DPR allows some Leica SL and A7RII comparisons

[thompsonkirk]

I don't have any corner issues with mine. Perhaps a little vignetting but that is it.

Re: WATE: From what people report, there might be more variation among WATE copies than other Leica lenses. They must be hard to build and adjust.

As a rule I do no sharpening (not even the default LR/ACR sharpening), and I have no corner problems at 18 and 21mm. But at 16mm I sometimes have to touch up the bottom corners a bit with the Photokit 'creative' sharpener, so that corner sharpness more closely matches the center.

@ Charlie: Perhaps you misread the title and/or thread. It wasn't about general or personal-preference comparisons; it was about some limited data offered by DPReview on two points of comparison: resolution, and dynamic range ( = post-processing latitude). The SL, perhaps because no prime lenses are available, does not come out on top in comparison to several other brands, for example Nikon and Sony. You can look at magnified JPG and RAW test shots for yourself. Ptomsu looks at the evidence closely in Post #3. If on this evidence about these two points you come to different conclusions, let us know?

There's always plenty of room for more subjective differences of opinion about handling, price, differences of style, habit, etc. Other threads are full of comments and even some venting about same.

Kirk

 

[Vivek]

For me the Leica is superior to any Sony body available today. By a large margin. It should be considering the price :bugeyes:.

By the same token, the 60 year edition without a LCD or the Lenny Scratched edition should be even better? :ROTFL:

 

[hiepphotog]

First off, let's be clear. I am not insisting it is the better body for Guy, you, or anyone but me and my lenses

It is not about "Leica superiority". I was never a fan of the Crop Leicas. I was a Sony fan before I was ever a Leica fan. Calling someone who likes a lens or camera system a fanboy, which I get all the time, is just an excuse not to consider their point of view. Sure, there are people who just like every Chevy. Not me. Takes me quite a awhile to work up to real admiration. And I am not afraid to withdraw it when my experience says it's not deserved.

Posts about "Leica Failure" draw no comment, but mine is in the wrong place in a thread about comparing the two cameras?

Seriously?

Why would that not be frustrating?

In general and not thinking of anybody in particular; I'm really not sure which is more silly: puppydog love for a system or blind antipathy towards one. Intentionally or not even the thread title is a slur against the SL. I think Leica did a good job on the SL, in many ways, and deserves a defense. To controversial to make the case?

Since the thread is about comparison, there is really no way around looking at why somebody like me really might prefer the SL, is there?

Unless of course, it's just about "us and them".

Just to keep it short, I don't see any puppydog love or blind antipathy here. All I see are respectable photographers who know their preferences. Nothing here is frustrating. Those that know they like the SL are already over at the Leica SL thread in the Leica forum. If DPreview's result is somehow favorable to the Leica, you are probably going to see a thread over there comparing it to other FF bodies.

And I admit, I was really intrigued by this SL when it was first announced. The biggest EVF certainly has its appeal. But after more reading, I don't see how I would get it over the A7RII. And yes, one of the reasons is the price they are asking.

 

[uhoh7]

@ Charlie: Perhaps you misread the title and/or thread. It wasn't about general or personal-preference comparisons; it was about some limited data offered by DPReview on two points of comparison: resolution, and dynamic range ( = post-processing latitude). The SL, perhaps because no prime lenses are available, did not come out on top in comparison to several others, including Nikon and Sony. You can look at magnified JPG and RAW test shots for yourself. Ptomsu looks at the evidence closely in Post #3. If on this evidence about these two points you come to different conclusions, let us know?

Kirk

DPR can hardly be considered an honest or competent broker, unless you are in the market for justification of one preference or the other. The site never completed a full review of the M9. They never understood either the Nex-5 or A7 when first introduced, and awarded caveat laden "silver" awards to both ground breaking cameras. They intentionally made the SL look as silly as possible in their "preview" images of the camera in the hands of the smallest person they could find.

As to the "new data". I don't see anything new there. A zoom is a zoom and it's not a prime. ISO performance is about the same as A7II- that was already clear, and yes, we had hoped for better. Where they are probably wrong is saying it's as good as the Q. Real photographers say not Quite. The camera has 24mp, not 42mp. For dynamic range, on paper the Sony A7r2 is better. Why do I say on paper? Because I work with Sony RAWS in lightroom every day. On paper the A7 kills the M9 in DR. In practice the Sony RAWS are terrible compared to the M9, where you can pull up shadows from nothing with little new noise. Pulling Sony shadows degrades the image in lightroom. The M9 RAW file size is 36mp, the A7 is 24mp.

