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!

Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi,

Regarding shutter modes of the A7rII there are three:

1) Mechanical shutter, no limitations but has vibrations. Needs to be closed before exposure, inducing significant exposure lag.

2) Electronic First Curtain. Not recommended for highest shutter speeds (like above 1/2000s) may not work with legacy lenses that don't stop down fast enough.

3) Fully electronic shutter. Slow travel time but totally silent. Forces 12-bit mode.

So Electronic First Curtain is mostly best option.

I think you are a bit over agitated just because a few persons have different needs than yours. Please, just keep in mind that many photographers don't use flash at all. You would need a nuke to illuminate a landscape.

Also a lot of shooting is done in ambient light. So for many users long exposure capability and great dynamic range matters more than capability for flash sync at 1/800.

As I mentioned some well known MFD users switched from MFD to A7r. One of them, Rainer Viertlblöck was involved with development of the Sinar ArcTec, it was made for him, but he now uses the A7rII 95% of the time. His own words. I don't know why they switched, but good enough and more efficient workflow are words that have been mentioned.

I think that anyone going into MFD should analyse their needs and select what is most appropriate for those needs taking economy into account. Doing that it is nice to be aware of the alternatives. Don't you think so?

Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the A7R-II shutter Info ... isn't there a penalty for using EFS? Is the full electronic shutter the same a silent mode? I know there are limitations with that, which I discovered the hard way.


The OP didn't ask what I thought about other people's needs Erik ... the question was why each of us MFD folks selected MFD and would we do it again. I've answered why, and YES I would do it again.

I doubt anyone here is missing the advantages of alternatives ... most posts on GetDPI are Sony related these days, and before that Nikon D800.

I fully recognize others have different needs and said so ... however, if you want to line list advantages competitively weighed to your POV and leave out some key info I'm happy to fill it in so there IS discussion of alternatives.

The notion of Landscape photography being the criteria for measuring attributes is one that GetDPI has always tended to attract. There is a whole other world out there: fashion, product, table-top, portraiture, wedding, corporate, PR, etc., etc., all of which involve flash sooner or later ... so dismissing use of lighting as a good reason to need MFD is pretty narrow.

As I said, High Sync is there when I need it and not there with the Sony ... and even if the S was just a focal plane shutter camera, I'd still opt for my S for the reason already mentioned.

- Marc
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

There are two downsides with EFSC as far as I know, the first is that it can have problems with adapted lenses having automatic aperture, not allowing time for the aperture to close. I have not seen this myself.

The other downside is that exposure may vary across the image with short exposures. The electronic and mechanical shutters need to move in sync. So I don't think EFCS is recommended above 1/2000.

I always use EFSC and never had a problem, but I am a base ISO and camera on tripod kind of guy. Lack of EFSC was the main reason I didn't buy the original A7r, my Sony Alpha 99 had it so I figured a new high MP model would come soon.

I bought a used P45+ before the A7r came out, so I had 39 MP. My original plan was to get a technical camera previous summer. The HCam B1 was on my mind. The HCam B1 allows some shift with Hasselblad lenses and can use Canon T&S lenses with the P45+ and has a motorised sliding back, so I you can slide out the viewinder and slide in the back.

When the Sony A7rII came around I realised that I could fill my T&S needs with that. So the "blad" went into (partial) retirement. The A7rII provides image quality on par with the P45+, so I am quite happy with it. Don't really think I need more pixels than what I have. So I see it as a relatively low cost and low weight alternative.

I could have bought a Canon 5Ds or a Nikon D810 instead, but I am an old Sony/Minolta user and the Sony is really the only option that offers T&S with a a lot of lenses, including the Canon 16-35/4. They say that the Canon 11-24/4 offers plenty of shift on the Sony A7r, but I was stupid enough to buy the 24/3.5 TSE and the 16-35/4 (both Canon).

As thing are now, the MFD era is over for me. The new CMOS backs are impressive, but far to expensive for my wallet and I really feel I need to scale down own equipment, not least for travel. Still stuff like the Alpa FPS is impressive stuff. Just no match for my needs and not for my wallet.

Actually I am not an admirer of Sony. I regularly tell Canon users that their best option may be to stay with Canon and I feel that there are aspect of Sony that stinks, user interface and lens quality price ratio for instance. But it is pretty much the only game in town in 24x36 mm mirrorless except Leica M and Leica SL.

