I don't usually do these sort of things, but I just downloaded the Sony A7Rii and the Leica SL raws from the DPR site, loaded them into Photoshop and upressed the SL file to match the Sony file. I expected the differences to be minor. In fact, the differences are quite dramatic in the resolution and "smoothness" of the detail. The blurred corners on that $5,000 Leica lens are very surprising. I will have to continue my search to figure out just what you get with the Leica SL for $12,500 that makes it a more capable camera than the Sony A7RII. As soon as I do, I will buy one.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
DPR allows some Leica SL and A7RII comparisons
- Thread starter thompsonkirk
- Start date
- Status
Chris Barrett
Member
Huh... well, I've made hundreds of images with the A7r for my clients and no one has ever complained about my crappy camera. Actually, I'm not seeing much quality difference between the Mk1 and the Mk2 (uncompressed or what have you). Also, I never saw any issues with compressed raws; my Phase 1 gear shot compressed raws. Lastly, I don't shoot my 35mm f/2.8 all that much, but I just used it to test out my Kolari modded A7r and that lens is exceptionally sharp. Maybe I just happened to get great gear from Sony?
CB
So sorry. Best wishes as always.
Also, this thread seems to have become rather full of hard feelings.
My own observation is that where other people spend their money is not only not my business it does not reflect on the validity of my own choices.
I like the diversity of the camera world and I am happy to still have Leica after a near death experience.
Similarly, Sony saved the Minolta legacy.
Both brands are offering interesting and useful alternatives to, what I perceive as, the similarities of Nikon and Canon.
I think it is perfectly fair that some feel burned by the shortcomings of the original A7 line up, including lenses. Others may feel that way about the M8, M9 problems. Many are more likely to give Leica a pass because of their storied history and boutique standing. Others may forgive Sony due to their rapidly corrective iterative cycle.
On the other hand, some are upset that the long standing firm cannot seem to get some things right or that the upstart's rapid upgrade cycle looks like beta testing on paying customers.
I believe that Sony and Leica are both trying very hard. It is impossible for a small firm like Leica to rapidly iterate. They also need to profit with small numbers, which means higher pricing. While for Sony, I feel they make each camera as strong as they can while releasing on a deadline. They are after bigger fish and have to push hard with each generation.
Leica is always going to strive for a unique user experience and strong optics. That is where they can distinguish themselves most readily. Sony is going to go for brute technology and rapid improvement. That is how they distinguish themselves.
Neither company is necessarily going to be even making cameras in ten years. There are simply no guarantees of that.
No bad choices here. Only personal decisions.
This is not life and death.
However, I can't decide between the 55 FE, the 24-70 FE and the 28-135 FE. Now, that is important.
Take care,
Bill
thompsonkirk
Member
"BTW, grousing about Leica prices is like Lemmings complaining that the cliff is to high ..." –Marc
Funniest line I can recall from a photo blog!
In my rush to the edge, I keep forgetting to measure.
Kirk
BTW, the point of this thread was to try to get away from so much venting and to look at a bit of data about resolution and dynamic range. That's obviously failed, so IMO the thread is up past its bedtime.
Let's put it to sleep now?
Funniest line I can recall from a photo blog!
In my rush to the edge, I keep forgetting to measure.
Kirk
BTW, the point of this thread was to try to get away from so much venting and to look at a bit of data about resolution and dynamic range. That's obviously failed, so IMO the thread is up past its bedtime.
Let's put it to sleep now?
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
It was fun. Isn't that's what we're here for? Even Guy says that.Well, it certainly feels that way to me
Maybe your rant was fun (it was at least amusing to read) but that also doesn't mean it's true.
I have nothing against Leica (I still use my M2 and several M-lenses with great pleasure) but putting them on a pedestal above others is hardly justified by their share of QC problems and enormous depreciation in value of their digital bodies.
I don't put Leica on a pedestal above others. I consider them peers to Olympus, Canon, and Nikon, who even in this damaged era all seem to want to do solid development on a good design. The Olympus E-1, E-5, and E-M1 are superb cameras ... I still have my E-M1 kit and use it gladly. And the Nikon D750 body is very very good, it just lacks the particular élan that the F6 has that I was looking for. If I could have nothing else, I would enjoy the D750 immensely.
Sony bought their way into still cameras and has*had more issues than the others, that's my perception from buying and using eight of their cameras over the past decade and a half. Three of those cameras were quite excellent (the F707, F717, and the R1). I was greatly saddened when I tried an F828 and saw how much they'd messed it up despite the beautiful Zeiss lens (terrible case of sensor-lens mismatch with purple fringing everywhere in almost any situation). They're just more inconsistent than most, and the A7 series exemplifies that inconsistency.
I'm only talking about Sony in this thread because it was specifically a discussion about a crappy test that the Leica SL and Sony A7RII were subjected to. I think its results are equally stupid for both cameras. Otherwise, I mostly avoid the Sony threads on this site (which means I don't bother reading about 2/3 of the threads here).
