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!

Leica S-E versus Sony A7R, or even A7RII

algrove

Well-known member
FWIW, I do not find the handling of the 645Z to be bad. I know people rave about the lovely S and it does look svelte and gorgeous, but seriously, the 645Z is one of the best handling cameras I have ever used. Its an absolute joy to shoot hand held, altho it gets heavy with the massive 28-45.Weight aside, its one heck of a machine than shows just how well a tool can be designed with the user in mind.
Suggest someone rent or borrow each camera. I did a 2 hour shoot with the S. AND I have walked around for street shooting with the Z for 4-5 hours on more than one occasion.

My reaction-after 2 hours with the S, my wrist hurt like heck. After 4 hours with the Z and heavy 28-45 lens, my wrist was just fine.

For me, I find the Z just fine for walking around. I cannot say I find the S best suited for that type of work.

Perhaps it has been done, but also suggest one read MR's Lula reviews of each camera, if his comments help (Z-Sept 2014, S-October 2015) There are few cameras Reichmann has not handled and his insights leave much food for thought.
 
Suggest someone rent or borrow each camera. I did a 2 hour shoot with the S. AND I have walked around for street shooting with the Z for 4-5 hours on more than one occasion.

My reaction-after 2 hours with the S, my wrist hurt like heck. After 4 hours with the Z and heavy 28-45 lens, my wrist was just fine.

For me, I find the Z just fine for walking around. I cannot say I find the S best suited for that type of work.
Which lens did you have on the S? I didn't have any problems with its grip, but it did have the tendency to be front-heavy with certain lenses, and I didn't even get to use the zoom, which is said to be particularly front-heavy.

The beefiest lens I have is the 120mm Macro, and it doesn't feel at all unbalanced either, but that's probably due to the shape of the camera in general. The blocky shape lets you brace the camera quite effectively with your left hand.

I think the S would be more comfortable to hold longer if you had put the vertical grip on it; I had the same problem with the 85L on my Canon 5D2, and a grip immediately fixed the handling, it's like night and day for big >750g Lenses.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Surely you have stronger wrists than that Algrove?!

It's all personal preference, nothing more. This is the key thing for me when comparing sizes..

Compare camera dimensions side by side overhead view is telling.

I found the Z just to be too bulky, there's no getting away from the fact that any MF camera is larger and heavier but most would be surprised at how compact the S is for what you get. I can't help but think Pentax would have been better designing a more modern body but it was built to a budget to use existing kit, for me it shows.

For some the masses of individual controls are a benefit, for others, there's nothing more needed than ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed, horses for courses.

As I said before, it's very hard not to get superb pictures from either these cameras, or the H and the P1 too, no right answer when it comes to personal preference.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Which lens did you have on the S? I didn't have any problems with its grip, but it did have the tendency to be front-heavy with certain lenses, and I didn't even get to use the zoom, which is said to be particularly front-heavy.

The beefiest lens I have is the 120mm Macro, and it doesn't feel at all unbalanced either, but that's probably due to the shape of the camera in general. The blocky shape lets you brace the camera quite effectively with your left hand.

I think the S would be more comfortable to hold longer if you had put the vertical grip on it; I had the same problem with the 85L on my Canon 5D2, and a grip immediately fixed the handling, it's like night and day for big >750g Lenses.
I used 2 lenses-the 120 and the 30-90. Have no idea of the S weight with either lens, but I do know the 645Z with 28-45 is 6 lbs. The nice thing about that 28-45 is that you zoom with the forward most ring so the balance while using hand held is right for me.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Surely you have stronger wrists than that Algrove?!

It's all personal preference, nothing more. This is the key thing for me when comparing sizes..

Compare camera dimensions side by side overhead view is telling.

I found the Z just to be too bulky, there's no getting away from the fact that any MF camera is larger and heavier but most would be surprised at how compact the S is for what you get. I can't help but think Pentax would have been better designing a more modern body but it was built to a budget to use existing kit, for me it shows.

