Leica DMR (Digital Module R)

Bob,

I'm surprised you put up an "evaluation/review" of Leica's DMR without ever shooting with one. You also don't seem to have read many of the favorable review comments of people who do have them, because a number of the "field observations" have been considerably more positive than your review suggests. You may discount the enthusiasm of those reviewers as flowing from "Leicaphiles" but you'd probably have to take time to pick up the DMR yourself to give an objective assessment. I hope you do. I'd love to read about the results.

This review is a joke and should be removed.

When you write "performance probably lies somewhere between the $800 Digital Rebel XT and the $3300 full frame EOS 5", the use of the word 'probably' indicates that you don't know if the performance does or doesn't lie between the two.

You've produced a review of a camera that you've never handled. Can you imagine a critic reviewing a play or a film that he/she hasn't bothered to watch? Just out of interest, have you used a Canon 5D since that's one of the cameras you compare the DMR to?

I should add that I don't own a DMR and I don't intend buying one, but I expect a reviewer to have used a camera or lens that is reviewed.

I guess we can expect the review of the digital M in a week or two.

Call me naive and ill-informed, but I've been using manual-focus lenses on Canon EOS (film) cameras. And I always thought that the 1D or 1Ds was a "perfect" fit for manual-focus lenses because of the interchangeable focusing screens. A Leica-R to EOS adapter is readily available, albeit one would have to use stop-down metering and exposure (something that the many many people using M42 screwmount on EOS are already doing every day).

Regarding Bob's comment on "between EOS 350D and EOS 5D performance" the other comments are correct -- it's speculation. Ken Rockwell does a whole lot of this on his website..

But I think it's *educated* speculation and therefore useful. After all, the performance of the Kodak DSLR's with similar sensor are well-known; e.g. DCS 14n can't match to EOS 1Ds. And since Canon arguably is the most mature DSLR manufacturer, it would be reasonable to expect a 5D to match or exceed 1Ds performance (due to better electronics, better wafer fabrication..) at least with regards to image quality. And, even though this new Leica system is "newer" than the now-discontinued Kodak DSLR's, Kodak isn't exactly leading-edge in DSLR manufacturing so one can't expect them to have "kept up" with Canon in this regard.

All of this is un-informed speculation, though, so feel free to ignore or ridicule. :)

You've produced a review of a camera that you've never handled. Can you imagine a critic reviewing a play or a film that he/she hasn't bothered to watch?

1. It's not really a review.
2. It's not a play or film. That's a TERRIBLE analogy. It's a piece of technology that lies within Bob's area of expertise (he is a scientist who works with optics as well as a photographer, I gather).
3. It's more like a computer or a car. If somebody said "The new V8 mustang has 310 horsepower. Top speed probably lies between a Mini Cooper and a Ferrari" I don't think there'd be much basis for complaint.

The article is thin, but the complaints seem to be whining about innocuous statements that are almost certainly correct.

It's not a review. It's a preview, an opinion and a spec sheet.

It's also a place where you can whine about my opinions...

Giving opinions of equipment you've never seen or handled is a long standing and respected tradition on photo.net. Don't you read the forums?

My only real conclusions are that it's way overpriced and only of interest to someone already owning an R8/9 and a set of lenses. Qualitywise I'm sure it's fine.

I have tested a DMR (see the first link I have included). Bob Atkins is mostly right in its comments. The image quality of the DMR is very good, but moire problems can arise. The price is very high. The ergonomics and handling of the camera is great. The DMR is a very well designed digital back. Simple to use. I liked it a lot. Whether you have a R8 or R9 and R lenses the DMR is a reasonable investment, although it should be shipped one year ago, or at a lower price. The Canon 5D could be a very hard contender for the DMR in terms of image quality.

Erwin Puts analysis and Caborian's analysis are more negative than my own analysis.

Bob, did you also write your science papers without ever seeing the experiment or working on your theory?

Just because photo.net forums are full of opinions doesn't make it justified to post Ken Rockwell style speculation as static content. This is pretty low.

Yes, Bob does post such "previews" from time to time, eg. about Canon lenses, about new Canon cameras like the 5D, etc. What has caused us to lose respect in this instance is the assessment or judgement made that it's "in-between" the 300D and the 5D. There is no basis for that statement since (a) you haven't handled the DMR and (b) you probably haven't handled the 5D yet (since there's no "review" from you right now.

From various reports on the Net, a lot of users are seriously impressed by the DMR, and its quality is equal or better to the 1D in most respects (except no of pixels).

Bob's contention that it is not a review but a pre-view, fails to explain why he would reference unamed sources for his assessment of the DMR's performance (while admitting that he hasn't used the camera himself), and then "Grade" it as a "B" class camera.

If Bob really is a scientist, I would expect him to be using something more sophisticated than a calculator (8 megapixels, vs 10 megapixels, vs 12.8 megapixels), to analize which is the best performing camera.

I guess I will just look at this as a joke. Since I own 2 of them and a working Pro and tested it extensively . I guess maybe i should have listened to good old Bob since he knows what he is talking about

> If somebody said "The new V8 mustang has 310 horsepower. Top speed probably lies between a Mini Cooper and a Ferrari" I don't think there'd be much basis for complaint.

No reviewer on any respected car site would make such as assinine comment.

>The article is thin, but the complaints seem to be whining about innocuous statements that are almost certainly correct.

>-- Ocean Physics, September 25, 2005

That isn't an article, a review, or much of anything. What a waste.

If you have a large format printer, you might want to make your own comparison. High-res images from the Leica DMR can be downloaded here, while high-res pics from the Canon 5D will be found here.

What a waste of bandwidth! :-)

I wonder if a Leica branded screw driver with the "red dot" is included in the package. You know, it can come in handy to....well...screw stuff.

