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

hcubell

Well-known member
Perhaps I missed it, but has anyone has asked the OP how he would expect to use the Leica S? If the intended use is travel and landscape and not studio use or fashion on a set, I would suggest not just taking a few frames and comparing them for ultimate IQ. Put each camera and 4 primes in a camera bag and walk around with it for 4 hours and then see what you think. Try shooting both cameras off a tripod at ISO 3200 and compare those files. My point is that this is really an apples to oranges comparison and and an apples to oranges decision.
 

jerome_m

Member
Perhaps I missed it, but has anyone has asked the OP how he would expect to use the Leica S? If the intended use is travel and landscape and not studio use or fashion on a set, I would suggest not just taking a few frames and comparing them for ultimate IQ. Put each camera and 4 primes in a camera bag and walk around with it for 4 hours and then see what you think. Try shooting both cameras off a tripod at ISO 3200 and compare those files. My point is that this is really an apples to oranges comparison and and an apples to oranges decision.
Indeed, and even that is very dependent on the person. For example, I take less than 4 primes in my bag when using the MF camera. I take a zoom on the 24x36, which is heavier than the average MF lens.

OTOH, the A7 is stabilised, and that is very useful on travel.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
This has been a fascinating thread and I've enjoyed all the opinions offered - so I guess I should offer mine, though it's really more about MF than Leica specifically. I'm a Phase addict and an MF user most of my life (Rolleis, Hassys, etc) and while I own Sony gear for travel, I just don't enjoy using it like I do my Phase gear.

Even if the images from Sony were equal (which they are not), I'd still use the Phase gear for one of the reasons Marc expressed re the Leica - I get a buzz using it!

My Phase camera and back and 35 mm LS lens weigh a ton and I have to use a backpack because either my neck or my wrist would break if I hand-carried it for long. Today I hiked 9 kms with it and wondered - is this really worth it? Then I viewed the images on my Mac - and yes, it WAS worth it!

There's no gain without pain, I guess.

One day I might try Leica MF, but whatever the result, I'm pretty sure I'll like the images better than Sony, even as the game-changer miracle that it is.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

It may depend where you look. I was recently shooting in some pretty dark churches with an A7rII and viewing was incredibly good, much better than with the naked eye.

On the other an EVF is pretty dark i strong sunlight.

With an EVF you can have 10-12X magnification in the viewfinder, that is something no OVF offers.

Best regards
Erik

One look through the viewfinder of the Leica S will change your view of 35mm digital cameras, especially ones with EVF's. :thumbup:
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I have been shooting a P45+ with a bunch of Hasselblad V-series lenses for something like two years now and just got myself Sony A7rII which I use with existing lenses and adapters. Most of the time I had the A7rII I was shooting on travel. But, I made some comparison shots with my Hasselblad stuff.

What I have seen was not that conclusive. In some cases the Sony had an edge (comparing Distagon 40/4 CFE and Sony A7rII with a Canon 24/3.5). A recent comparison I made were nearly dead ringers.

Another comparison I made between the Planar 100/3.5 P45+ and the Sony 90/2.8 macro went in favour of the Planar 100, but I had a small focusing error on the Sony.

A third comparison I made is essentially a dead ringer.

There is a lot of possibility for experimental error doing these kinds of comparison.

Using Lightroom 6.2 it seem that LR has a tendency to produce aliasing artefacts to a larger extent with the Sony than with the P45+. Images converted by RawTherapee don't show this.

Now, this doesn't say a lot about the Leica S-E. The P45 sensor is a bit larger than the Leica sensor but is of similar design. In all probability the the Sony has cleaner deep shadows. But the Leica probably has quite a bit better lenses.

Naturally, it all depends on what you put in front of the camera. Leica lenses are known to be excellent. The choice of truly excellent lenses for the Sony is limited. The 35/1.4, 55/1.8 and the 90/2.8G are known to be very good and so are the two Batis lenses said to be very good.

Personally, I would think that those Leica lenses would deserve more pixels.

Another point may be that the A7rII is more like an imaging device, with a complex user interface. The Leica S is a classic camera.

Best regards
Erik

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
 

synn

New member
Erik, as long as you keep processing Phase files in LR, your deductions have to be taken with a grain of salt or two. I am sorry, it needs to be said.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Synn,

I don't argue with that. In the most recent comparison I used RawTherapee. Just to say, C1 doesn't support Leica S-E which the original poster asked about, so using C1 is not really an option for him. But both cameras use a similar Kodak sensor, although the S-E has smaller pixels, so comparing Kodak pixels on P45+ with Kodak pixels on Leica S-E using software that supports both sensors may also make some sense.

But I definitively feel that Adobe has not done it's homework.

Best regards
Erik




Erik, as long as you keep processing Phase files in LR, your deductions have to be taken with a grain of salt or two. I am sorry, it needs to be said.
 

Pradeep

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
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.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I'll likely never get into MF digital myself, but if I did the Leica S system would suck me in first. I handled one at the Leica store and instantly felt at home with it.

Much as I like the Pentax 645 and the new Z, it just doesn't appeal to me the same way. The Hassy H feels too bulky and awkward, haven't played with a Phase One yet either.

The Sony A7 system ultimately underwhelmed me; sold out of it.

I'll stick with the M-P and the D750 as my large format digital. And keep going with my film cameras for a change and a different look: SWC, Polaroid, etc. I still have the Coolscan 9000 although I finding the Nikon D750 and 105 Macro lens makes a formidable negative copier using a Beseler enlarger's film holder as a mask. I rarely need more than the 16 Mpixel image files that produces.

