between about 1 sec and 1/500 sec unusable. The lens with its heavy weight is clamped at the centre of gravity, thus offering a nice 'resonant body' to the free-floating camera.

 

However, now, three months later, and after seeing what others did, I since borrowed an A7R once more, and mounted it with a strut ground from a block of aluminum between the camera's tripod mounting point and the actual tripod clamp of the lens - that solves the vibration issue.

 

Too late for returning the A7 and migrating to the A7R now, but at least I can confidently state that for my 'killer" use case there would be a solution to the shutter shock issue… and the A7 is still a very good camera, so no reason to waste money now.

 

I shot the A7R with a number of my Leica R lenses and Fotodiox- and Novoflex-adapters - no significant problems with Leica R lenses from 19 to 180 mm were observed in hand-held shooting if the shutter speed was chosen as t < 1/(2..4 * focal length (mm)) - even a Tamron 500 mm f/8 was useable at 1/1000s of a sec.

 

So, maybe I was a bit fast in dismissing the A7R and chiming in on the 'shutter shake' hysteria in December 2013.

 

However, what remains is the rather loud 'double strike' shutter of the A7R which is reminiscent of my old film SLR like Canon F1, Leicaflex SL2 - but not as bad as the clap heard from a medium format SLR or the hectic clack-clack-clack-clak of a pro-grade DSLR in live view mode.

 

So, taking all that into consideration, I still would consider the A7R as a really viable alternative for Rx+DMR users.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

=->

[jaapv]

Comparing the ergonomics of the A7R with a heavy R lens and the DMR with the same lens…ahem…. The M works a lot better than the Sony, quite adequate in my experience, but I agree with Charlie that there is nothing better handling than the DMR.

[james.liam]

However, now, three months later, and after seeing what others did, I since borrowed an A7R once more, and mounted it with a strut ground from a block of aluminum between the camera's tripod mounting point and the actual tripod clamp of the lens - that solves the vibration issue....However, what remains is the rather loud 'double strike' shutter of the A7R which is reminiscent of my old film SLR like Canon F1, Leicaflex SL2 - but not as bad as the clap heard from a medium format SLR or the hectic clack-clack-clack-clak of a pro-grade DSLR in live view mode.

 

So, taking all that into consideration, I still would consider the A7R as a really viable alternative for Rx+DMR users.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

=->

 

If I have to go through the effort of suspending my mother-in-law from a harness beneath a massive tripod just to mitigate shake, then calling the a7R 'viable', is a bit too kind. The rattle is tremendous, making it a too conspicuous a tool compared to the quieter a7. I've seen testing where the vibrations degrade the image of even shorter lenses.

 

When Sony gets around to offering a software upgrade to delay the shutter and mitigate the shake, then there's something to talk about. Until then, I will pass on it.

[dritz]

Having sold my DMR about 6 months ago but not the R lenses, I've decided to give the a7 a try with a Novoflex adapter. I was pondering an A99 but am not thrilled with the necessary Leitax conversions that make my R lenses unusable on the R9 for film (which I still do shoot.... mostly Delta 100 and HP5 cross process as slides by dr5 in Denver).

 

The first world problem of abundance.

 

I should have the a7 this Friday, and look forward to giving it a workout this weekend.

 

All said, I think we're pretty spoiled by the rate of improvement in digital cameras.

 

Dean

[steveclem]

Having sold my DMR about 6 months ago but not the R lenses, I've decided to give the a7 a try with a Novoflex adapter. I was pondering an A99 but am not thrilled with the necessary Leitax conversions that make my R lenses unusable on the R9 for film (which I still do shoot.... mostly Delta 100 and HP5 cross process as slides by dr5 in Denver).

 

The first world problem of abundance.

 

I should have the a7 this Friday, and look forward to giving it a workout this weekend.

 

All said, I think we're pretty spoiled by the rate of improvement in digital cameras.

 

Dean

Burn the heretic !

[james.liam]

Having sold my DMR about 6 months ago but not the R lenses, I've decided to give the a7 a try with a Novoflex adapter. I was pondering an A99 but am not thrilled with the necessary Leitax conversions that make my R lenses unusable on the R9 for film (which I still do shoot.... mostly Delta 100 and HP5 cross process as slides by dr5 in Denver).

 

The first world problem of abundance.

 

I should have the a7 this Friday, and look forward to giving it a workout this weekend.

 

All said, I think we're pretty spoiled by the rate of improvement in digital cameras.

 

Dean

 

Whatever.

 

My friend spent two weeks on a medical mission in Uganda. Airplane (operating theatre included) was donated as were the reems of medical supplies. Other missions from Western Europe and the US were there at the same time and in Kenya where he spent another week.

 

No 2nd worlder nouveu riche like Brazillians, Indians or Red Chinese doing the same. Consider the other side of abundance.

 

Just sayin'.

[mb-de]

Comparing the ergonomics of the A7R with a heavy R lens and the DMR with the same lens…ahem…. The M works a lot better than the Sony, quite adequate in my experience,....

 

I tend to disagree with several of your statements.

 

(1) Ergonomics of the A7/A7R with grip and heavy R lenses up to 280mm is quite adequate - maybe not as good as R8 + DMR, but comparable to the R8 alone. I know - I still have a working R8 body which I find too heavy and too unwieldily (for my small hands, at least) in comparison.

 

(2) You cannot be serious on the "the M (240) works a lot better than the Sony" with Leica R glass than the Sony… some things are a matter of taste, the differential in sensor and EVF quality is not. OK, DXO and others may not be telling the truth with their measurements, or have their criteria wrong, when it comes to your preferences in the image. Ergonomics is another story, and here the Sony wins, when it comes to Live View use with Leica R lenses - both the EVF and the screen are superior on the Sonys… the body of the M240 is nice with M lenses and rangefinder OVF, but becomes (again for my small hands) inconvenient to handle.