On the other hand, Sony sensors are all over the place.

Best regards
Erik




Thanks for the A7R-II shutter Info ... isn't there a penalty for using EFS? Is the full electronic shutter the same a silent mode? I know there are limitations with that, which I discovered the hard way.


The OP didn't ask what I thought about other people's needs Erik ... the question was why each of us MFD folks selected MFD and would we do it again. I've answered why, and YES I would do it again.

I doubt anyone here is missing the advantages of alternatives ... most posts on GetDPI are Sony related these days, and before that Nikon D800.

I fully recognize others have different needs and said so ... however, if you want to line list advantages competitively weighed to your POV and leave out some key info I'm happy to fill it in so there IS discussion of alternatives.

The notion of Landscape photography being the criteria for measuring attributes is one that GetDPI has always tended to attract. There is a whole other world out there: fashion, product, table-top, portraiture, wedding, corporate, PR, etc., etc., all of which involve flash sooner or later ... so dismissing use of lighting as a good reason to need MFD is pretty narrow.

As I said, High Sync is there when I need it and not there with the Sony ... and even if the S was just a focal plane shutter camera, I'd still opt for my S for the reason already mentioned.

- Marc
 

Lucille

New member
my desire for Medium Format grows....

I hate going to the medium format image thread, as I see incredible IQ which is what I want.

I might have to rent a system or something, I sure want to give it a try.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member

PeterA

Well-known member
my desire for Medium Format grows....

I hate going to the medium format image thread, as I see incredible IQ which is what I want.

I might have to rent a system or something, I sure want to give it a try.
What do you want in MF - I probably own it and would sell it to you!! It is all gathering dust in my cupboards now...:)


To answer the OP - it all depends on the subject matter AND end use size of printing and quality of printing you are after. I used to make very large prints so MF delivered the information that the printer needs to make large prints that - bigger sensor = more information captured and more ability for better processing of stuff that requires more information to do better....- which is easily seen in large print size.

How much information do you need?

For me the sweet point was 30-45 megapixels - today you can buy 80 and even 100 megapixels- I never needed the information that the elephant gun 80+ megapixel backs deliver - so I never bought one. Of course it isn't just about how much information the back can deliver - it is also about how much information the lenses you use are capable of delivering to the back to capture and then give to you to do stuff with. High resolution lenses for LF/MF on a tech camera- cost a lot of money relative to 35mm lenses.

If you know what you are doing and you know what you want to make pictures of and this subject matter requires more information not less - then enter the high resolution back game - but if you don't match your complete chain of workflow to the capabilities of his stuff - forget about it. if your subject matter and information size needs do not require large - then don't. if you can't see the difference on a monitor- don't be surprised - I can't either. If you can't see the difference in a large print - consult your optometrist.

Finally - a person's interest in photography changes over time - or at least mine has. I no longer am interested in making photographs of 'stuff' or print large images of 'stuff' - because I've been there and done that - and I will get my backside into gear one day and sell off 4-5 MF camera systems and lenses and paraphernalia and tech camera gear that is no longer such an important part of my life.

What do I shoot with now - a Leica MM and old M9 with far too many lenses acquired over the years- what do I shoot? Pictures of my family/friends/holidays and hobby time pursuit in my home workshop - all this subject matter will always be important and more than covered by the sub 20 megapixel engine in these boxes -I wish my apple Iphone could do as good a job - but it doesn't and so I am resigned to keeping the Leica gear for now.

Really - if I was starting shooting now with the subject matter I am interested in - I think pretty much any modern camera from any manufacturer matched to any lens(es) will do a great job - and if you get rid of the embedded metamatter that comes with posted Jpegs on monitors which forum people use - then no one can tell the difference - unless they use the 100/200/300 times pixel peeping button - which is the equivalent of going to a gallery and bringing your microscope with you to view a photograph or a painting...

Pleasse dont talk abotu money V value ...that woudl be the last thing of interest to a dedicated hobbyist or passionate end user wantoing more than needing cares about.
Cheers
Pete
 

jerome_m

Member
But are raw files what we need to compare dissimilar cameras?

I mean: I see the appeal. Raw is supposed to be the original sensor data, so one would dispense from processing. Except that processing and lenses are essential to the complete MF "package".

I'll take an example. I own a Sony RX1 and an Hasselblad H4D-50. The two cameras happen to have the same pixel size (6µm). The RX1 also has a very good lens.

