Leica digital

zanydave · 03-15-2006

I love my M7. Just want to ask the question. If you had the money, would you buy the Leica R9 & Leica Digital-Modul-R?

al1966 · 03-15-2006

ID rather a digital M but otherwise certainly but I dont so its tough on me

julianphotoart · 03-15-2006

Man, that's a lot of bulk. In LFI's last issue, there's a big slick spread of a guy's trip to Kazakhstan to take photos of nomads on the steppes with his Digital Module-R. The shots look very sharp but, to me, just have that lifeless digital "look" despite the high pixel count. Save 50% on weight and, what, 70%(?) on price and use an R9 with film.

merciful · 03-15-2006

If I wanted it, I'd have it.

MP Guy · 03-15-2006

I have the R9/DMR combo. I pesonaly dont t think the DMR produces the platic look of other digital cameras.

Here are a few taken with it.

Rich Silfver · 03-15-2006

Jorge, that b&w version of the canyon is stunning.

MP Guy · 03-15-2006

Glad you like it.

MP Guy · 03-15-2006

one more

http://dslrexchange.com/forums/attac...tachmentid=141

Krasnaya_Zvezda · 03-15-2006

If I could afford it, I would certainly get it. But I have to settle for the Digilux 2, which I have been extremely pleased with.
I'd drive a Maserati if I could afford it, too, but I'm stuck with my Scion xB. I'm happy with it, too, but it's no Maserati.

glchua · 03-15-2006

Went to our local Leica distributor and they showed me a picture blown to about A1 size taken using the R9-DMR. The details are fantastic with tonality of medium format. The beauty is that the results doesn't look digital to my eye, looks a lot like film except the lack of grain. If I have the money, I'll definitely buy one.

They also talked about a digital M at the end of this year. But I know it'll be beyond my thin wallet.

RML · 03-15-2006

R9 + DMR? That's a lot of dough. I don't think I would ever spend that much money on a camera, no matter how good results it produces.

jaapv · 03-15-2006

I am saving my money for the digital M. No, I would not, because I KNOW I would go into a R-lens buying frenzy.......

Fedzilla_Bob · 03-16-2006

Jorge- you should give a warning or disclaimer. I had the sensation of falling into the frame.

ywenz · 03-16-2006

the grand canyon shots are amazing! but the farmer's market shots has all the MO of a "digital" image. I think it has to do with the blown highlight on the building in the background.

Nikon Bob · 03-16-2006

If I had the money the answer would be no. I am committed to a different SLR system.

Nikon Bob

Stephan · 03-16-2006

Those shots of the canyon are fantastic, Jorge

MP Guy · 03-16-2006

i see what you mean about the buildings in the market area.

Glad you guys like the canyon shots. I have one more that is really nice.

MP Guy · 03-16-2006

last one.

sdai · 03-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by julianphotoart

In LFI's last issue, there's a big slick spread of a guy's trip to Kazakhstan to take photos of nomads on the steppes with his Digital Module-R. The shots look very sharp but, to me, just have that lifeless digital "look" despite the high pixel count. Save 50% on weight and, what, 70%(?) on price and use an R9 with film.

I absolutely agree ... the cover shot and all pictures inside the LFI issue you've mentioned looks so different from all its back issues, flat, lack the 3D impact and lifeless - one can immediately tell its a digital shot ... if you liked what you've seen over the years, I suspect that you'd be happy with the new one.

jaapv · 03-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorge Torralba

i see what you mean about the buildings in the market area.

Glad you guys like the canyon shots. I have one more that is really nice.

I think, Jorge, that it is the lenses as much as the digital part that make for these results.The detail of those canyon shots, both in resolving power as well as in colour differentiation is close to the limit of what a lens can do. As soon as you get to less complicated subjects like the market shot the difference is not as obvious.

scigeek · 03-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by zanydave

I love my M7. Just want to ask the question. If you had the money, would you buy the Leica R9 & Leica Digital-Modul-R?

No. I like rangefinders. I use an SLR (Pentax ME) occasionally, and an Olympus Mju digital sometimes, but mostly rangefinders.
When I get around to it I'll buy a decent scanner. a clunky rangefinder, film and a scanner, for me, would seem to be the best combination.

StuartR · 03-16-2006

It's a very good camera, though it is very large and bulky when compared to an M camera. The results are excellent. It caputres color very well, but also converts nicely to black and white.

Ben Z · 03-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by zanydave

I love my M7. Just want to ask the question. If you had the money, would you buy the Leica R9 & Leica Digital-Modul-R?

