Let me just say that I'm not taking sides in this discussion. I think that discussions like this, that are clearly intended to be discussions and welcome responses, are important and informational. While some may argue that they don't belong on this forum, they are a part of the general discussion and should have a proper home.
Instead of debating the merits of a Leica camera on a Canon board, why don't you show us some images you make with it in the presentation boards? Clearly its superiority to the Canon system is quite obvious to you, and while I am happy that you found a system to stick with, your discussion of its resolution in lpmm does little to inform me of how great it is. Based on your logic, a P&S camera would likely outresolve the Leica DMR.
Its funny how the minte one disagrees with a topic it becomes a troll post. So many other topics on the forum are not specific to canon yet they are posted. I guess since the subject matter is comparing one camera against a Canon it doesnt belong here. Would it be be acceptable if we were comparing Canon against another camera? Maybe I should just revers the order of camera names in the thread.
I am sure some will argue they have seen better and probably have but here you go on the picture request ...
here is the full image
here is the crop
if you look close enough you can see the blinds inside the windows of the building i n the crop.
jtorral wrote:
Its funny how the minte one disagrees with a topic it becomes a troll post. So many other topics on the forum are not specific to canon yet they are posted. I guess since the subject matter is comparing one camera against a Canon it doesnt belong here. Would it be be acceptable if we were comparing Canon against another camera? Maybe I should just revers the order of camera names in the thread.
I am sure some will argue they have seen better and probably have but here you go on the picture request ...
if you look close enough you can see the blinds inside the windows of the building i n the crop....Show more →
Why don't you do what Arka suggested and post your pictures on the appropriate forum for discussion.
Why would you think posting a picture on the Canon forum taken from the DMR relevant?
I think Jorge just put his calc up for comments. It looks like a relevant post to me, due to the fact that Leica glass can be put on both Leica and Canon bodies...
tigerp wrote:
I think Jorge just put his calc up for comments. It looks like a relevant post to me, due to the fact that Leica glass can be put on both Leica and Canon bodies...
I would let the moderator decide in the end whether this sort of material is either helpful, or really belongs here. However, to praise to high heaven the virtues of the DMR on a Canon forum, and to the justify it because you can take lenses for the DMR and jury-rig it to a Canon setup seems like a strange way to approach this topic. Seems to me this topic would be better suited in the gear forum.
[RANT] Personally, I would rather see incredible work being done with any of these cameras than split hairs over lpmm. It astonishes me the amount of time and intellectual energy that is devoted to these topics! My camera has a lower resolution than any of the cameras discussed here, but I could sell the imaging properties of it with pictures I have taken. I would like to see Jorge do the same in the presentation forums; one masterful image could convince many more people than a bunch of test shots ever will... hmmm.. then again, this is the Canon forum.
Knowing that the 1Ds II or DMR have a higher resolution is of virtually no value to improving my photography, unless of course I was taking pictures of lines on a page. [/RANT]
With that said, I'll follow my own advice cease spending time or energy on this topic. Enjoy the discussion, whatever forum it may lie in.
It looks like a really nice camera jorge, but I think you're confusing theory with practice, like most everyone does when we do these comparisons. I wouldn't be surprised if the original 1Ds can outresolve the Leica, but I wouldn't know, since I don't own either camera!
tigerp wrote:
I think Jorge just put his calc up for comments. It looks like a relevant post to me, due to the fact that Leica glass can be put on both Leica and Canon bodies...
His post is comparing the 1DsMKII and Leica DMR not Leica Glass. If the discussion was about how the lens performs on each camera in comparison I could see the relevance.
He is not even comparing the results from both cameras. It is merely a theorectical inference based on his assumption of the possible performance of each camera touting the DMR merits on paper.
The examples he has posted are not from the 1DsMKII and DMR with the same Leica lens. It would at least have some relevancy if such a comparison had been made.
All I'm seeing is someone stating their DMR is better than the Canon 1DsMKII without anything to support this assumption but his questionable calculations.
If I posed such a question in the Nikon forum in comparison with the D2X and 1DsMKII I assure you I would be labeled a "Troll" and rightly so.
Jim Victory wrote:
If I posed such a question in the Nikon forum in comparison with the D2X and 1DsMKII I assure you I would be labeled a "Troll" and rightly so.
So tigerp whats the difference?
Jim
To me the difference is that a lot of Canon users on this forum use Leica glass because they feel the Canon WA glass is not up to the task of matching the resolving power of the FF sensor of the 1DsII. The idea of using their Leica glass on a Leica body is something a lot of them will have considered the last weeks.
I'm sure a lot of people are interested in this thread, and this kind of comparison threads do not annoy me, as long as they are not aggresive, wich I esteem this one is not. I guess you made your point in between time. Are you going to post a message every minute until a moderator locks it up?
