Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)