- This topic is empty.
Leica R9 Vs Canon 40D
-
Hi I am currently using a Canon 40D and I want to upgrade.Iam looking for a genuine upgrade in picture quality.I have always wanted a Leica I know people will critisize as its harder to trade them in and harder to find lenses but there are plenty in the Uk.Last yeat I purchased a baby Leica a D-lux 4 as a back up and its superb.I looked at the M8.2 and the Rr DSLR and I can get en ex demo R9 with a really good lens for about €2000.The camera would be mainly used for still life..
I would appreciate some advice on this….
Ray –
I haven’t used the R9 DMR, so I can’t speak authoritatively on the image quality or usability. Here are my opinions on the matter, purely as an interested observer.The pros would seem to be the chunky and solid design (some might consider the weight to be a negative, however). The Leica optics are of course excellent. The viewfinder is reportedly very good as well. Image quality is reportedly good, so long as you stay under ISO 400.
The negatives are that it’s a dead-end system. The R9 has been discontinued, and so finding support for the camera in the event of a problem will be difficult. I imagine the used market will serve for lenses for the foreseeable future, however. It’s manual focus only, and it’s simply not possible to achieve critical focus through the viewfinder of any SLR unless a split-prism system is used. I don’t know if the R9 uses one or not, so that may be a moot point.
In terms of the sensor, it’s old technology at this point, and in this review by Uwe Steinmueller the main issue would be noise. Modern DSLRs are far better at high ISOs than those of a few years ago.
I’d say if you’re looking for a jump in image quality and your budget is €2000, then a Canon 5D (the original one) with whatever L series lens suits you best would be the way to go. If you can’t do without the modern features like Live View, then the 50D would be the other logical option.
I hope that helps.
Cheers,
PeterI can only jump in on the Canon comparisons, the 50D is generally considered an minimal imporvment (other than some added features) over your 40D, with some feedback saying that it is actually worse at higher ISOs. For the 5D, I spent some time with the Mk.1 before settling on the 40D myself, and IMO this it would be the more logical step up. Picture quality isn’t massively better, but the full frame sensor definetly has an advantage. However, if you are photographing still life at lower ISO settings, my thoughts are that there isn’t sufficient advantage to justify a change.
As an alternative, have you considered lens rather than body options?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
