Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Leice R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

Reply
Thread Tools

Leice R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

 
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2006
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:18:28 GMT, "jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I noticed a few changes on the Leica web site yesterday. They are now
>touting their digital module for the R9 reflex camera.
>
>The thing looks like a monstrosity!
>
>The digital module is 10 MP--hardly anything to write home about. I can
>certainly understand using Leica lenses on fine-grained film in order to
>achieve superior resolution. But I am not convinced that Leica R lenses
>used in conjunction with a 10 MP sensor supplied by Kodak is going to result
>in a significant margin of image superiority over, say, Nikon or Canon
>DSLRS. I like the full-frame design of the sensor, but I can only imagine
>how much it will cost . . .
>
>The proof of the pudding is in the images the camera creates. I have the
>suspicion that the results will not justify the presumed astronomical price
>for this camera.
>
>http://www.leicacamera.com/assets/fi...e=file_578.pdf
>


The images more than justify the price. For starters it's a full
16bit sensor just like MF backs.

Here good read and learn why it's so great.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995

You don't know much about quality digital cameras do you?

I look forward to getting the Digital-M Leica with this sensor.


--
************************************************** ****

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2006
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:21:01 GMT, "jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Chris Loffredo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> jeremy wrote:
>>> I noticed a few changes on the Leica web site yesterday. They are now
>>> touting their digital module for the R9 reflex camera.
>>>
>>> The thing looks like a monstrosity!
>>>
>>> The digital module is 10 MP--hardly anything to write home about. I can
>>> certainly understand using Leica lenses on fine-grained film in order to
>>> achieve superior resolution. But I am not convinced that Leica R lenses
>>> used in conjunction with a 10 MP sensor supplied by Kodak is going to
>>> result in a significant margin of image superiority over, say, Nikon or
>>> Canon DSLRS. I like the full-frame design of the sensor, but I can only
>>> imagine how much it will cost . . .

>>
>> Full frame? More like 1.37.
>>
>> That said, price aside, I'd rather have it than some Canon or Nikon
>> "technowonder"...

>
>I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
>existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
>
>That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
>length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used with
>the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
>systems.
>
>Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
>such a camera system?
>


Only non-MF back system with true 16bit color for starters.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995


--
************************************************** ****

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2006
"John A. Stovall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> You don't know much about quality digital cameras do you?
>


Please pardon my ignorance and lack of sophistication. I defer to your
obviously-superior intellect.

Forgive me!


 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2006

"Volker Hetzer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:e9nte2$vos$(E-Mail Removed)-siemens.com...
> acl schrieb:
>> This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
>> obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
>> least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out.

> I think that problem would have existed, if there had been room for
> improvement in film cameras.
> But, resolution was more or less film based, so no scramble for the
> latest sensor and optical "revolutions" were limited to zooms.
>
> No one thought about putting a tape recorder in for taking notes for
> instance, there was no slr with polaroid preview, no 8mm movie mode,
> you couldn't stuff in a hundred yards of film into an extralarge
> magazine and no prepackaged bags for the lab ever dropped out of
> any film camera either.
> Therefore, after auto exposure there was essentially no need for
> new film cameras anymore, only for the occasional lens replacement.
>
> But digital cameras have acquired all those features over time and will
> acquire many more, therefore people will switch more often.


Yes. And the problem is, none of these features represent quality of either
materials, or manufacture. Only quantity of bells and whistles. Kind of like
the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevrolet. They are both cheap
tanks, but one has a lot more switches and electrically operated auxiliary
junk and chrome plating, most of which just makes it less reliable, and none
of which makes it better able to do its job of getting you from one place to
another. In the same way, the latest digital camera is full of auxiliary
junk, but not able to get you a better photograph. If you have adequate
sensing plane density, and the best glass available, then that's all you
need for great pictures....The rest is up to you.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Volker Hetzer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
acl schrieb:

> Actually, I don't think we disagree at all! I never said nobody should
> upgrade. My point was that it is hardly logical to complain that cameras
> improve too quickly, since you can simply pretend they don't. But the
> fact that they do improve is, if you ask me, a good thing.

I fully agree.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
acl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
>Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
>bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
>this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
>(obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
>explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
>with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
>wanted to take pictures, as he put it.


When I put a maunal focus lens on my D1 (and I think that the D200 is not
that different), metering to center-weighted and exposure to manual
then it is basically the same as an F.

Yes, the D1 has more features, and you either have to read the manual
or get somebody else to set it up for you, but in the end it can be
made to work like an old mechnical SLR.

Now the thing that strikes me as odd is pointing the camera towards a
bright area. There is no Nikon that works like that. An F will
underexpose just as bad as a D200.

The only way to make that work is to dial in 2.5 stops of exposure
compensation. With the exposure compensation and a spotmetering, it a
good technique.