The value of my equipment has always been in using it, rather than what it costs and how much I could sell it for. My Nikon and Leica gear has always been the gear that I just kept on using, and to a slightly lesser extent my Olympus gear. Still have, and still use, my E-1...
G
Godfrey
Well-known member
Guy, I'm not worried about Leica or their new camera. As far as I'm concerned the DPR comparison is apples and oranges. Two different cameras with different objectives for people to select from based on their needs and level of financial abilities.
I'm hardly elitist ... retirement made sure of that. So, since this is the Sony forum my comments are about the Sony I paid good money for. No comment on the SL since I haven't touched one, haven't spent a penny on one, and probably wouldn't find it a relevant choice anyway (unless Leica reverses course and makes a S adapter that activates the leaf-shutter CS lenses).
Back when the Leica M8 arrived I was one of the first IR whistle blowers, and I was pi$$ed. So, the solution was to pay for a M9?
Frankly, one bath was enough ... so it really irritates me that the solution to the A7R is to buy a A7R-II ... a camera that still has the worse interface known to photography.
Feels like bad money after bad. For me, the impact of this con job today is as serious as the M fiasco was back then ... due to relative financial ability between then and now. No more depreciation or write offs, a trickle of photo income, and you don't know what getting older really means ... yet:ROTFL:
BTW, I also passed on the M240, and still haven't considered buying a used one even though I prefer a rangefinder for most candid work. I refuse to reward a screwing by bending over for another one ... Sony or Leica.
This thread turned into a "them verses us" because the whole premise was a comparison of the SL "Apple" to the A7R-II "Orange" ... on the Sony forum. What did anyone expect?
- Marc
hiepphotog
Member
I don't expect any enraged Leica user to come here and see the need to put down the entire Sony system because of this stupid "banana" test
. Now if it's in the Leica forum, I totally understand the reaction. Your A7R doesn't stop working because Sony decided not to release a firmware fix to a minor problem. I wonder why you didn't return your A7R during your 30-day trial if it's such a garbage camera. I would.This I would totally agree. I refuse to be screwed over by Leica with their current M240 camera with limited functions for my use. I also avoid Sony lenses so far to not deal with the QC problem. So whatever decisions I have made on these systems, I made sure I was informed.
Guy seems to think you are just whining here :ROTFL:
Leica will replace my entire sensor on a 4 year old M9 for free if has it a problem. I bought the camera used.
Your remarks on the A7 issues are from experience, not far-off sniping across systems. I also am daily Sony user. Every question you raise is totally fair: why don't they update the RAWS on the A7? Why did they choose that shutter? A7r2 certainly has EVF lag compared to Leica SL, according to Ming. The Lens quality issue applies to the latest models and hamstrings the entire system. Sony prices do fall fast, but that one is good for those on a budget. A7 (600USD) + Kolari (400) = 1000USD very competent FF M body and great film lens camera in general. Still horrible shutter and files though.
I always thought "bashing" was ignorant dismissal of something without much personal knowledge. But the brutal truth hurts alot more, I guess. So for some any mention of Sony problems is "bashing". But Leica problems, oh yeah!!
I say be honest about both. Guys tribulations with the M and Leica tech are totally worthy of note and nothing for Leica to be proud about. People look at this forum to help educate a choice. Always praises, never nightmares, makes a dull emptor :lecture:
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
"It is what it is"
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on FlickrA7s, Sony FE 55/1.8, The Concept Store, The Hague
Strangely, everyone wants to frame the evaluation of the Leica SL in ways that ignore the more basic issues. If you ignore the cost; if you ignore the screwing you took on an earlier Leica camera; if you ignore the inconsistency in the QC on the Sony FE lenses; if you ignore the ability to adapt M and R lenses, and you focus on just what the Leica SL delivers on its own as a system, just what does it offer compared to the Sony? I can't figure it out. Perhaps someone can help me out here. The money is burning a hole in my pocket.
Your first statement is unfounded BS. Sony has sold countless more cameras than Leica, and I'll bet that in percentage terms there have been far fewer issues with Sony built cameras than with those built by Leica!
