[Leica] DMR at 1600 iso

[leica at robsteve.com (Robert Stevens)]

I haven't tried the B&W mode of the DMR yet.

All of this DMR stuff is still new to me and I am still learning what 
it can do.  While it was not particularly bright for the shot of my 
son, I knew the light was even and there were not any dark 
shadows.  This  was within the capability of the DMR.  I need to do 
some further testing in dark situations.  The nearest coal mine is a 
few hundred miles away and I would have to borrow a neighbors cat to 
test the DMR on a truly  dark high noise situation :-)

To be fair, the Leica is probably best at 800 iso and under.   The 
target market is probably what I intend to use it for; scenic and 
travel with the iso set in the 100-200 range.  Here the DMR excels 
with its wide dynamic range and great color.

  I would not suggest Tina take a DMR on her trips where there is a 
lot of low light.  On the other hand,  a Digital M with similar 
performance at 800 iso is quite capable when paired with the 
Noctilux.  Using the 1.37 crop factor, the Noctilux would be using a 
lot of its sharp sweet spot.  I think in my travels to Paris, people 
shots on the street at night were 1/125th at f1 and 800 film.

Regards,

Robert





At 04:31 PM 9/30/2005, B. D. Colen wrote:

>My take on looking at the two, Robert - and blowing them up 400% - was that
>the DMR image was much more accurate in terms of the color (and obviously
>I'm guessing on that) while the Leica was much noisier.
>
>I find noise more important than color accuracy, but of course 95 times out
>of 100 I'm converting to black and white. But even if I wasn't, color
>accuracy is damn easy to adjust in PS, and while there are ways to eliminate
>noise, all involve losing detail.
>
>In terms of the photo of your son, it has virtually no shadow areas in it,
>so it's likely to print quite well, without the noise being intrusive. But
>as I look at it on the monitor, it sure looks "grainy" in the background.
>
>But when all is said and done, the DMR color accuracy is impressive.
>
>
>On 9/30/05 2:23 PM, "Robert Stevens" <leica@robsteve.com> wrote:
>
> > I just did a bit more work on the same two files.
> >
> > I opened them both with the Adobe Camera Raw, but for the Leica one,
> > I adjusted up the noise reduction and luminance smoothing
> > sliders.  The Canon camera has a much more capable processor and a
> > lot of this is done in camera.
> >
> > I cropped the files to show the dark shadow under the furnace.  I
> > also down sized the Leica crop, so it was about the same width as the
> > Canon file.  B.D. is correct that the Canon has much less noise, as
> > shown by the examples below.   Look at the tool marks on the brass
> > fitting.  The Leica seems to have the edge here.
> >
> > http://www.robsteve.com/DMR/CanLeica1600.jpg
> >
> >
> >   Isn't the over all quality of the finished print more important
> > than the noise we can see on our monitors?  With people and and
> > within the limits of the DMR, I think the DMR makes the better
> > print.  I have a 5x7 print of my son from the 1600 iso shot and it
> > looks no different than a print from 400 speed film.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > At 02:52 PM 9/30/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just posted using the camera file names.  The one starting with a
> >>> "L" is the Leica.  It was the second file on my original post.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the Leica:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.robsteve.com/DMR/L%201020850.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Here is the Canon.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.robsteve.com/DMR/KX5T7819.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Robert
> >>
> >>
> >> I am red-faced.  I picked the better shot, but attributed it to the
> >> wrong Camera!
> >>
> >> Robert, I am VERY impressed!  Thanks for doing this... it has been
> >> very illuminating!
> >>
> >> For me, however, it's "open mouth  -  insert foot  - chew vigorously!"
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Young,
> >> Logan Lake, BC
> >> CANADA.
> >> Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
> >> Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 
> >> 9/23/2005
> >
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
>
>--
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005