[Leica] Re:Canon Anything vs. DMR

[FELIXMATURANA at telefonica.net (Félix López de Maturana)]

>4) Enter the Leicanon option. In order to use my Leica lenses I bought a
>20D and adapter rings. I could now make pictures that I was satisfied
>with in terms of sharpness. Big drawbacks (for my use)
>
>- Small viewfinder making it difficult to focus with precision. 80% of
>my macro photos where out of focus unless I used very small apertures
>(1:16-1:32). I felt I was taken back to the 60ies and the Exactas,
>before full aperture focusing and metering became available.
>
>- Exposure was often off. At the small apertures I had to use, the TTL
>exposure meter of the 20D was no longer reliable, I got a lot of under-
>and overexposed pictures. Of course, you could make a test shot, look at
>the histogram and then take more shots with different settings:
>Complicated, time-consuming and very frustrating. In the meantime, the
>bee that I was trying to capture had flown away.
>
>- Most disturbing of all: I did not like the color rendition of the
>Canon. The Panasonic FZ20 colors where much better. The Canon colors
>seemed harsh and unnatural. The colors I got with the same lenses on
>film where much more to my liking. Some might argue that you could
>correct this in Photoshop. It took me sometimes hours of trying but the
>results did not satisfy me. You can see examples of the problem on
>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BflF

I use a Leica R8 and I hope I'll be using a DMR in the next future. 
Unfortunately I have not such a clear ideas about this could be the perfect 
solution. This is due to my extended experience with Canon digital systems 
as I use or have used an  EOS D30, and both an EOS 1Ds MkI and MkII. As I've 
not shot with the DMR I cannot , up to the moment, judge side by side. But 
in my opinion we cannot compare an EOS 20D with the DMR because are quite 
different beasts. The fair comparison is, IMHO, between the 1Ds and the DMR 
as both try to represent the state of the art of technology -with kind 
permission of Nikon and other owners- and have similar cost including the R 
body.

The EOS has more pixels and this produces more information. I am not sure if 
this means more sharpness because this would involve quality of the pixels 
besides of quantity of them. But  only medium format digital backs produce 
pictures with more information than 1Ds MkII. The fact that your are not 
going bigger than A3 does not mean that a Leica digital back avoid the need 
of the excellence. In film nobody could argue that Leica wasn't the 
excellence by nature. In digital this had to be the way unless Leica was 
going to loose his raison d'?tre.

The most important Canon issues: Finder, exposure and color. Look through a 
1Ds finder. If the quality may be not up to the level of a R8/9 -and this is 
arguable for me that look through both- it's far better than a 20D finder. 
I've shot many thousands pictures with EOS 1, 1n, 1V and 1Ds and I'm 
absolutely satisfied  with metering; others may have a worse experience. 
Finally: Color. I do not like comparing color rendition with film -BTW which 
film? as it's a different affair shooting Velvia or Astia for instance- but 
with what my eye re seeing. EOS 1Ds war rather cold while MkII is a bit 
warmer but most important: I can -in the 1Ds MkII- control up to five 
different color renditions two of them that may be profiled by user so, what 
color are speaking about? as there are thousand of choices including tone 
and saturation.

As a Leica user I'd like this firm in digital could be the king of 
excellence. I'll bet for it but I an not as sure as so many Leica users are. 
When I had been shooting thousand pictures with DMR I'll be in the situation 
of giving a more acurated opinion but meanwhile I'm not sure.

Regards

Felix