I would welcome some advice from members of the forum.
Until a couple of years ago I was shooting a lot of MF film but I reluctantly decided I wouldn't invest any more money in it as the cost and more importantly the scarcity of scanners was a concern.
I never thought I would be able to go MF digital but I've noticed that Leica is running a promotion for the Leica S-E and Summarit 70/2.5 for GBP 7,999. And there is even a store in the UK with a demonstrator S2+70/2.5 for a little less.
In the meantime I have built a system around the A7 series.
My question is: has the shipped sailed and is there really no point in a 37.5mpx MF sensor versus albeit a smaller 36pmx or even 42mpx sensor in the latest A7RII.
I've always been a bit confused about the sensor densities - is a 35mm 36mpx sensor actually going to yield a different level of detail than a 37.5mpx MF sensor?
Apologies if this is an old topic but I'd welcome some clarity.
LouisB
Sorry, but this endless debate has been quite pointless.
I am quoting the OP here again so we can get back to his query. He clearly liked his MF system but has moved to the A7 and now has a set of lenses etc (assumption).
The reason he is thinking of the Leica S-E is ONLY because of the promotion and thus, cost savings offered.
Finally, the question he is asking is if the Sony sensor will offer the same or different DETAIL compared to the one in Leica.
So the two things that stand out are the 'cost issue' and the 'detail' i.e resolution of the sensor(s) involved. He is not talking about 'rendering' or how a particular lens 'draws' or how big/hefty a lens/camera combo is.
We are all simply introducing our own biases/preferences into the equation.
Yes, it would be quite helpful if he were to tell us why he wants MF and what kind of images he wants to make with his camera and under what conditions he shoots. ALL of those factors have a HUGE impact on what system would be the best for him given the cost constraints he obviously has to work within.
My own journey has been fraught with mistakes, some very expensive ones, because I did not ask the right questions and because there was less than honest and full disclosure on both sides. I made the stupid assumption that because a camera costs a huge amount of money it would automatically take much better pictures. The truth turned out to be quite different. I learned a lot from that one.
We all make our decisions based on our own personal tastes and our own ability to afford a piece of equipment. We then justify it in every possible way because it is hard to admit you made a mistake, an expensive, stupid one and we defend our choice of gear to no extent.
The Leica system in this debate is obviously well liked and so is the Sony, both have their ardent supporters. Some great landscape photographers I know do not use either, still working with CaNikon DSLRs and producing stunning results. So in the end it is up to the individual.
Louis says his head is with Sony but his heart wants MF. That is a common desire for many, myself included. Which is why I have both, the A7RII and the 645Z. I don't know why I should want MF, perhaps because I like using it and like the results? Today I am not so sure, the new Sony with the Batis lenses is a great combination. I am going through my own internal debate on which one is better for me, they both have advantages. The differences in terms of print and Image quality (I print large, over 20" long dimension) are getting harder to make out.
Yes, the MF does have great bokeh but the 85 Batis on the A7RII when fully wide open is incredible for portraits.
In the end, it is all an individual preference, as MJR says.
Big Louis, you will simply have to try them all out. Be prepared though, to spend a lot more on the Leica overall, every little accessory and repair (if you ever need it) will cost you a whole lot more than the Sony or Pentax.