Dawid Loubser
Member
Every time I read something on the Leica R's, it is, more often than not, not very positive. For example:
http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photography/articles/photoarticle030.html
Sure, they make great lenses (but those lenses can be fitted to many other cameras using adapters) and I have to wonder what the advantages of the Leia R is? When I compare a R body to a Canon 1-series, apart from the fact that you can adjust exposure in 0.1-stop increments (vs. Canon's 0.3 - but who needs less anyway with the dynamic range afforded by RAW?), it seems (sorry to sound harsh) to be an expensive and un-ergonomic brick. This, however, is based on what I read (I've never held one - but if you tell me it is a more solid, better designed camera than a 1-series then I won't believe you...)
Am I missing something? Anybody who has used both? With the DMR digital back it seems to be even more of a hack, with poor integration between the body and back, and all sorts of ergonomic issues.
http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photography/articles/photoarticle030.html
Sure, they make great lenses (but those lenses can be fitted to many other cameras using adapters) and I have to wonder what the advantages of the Leia R is? When I compare a R body to a Canon 1-series, apart from the fact that you can adjust exposure in 0.1-stop increments (vs. Canon's 0.3 - but who needs less anyway with the dynamic range afforded by RAW?), it seems (sorry to sound harsh) to be an expensive and un-ergonomic brick. This, however, is based on what I read (I've never held one - but if you tell me it is a more solid, better designed camera than a 1-series then I won't believe you...)
Am I missing something? Anybody who has used both? With the DMR digital back it seems to be even more of a hack, with poor integration between the body and back, and all sorts of ergonomic issues.