For some the masses of individual controls are a benefit, for others, there's nothing more needed than ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed, horses for courses.

As I said before, it's very hard not to get superb pictures from either these cameras, or the H and the P1 too, no right answer when it comes to personal preference.
My wife handled the 645Z but just one time and her comment was that it was a very nice and natural feel for her petit hand. I was shocked by her comment since has held my M cameras, 5D3, Sony a7R, etc. She has never said that about any camera before.
 
I used 2 lenses-the 120 and the 30-90. Have no idea of the S weight with either lens, but I do know the 645Z with 28-45 is 6 lbs. The nice thing about that 28-45 is that you zoom with the forward most ring so the balance while using hand held is right for me.
Ah, well that figures, the 120 and 30-90 are the most front-heavy lenses in the entire lineup.
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
The Pentax 645Z was not even mentioned in Louis's question, but since people brought the camera up; i recently bought one and I quiet like it.
I can not emphasize enough, the sensor is great. One of the most important points for me.
It may not look so slick, the camera handles very well, the grip is perfect for my hands and the extra portrait tripod connection is very handy.
The info button is great for another way of direct access to different settings.
There are many buttons, but most of them are quiet handy and if i don't need them i just leave them alone.
It may be a design compromise but I don't really care.
The lenses are not Leica lenses but the new ones are also outstanding, although steep in price as well.
The older lenses are actually also good and dead cheap, you can get the good FA 75 for less then € 400,-- , I like that! ( I missed one for € 150,-)
The lens is very good and smaller then a lot of lenses an my A7r, so are the A 150, the A35 and; the newer standard SDM 55.
With this set you can walk around for hours if you want.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
I'll say up front that I've become biased toward the S system. At first I shot with an S2P in tandem with a Hasselblad H kit eventually opting out of the H system. Recently I've sold off my entire Sony A99 SLT-DSLR kit because I stopped using it while favoring the S. By then I had fleshed out the S lenses with mostly CS versions which gave me full access to both Focal Plane shutter to 1/4000 and leaf shutter sync to 1/1000 with lighting … even in tandem with the SF58 on-camera speed-light for fill.

I have a Sony A7R with 36 meg … and agree with others that there is no contest. Lenses are a matter of taste I guess. I was going to order the Sony 90/2.8 Macro, but the images I saw persuaded me otherwise. I'm waiting to see how the Batis 85/1.8 Images look. That, or I'll just opt out of the Sony stuff altogether since it hasn't fit my needs or tastes. Other than size, I don't like the cameras, the viewfinders, the controls or the overly complex menus, and am ambivalent about the images.

I simply love the ergonomics and controls of the S which are simple and straightforward. The optical viewfinder is extremely bright aided by the fact that most S lenses are fast aperture for MF optics. The camera is not tiny but I've mitigated that by using a Camadapter dual lug ARCA type QR that allows use of both a hand strap and a wide soft shoulder strap together. This has made carrying the S very easy, and reduced fatigue to minimalist levels.

I currently have the S(006) which I'm trying to keep even though I've a S(007) on order to arrive soon. I'm a believer that extra real-estate matters and has an effect on the images in both profound ways and more subtile ways.

The Leica S lenses are spectacular … plus there are some interesting Zeiss choices from the Contax 645 system, or the Hasselblad H system that can be adapted to the S cameras with fully functioning adapters including AF.

- Marc
 

chrismuc

Member
@ Marc & Bob:

Can you show 1:1 comparison pictures Leica S vs. Nikon D810 or Sony A7R/RII to proove your statements that the Leica system can achieve significantly better image quality than the Nikon/Sony cameras with lenses at Otus/Batis/ZE135Apo level? Hard to believe for me.