If I want to compare raw files from the two cameras, I first need to find some software capable to digest the two files in parallel. I also needs to find some software without hidden built-in noise reduction. That already limits me to software I do not normally use, like dcraw. When comparing the two files at the pixel level, I then find that the appearance is quite similar, with the older H4D having a bit more noise and hot pixels. On highlights the two give quite similar results, when the exposure is the same. No big surprise here: the pixels have the same size, I am just comparing the older CCD technology with a newer CMOS.

The apparent sharpness is the same at the pixel level on fine details at the center of the picture, with the lens stopped down around f/5.6-f/8. That should also not be a surprise: either lens outresolves the sensor under these conditions.

So, basically, on raw files the two cameras appear equivalent with a large advantage for the RX1 on higher iso and noise.

In my normal photography practice, however, I am not doing that. When using the RX1 my biggest problem (for some pictures) is the distortion of the lens, which I can't correct perfectly (unless using the built-in jpegs). I also often tend to use the RX1 wide open, then the lens gives a very nice 3-D "pop" effect, but the corners may be a tiny bit fuzzy on some subjects (not a real problem unless one shoots test charts). More annoying is that the lens has a bit of spherochromatism, out of focus areas may exhibit some color fringing.

When using the H4D, I process the files with Phocus (from the manufacturer). I don't have to concern myself with distortion, it is automatically corrected. Using the HC50-II, which is equivalent to a 35mm in 24x36, I never get any color fringing (but the lens is much slower). If I were to shoot test charts (I tried), the lens is always sharp corner to corner. The rendering of the lens is also different, with less of a "pop" effect, but very smooth transitions at f/4-f/5.6. The colors out of Phocus are very different to what I get from the RX1 (at least in the default mode), with a palette that reminds me of film. Also: the camera does not have an automatic white balance.

If I compare prints, either camera gives good results, but I can immediately tell which is which. The output of the RX1 looks like a (very good) photograph, the output of the H4D appears more life-like. The RX1 is good for prints up to 18"x24" (A2), the H4D is extraordinary at 24"x34" (A1) or even a bit bigger.
 

MrSmith

Member
Pleasse dont talk abotu money V value ...that woudl be the last thing of interest to a dedicated hobbyist or passionate end user wantoing more than needing cares about.
Cheers
But it's an important factor to a photography business and there are a few on here who are running photography businesses.
The money/value thing reminds me of a phrase

'Cost is only a factor in the absence of value'.

This resonates with me on 2 levels. One is the buying of tools for the business so if something doesn't really add value it doesn't get purchased. (Much like a £20k mfd system)
Also it applies to what I produce and how new clients react to the costs of bespoke imagery of high quality. Thankfully I haven't yet had to use it in conversation when being told 'Johnny in accounts has a nice camera and will do it for free' :banghead:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I guess the answer to the OP's original question: "Is there a compelling reason to move to MFD?", depends on whether you have a compelling need that MFD solves. If not, then there's the answer.

Do you use lighting in highly varied or difficult situations , especially professionally? The difference may be between a landscape photographer, and an environmental portrait photographer that uses landscapes for example.

Do you make very large reproductions, or are your images cropped severely for artistic or commercial reasons?

Do you honestly see a difference in image characteristics? (more realistic, more organic, or any of the descriptors other people have mentioned in this thread?).


Personally, I know very accomplished photographers I admire that use Canon 5Ds and would not benefit from any change ... even including Canon's latest 50 meg version.

My own creative output is split between a 18 meg Leica MM which is a continuation of a long time rangefinder B&W exploration of "The human condition" ... when I use this camera it's supplemented by a cell phone for typical snapshots uploaded to the web or sent via text messages.

Most professional jobs and important personal work is done with the Leica S because I am one who sees a difference as well as use lighting.

The A7R-II is back-up and used for faster work like weddings, and higher ISO needs or with special lenses.

- Marc
 

Jamgolf

Member
If we are window shopping and enter a store, we enter with an open mind. We browse, ask questions and perhaps even try a few things. If we don’t like the merchandise, or if the items don’t fit us or our needs we say thank you to the store owner, maybe exchange some pleasantries then leave respectfully.

Is it so difficult to understand that everyone’s needs, desires and choices are different.
 