Wow, looks like Bob really pissed off the Leica Fraternity with this one. After typing such heresy I am sure that you all will cancel your Photo.net subscriptions and never read another one of his articles....he did after all compare the Leica image quality to a lowly EOS consumer cam...gasp!!!!

Give it a rest people, if you all have been around this website for more than a day you know that he usually types up a PREVIEW of new gear...followed by a REVIEW when he finally gets his hands on it. Sure the article was speculative, but so are ALL of the PREviews.

I wonder if Bob had been glowing in praise over this camera if any of you would have bothered to comment.

When you give something a grade that is considered a review. This is a very irresponsible comment coming from him. Sorry i don't give it a B i give it am much higher score than that and I own it and tested it pretty extensively in real world

Thanks for the review, Bob. Very clear and to the point.

The ideal DMR buyer is someone who uses Leica R8s or R9s and Leica R lenses exclusively. Even at this price it is probably cheaper than buying a whole new system. It is also easier on the shoulders than carrying a Leica film system and a Digital SLR system together.

The DMR concept is the best of both worlds--film and digital. Carry two systems in one bag. Switch back and forth on one camera body. The reality is that the DMR is somewhat dated, produces good but not outstanding image quality and is too expensive.

If only the DMR was, say, $2500. What an insentive it might be to buy into the Leica R system.

So far, Leica is the only camera company to offer a professional SLR system with interchangable film and digital backs. That is a feat.

Bob, might I recommend that you include the word "Preview" on the title of the article and not just on the link on the home page. Unless it clearly says "Preview", I assume that it is a review and I also initially took it as a review and not a "Preview".

Joo

"The reality is that the DMR is somewhat dated, produces good but not outstanding image quality and is too expensive."

See this is what i hate about the internet , do you own this or did you test this camera . Than a statement like this is irrelavant. You put a dollar amount on it which is meaningless and has nothing to do with the images quality which you say is good . Quantify good enough than tell me about not outstanding image quality, show me PROVE of that statement that there is any truth to it except sitting in a rocking chair and guessing.

"...doesn't seem to be significantly better then a $800 8MP Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT using the same lens."

I think what Bob is trying to say is about the performance of the Kodak sensor - in accordance with his understanding of the quality of the Kodak brand - rather than the Leica R bodies and Leica lenses. His argument is: using R lenses and R adapter ring on an EOS Rebel XT vs. R lenses on R bodies with Kodak sensor based DMR.

I think that this is a good preview, but Digital Outback (below, under "Related Links") gives a true review, comparing this back to the Canon 1Ds Mark II, not the Digital Rebel. The author of that site clearly favors the 1Ds Mark II in terms of resolution, but finds this back satisfactory. On the other hand, some of what Bob says still applies: this costs almost $6k for the back alone, whereas you get the entire body with the IDs Mark II. This is still not a particularly attractive deal unless you already have the Leica lenses--and who wouldn't want to have them? I am frankly glad to see Leica going further into the digital realm, if only for the sake of its survival. The Leica bodies in question have the obvious advantage that they can be used for both digital and film. Another point made by Bob still has some force, however: there are other considerations if one considers using Leica lenses on a Canon body. Then one gets not only more resolution but all of the other advantages of the 1Ds Mark II. In case I sound biased in favor of Canon, I shoot mostly Nikon gear, or my Kodak 14n with Nikon lenses. This back is a different and better beast than the 14n (and with a different sensor), however, based on the reviews and my own experience with the 14n. Kodak can and does make good sensors. Leica was on solid ground in going with a Kodak CCD, although what I have seen would suggest that the Canon CMOS full frame sensor is definitely better than anything for the DSLR out there at present. If I had the Leica lenses and the money, I would put them on the Canon 1Ds Mark II body--for now. When I wanted to shoot film, I would put them back on a Leica body. We are not quite at the point where one body is best for all applications, but congratulations to Leica for trying. They will get there in terms of integrating the film and digital realms, no question in my mind about that, and this is a giant step toward that great goal. This is the best effort to date in doing that.

--Lannie

Thank you for the preview. I appreciate your thoughtful point of view.

Bob:

I think I've figured it out. You're a technology addict.

Leica's have been substantially more expensive than Canon/Nikon equipment for decades. Despite this, people keep buying it. Your argument that a Canon 5D is cheaper than this option is irrelevant in the face of this.

Just a thought.

It seems to me that Canon would do well to release such a tool, although arguably the nature of an SLR is that a body is probably a better way to go. I could easily switch between my film and digital body depending on the nature of my trip.

Now that people have actually used the DMR and compared it with the Canon 5D's output, perhaps Bob would like an opportunity to revise the "B" grade he gave the DMR. Those who have extensively used both the DMR and 5D prefer the DMR's image quality: in particular, the detail, color quality, dynamic range and ability to pull detail out of shadow areas. Bob?

I think giving it a grade is acceptable, given that we know what imager it has (so we know at least what range of quality to expect) and the price (which is outrageous for an APS-ish sized digital back, no matter how good it is).

Price v. performance is bad--no, terrible, which is enough of a criterion upon which to base an overall grade. He wasn't saying the image quality was a B, or the bulid quality was a B, he was grading the entire thing, all aspects considered, as less than perfect but better than average.

If something costs too much compared to the competition and hasn't anything featurewise over them, it's safe to say that it is inferior. Leica makes the best, but they also made the M5.

So here it is June 2008, and one would be hard pressed finding a DMR for sale at under $5k......USED! IMO that's the ultimate review.

This conversation is still going? Oh, well, in case anyone missed it, here is a comparison that still might be of interest:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leica_dmr/leica_dmr.html

--Lannie