Thx Christoph
 

jerome_m

Member
@ Marc & Bob:

Can you show 1:1 comparison pictures Leica S vs. Nikon D810 or Sony A7R/RII to proove your statements that the Leica system can achieve significantly better image quality than the Nikon/Sony cameras with lenses at Otus/Batis/ZE135Apo level? Hard to believe for me.

Thx Christoph

The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the D810 or A7RII can achieve similar IQ on test charts than the Leica S or other MF cameras in controlled conditions, when using select lenses. I don't doubt that, I compared similar cameras some time ago.

But what this test is not saying is that the MF camera, about any MF camera, will do that consistently on any subject (if there is enough light, that is a real limitation of MF cameras) and with the complete series of lenses available.
 
M

mjr

Guest
You may find it hard to believe Christoph but it doesn't make it any less true!

I no longer bother with Nikon stuff but I have years of files from the D800 and E, not the D810 and I can spot an S file easily, there's not one individual thing, it's a combination of many things that give the S simply better files for the work that I do. I doubt it's universal, we don't all see or value things in the same way. It's not about convincing someone that they are right or wrong, proving anything, it's about finding what works for you regardless of what that equipment is. I don't think it's important that anyone else sees what I see in my files, why would it?! I don't personally have any wish to persuade people that the choices I make are the only right choices and I certainly don't need to prove it unless you are a client of course!

I have said before about the S compared with Nikons, it's like taking a D810 adding a huge viewfinder so that you could accurately focus Otus lenses wide open with little problem. then getting Zeiss to add af to the otus, expanding the range to add the same quality to all lenses and then add a sensor with larger pixels, smoother transitions, and an incredible 3d feel to the files. That's how I see it, it makes the S worth every penny and more! I have earned more money in the last 2 years from the Leica purely because of how it allows me to work and the files I provide to my clients.

As long as you enjoy the kit you have then that's great, more power to you!

Mat
 

chrismuc

Member
The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the D810 or A7RII can achieve similar IQ on test charts than the Leica S or other MF cameras in controlled conditions, when using select lenses. I don't doubt that, I compared similar cameras some time ago.

But what this test is not saying is that the MF camera, about any MF camera, will do that consistently on any subject (if there is enough light, that is a real limitation of MF cameras) and with the complete series of lenses available.
I am not talking about test shots. But architecture, interior design, landscape or portrait images with lenses of comparable field of view at apertures of comparable depth of field. And these images well adjusted in post regarding color temperature, color, contrast a.s.o.. In such an A/B test, the crop MF Leica S would have to show it's IQ advantage compared to 135 with similar resolution and DR.
 

chrismuc

Member
And regarding lenses, for example Batis 25f2, FE 35f1.4, FE 55f1.8 or Otus 55f1.4, Batis 85f1.8 or Otus 85f1.4, FE 90f2.8 Macro, ZE 135f2 Apo would be the "the complete series of lenses available" and I assume they are on Leica S level.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
And regarding lenses, for example Batis 25f2, FE 35f1.4, FE 55f1.8 or Otus 55f1.4, Batis 85f1.8 or Otus 85f1.4, FE 90f2.8 Macro, ZE 135f2 Apo would be the "the complete series of lenses available" and I assume they are on Leica S level.

Why exclude Leica M and R lenses?
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
@ Marc & Bob:

Can you show 1:1 comparison pictures Leica S vs. Nikon D810 or Sony A7R/RII to proove your statements that the Leica system can achieve significantly better image quality than the Nikon/Sony cameras with lenses at Otus/Batis/ZE135Apo level? Hard to believe for me.

Thx Christoph
Hey man

Marc may have the time and ability to do 1:1 comparisons...

As a soon to be retired cardiac anesthesiologist I am lucky to make all my family's expectations...
finding time for my passions and outlets still take a distant third to all the requirements of work, church and home.