V
Vivek
Guest
Only if you are discounting the ones made by Minolta and Panasonic! :lecture:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The Leica M8 was exactly like the A7 a beta product. There is zero difference. I really want someone to even try telling me different. I had thousands of dollars in 2 M8 bodies that spent 6 months in Germany for sudden death syndrome . Not 1 but 2. If I was not a friend of Leica with 2 loaners I was totally out of business. I don't forget these things. I mean out of business I had nothing to do business with. Talk about failure. Now ask me how often I go into the Leica forum and bitch about that. It's been years since I even said anything. Cameras are cameras there made bad sometimes they fail often. That's life. Regardless of what folks think of the A7r it produces till this day outstanding images. Anyone that thought they where not buying a beta product is very naive. The SL is a beta product to that line. If you don't realize that again your naive. That does not always mean it's bad but it does mean they are untested. That's the risk you take. Don't like that risk don't spend the money. But the Sony owners can join me in my new club. I shoot **** cameras and I'm proud group. Sign up coming on the 11 o'clock news. :grin:
I never called the A7R garbage. Nor am I interested in comparisons with another camera I do not know ... I'm more curious about challenging some info about a system I DO own and have used extensively.I don't expect any enraged Leica user to come here and see the need to put down the entire Sony system because of this stupid "banana" test
So, let's not engage in revisionist history.
If you go back to the initial love fest over the A7R, many of the issues were being denied by Sony AND by many fairly respected shooters here ... I even tried to get with the program thinking it would just take some practice or better understanding of the camera which is generally acknowledged as being quite complex.
Perception: Here was a very portable camera, easy to take with, perfect for some of the work I do, decisive moment stuff and the like ... plus high resolution for some other type work.
Reality: The lag turned out to be the biggest issue manifested by missed moments ... timing for which I am usually known for by my clients (mostly with a M camera). The high res was effected by the shutter slap with some key lenses, and people were working through a number of solutions for that. Plus the truncated RAW which Sony never communicated when selling the camera ... which you think is minor, but who wouldn't want a full RAW file with all of the data going in if that's what you paid for? If it was so minor, why did everyone raise such a ruckus about it?
Finally, I do not know where you bought your camera but there was not a 30 day trial period on the one I bought ... at least not when I bought it.
- Marc
I think he meant that Sony bought Minolta to get into the still camera business in a big way ... which is fact, not BS.
I think you cannot ignore the underlying positioning of this camera as an all-a-rounder for many existing Leica users with R, M and/or S lenses. In the case of the R and S optics, the camera's size could be beneficial. It isn't unreasonable to think existing M and R lenses will do well, and no other camera can take S lenses at all.
As a stand alone, it apparently has the best EVF, really good AF, shoots to two cards, and exhibits less lag than other mirrorless cameras ... all of which could be surpassed in future, but for right now it does have that going for it.
If Sony made a well built camera, with no lag, that shot to two cards and took my S lenses for half the price of the SL, I'd buy it. But they won't.
- Marc
I don't mind much that the Leica SL/Q are 24 MP. To me, for me, 24 MP is fine. I would love to see how many of the people saying it's a non issue would complain about the Sony not having 42 MP if the sensors were reversed, but I digress
The real issue (and this doesn't mean I think Leica has bad cameras), is that this new sensor Leica has can do banding at the higher ISO range or when pulling extreme shadows. In general shooting this is a non issue. Those who are shooting in daylight or in a studio shouldn't have much problem at all there either. But in those other situations when you need to do this, I have to ask myself why I want to pay more than double the price for a Leica solution if the sensor performs sub-par to Sony's.
They sure got the glass right, which is very important too, though Sony has been doing better with the latest lens releases.
But yeah, I can't stand banding in a sensor for the work I do. And certainly not at that price. The sensor better be flawless and it isn't. I do like a lot the look of their lenses though (by look I mean output, not just how they look physically as lenses).
- Ricardo
The real issue (and this doesn't mean I think Leica has bad cameras), is that this new sensor Leica has can do banding at the higher ISO range or when pulling extreme shadows. In general shooting this is a non issue. Those who are shooting in daylight or in a studio shouldn't have much problem at all there either. But in those other situations when you need to do this, I have to ask myself why I want to pay more than double the price for a Leica solution if the sensor performs sub-par to Sony's.
They sure got the glass right, which is very important too, though Sony has been doing better with the latest lens releases.
But yeah, I can't stand banding in a sensor for the work I do. And certainly not at that price. The sensor better be flawless and it isn't. I do like a lot the look of their lenses though (by look I mean output, not just how they look physically as lenses).
- Ricardo
Every Single Sony camera I have ever owned had to be repaired: VX2100, PD170, Nex-5, Nex5n and while the A7 did not have a failure, it had to be modified for 400USD before being fit for use with my lenses.
My Leica M9 had a shutter failure after over 100K frames and had to have a new one that cost 500USD and included other routine service.
In terms of toughness m9 vs A7 it is no contest. The A7 is fragile. Very risky to get it wet. Even the batteries may release without warning. Only with a very tough case do I dare bring it in the backcountry.
Which Leica bodies have you owned and shot over 30,000 frames with?
These potential issues are not unique to Sony. The M240 also has severe lag when using the EVF (required when shooting with wides). It also suffers from shutter shock (see tests by Lloyd Chambers). And then there's banding which afflicts all CMOS FF Leica sensors. As well as cracked/delaminated sensors. These sorts of issues are not as easy to forgive with Leica given the insanely higher prices.
- Status