Last edited:

Lucille

New member
What do you want in MF - I probably own it and would sell it to you!! It is all gathering dust in my cupboards now...:)



Pete


I want pure HORSEPOWER! Pure IQ. I'll do things with medium format that most probably wouldn't. Just to see the step up in IQ and further create a 'look' to my images.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
But are raw files what we need to compare dissimilar cameras?

I mean: I see the appeal. Raw is supposed to be the original sensor data, so one would dispense from processing. Except that processing and lenses are essential to the complete MF "package".
If you take a look at the link, they took the same scene with the same lens. It's an interesting discussion.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I have posted a comparison between my Hasselblad V / P45+ combo with my Sony A7rII, using the Planar 100/3.5 and the Planar 120/4 on the "blad" and the Sony 90/2.8G macro on the A7rII.

Regarding colour, I did not shoot a WB card, unfortunately.

Crops of the two images are here: Some comparisons between my Sony Alpha A7rII and my Hasselblad V and P45+ back

The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/

Now, I am processing my images in Lightroom and not C1 using my own colour profiles or some profiles I got from Anders Torger. I own the 7 and 8 versions of Capture One Pro, but it simply doesn't work for me.

Since the original comparison I have also added one wide angle test using my Canon 16-35/4 on the A7rII and Distagon 40/4 on the Hasselblad.

Hasselblad/Distagon/P45+ - center crop:


Sony A7rII/Canon 16-35/4 - center crop:



Distagon/P45+: - border crop


Sony A7rII/Canon 16-35/4 - border crop:


Now, the Distagon 40/4 CF is not a great lens, as shown by the MTF curves from Zeiss below. The border image is probably at around 20 mm of axis. There is a later generation lens called Distagon 40/CFE IF. That lens is much improved, but both rare and costly (around 4000$US on Ebay).
Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 03.31.21.jpg

While the Planar 100/3.5 CF is one of Hasselblad's better lenses:
Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 03.32.06.jpg

Yes, I am aware that I am comparing new stuff to old stuff. On the other hand, Hasselblad are selling all the CFV-50c backs they can make according to their new CEO, in an interview with Kevin Raber. So Hasselblad is selling a lot of those backs, right now, and those backs are a bit more demanding than my P45+ as they have both higher resolution and larger crop factor.

Naturally, a higher resolution back with better lenses would outperform both my Hasselblad/P45+ and my Sony A7rII, but at several times the cost. I checked prices here in Sweden, and for the price of an IQ-150 I could buy the A7rII, all three Otus lenses and both Canon T&S wide angles.

Best regards
Erik






If you take a look at the link, they took the same scene with the same lens. It's an interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:

jerome_m

Member
If you take a look at the link, they took the same scene with the same lens. It's an interesting discussion.
You are referring to that link:http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/55802-iq180-vs-up-res-a7r2.html.

I think the tests are illustrative of the problems I was thinking about. In that thread, we have a first test of an artificial rose over a stone statue. The poster finds out that the camera with more pixels has higher resolution. I fail to see how that would be surprising. However, and that is more interesting about test design, the tester chose the absolute best lens in E mount, an aperture where all lenses are at their best and only looks at the center. And that is what I find a problem with 24x36: sure one can have stellar results, but one is limited to a small selection of lenses and apertures and, often, not look too closely out of the center zone. Unfortunately, I take photographs and I often need a focal length which does not exist in Zeiss Otus. Then I am limited to 24x36 lenses which show defects, sometimes quite obvious.

Interestingly, nobody in this thread noted that the colors of the (artificial) leaves is quite different.

Then, in the same thread, there is an image of a building taken with the Canon 17mm TSE. While the test is informative to someone who wonders about color shifts or vignetting of the 17mm TSE on the two sensors, I fail to see how the test would allow us to compare the cameras.

Last but not least, we have Erik Kaffer who posted comparisons between an A7RII and a P45+. We learn that crops of the P45+ can be quite similar to the A7RII. We also learn that the Distagon 40/4 has poor corner sharpness. We already knew that from the MTF curves.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Now, I am processing my images in Lightroom and not C1 using my own colour profiles or some profiles I got from Anders Torger. I own the 7 and 8 versions of Capture One Pro, but it simply doesn't work for me.

Erik
I respect the work you put into the comparisons but to paraphrase Lau Norgaard of Phase One (and emphasized one-one with me at a recent event), the only authentic representation of Phase One quality is from Capture One as the back and C1 are a matched combination that is designed to produce the very best image quality possible from Phase One files. If you use other converters whether they be DCRaw, your own processor, Adobe Raw etc you will never create the images that Phase One stand behind.

