Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate)
From: jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj)
Date: Sun Sep 3 19:03:51 2006
References: <200609031717.k83HCoBM096229@server1.waverley.reid.org> <44FB44DF.6020609@telefonica.net> <7.0.1.0.0.20060903142519.01c04658@telus.net>

Dont you think, in the world of professional photography (Doug Herr 
excepted), that the DMR is irrelevant? If cost/benefit does not enter an 
equation, then it is just an instrument for rich amateurs to gush over 
each other, like Linn turntables or Lamborghinis - a status symbol, to 
be sold at a high price, in low quantities, to keep the cachet alive. 
Classic Hermes marketing. I have yet to read a comparision of the DMR 
with anything anywhere, either in print or online, in a non specialist 
site. A Leica rangefinder is pretty unique, a Leica SLR much less so.
Cheers
Jayanand Govindaraj
Chennai, India

David Young wrote:

> Felix wondered:
>
>
>>> What's the nature of the difference
>>> > between the DMR and a D70/D200?
>>
>> Cost?
>
>
>
> There is, obviously, a firmware difference between the Nikon and Leica 
> digital cameras/backs. I like the colouring of  both, though the DMR 
> seems to be closer to a Kodachrome... more muted colours than,say, 
> Fujichrome, but a wee bit more accurate, too.
>
> But the HUGE difference is that every APS-C format digital SLR out of 
> Japan has an Anti-Alaising filter, to reduce Moire patterns in the 
> photos.  The DMR, in keeping with it's MF format heritage (it was 
> designed my Imacon - the big 6x6 camera back maker), does not have 
> one, and used software to solve the problem, if need be.  As AA 
> filters work by making the final image a bit "fuzzier" (for lack of a 
> better word) the DMR will deliver much finer detail than any of the 
> Japanese DSLRs - pixel for pixel.
>
> As a result, the DMR is most often compared with the 16 mpixel Canon 
> 1DS MkII, in terms of resolution.  Not bad for a 10.2 mpixel camera 
> back. :-)
>
> And, of course, the DMR accepts Leica glass. True, the Canon's will do 
> that, with an appropriate adapter, but only with stop down metering 
> and no auto-diaphragm.
>
> And when you compare the 1 DS MkII, to the Leica R9 with DMR, even 
> new, the Leica is not a lot more, so I'm not sure cost enters into an 
> "apples to apples" comparison.
>
>
> ---
>
> David Young,
> Logan Lake, CANADA
>
> Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
> Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>



Replies: Reply from leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams) ([Leica] Re:Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))
Reply from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))
In reply to: Message from FELIXMATURANA at telefonica.net (Félix López de Maturana) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))
Message from telyt at telus.net (David Young) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))