FWIW (probably not much ) The whole thing looks kind of klugey (sp?) to me. I would personally rather have a camera designed to be digital from the start. The cost of the back alone is almost as much as a 1DSII and way more than a 1DMKII which to me is more similar specification wise anyway. For someone with a R8 or R9 and a ton of money in Leica glass it makes sense - kind of maybe?. For someone looking to start from scratch I cannot see why they would go the Leica route.
The original post was a question of which camera system has the highest resolution output. I have no objections to inquirys in that regard but I do have objections to people throwing around the "troll" accusation indiscriminately. If there was a miscalculation in not including a camera's sensor size it was addressed by the many informative and meaningful posts in this thread that I was actually interested in reading.
The original post wasn't unreasonable. His response to replies (ignoring any well thought out explanations as to why his statements were incorrect and inflammatory responses to the negative comments) is fair proof that his intention was to act as a troll.
KJbruin wrote:
The original post was a question of which camera system has the highest resolution output. I have no objections to inquirys in that regard but I do have objections to people throwing around the "troll" accusation indiscriminately. If there was a miscalculation in not including a camera's sensor size it was addressed by the many informative and meaningful posts in this thread that I was actually interested in reading.
Steve responded before I had a chance to make my regular entry into this post.
There were many very intelligent responses to his post that were basically ignored. He didn't want to hear anything that questioned his calculations.
This wasn't a comparison to the 1DsMKII or he would have provided real documentation in a side by side evaluation rather than a mathematical calculation that has been aptly pointed out, by others, to be flawed.
To say that people are using Leica lenses on Canon Cameras so its alright to discuss the merits of Leica cameras on the Canon forum is absurd. I guess we need to include all cameras with Zeiss lenses and Sigma, and Olympus too
I'm not using Leica lenses yet but I'm considering the switch after some FMer has tried them on Canon bodies. I find this thread a lot informative and I'm disturbed from the people accusing Jorge to troll.
If you are not interested just switch to another thread and do not disturb here.
I do not think this is a stupid or irrelevant question and, IMHO, Jorge is only trying to understand better.
So would I like and would be grateful to continue reading interesting comments.
Carlo
The original post was a question of which camera system has the highest resolution output. I have no objections to inquirys in that regard but I do have objections to people throwing around the "troll" accusation indiscriminately. If there was a miscalculation in not including a camera's sensor size it was addressed by the many informative and meaningful posts in this thread that I was actually interested in reading.
Though I doubt anyone cares, I agree with this pretty much.
Every person is interested in some threads here and not in some others. There are Canon vs. Nikon threads from time to time, why not Canon vs. Leica?
Even if we made a forum specifically for Leica, would the Leica users complain if it were posted there? Do we need a forum for each combination of manufacturers?
Carlo Botteghi wrote:
I'm not using Leica lenses yet but I'm considering the switch after some FMer has tried them on Canon bodies. I find this thread a lot informative and I'm disturbed from the people accusing Jorge to troll.
If you are not interested just switch to another thread and do not disturb here.
I do not think this is a stupid or irrelevant question and, IMHO, Jorge is only trying to understand better.
So would I like and would be grateful to continue reading interesting comments.
Carlo
I enjoy the discussion of Leica lenses too because I have a 1DsMKII and I'm interested in their use on that body but the OP was discussing a Leica camera not lens.
If you agree to discuss Leica cameras here then why not any other camera that uses a lens that can be used on a Canon body. There can't be an exception or the Canon Forum will become too crowded again. Do you remember the recent split.
Why don't we try in the beginning to prevent unrelated post from happening.
Interesting indeed - I just downloaded the DNG files and processed them with similar settings to each other. I had to vary the settings a little as the images differed slightly, but I didn't do anything dishonest, same sharpening settings etc. Here are the resulting two full frames next to each other:
http://www.breeze.nildram.co.uk/20dvsdmrfull.jpg
And here are 100% crops:
http://www.breeze.nildram.co.uk/20dvsdmr.jpg
I admit that I just happened to pick a bit of the picture that makes the 20D look better than the DMR, IMO. I did then scan around the picture and there are other parts where the DMR looks better - the pictures are taken from different angles to each other, for starters. My point, really, is to be very wary of tests like this as you can pretty much present any conclusion you want, in this particular case I recommend that anyone who is seriously interested downloads the DNG files and processes them to their own personal standards for comparison.
As to whether the thread is off topic here, I think comparisons between Canon cameras and other makes are welcome. The comparisons should of course be done in an open and honest manner.
Jim Victory wrote:
Curious why you post here since it appears from your sig you don't own any Canon gear?
I don't need to chill if you quit Trolling!
Jim
Jorge has owned the 1ds2 or 1ds before I believe, and I for one don't see this as a "troll" topic. Jorge is really just trying to create a topic for discussion. The people who've been following and watching for this camera to appear are genuinely interested.
This is no different than a Canon compared to Nikon or Canon 1ds2 compared to 10D topic. Why the hostility?