Whilst I understand that C1 Pro may not be your preferred raw processor, it is the highly optimized processor for all Phase One backs and it has only gotten better and better with C1 Pro v9.1.

Compare the best of the Sony and Phase One files from C1 Pro (which is the preferred and optimized processor for both manufacturers) and I think that we'd better appreciate the big vs small sensor capabilities.

I'm sure that you'll appreciate that a lot of engineering has gone into ensuring that the manufacturer's preferred raw processor will produce the best results for comparison.

Given that, I'll be first to admit that on pixel peeping level the differences between my Sony and Phase One back is very very very close. But, as others have stated, print BIG and suddenly the differences in subtle color and tonality come through. I can't put my finger objectively on why but I'll trust Phase One's Image Professor Niels Knudsen over anyone else.


btw, I recommend reading the The Image Quality Professor's Blog » Blog Archive Capture One 9: Under the Hood - The Image Quality Professor's Blog
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Yes, the weak border (not corner) peformance of the Distagon can be predicted from the MTF curves, still many photographers feel MTF curves are not very relevant. I do not belong to those, but showing the difference in real world images may be interesting.

One small point is price. The Canon 16-35/4 I used is still quite a bit cheaper than 20 year old Distagon I bought at EBay and the new IF version sells at around 4000 $US on EBay.

Newer lenses are better, let's check the Hasselblad HC 35/3.5:
Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 07.18.44.jpg

The Otus 28/1.4 on the other hand is really great:
Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 07.24.47.jpg

Here in Sweden both cost around 44000 SEK around 5000$US.

But, for the A7rII Zeiss also offers the Batis 25/2.0, that is pretty good, looking at Zeiss and Hasselblad lenses is nice because they post similar MTF data.
Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 07.40.14.jpg

I would guess that a 40+ MP 24x36mm camera using either the OTUS 28/1.4 or the Batis 25/2 would outperform a 40-50MP Hasselblad using the HC 35/3.5 except for the sweet spot of the lenses, based on the MTF data. With the Batis 25/2 you could probably buy the A7rII and the lens at about the same price you pay for the HC 35/3.5.

Some buyers don't care about money, but quite a few actually do…

Anyway, my finding is that my MFD stuff goes into retirement. To begin with, I find that once you start spending of MFD you are going to spend a lot.

The other thing is that weight is a major factor as I am flying more than before. With the 24x36mm stuff I can have a very functional equipment in my Kiboko Bataflae and still be within the 10 kg weight limits on many flights.

Best regards
Erik


You are referring to that link:http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/55802-iq180-vs-up-res-a7r2.html.

Last but not least, we have Erik Kaffer who posted comparisons between an A7RII and a P45+. We learn that crops of the P45+ can be quite similar to the A7RII. We also learn that the Distagon 40/4 has poor corner sharpness. We already knew that from the MTF curves.
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't own the Pentax 645Z, so I cannot tell.

What I can say is that Diglloyd did some comparisons between the Sony A7r (not that A7rII) and the Pentax 645Z and found no case where the Pentax 645 was superior. That comparison was done with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 on the Sony. (*)

Update: Diglloyd compared the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 on the Sony with the Pentax 25/4 on the Pentax 645Z.

The MFD I have is a Hasselblad 555/ELD with 40/60/100/120 and 180 mm lenses combined with the P45+ back. With Sony I presently use Canon 16-35/4L, Canon 24-105/4L, Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII, Sony 90/2.8G Macro and Sony 70-400/4-5.6G.

I feel that Canon 24-35/4L beats the Distagons and the Sony 90/2.8 G may beat the Planars (100/3.5 and 120/4 Macro).

My understanding is that some Pentax lenses are really good. I can mention that I also have a bunch of Pentax 67 lenses, and I am pretty sure that the Pentax 67 45/4 is better than the Zeiss Distagon 40/4, at least off axis.

Best regards
Erik

(*) But I don't see Diglloyds testing as a gospel. I have seen a lot of very good image samples from the Pentax 645Z.

abstraction - the reason people got annoyed with you is that despite your claims that you are just researching, you are clearly looking for people to say what you want to hear.

erik - I'm using a 645z so I fit into your sceptic bracket :) tell me, honestly do you think a a7r2 would compete with a 645z with a good lens. When I compared the 645z to a 5dsr the MF files were so superior the difference was striking. I'm sure in a studio the canon would do ok - but when we tested them outdoors the MF files smoked the canon.

