Leica DMR versus Canon 20D Test Shots

[petermcwerner]

Leica DMR versus Canon 20D Test Shots:
http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/CanonVsLeica/index.html

Also: Leica DMR-RAW files for downloading
http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/index.html

[kram]

Like the Canon output better.

[petermcwerner]

Kram,
Have a detailed look at the site and download the RAW files. The picture published here limited to 100K is not meaningful
Cheers
Peter

[Andy_T]

Peter,

what's your take on it?
Obviously you have hands-on experience with the Digital Modul R, so what is your verdict?

As you mentioned, the pictures here are not very meaningful.
The Canon seems to have better details in the shadows (more dynamic range ??? )

I would not exactly trust a comparison done by the company making one of the contestants and (most likely) wanting to prove it does better than the other (at a mere $ 4000 more :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

[petermcwerner]

Andy,
what's your take on it?

I had the DMR for a week to test. No connection with Leica or Canon other than using (and paying for) their gear

Best regards
Peter

[Mohawk]

What's the point?

Mike

[Andy_T]

I had the DMR for a week to test. No connection with Leica or Canon other than using (and paying for) their gear

Best regards
Peter

Yeah, I've seen that in the meantime from the thread on the Leica Forum :D

So ... how did you like it?

And ... Welcome to the forum :D

Best regards,
Andy


PS: Are you sure if the 20D performs up to its full capabilities if you don't use a Canon L lens, but rather some strange 'Elmarit' lens :wink:

[tim]

I looked at the RAWs, and IMO there's very little between them. Once you get to 200% magnification you can see a bit of difference in favour of the Leica, but at 100% and smaller they both look pretty good to me.

[PaulB]

Is the Leica 3x better than the 20D?
In the UK the Leica back is supposed to be about £3.5K retail whilst the 20D is around £1K.
I know that that's not quite the point but unless you have a Leica system (R8/9) to start with, or lust after a Leica DSLR and are prepared to buy a body, back and lenses............
it looks a touch expensive.
Why not test the Leica set-up against a 1DMk2? - still only 8m pixels against 10m though, but the price is nearer. Or to even out the price difference the !DsMk2 looks better - but has 16m against 10m.
What is the frame rate on the Leica digi-back? I've not particularly noticed that when I saw the early specs.

[Andy_T]

Why not test the Leica set-up against a 1DMk2?

Well, as Peter obviously did this as a private person (I assume) participating in the Leica academy programme to test-drive the Modul R ... most likely he doesn't own a 1DMKII.

I am certainly very happy if there is another viable competitor entering the market that keeps Canon and Nikon from becoming fat and lazy, now that Kodak has dropped out of the race :rolleyes:

Let's hope that Leica can keep up with the pace ... given the rather unstable foundation the company is resting on at the moment.

... and I'm really waiting for the Mamiya ZD 11 :D ...

Best regards,
Andy

[petermcwerner]

So ... how did you like it?

The DMR produced colors that I personally prefer to the 20D rendition. The DMR colors are warmer and subtler, the Canon cooler and more "aggressive", a bit like Kodachrome 25 vs. Ektachrome. It is very difficult to show this difference objectively, since so much depends on how you set the parameters during Raw conversion.

With the DMR, I generally got pleasing results right out of the camera without need of much post processing. With the 20D I have to tweak colors, contrast, brightness much more to get the results I like - if I got the result at all.

The sharpness does not differ much, the noise level at high magnifications is better in the DMR, but it can be noticed only at 200-300%.

For color rendition of the DMR, you can see better examples in the Leica DMR Raw page on http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/index.html

Here my personal choice factors in favor of the DMR are:

- Subtler color rendition (very personal)
- Better viewer
- Better color TFT screen, really useful for checking the results of a shot even in bright sunlight
- Less post processing (very personal)
- Easier open-diaphragm focusing with manual focus lenses, especially in low light or critical focus situations like macro
- open-lens TTL exposure measurement
- More ergonomical controls, lower menu depth
- Better noise characteristics
- Easier sensor cleaning
- Transmission of lens data to the camera and EXIM file.

Points in favor of the 20D:

- Price
- Smaller weight and size
- TTL flash. The DMR is fully manual in flash mode, no auto TTL flash measurement

Download the raw files from:

http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/index.html

[Jon]

So why'd they compare it to the 20D? They even note that they had to re-frame to allow for the different sensor size of the 20D. Wouldn't comparison to a Canon with comparable sensor size have been more appropriate? The 1.3x crop of the 1D Mk II is a closer match to the 1.37x crop of the DMR than the 1.6x of the 20D, and it still gives Leica a 2 MP advantage.

[tim]

Seems to me you want to like the Leica more.

[I Simonius]

Leica DMR versus Canon 20D Test Shots:


One thing I notice is that there seems to be greater lattitude with the canon, other than that these tests seem pretty inconclusive and pointless

[CyberDyneSystems]

Using the flower image,. the Canon is winning hands down...

