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 19:59:42 2006
References: <200609031717.k83HCoBM096229@server1.waverley.reid.org> <44FB44DF.6020609@telefonica.net> <7.0.1.0.0.20060903142519.01c04658@telus.net> <44FB897F.40808@eth.net> <44FB8EFC.50403@adrenaline.com>

Scott,
Did I say "Cost" or "Cost/Benefit"? Your first three points make my case 
- it is for rich amateurs, for those who buy Hermes ties - if it is of 
any solace to you, I buy a lot of their ties, its part of my 
professional get up, and therefore it is essential. But show me where 
the DMR is in use professionally extensively (there are always a few odd 
exceptions) . Any guy wanting to use Leica R lenses would logically do 
so on a Canon body, which gives him overall maximum flexibility. I think 
the first reason why Leica's cameras get bought is that it is a part of 
the owners image (especially the a la carte stuff), and not as a 
professional tool - like a Patek Philippe watch or a Montblanc pen (or 
Hermes ties!!). It is a perfectly valid reason to own something, but for 
some strange reason, people dont accept that as their prime motivation...
Cheers
Jayanand Govindaraj




Scott McLoughlin wrote:

> Wow, you're big on the whole "how much it costs" thing.
>
> I really do think this is an admirable quality!!!!  Many of our
> proud, too highly leveraged U.S. consumers could use a healthy
> dose of thrift :-)
> But different folks find themselves in different economic
> situations, especially regarding different things and how they
> value them.
>
> So there are some folks (1) for whom cost is not an issue or
> (2) for whom cost is an issue, but starting a higher price points
> or (3) for whom cost is not an issue, but only for a select
> few product segments in their overall spending habits and of
> course (4) for whom nearly any incremental improvement is
> very worthwhile, say, professionally, and therefore cost be
> damned.
>
> I hope that makes sense.  I guess one could say that whether
> or not a DMR is important and worth it depends very much on
> the person, their economic resources, what they value and
> hence, how they allocate those resources.
>
> Scott
>
> p.s. Over on photo.net, when folks would continually ask whether
> or not they "should" buy a Leica, I always chimed in that reason
> #1 should be "I can afford it." Then it's safe to consider the other
> reasons.
>
>
>
> Jayanand Govindaraj wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>



Replies: Reply from telyt at telus.net (David Young) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))
Reply from telyt at earthlink.net (Douglas Herr) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))
Reply from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) (Gear choice was: Re: [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))
Message from jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))
Message from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] Re:Skin tone - film vs. digital (not a debate))