Have a look at these shots last week I took. Please note I'm not a landscape guy, just a wedding photographer who went on a hike in new zealand with a 645z and a few lenses. All handheld. The good ones are the mountain shots roughly halfway down. These are the new 35/3.5 at f10'ish.

Happy Snaps from NZ! | Wollongong, Illawarra, Southern Highlands, Sydney & Destination wedding photography

exif info is intact (the couple with no info are the Blad 110/2). the ones with the 35mm - the full size raws are just so much sharper & detailed than anything i've seen from any 35 system. i'm just baffled that anyone could be skeptical there isn't much or any advantage in terms of pure IQ.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Erik, I have a lot of sympathy for your argument based on what you shoot and how you work. I travel a fair amount and when by air I usually take the A7R & A7R-II. When by vehicle I take the S system and the A7R-II with a 24-70/2.8 zoom as back-up.

Other thoughts:

The CFV has been a good product for Hasselblad because there are so many 500 and 200 camera lovers out there. Up until a few years ago I was one of them. Like many, I had slowly built Hasselblad V kit over the years and put it to good use. At the time I was shooting both film for personal work (scanned on a 949), and a CFV-16 for commercial work. I did have the 40IF which was free with a promotional package. In addition to a 503CW, I used a 203FE to access the Zeiss FE lenses like the FE-110/2 and FE-150/2.8 for portrait and creative work. The general impression I had was that the results had a look and feel (character), contrast, and color rendering unmatched by anything at the time. That was NOT just a metric evaluation as much as a creative one. However, the key aspect was that I LOVED working with the V camera ... and I miss that experience to this day.

As such, the value proposition for V system owners is the cost of the CFV back (new CFV50c @ $10K, or used CFV50ccd for less) So, cheaper than a Sony A7R-II and the top lenses necessary to compete with the V kit (if it actually could compete, which I doubt). In the switch over they'd lose the kit they already like using for a kit that lacks all the tactile, and simple operational elements of the V. We cannot dismiss that out of hand.

When it comes to comparing systems, one also cannot utilize knowledge of a system and cherry pick the comparisons. I would not compare the HC35/3.5 which is the one lens in the HC/HCD series in dire need of up-dating, instead I'd opt for the HC50/3.5-II which produces stunning results on any H camera or S camera via the H to S adapter, or Hasselblad's W/A zoom.

The H kit is a wonder of operational value IMO. You can get a new H5D/40 for $8K right now! 40 meg with a larger sensor than the Sony. This kit offers 4:3 ratio, improved True Focus APL that over-rides the need for AF point array to allow off-center focusing. It is faster than wheeling to a focus point on the A7s. True focus also refers to minute automatic adjustments to correct any focus shift when changing apertures. Plus, I've used the mirror delay feature to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds. Things like this come from a more consistent and intimate knowledge of a system that often goes unmentioned.

Comparison shots are very hard to accomplish IMO.

When doing pure comparisons I try to keep as few variables as possible. Doing outdoor comparisons is too hard IMO. I usually do these indoors with Profoto lighting which is a constant, as close as I can get with the focal lengths, equivalent apertures, subject matter, locked down tripod. I shoot with strobes stopped down, and with just modeling lights with wider apertures ... using a grey card for custom WB on both cameras. Since I shoot product and people I try to test both.

I have NOT done this between the Leica S and the recently purchased Sony A7R-II because I haven't had the time, and I'm waiting to secure the Batis FE lenses on back order. I could compare the FE55/1.8 verses the CS -70/2.5 but the S lenses in in for service. Another interesting comparison would be the FE90/2.8 Macro verses my CS120/2.5 but I don't have the 90 and doubt I ever will. One other comparison I'd like to do is the Leica 75/2 APO/ASPH on the A7R-II against the S 100/2.

I've shot these two cameras side-by-side for paying work (mostly people stuff and table-top product) which is the source of my preference for the S system output. I can pick-out the S shots every time, they have a presence lacking from the Sony.

Still, it would be an interesting exercise to compare these two in highly controlled circumstances since they're both in the 40 meg arena and both are 3:2.

When I get the time. I'll try it ... However, don't hold your breath. I'm traveling the next month ... with the Sony's BTW ... :ROTFL:

- Marc
 
Top