Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree you with about the general use of the DMR, but my feeling is that if the digital M doesn't give results comparable - or at least close to - a Canon at 1600 it's a failure. The M is a camera for working in low light - one should not have to buy a Noctilux because it won't produce good results at 800 or 1600. This is, frankly what has me worried about the digital M - aside from the price. ;-) On 9/30/05 4:19 PM, "Robert Stevens" <leica@robsteve.com> wrote: > 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 >