Maybe the Leica did the compensation as standard, but that would be a
difference between Nikon and Leica and not between old and new.

>More evidence of what happens when people who don't know what they are
>doing get hold of a DSLR and try to use it may be found by reading some
>of the questions in this group, as well as going to dpreview and
>reading some of the questions in the forums (this only works for a
>laugh, if you try to help anybody you'll quickly discover that you're
>wasting your time). eg shooting sports matches with spotmetering and
>shutter priority is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're
>doing. Older cameras protect you from this by not offering spot
>metering or shutter priority.


The funny thing is that people and not going to buy a D200-lite without
those features. I don't really care for matrix metering or shutter priority.
But having a spot meter is quite an improvement.

>Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
>feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
>equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.


People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Loffredo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
Philip Homburg wrote:

>> Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
>> feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
>> equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

>
> People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.
>
>


Oh, please!

O.k., I won't bet that 100% of D200s will be unusable in 50 years, but I
will bet that 99% of them will be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006

"Philip Homburg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6t4qq59vpgerbkr5qmo027sng2@inews_id.stereo.hq .phicoh.net...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> acl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
>>Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
>>bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
>>this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
>>(obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
>>explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
>>with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
>>wanted to take pictures, as he put it.

>
> When I put a maunal focus lens on my D1 (and I think that the D200 is not
> that different), metering to center-weighted and exposure to manual
> then it is basically the same as an F.
>
> Yes, the D1 has more features, and you either have to read the manual
> or get somebody else to set it up for you, but in the end it can be
> made to work like an old mechnical SLR.
>
> Now the thing that strikes me as odd is pointing the camera towards a
> bright area. There is no Nikon that works like that. An F will
> underexpose just as bad as a D200.
>
> The only way to make that work is to dial in 2.5 stops of exposure
> compensation. With the exposure compensation and a spotmetering, it a
> good technique.
>
> Maybe the Leica did the compensation as standard, but that would be a
> difference between Nikon and Leica and not between old and new.
>
>>More evidence of what happens when people who don't know what they are
>>doing get hold of a DSLR and try to use it may be found by reading some
>>of the questions in this group, as well as going to dpreview and
>>reading some of the questions in the forums (this only works for a
>>laugh, if you try to help anybody you'll quickly discover that you're
>>wasting your time). eg shooting sports matches with spotmetering and
>>shutter priority is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're
>>doing. Older cameras protect you from this by not offering spot
>>metering or shutter priority.

>
> The funny thing is that people and not going to buy a D200-lite without
> those features. I don't really care for matrix metering or shutter
> priority.
> But having a spot meter is quite an improvement.
>
>>Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
>>feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
>>equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

>
> People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.
>


I fail to understand the above problem. If you have a digital camera, you
can take an unlimited number of exposures at a variety of times and ISO
settings, until you get the image you like in the LCD display...Why would
you need any meter at all, much less an accurate one?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Chris Loffredo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>>> Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
>>> feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
>>> equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

>>
>> People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.

>
>Oh, please!
>
>O.k., I won't bet that 100% of D200s will be unusable in 50 years, but I
>will bet that 99% of them will be.


That's why in 50 years a working D200 will be special.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
William Graham <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I fail to understand the above problem. If you have a digital camera, you
>can take an unlimited number of exposures at a variety of times and ISO
>settings, until you get the image you like in the LCD display...Why would
>you need any meter at all, much less an accurate one?


Because an LCD display is not a very good way to judge exposure. To some
extent this is just a software. A histogram is a very cude tool. Usually
histrograms are not calibrated in stops, so you can't easily use the
histogram to determine exposure corrections.

Another thing is that people are usually in a hurry. You don't want to
take an endless series of photos to get the exposure right, then take
a series to get focus right. Then the light has changed or the subject has
moved. And in the end you have nothing.

Yet another thing is that reviewing photos on an LCD screen is distracting.
With a good camera you can have one eye constantly on whatever is happening,
and use the other the check whether all settings are still correct.
Once you start using a screen to evalute a picture, it is almost impossible
remain concentrated on what is happing around you (and ready to take the
next picture).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
System.Security.SecurityException: Error de solicitud de permiso de tipo System.Net.WebPermission, System, Version=1.0.5000.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089. Luis Esteban Valencia ASP .Net 0 07-14-2005 01:43 PM
connection lost when computer goes to sleep =?Utf-8?B?REhhZ2x1bmQ=?= Wireless Networking 5 03-26-2005 07:10 PM
Where goes System.out.println output in Sun Applicat.Server ? Thomas Stien Java 0 01-05-2005 11:03 PM
wireless connection lost when laptop goes standby =?Utf-8?B?Z2FiZQ==?= Wireless Networking 0 10-27-2004 08:31 PM
Network goes down when 2 PCs connected Bobby Wireless Networking 3 08-07-2004 08:19 PM



Advertisments