But the A7r2 may be much better and when uncompressed RAWs come, maybe they can make files as nice to edit as the Leicas, Canons, or Nikons. For overall DR, the Sony r2 should be better, and of course it has many pixels. Tiny ones, but many.

Like a 67 Mustang with a 427, the A7r2 has raw power in there, and the processor is good too.

But those Mustangs never won very many races. Other 'data' was more important, it turns out.

 

[k-hawinkler]

A sad day for me as I put my WATE up for sale today as I no longer have the M and for me it feels a bit like the end of an era. The only leica M mount lens I have left is the apo/telyt 135. I have loved the WATE for many years but just wasn't satisfied with it's corner behaviour on the A7rII and now have the CV25 mkIII which is excellent and will get the new Zeiss loxia 21 when it comes out. In time I will probably get a 2nd A7rII as though I have the A7s I miss having 2 cameras with the same size sensors

Thanks David, I would feel the same way about not having the WATE.

The WATE is certainly not perfect but is getting more use on my A7r2 than it does on my M9. I'll keep it for good but may add other WA lenses like the CV15 mk III (sic!) you have, but I probably will prefer the FE version of one of the announced new 15, 12, and 10 mm CV lenses.

I understand the APO-Telyt-M 135/3.4 is an outstanding lens. At the time I bought instead the TE 135/4, its predecessor, that also has an excellent reputation. My copies of that lens have certainly served me well. The reason I preferred that lens was, but still is, that I can use its lens head with an adapted short focus mount on my Nikon cameras. So it has been a favorite landscape lens on my D3, and now on my D800E. I found it fairly easy to focus with the green confirmation dot in the D3 or D800E viewfinder, but of course, it's even easier and more accurate on an A7r/2 camera. Of course, on the A7r/2 one can use either the adapted short focus mount, followed by an Nikon F to Sony E adapter or one can adapt the regular M mount with an Leica M to Sony E adapter. :facesmack:

 

[Vivek]

A zoom is a zoom and it's not a prime.

Ah, come on! At $5000, by your own estimate, it has got to do better than my Zony lenses.

 

[ohnri]

DPR can hardly be considered an honest or competent broker, unless you are in the market for justification of one preference or the other. The site never completed a full review of the M9. They never understood either the Nex-5 or A7 when first introduced, and awarded caveat laden "silver" awards to both ground breaking cameras. They intentionally made the SL look as silly as possible in their "preview" images of the camera in the hands of the smallest person they could find.

As to the "new data". I don't see anything new there. A zoom is a zoom and it's not a prime. ISO performance is about the same as A7II- that was already clear, and yes, we had hoped for better. Where they are probably wrong is saying it's as good as the Q. Real photographers say not Quite. The camera has 24mp, not 42mp. For dynamic range, on paper the Sony A7r2 is better. Why do I say on paper? Because I work with Sony RAWS in lightroom every day. On paper the A7 kills the M9 in DR. In practice the Sony RAWS are terrible compared to the M9, where you can pull up shadows from nothing with little new noise. Pulling Sony shadows degrades the image in lightroom. The M9 RAW file size is 36mp, the A7 is 24mp.

But the A7r2 may be much better and when uncompressed RAWs come, maybe they can make files as nice to edit as the Leicas, Canons, or Nikons. For overall DR, the Sony r2 should be better, and of course it has many pixels. Tiny ones, but many.

Like a 67 Mustang with a 427, the A7r2 has raw power in there, and the processor is good too.

But those Mustangs never won very many races. Other 'data' was more important, it turns out.

I have an A7 and an A7r2. I owned and shot extensively in low light conditions with a Leica M9.

The M9 files have a certain magic quality that is hard to pin down to objective numbers. But, it was a low light cripple. The A7 does better.

The A7r2, compressed RAW or even JPEGs, is in a whole different league compared to either camera in terms of low light. It is not any kind of contest whatsoever. It is also very good just for DR and pulling up shadows, better than my old M9 without question. The Uncompressed RAW's are, no doubt, even better.