Stright out of the camera the Leica is already blown out with unrecoverable highlights gone pure white and at the same time the darks are too dark. This shows again the Canon's superior dynamic range.

Remember it is easy to boost contrast in software.. where as it is nearly impossible to extend dynamic range.

As for color,. the Canon's yellow looks far more subdued and subtle to my eye on my Calibrated monitor.. again,. offering plenty of leeway to boost it if a Velvia look is desired, where as clipped colors are hard to recover if more subtle shades are desired.

As for noise,. the two 300% crops (300%??!!) are from two totally different areas on the image/flower. If you take the Canon crop from the same area as they did for the Lieca's.. you will see that same even pure black back ground instead of the noisy bluish toned background in the Canon sample offered...

In fact.. I can not for the life of me FIND the area where the supposed Canon 300% crop came from on the RAW image provided?? If it is from the RAW image we are using as a reference then they have selected it and rotated it to make it look as if it came from a similar area as the Lieca's sample.... when in fact it most certainly did not.

Seeing plainly that this "Noise" test was manipulated to make one camera look better than the other.. essentially makes the entire test and comparison suspect in my eyes.

The site and test are therefore worthless IMHO.

[Andy_T]

The site and test are therefore worthless IMHO.

Well, guess I'm one of the few forum users who wouldn't have gone out and bought a Leica and Modul R anyway :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Bob_A]

Leica make fantastic cameras and ask a very high price for them. However, I agree that this test looks to be completely useless, and does nothing to demonstrate that the Leica is a better camera, even if it is.

Looking at the first set of flower pictures the lighting appears to be set up totally different between the DMR shot and the Canon shot. If it isn't, then the Leica is horrible. The canon did not blow out on the one petal while it still had a background showing some detail. For the DMR the background is almost black.

However, what Leica has come up with is exactly what I would like to see for a Canon pro or prosumer film body. I'd love to be able to shoot either.

By the way, Peter appears to be hitting all of the Canon forums to do this bit of advertising for Leica. I certainly wouldn't classify this as research with proper design of experiment.

Bob

[I Simonius]

By the way, Peter appears to be hitting all of the Canon forums to do this bit of advertising for Leica. I certainly wouldn't classify this as research with proper design of experiment.

Bob

perhaps trying to justify his huge expenditure to himself,? ;)

[Miranda1]

Interesting comparison but as others have stated this test is really of very little value based on the samples posted. Clearly the Leica has blownout highlites which is really evident from the samples. Lighting also appears to be different between the two shots definately not an apples to apples comparison. As far as colour is concerned I prefer the Canon purely subjective ofcourse.

[2new]

I welcome the competition because in the end we all win as Andythaler noted.



I owned 2 leica film bodies (M4, M6) and they make great equipment however this comparison in blatantly flawed in several areas and not really worth much other than influencing the uninformed.

[roanjohn]

Interesting................

Some questions.............who manufactured the Leica sensor?? CMOS or CCD??

Ro1

[Tom W]

I'd like to get hold of one of these Leica DMR setups and do my own comparisons. In the comparison shown above, the Canon is clearly the better image to my eyes. But I don't believe that the Leica isn't capable of a smoother, more realistic, detailed image than what is shown.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'd like to get hold of one of these Leica DMR setups and do my own comparisons. In the comparison shown above, the Canon is clearly the better image to my eyes. But I don't believe that the Leica isn't capable of a smoother, more realistic, detailed image than what is shown.

I would hope so..
I can't imagine the Lieca being so poor.. But you never know,. it could be another Kodak DCS 14 :shock:

[Pekka]

Can you put a CR2 file on the page so better RAW conversion can be done?

And Peter, the link to this discussion is http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77920
I'm sure you'd love to add it to discussion links on your page :)

[Adam Hicks]

I guess I have to wonder what made the Leica cameras so excellent, and I'm absolutely sure they are some of the best built cameras in history... but my question is, how much of what they did right could possibly roll into the digital space? I would think that their mechanical workings made the camera what it was, and much of that is surely lost or completely re-engineered for digital. I can more understand digital backs on medium formats than a digital M3 type camera.

But then again, I've never owned a Leica, and if I did maybe I'd understand.

Otherwise, for the money I'll take a 20D and some nice glass.

[I Simonius]

I guess I have to wonder what made the Leica cameras so excellent, and I'm absolutely sure they are some of the best built cameras in history... but my question is, how much of what they did right could possibly roll into the digital space? I would think that their mechanical workings made the camera what it was, and much of that is surely lost or completely re-engineered for digital. I can more understand digital backs on medium formats than a digital M3 type camera.

But then again, I've never owned a Leica, and if I did maybe I'd understand.

Otherwise, for the money I'll take a 20D and some nice glass.

Leica make amazing glass, and expensive cameras. How that will translate into digital remains to be seen. From what Iv'e seen so far they're struggling. Not that I know. But back to the topic - that comparison needs doing properly for it to carry any clout