But I can say that I love the idea of a small Nikon with very balanced shutter and Zeiss lenses giving me something that can approximate the S .... So much so that I dropped the S006 upgrade ... had a camera with a new lens that could not AF and returned to the D810 ... Both Otus and the 135 F2 ZF2 to add to my 25 F 2 ZF2 and my 50 1.4 ZE ... for my C100 Mk II did I mention I love motion....?

What a disappointment for me when I ran the files through LR C1 and RPP ... also Nikons proprietary NX-2 NX-D software.

The lenses are stellar but the overall workflow approaches but never closes on the DR and acuity of the Leica ... I have been doing this since 1971 ... film ... Leica rangefinder Hassey 500's LF 4x5 Sinar and Linhoff ... MF Mamiya 7 ... Hasselblad H 1 H2 H3D 39 ... Phase 20 with Alpa ... scanning with a Imacon Hassey 343 scanner.

So no one to one but my take is one of disappointment ... Leica has major AF issues with lenses... when a 70 S at this point will not AF new out of the box ... that is not acceptable... but the image from the system is stellar ... nothing in 35 approaches it ...

My sense is that if you would rent ... trial ... borrow ... an S for a weekend you would find for YOURSELF ... what you need to understand.

Now if you do motion the 4K from the S007 looks gorgeous...

BTW small web based JPGs are a waste ... a waste of time ... I cannot imagine that you could come to a decision based on something shown here ...

Do some 21x28 prints ... or larger and you will perceive the focus that drives S users ... hell MF users on the whole.

Its the best Ive got with the time I have to invest in this thread ...

Bob
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
And regarding lenses, for example Batis 25f2, FE 35f1.4, FE 55f1.8 or Otus 55f1.4, Batis 85f1.8 or Otus 85f1.4, FE 90f2.8 Macro, ZE 135f2 Apo would be the "the complete series of lenses available" and I assume they are on Leica S level.
Batis Milvus both are not individually QC'd like the Otus ... so good luck with you purchase ...

Read Ming Thein's take on the Milvus and he waxes eloquently on the Otus ... mainly due to the time takes to ensure perfect specs.

Leica S does the same ....

Yes most of the lenses are probably in spec but when you continue to read of reviewers buying 3 lenses to find the best ...

Love my Zeiss lenses and I moved to the Otus after reading the Ming and Digiloyd writeups...

Now I need a sensor and optical VF to challenge the S to mate them with...

I get better DR and presence with the 1Dx and D3s than the D810 .... bigger pixels make a
difference in spite of what DXO benchmarks might suggest.

Bob
 

fotografz

Well-known member
@ Marc & Bob:

Can you show 1:1 comparison pictures Leica S vs. Nikon D810 or Sony A7R/RII to proove your statements that the Leica system can achieve significantly better image quality than the Nikon/Sony cameras with lenses at Otus/Batis/ZE135Apo level? Hard to believe for me.

Thx Christoph
That's a fair question Christoph … albeit the constant challenge leveled against MFD in general. Frankly I've wracked my brain trying to identify why I prefer one camera/sensor/lens/ system over another to the degree I (and others) do.

I think it may be an issue of different criteria. In my case Image Quality is important, but Image Qualities are the criteria … the former suggests technical performance with 1:1 comparisons and pixel peeping, the latter suggests aesthetic performance of a system which gets into areas far more difficult to quantify because they involve personal aesthetic judgments … like "look and feel", "consistent characteristics", "pleasing to the eye", "image presence", "subtile rendering", etc. … especially when the image is viewed as a whole, not just in part.

The S system isn't the first time Image Qualities was the decision criteria for me. When I worked with a Contax 645 system, the Mamiya regional supervisor had quantifiable proof that their lenses were sharper … yet, even if true, I didn't care because the aesthetic Image Qualities of the Contax optics made it no contest. A lot of people felt that way when Hasselblad moved to the H lenses and left Zeiss. Despite charted proof that the H lenses were technically the equal or better, a lot of photographers missed the image characteristics or image qualities of the Zeiss lenses.