The A7r2 files also have that certain something. Not the identical magic quality as the M9 but something uniquely special and beautiful. The sensor has more DR, greater low light sensitivity and more pixels.

I loved the unique look I got from my M9. But, I get a special look from my A7r2 as well. And a lot more flexibility.

I am not knocking Leica. I still have the IIIa I shot with as a boy.

Far more importantly, my wife just asked what lens do I want for Christmas??

Best ... Wife ... Ever

-Bill

 

[Guy Mancuso]

She need a extra husband. LOL

 

[ohnri]

She need a extra husband. LOL

LOL. She says she needs a wife of her own.

-Bill

 

[lambert]

Ah, come on! At $5000, by your own estimate, it has got to do better than my Zony lenses.

It's not unreasonable to expect the Leica 24-90 to perform on par with a prime lens. If not, what's the point of paying $5000 to lug around a huge piece of glass that weighs over 2.5lb and is slow relative to competing pro-zooms ??

 

[jaree]

It's not unreasonable to expect the Leica 24-90 to perform on par with a prime lens. If not, what's the point of paying $5000 to lug around a huge piece of glass that weighs over 2.5lb and is slow relative to competing pro-zooms ??

Agree that it is a fat heavy beast to carry. But how about someone who does not want to carry 3 primes and can accept a slightly lower IQ? I find changing lenses in the field a big hassle and would love to have a "slow" Zoom lens that can deliver at F5.6.

Not saying that $5,000 justifies it, but I don't expect Leica to sell a new FF AF lens for $1,500 either - unless they charge a lot more, how can they say that it is the highest quality?!!!

BTW, my Leica R 100 APO Elmarit is about 1.7lb. And that is one fixed focal length lens.

 

[uhoh7]

Not saying that $5,000 justifies it, but I don't expect Leica to sell a new FF AF lens for $1,500 either - unless they charge a lot more, how can they say that it is the highest quality?!!!

I have no clue if the zoom is worth having or not. I'd need to see many more shots. But compared to the price and production quality of the Sony FE 35/1.4 and FE 90/2.8, it may be a good deal:
LensRentals.com - Sony E Mount Lens Optical Bench Tests

Other critical lenses in the Sony system, like the 1635 and 35/2.8 are notorious for decentered copies. But hey, you got 42mp! Just crop your way out of that soft side, right?

Is it Sony-bashing to point out these issues? What would you say about a Canon lens which was so often out of spec?

I admit, the thought of a forum buddy shelling out 1600USD for a lens in good faith and getting who knows what, makes me see red.

 

[Tim]

I looked at the test and am impressed again with the Leica Q.
But I guess this post is more about ICL Cameras.

I wonder more what large prints from all would look like.

 

[thompsonkirk]

Tim, you got me to look again and I too like the Q. Ah, if only it were 35mm....

Kirk

 

[Viramati]

Wow, never heard of any corner issues with the A7's and the WATE. Could you elaborate a bit on it because I have no issues with my A7II and WATE.

Firstly I have to say that putting the WATE up for sale was a very hard decision as it is indeed a lovely lens and one I have cherished since I buying it for the M8 but it was hardly getting any use anymore. So why? I also have the FE16-35 and the CV15 mk III and when comparing all 3 lenses at the widest setting I was finding that the corners on the FE16-35 and WATE to be similar but the CV15 mkIII shows noticeably better detail in these areas. Basically I find the CV15 to be the best performer and easiest to use at the widest setting. The FE16-35 is be good but can be a pain to focus evenly for landscape work. The CV 15 on the A7rII can be easily cropped to say 18mm without losing a lot of pixels so I am finding that the CV15 is the best ultra-wide for me. I know they say never sell a leica lens but I have no intention of buying back into the M system and in fact want to get a 2nd A7rII body and the upcoming Zeiss loxia 21/2.8 looks to be an excellent lens so what with selling the WATE and maybe the the FE16-35 I can get this lens and another A7rII body. Anyway this is all my rationalisation to myself for selling the WATE so if anyone want to try to talk me out of it feel free

 

[ohnri]

