[Leica] Re: Digital Module R sensor vs EOS 1D IIS

[jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)]

  Ted Grant wrote:

> Nathan Wajsman said:
>> At the end of the day, what matters to me is quality of the images. I 
>> made the switch only after I had seen with my own eyes what is 
>> possible and became convinced that I can achieve image quality on par 
>> with film.<<<<

I wholeheartedly agree -- with one proviso -- we often select a format 
based on _convenience_ and _form factor_ as well as ultimate image 
quality. (Which is why you are using 35mm for example, rather than 
8x10, for example.) It was once said that in the last 100 years of 
photography, the advances have not improved ultimate picture quality, 
rather convenience. I suppose that is primarily true for B/W photos of 
static images.

>
> Hi Nathan,
> yep that's the bottom line of it! Some folks base their remarks on 
> what they've heard or seen from a small or poor digi camera and a not 
> so good a printer which only compounds the appearance of poor digital 
> camera, printer out put. And because of what we might say is... "one 
> bad experience" they don't see digital as a viable film replacement 
> and drop digital like a hot potato.

That is very true, and there is absolutely no question that a top 
quality photographer can make top quality photographs from either 
digital or analogue.

That said, a poor quality digital camera is often 10x more expensive 
than a poor quality film camera, and I am afraid that lots of consumers 
are being totally bamboozled by the people pushing the crappy $300 
cameras, printers and ink down their throats, when a crappy $79 camera, 
cheap film and walmart processing would serve them just as well.


> Or they get all hung up on numbers which in turn compounds the issue 
> rather than look at the final product/print and what do you see when 
> in the hands of a regular or professional user.

Welcome to the digital world, Ted. Digital is fundamentally about 
numbers :-)) When used badly, numbers are a marketing technique used to 
encourage people to "upgrade" perfectly good equipment. When used 
properly, numbers are employed by engineers and scientists to make 
predictions about how thing will work before investing the effort to 
actually build -- or purchase -- something. Since reviewers are often 
bought off by manufacturers, or since I doubt *you* would ever buy a 
camera based on a neutral report by say Consumer Reports, we often 
resort to numbers. In any case that has been the way of the digital 
world ever since the digital world existed.

There are all sorts of apocryphal reports of someone at IBM or Bill 
Gates etc. stating that there would be no need for a computer to have 
more than 4 _kilo_ bytes (or perhaps 64 KB) of memory ... as I sit at 
my 4 Gigabyte memory with 2 Tb of disc storage "home" computer :-/ ... 
so if I am ever heard to be suspicious of the statements that "all you 
need are 5 megapixels", you'll have to understand that these sorts of 
statements cause a chuckle among old computer folks...

>
> Sure I'm as tied to my Leicas as strongly as I've always been and yes 
> they perform beautifully and faithfully. However, if I'd have of 
> believed some of the early people whom I worked with when they were 
> vehemently against 35mm and the smallest negative should never be 
> smaller than a Hassleblad 2 1/4 sq. I'd have never taken up with 
> Leica, and where would I have been today? Lost in the world of no 
> where!

:-)) You know the new crop of digital SLRs look to be about the same 
physical size as a Hassleblad. I assume you originally took to the 
Leica for the _size_ i.e. form factor... so where does that leave us 
with the R9+ digital back? Oh yeah the "glass"  :-)))
>
> All I did was trust my heart and common sense of what I felt was right 
> and that was shooting with a Leica and everything grew from there. 
> Today, if I or many others were to listen to the anti-hype toward 
> digital we'd all be shooting film. When an incredible opportunity of 
> learning and producing photography would pass us by like a ship on a 
> moonless night! :-(

You know you can still learn quite alot scanning slides or negatives 
and using Photoshop. Its the digital darkroom that is where the real 
differences between digital and film are (AFAIAC) I am not sure that 
the fundamental _camera_ experience is too different between film and 
digital ... when I have been photographed using a 'professional' 
digital setup, I find it annoying to have to wait while the camera 
stops to store its pics to the CF card. It interferes with the flow of 
the shoot (newer cameras don't have this problem to the same extent). 
But other than that, you know, you have a viewfinder and a little 
button that you push :-))
>
> I'm afraid the anti-digital never give into it until Leica come out 
> with whatever some long time into the future are wasting their time 
> and wonderful opportunities for experience while learning this new 
> craft of photography. I feel it's better to accept it's here, and 
> moving like a flash of lightening, so why deny it Accept it for what 
> it is, "A new form of producing photography and pretty well all that 
> goes with it."
>
> The silly arguments of print quality are becoming a dead horse to 
> beat, when a good digital camera, good printer and photographer are 
> married they produce very beautiful off spring without question. The 
> more I've shot 20D digital this past few weeks, the more I'm seeing 
> results beyond that of film in quality. And quite frankly I no longer 
> pay any attention to nay sayers as they speak with forked tongues and 
> in-experience.

Hey the 20D should be a great choice ... What I would like to hear 
(from you or someone in a similar situation) is whether the Canon glass 
can equal or perhaps exceed the Leica glass ***after*** Photoshop 
manipulations are done e.g. 'unsharp masking for local contrast 
enhancement' etc. My guess would be 'yes' but who knows.

For *me* if I am going to carry around that big honkin' piece of 
equipment :-) I mind as well carry a 4x5 ... no seriously its just that 
I use a telephoto so infrequently that it is not worth the investment, 
and in the meantime my SL and Telyt's married to my scanner work out 
fine, that said, I am frequently tempted to get a Digital Rebel ...

Jonathan