 

(3) I still quite regularly use analogue Leica M cameras with film - my favorite is the M4P (I have still two working bodies), followed by the CL, the M3 and the M6. The digital Leica M bodies, namely the M240, are a lot less slim than the analogue ones, making handling inconvenient for me….

 

So, tastes differ.

 

Regards,

 

Michael

=->

[mb-de]

If I have to go through the effort of suspending my mother-in-law from a harness beneath a massive tripod just to mitigate shake, then calling the a7R 'viable', is a bit too kind. The rattle is tremendous, making it a too conspicuous a tool compared to the quieter a7. I've seen testing where the vibrations degrade the image of even shorter lenses.

 

When Sony gets around to offering a software upgrade to delay the shutter and mitigate the shake, then there's something to talk about. Until then, I will pass on it.

 

As I said before, for myself, I skipped the A7R, as I did not care for shutter shake and racket, and I am enjoying the results delivered by the A7… with Leitz/Leica and Zeiss (Sony Z/ZA) glass…

 

My take is that a software fix alone shall not really do the trick on racket and vibration - the flaw will most likely stay until Sony come up with a replacement with an uprated sensor supporting electronic first shutter…

 

Regards,

 

Michael

=->

[jaapv]

I tend to disagree with several of your statements.

 

(1) Ergonomics of the A7/A7R with grip and heavy R lenses up to 280mm is quite adequate - maybe not as good as R8 + DMR, but comparable to the R8 alone. I know - I still have a working R8 body which I find too heavy and too unwieldily (for my small hands, at least) in comparison.

 

(2) You cannot be serious on the "the M (240) works a lot better than the Sony" with Leica R glass than the Sony… some things are a matter of taste, the differential in sensor and EVF quality is not. OK, DXO and others may not be telling the truth with their measurements, or have their criteria wrong, when it comes to your preferences in the image. Ergonomics is another story, and here the Sony wins, when it comes to Live View use with Leica R lenses - both the EVF and the screen are superior on the Sonys… the body of the M240 is nice with M lenses and rangefinder OVF, but becomes (again for my small hands) inconvenient to handle.

 

(3) I still quite regularly use analogue Leica M cameras with film - my favorite is the M4P (I have still two working bodies), followed by the CL, the M3 and the M6. The digital Leica M bodies, namely the M240, are a lot less slim than the analogue ones, making handling inconvenient for me….

 

So, tastes differ.

 

Regards,

 

Michael

=->

And hands - and results. There are good reasons to spend a few dollars more and get a 240. Or keep on using the DMR.

[mb-de]

And hands - and results. There are good reasons to spend a few dollars more and get a 240. Or keep on using the DMR.

 

As far as the image quality goes, I daresay that (unless you are bound to use very specific Leica M glass), all Leica 'digital bodies'/'digital backs' BUT one (the MM - at low ISO) have been surpassed in image quality by others, be it Nikon D800(E) or Sony A7/A7R - maybe not in OOC JPEGs, but certainly in RAW… (The MM being a special case - here the extra money is well spent, if the niche it excels in is yours…)

 

However, for the 'photographer's experience' during the actual picture-taking, the late Leica Rs as well as all Ms are a league of their own (caveat emptor for people with small hands - the digital Ms and the R8/R9 may be at the limit). I _love_ my analogue M4Ps and CL, and will keep using them for as long as 35mm film is available.

 

Cheers,

 

M.

=->

(… still owning 13 Leica (2 C-Ms, 4 R, 7 M) lenses and four Leica bodies (1 C, 2 M, 1 R), some of them for ± three decades - and intending to continue using them… therefore certainly not biased against Leica…)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Since "Image Quality" is an undefined and subjective concept that cannot be seen separately from the lens used, this can easily be argued both ways...

[mb-de]

Since "Image Quality" is an undefined and subjective concept that cannot be seen separately from the lens used, this can easily be argued both ways...

 

DXOMark is a reasonably impartial source of information on the generic quality of sensors involved.

 

The fact the the Leica M240 has a sensor which is designed to interact synergistically with certain wide angle Leica M glass is a plus if used with a lens which needs such treatment, i. e. such which illuminate the sensor at oblique angles because of the short register of the M mount.

 

As well, it is helpful that the camera has stored in-body compensation profiles for a number of coded lenses, and corrects the RAW files in body - this is a plus for the owner of such lenses.

 

On the other hand, for lenses not requiring such corrective measures, superior results may be achieved by other sensors than the one of the M240. CMOSIS are good at some niche sensor designs (in fact, my employer is using specific types in a scientific application context), but all-in-all, for photographic purposes, EXMOR and EXMOR-R are going a bit further, as one can see in DXOMark's findings (for 24 MPx full frame sensors, compare the color depth and dynamic range between A7, M240 and DSC-RX1 - I deliberately did not suggest to compare the old sensors of M9 and M-E) - they are instructive.

 

This is, as a matter of fact, a technical comparison. The artistic output achievable is dictated more by the ability of the photographer (and his knowledge on how to get the best or most flattering result out of his/her tool)…

 

Regards,

 

Michael

=->

PS (Edit): I think we are drifting away from the original topic - namely, what to do about a DMR that has died from an electronic fault. If documentation and embedded firmware were available, a decent specialized electronics repair shop could go quite far in repairing a device with real fault in the electronics - but improvising spare parts or doing board level repairs is an expensive business, given hourly labour cost of such shops - thus, cost can easily exceed the value not only of the device itself, but that of DMR, camera and lenses together… so, looking for another unit or migrating to another digital camera platform may be the most sensible option. Using an M240 in Live View mode is certainly possible, but not an attractive option, ergonomically and economically.