Firstly I have to say that putting the WATE up for sale was a very hard decision as it is indeed a lovely lens and one I have cherished since I buying it for the M8 but it was hardly getting any use anymore. So why? I also have the FE16-35 and the CV15 mk III and when comparing all 3 lenses at the widest setting I was finding that the corners on the FE16-35 and WATE to be similar but the CV15 mkIII shows noticeably better detail in these areas. Basically I find the CV15 to be the best performer and easiest to use at the widest setting. The FE16-35 is be good but can be a pain to focus evenly for landscape work. The CV 15 on the A7rII can be easily cropped to say 18mm without losing a lot of pixels so I am finding that the CV15 is the best ultra-wide for me. I know they say never sell a leica lens but I have no intention of buying back into the M system and in fact want to get a 2nd A7rII body and the upcoming Zeiss loxia 21/2.8 looks to be an excellent lens so what with selling the WATE and maybe the the FE16-35 I can get this lens and another A7rII body. Anyway this is all my rationalisation to myself for selling the WATE so if anyone want to try to talk me out of it feel free

I sold my WATE and I enjoy my 16-35 FE for my A7 series cameras.

Leica cameras are fun, no doubt, but when the successor to the M9 plus the APO Summicron 50 were going to cost me about $15,000 I had to think about where Leica was going.

In my estimation, the days of Leica offering the only small, high quality digital package available were clearly passing and the days of Leica marketing only to wealthy pros and enthusiasts appeared to have arrived.

Not that Sony's are inexpensive, far from it. And not that Leica cameras are mere toys or jewelry, they are highly capable photographic tools.

But, for me, the value proposition flipped when micro4/3's gear hit its stride with the Olympus EM5. Shortly after, the Sony's landed in between micro4/3's and Leica's as a high priced but justifiable system. My Sony cameras and lenses were similar in cost to my Nikons.

Believing the era of buying new Leica gear had largely passed me by, I sold my WATE, my M9, my M8 and plenty of other lenses. I do not regret it.

I buy camera gear to use it. It is not an investment for me. Nor am I a collector. If I am not using gear it serves me best as a source of funding for gear I will use.

Sell with impunity I say.

-Bill

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Same boat Bill. I simply can't afford to be paying the prices for Leica gear anymore. Those days are over but I did have a good run with the DMR,M8 and M9.

It's kind of a shame that they priced themselves at these levels to block out folks that just can't afford there systems. But that's the nature of it, they just are not doing high volume lower pricing. But they seem to be doing well so best to them. They left a working Pro on the curb. Lol

 

[Vivek]

Let us be honest- how about overpriced and way behind the curve? Why would anyone dump money on that?

Even Leica will not compare the SL with the A7R II.

 

[jaree]

I have no clue if the zoom is worth having or not. I'd need to see many more shots. But compared to the price and production quality of the Sony FE 35/1.4 and FE 90/2.8, it may be a good deal:
LensRentals.com - Sony E Mount Lens Optical Bench Tests

Other critical lenses in the Sony system, like the 1635 and 35/2.8 are notorious for decentered copies. But hey, you got 42mp! Just crop your way out of that soft side, right?

Is it Sony-bashing to point out these issues? What would you say about a Canon lens which was so often out of spec?

I admit, the thought of a forum buddy shelling out 1600USD for a lens in good faith and getting who knows what, makes me see red.

Shelling out $5,000 does not mean you will get a better lens. My experience is that Leica's QC is overhyped - my first hand experience with brand new M lenses (35 FLE, SE21 and 50'Lux) bear this out - none of them was perfect out of the box. Some had so obvious glaring issues that the person signing those test certificates that are so proudly touted by Leica as the ultimate measure of a perfect hand-crafted instrument, should be fired from the job.

No matter how much you spend, it seems be a hit or miss, irrespective of brand. Sorry state of affairs.

 

[lambert]

Let us be honest- how about overpriced and way behind the curve? Why would anyone dump money on that?

"To the Leica man, only the best shall suffice. Second best is an oxymoron to the Leica man. It is not in his vocabulary. Second place is worse than losing, because it might be noticed.

The Leica man doesn't care, or even know, the trifling price of his cameras. This is not relevant. Just like a Porsche, no one buys a Leica because he needs it. He acquires the Leica because he is who he is."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm