Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I haven't tried the B&W mode of the DMR yet. All of this DMR stuff is still new to me and I am still learning what it can do. While it was not particularly bright for the shot of my son, I knew the light was even and there were not any dark shadows. This was within the capability of the DMR. I need to do some further testing in dark situations. The nearest coal mine is a few hundred miles away and I would have to borrow a neighbors cat to test the DMR on a truly dark high noise situation :-) To be fair, the Leica is probably best at 800 iso and under. The target market is probably what I intend to use it for; scenic and travel with the iso set in the 100-200 range. Here the DMR excels with its wide dynamic range and great color. I would not suggest Tina take a DMR on her trips where there is a lot of low light. On the other hand, a Digital M with similar performance at 800 iso is quite capable when paired with the Noctilux. Using the 1.37 crop factor, the Noctilux would be using a lot of its sharp sweet spot. I think in my travels to Paris, people shots on the street at night were 1/125th at f1 and 800 film. Regards, Robert At 04:31 PM 9/30/2005, B. D. Colen wrote: >My take on looking at the two, Robert - and blowing them up 400% - was that >the DMR image was much more accurate in terms of the color (and obviously >I'm guessing on that) while the Leica was much noisier. > >I find noise more important than color accuracy, but of course 95 times out >of 100 I'm converting to black and white. But even if I wasn't, color >accuracy is damn easy to adjust in PS, and while there are ways to eliminate >noise, all involve losing detail. > >In terms of the photo of your son, it has virtually no shadow areas in it, >so it's likely to print quite well, without the noise being intrusive. But >as I look at it on the monitor, it sure looks "grainy" in the background. > >But when all is said and done, the DMR color accuracy is impressive. > > >On 9/30/05 2:23 PM, "Robert Stevens" <leica@robsteve.com> wrote: > > > I just did a bit more work on the same two files. > > > > I opened them both with the Adobe Camera Raw, but for the Leica one, > > I adjusted up the noise reduction and luminance smoothing > > sliders. The Canon camera has a much more capable processor and a > > lot of this is done in camera. > > > > I cropped the files to show the dark shadow under the furnace. I > > also down sized the Leica crop, so it was about the same width as the > > Canon file. B.D. is correct that the Canon has much less noise, as > > shown by the examples below. Look at the tool marks on the brass > > fitting. The Leica seems to have the edge here. > > > > http://www.robsteve.com/DMR/CanLeica1600.jpg > > > > > > Isn't the over all quality of the finished print more important > > than the noise we can see on our monitors? With people and and > > within the limits of the DMR, I think the DMR makes the better > > print. I have a 5x7 print of my son from the 1600 iso shot and it > > looks no different than a print from 400 speed film. > > > > Regards, > > > > Robert > > > > > > At 02:52 PM 9/30/2005, you wrote: > > > >> Robert Stevens wrote: > >> > >>> I just posted using the camera file names. The one starting with a > >>> "L" is the Leica. It was the second file on my original post. > >>> > >>> Here is the Leica: > >>> > >>> http://www.robsteve.com/DMR/L%201020850.jpg > >>> > >>> Here is the Canon. > >>> > >>> http://www.robsteve.com/DMR/KX5T7819.jpg > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Robert > >> > >> > >> I am red-faced. I picked the better shot, but attributed it to the > >> wrong Camera! > >> > >> Robert, I am VERY impressed! Thanks for doing this... it has been > >> very illuminating! > >> > >> For me, however, it's "open mouth - insert foot - chew vigorously!" > >> > >> > >> -- > >> David Young, > >> Logan Lake, BC > >> CANADA. > >> Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt > >> Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: > >> 9/23/2005 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > >-- >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005