Back when the DMR was still in the development phase, I came across an R8 and several lenses languishing at a small camera store in my travels, the store owner had a quote in hand from KEH and was about to pack it up and wholesale it. I offered him $50 more and he gladly accepted. Later I found a couple more lenses including a 15/3.5 for similar low prices. Then the DMR came out at $4995--for those who had put up deposits and were waiting in line. I had a chance to try one out and whereas the R8 was already at my upper limit for size and weight (my SLR previously was Pentax screwmount), the DMR pushed it over the top. Furthermore I discovered the TTL flash was crippled out by the DMR, and the price for me had now risen to $6500, which was almost 50% more than all the rest of my outfit had cost! Anyway I wasn't impressed with the R8's focusing screen, I found it very textured. I was informed by one of the "Heros" over at PN that I should re-learn how to focus a camera "by contrast not sharpness", specially for the R8. Um hum, right. 35 years of shooting sharp focus with SLRs, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck! So I did what I considered the best thing for me, and sold the R8, kept a few of the lenses and used them on a Canon. When I gradually tested them against the Canon lenses I eventually one by one sold all the R lenses too. Now mind you, mine were not the latest APO-ASPH lenses. The only one I kept was the 400mm f/6.8 "Trombone Telyt" which I have used for what little bird photography I do, nowadays on a Canon 20D. It is a wonderfully sharp lens and easy to focus on the 20D (a lot easier than it was on the R8!), and for slow-moving birds it's a keeper. But for flying birds, I will probably be getting the Canon 400/5.6 and selling the Telyt. I've spoken in person with some of the big-name bird photographers (attended a NANPA summit) and all of them prefer autofocus for flying birds. I know if I practiced long and hard I could get one or two great action shots out of a hundred with the Telyt, but I really would like a better keeper rate than that, given the little time I have to devote to it. So for me, I had planned to get a DMR but gave up on the idea and am not sorry. And much as I hate to say it, at this point for me it's not looking good for the digital-M either. For something with less than 16MP and with a significant crop-factor, the $900 I paid for a slightly-used 20D is about right in my book.

jaapv · 03-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Z

Back when the DMR was still in the development phase, I came across an R8 and several lenses languishing at a small camera store in my travels, the store owner had a quote in hand from KEH and was about to pack it up and wholesale it. I offered him $50 more and he gladly accepted. Later I found a couple more lenses including a 15/3.5 for similar low prices. Then the DMR came out at $4995--for those who had put up deposits and were waiting in line. I had a chance to try one out and whereas the R8 was already at my upper limit for size and weight (my SLR previously was Pentax screwmount), the DMR pushed it over the top. Furthermore I discovered the TTL flash was crippled out by the DMR, and the price for me had now risen to $6500, which was almost 50% more than all the rest of my outfit had cost! Anyway I wasn't impressed with the R8's focusing screen, I found it very textured. I was informed by one of the "Heros" over at PN that I should re-learn how to focus a camera "by contrast not sharpness", specially for the R8. Um hum, right. 35 years of shooting sharp focus with SLRs, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck! So I did what I considered the best thing for me, and sold the R8, kept a few of the lenses and used them on a Canon. When I gradually tested them against the Canon lenses I eventually one by one sold all the R lenses too. Now mind you, mine were not the latest APO-ASPH lenses. The only one I kept was the 400mm f/6.8 "Trombone Telyt" which I have used for what little bird photography I do, nowadays on a Canon 20D. It is a wonderfully sharp lens and easy to focus on the 20D (a lot easier than it was on the R8!), and for slow-moving birds it's a keeper. But for flying birds, I will probably be getting the Canon 400/5.6 and selling the Telyt. I've spoken in person with some of the big-name bird photographers (attended a NANPA summit) and all of them prefer autofocus for flying birds. I know if I practiced long and hard I could get one or two great action shots out of a hundred with the Telyt, but I really would like a better keeper rate than that, given the little time I have to devote to it. So for me, I had planned to get a DMR but gave up on the idea and am not sorry. And much as I hate to say it, at this point for me it's not looking good for the digital-M either. For something with less than 16MP and with a significant crop-factor, the $900 I paid for a slightly-used 20D is about right in my book.

I agree with you on the R8/9, I went through the R3, R4, R5 and R7 and stopped there as I never felt any affinity with the size and style of the later R camera's and I can well imagine that the combo with the DMR is less than appealing. But the 20D is too small and light for my taste so I got stuck with the 10D for the time being. It must say that the 280 apo-telyt 4.0 was so smooth in focussing that I never felt the need for autofocus and I still don't like it. But Canon glass, at least tele comes close to Leica and I daresay that on a Canon DSLR of the D60 to 30D series one will hardly know the difference. The crop-factor is utterly uninteresting for me, especially as Leica has promised some sweets in the wide-angle M range to go with the digital M, as are any MP's over 8, as they will never show in any normal sized enlargement, so for me the digital M will probably be a must-have. Having said that, for 900$ (720 Euro !?!) I would have snapped up that 20D as fast or faster than you did!

Ben Z · 03-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaapv

But the 20D is too small and light for my taste

Being a former Pentax user the 20D is not that small! Most of my photography is travelling and a difference in weight and size that seems insignificant for an hour or two of shooting near home becomes oppressive when I'm carrying it around for the entire day, squeezing into trains and busses and so on.

Quote:

The crop-factor is utterly uninteresting for me, especially as Leica has promised some sweets in the wide-angle M range to go with the digital M, as are any MP's over 8, as they will never show in any normal sized enlargement

That's very true, and I have 12mm, 15mm and 21mm Voitlander lenses all set to go on a digital M, as I could never afford a new Leica lens at their current horse-gagging prices and a digital-M at whatever outrageous price it will actually retail for. Also agree that we didn't ask more than the enlargeability of 35mm film from film Leicas (or Canons) so why it should be important to have enough MPs to rival medium or large-format is beyond me. However, for what the digital M will sell for, one can buy a digital with a full-frame and 16MP (and probably more by the time the digital M actually makes its debut), and those with crop factors and less MP sell for a fraction, so it's very hard not to judge the digital-M in comparison to other digitals at the same or nearby price-point.