G
 

algrove

Well-known member
For some reason from reading your posts over many months I had the idea you owned the S system. Thanks for the clarification.
 

Dan Santoso

New member
I just did a test between Sony 90mm macro with A7RII and 240LS SK with iq 180. The sony beat my 240 LS completely.

I will post files later.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I have both the A7rII and the Leica S 006. I have two lenses for the Sony, the 35 2.8 and the 55mm 1.8. I used to have the 35 1.4, but I had to return it because of uneven performance across the frame.
When it comes to resolution alone, there is very little between the Leica and the Sony. The Sony lenses are not as sharp wide open, but the 55 is faster than the 70mm equivalent. Stopped down a bit, they are similar in resolution. The Sony lenses have more distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberrations. These can be fixed with lens profiles. The Leica also has lens profiles, but I find that they actually perform better without them, as the adjustments are mostly very small indeed, and by shifting every pixel to fix a tiny amount of distortion you are actually softening the image more than you are improving it. Anyway, that is a personal call.

I find the handling and ergonomics of the Leica to be much much better, and for whatever reason it seems to turn out files that are more "finished" out of the box than the Sony. Both will get you there, but it is easier to do so with the Leica. The overall look of the lenses is also better, as is the color (to my subjective eyes). The Sony has better ISO performance above 800 (800 and below it is fairly similar, actually), and it is obviously much smaller and lighter. Battery life is horrendous, whereas it lasts all day in the Leica. The Leica is fully weather sealed and easy to operate with gloves etc.

The Sony has a fiddly and annoying interface. Seriously, why won't it let you set a manual white balance in manual mode, custom mode 1 or 2, movie mode or aperture priority? You have to switch the camera to Program mode. Why are settings often blocked out in one mode, but available in another with no explanation as to why they are blocked? Why is the menu so haphazardly laid out? Why is the layout on the A7S slightly different than on the A7rII when their bodies are otherwise nearly the same? Why does the viewfinder sensor turn on the evf when an object is still six inches away, therefore making it impractical to actually use the tilting screen for waist level recording...etc etc. So much of the Sony interface and handling is half-done and thrown together...it does not feel like a professional camera at all. But if you want video or a compact travel camera, it is the clear choice as it can create such high quality images in such a compact kit.

If I had to choose between the two cameras to only have one, it would certainly be the Leica. That said, the Sony can produce quite comparable results for a lot less money, albeit with more work. But that is really not any different than it was for a while now...the D800 could also compare rather well with the S on a good day...the Sony is in a similar boat. The results out of both cameras are spectacular, but to my mind the Leica results are often better, and this is a result of better lenses, 16 bit color, a more refined output (they have tweaked it with lightroom for four years now), and a camera that is far more ergonomic and freeing to use...it is a joy to shoot, and you spend less time messing with the interface, and more time actually taking more and better pictures.
 

CSP

New member
The Sony has a fiddly and annoying interface. Seriously, why won't it let you set a manual white balance in manual mode, custom mode 1 or 2, movie mode or aperture priority? You have to switch the camera to Program mode. Why are settings often blocked out in one mode, but available in another with no explanation as to why they are blocked? Why is the menu so haphazardly laid out? Why is the layout on the A7S slightly different than on the A7rII when their bodies are otherwise nearly the same? Why does the viewfinder sensor turn on the evf when an object is still six inches away, therefore making it impractical to actually use the tilting screen for waist level recording...etc etc. So much of the Sony interface and handling is half-done and thrown together...it does not feel like a professional camera at all. But if you want video or a compact travel camera, it is the clear choice as it can create such high quality images in such a compact kit.
.

there is no problem with setting custom white-balance in manuel mode with the a7rII - this is simply not true as some of your other claims but you believe the 16 bit color thing which is pure marketing BS...
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
My apologies CSP. Perhaps you are right about M and Aperture Priority...I could have sworn it prevented me from setting it at times, perhaps when a picture profile was set? Or maybe in the A7s, as that was my first Alpha series camera? Either way, it is certainly a problem in movie mode and memory recall, and one that annoys me, as those are the modes I use the most.
As for 16 bit color, I don't really care whether it is the bit level that is responsible for the better color, or whether it is Leica's tuning, but whatever it is, I find it preferable.

IMG_1919.JPGIMG_1920.JPG
 

CSP

New member
My apologies CSP. Perhaps you are right about M and Aperture Priority...I could have sworn it prevented me from setting it at times, perhaps when a picture profile was set? Or maybe in the A7s, as that was my first Alpha series camera? Either way, it is certainly a problem in movie mode and memory recall, and one that annoys me, as those are the modes I use the most.
As for 16 bit color, I don't really care whether it is the bit level that is responsible for the better color, or whether it is Leica's tuning, but whatever it is, I find it preferable.

View attachment 113305View attachment 113306

hi, i can´t comment on the movie aspects never used them but in general the camera can get very easy overwhelming because of the many features and settings and how they interact. it took me a long time to master it as intuitive as a canon. memory recall could indeed be improved. to learn and understand the camera better i very much recommend the ebooks by gary friedman.

color rendering is to more than 90% a question of the raw converter and the profiles even when a lot of photographers still don't belief it and repeat the mantra of the mf advantage endless. maybe you try a different converter for the sony ?
 
Top