BTW, Leica isn't immune to my own personal Image Qualities criteria. I opted out of purchasing a M(240) after 35 years of continuous M usage. While the camera itself was undeniably better than a M9, and the resolution was improved, I simply didn't care for what the images looked like. My M work is now strictly with a M Monochrome.

Personally, I have never believed this creative endeavor of photography can simply be reduced down to charts. I DO think we justifiably do that to evaluate our tools on some common ground … but there are not many digital cameras and premium lenses these days that do not have excellent IQ for most applications … what then remains is personal evaluation as it pertains to our own aesthetic criteria (thus my term: Image Qualities).

For me, that has been and remains the Image Qualities from the Leica S system as a whole. I also honestly believe Leica understands this concept, even resisting the trend to "over pixel populate" a sensor which can make it more difficult for the user to realize the full Image Quality and Image Qualities in a variety of applications.

I was worried that the new S(007) with a new CMOS sensor would alter the Image Qualities I prefer from the S2/S2P/SE/S(006). Fortunately, Jono's real-world work/test put those concerns to rest:thumbup:

- Marc
 

jerome_m

Member
I am not talking about test shots. But architecture, interior design, landscape or portrait images with lenses of comparable field of view at apertures of comparable depth of field. And these images well adjusted in post regarding color temperature, color, contrast a.s.o.. In such an A/B test, the crop MF Leica S would have to show it's IQ advantage compared to 135 with similar resolution and DR.
And regarding lenses, for example Batis 25f2, FE 35f1.4, FE 55f1.8 or Otus 55f1.4, Batis 85f1.8 or Otus 85f1.4, FE 90f2.8 Macro, ZE 135f2 Apo would be the "the complete series of lenses available" and I assume they are on Leica S level.

You "assume", but you do not know. I don't know either, BTW.

All what we have are internet reviews which paint lenses like the Batis and Otus as the best thing to happen to photography in the past years. Maybe they are. Maybe, indeed, Zeiss and Sony managed to get the same performance as Leica, but on smaller pixels.

I would be tempted to say that indeed they managed such a feast, provided the subject is as high contrast as a test chart and flat and we use some kind of distortion and chromatic aberration correction and we use f/8. In other cases, I don't know, but I would be tempted to say that the differences, if any, will only show on massive prints.

Now, I don't use Leica S, I use an H4D-50. It may be that the A7RII is just as good with Batis and Otus lenses, I would still find that the H4D has a much better viewfinder, and that, with Phocus, all optical corrections are automatic and I can just concentrate on taking pictures, not on post-processing them. Maybe Leica S users have similar advantages, which have nothing to do with resolution, as measured on a test chart at f/8.
 

synn

New member
I don't shoot Leica (Phamiyaleaf user here), but even the weakest lens I have (Mamiya 150 f/3.5 AF) renders more beautifully than the best Nikons I have and used (I don't have an Otus and have no interest in a manual lens for a DSLR unless it's a wide).



I agree with the previous posts about how larger format lenses have a gentler, smoother rolloff from in focus to out of focus areas. I find that the "3D look" is much better achieved in larger formats. This has nothing to do with the amount of pixels stuffed into the sensor. Just like how an 80MP MFD sensor can outresolve scanned 8x10 film, but can't match the "Look" of the format, you can stuff as many pixels into a 135 sensor as you want, but the "Look" won't match that of MFD, IMO.

Another factor is that the new gen, made for digital 135 lenses are too clinical with no character. current day MF lenses are climically very sharp too (Like the 80mm LS that I have), but they have plenty of character. Even more so with the older lenses. In fact, the only modern day, smaller format lenses that I have found to render to my tastes are the Fujinons for the X system.

The 50mm shift I have recently aquired is nowhere as sharp as any modern lens, but I absolutely love how it renders.



(Right click on both pictures -> View image to see them at a bigger size.
 
Top