http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/ Engadget Comments for Leica Digital M in the works http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/


Still, I'll be saving up for one. ]]>Dec 27th 2005 2:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/Dec 27th 2005 3:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/


German



http://www.lfi-online.de/ceemes/show.php?lfi_topstory1



English



http://www.lfi-online.de/ceemes/show.php?lfi_topstory1_english



Cheers



P]]>Dec 27th 2005 5:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/Dec 27th 2005 9:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/Dec 28th 2005 2:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/Dec 28th 2005 3:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/27/leica-digital-m/


As a Leica user since '81, I know a bit about things. Leica would NEVER make anything that would not last for decades. They haven't and they won't. Period.



There's plenty more to the allure of Leica than lens sharpness. In fact, sharpness was never their forte. It was the overall design of their lens and the balance they took in choosing how much sharpness vs. contrast vs other aberrations (like chromatic, spherical, astigmatism, etc.). Each lens was designed to suit its purpose. Whether a tele, wide angle, macro, whatever. The lens cahracteristics were balanced to give the absolute best performance.



Their SLR lenses are as good as their rangefinder lenses. I've used them both. They are all in the same family when it comes to performance.



From the people who use the DMR, I've heard a lot of praise. It's certainly not a P.O.S. The R8 and R9 were specifically designed to go digital with a back whenever Leica came out with it. When I bought an R8 (the first month they were availalbe - which I lucked out and got a bug-free one) Leica told us back then the body was the size it was to accomodate digital.



So sticking with an M7 and an Imacon scanner (very good, we almost bought one where I work, but got an EOS 1Ds Mark II instead) is missing out. Digital is now better than film at the high end. Color accuracy is better, and with my 16.7 megapixel monster I don't miss the Leicas any more. My photos are better. Film can't compete. My favorite film - Kodacrhome 25 Professional - can't touch it. I don't know exactly how the DMR is in comparison, I'm waiting to see some definitive results, but if it's as good as the EOS 5D, which has similar-sized files, then I'd have to say it's the best way to get the Leica goodness, that you get from their glass, which exists today.



Another good thing about Leica? Adobe's DNG open RAW file format is native for the DMR. And will be with the Digital M.]]>Dec 28th 2005 10:15AM