Jump to content

Leica M240 and lux 35/1.4 really outperformed by Sony RX1R?


dmclalla

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As inferrable from DIGLLOYD (2 reviews recently published respectively entitled: [M240 vs Sony RX1: Usability and Function and M240 + 35/1.4 Summilux vs Sony RX1R (Green Machine)), Leica M240 + summilux 35/1.4 is, to no extent, better than Sony RX1R + 35 2 sonnar, in terms of both usability and final photographic results:

"(...)Leica shooters would do well to consider the value of an autofocus camera offering this quality level at a far lower cost: mystique and a red dot and generally more difficult operation are not compelling reasons to spend 4X as much for image quality that is clearly no better and in this example, clearly less good (...)" and "(...) The value proposition is simple: equal or better image quality, superior usability and reliability and all that for 1/4 the price. It bears thinking about even for diehard Leica M fans.(...)"

Are Leica M 240 owners (and I'm one of them) so blinded :rolleyes:not to recognise that they can pay less for more and to waste their money in a camera offering such a clear gap in photographic performance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a subscriber, so I can't read those articles. How does one get "superior usability" from a camera that has a fixed lens and no built-in viewfinder? The Sony is no doubt a fine camera, but I don't understand the argument for superior usability, unless one requires autofocus.

Edited by zlatkob
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a subscriber, so I can't read those articles. How does one get "superior usability" from a camera that has a fixed lens and no built-in viewfinder? The Sony is no doubt a fine cameras, but I don't understand the argument for superior usability, unless one requires autofocus.

 

Just an extract to give you the idea of his arguments

 

"Field curvature and possible nuances due to both exact focus and focus shift must be taken into account; small differences here and there are of no relevance. What matters is the total image quality understood as a whole. When this is done and everything accounted for, the following conservative conclusions are defensible:

 

Overall, the Leica M Typ 240 + famed 35/1.4 Summilux shows no superiority to the Sony RX1R with its Zeiss 35mm f/2 Sonnar. Not in sharpness nor in any other aspect of imaging performance.

Overall, the Sony RX1R produces more sharpness in total in the nominal (expected) plane of focus than the Leica Summilux.

This example meets reasonable expectations for subject matter for general shooting; it is not an artificial construct. The Sony RX1R has delivered a superior image. Extensive field shooting with the Sony RX1R leads to a similar conclusion that the Sony RX1R with its Zeiss 35mm f/2 Sonnar is at least the equal of the Summilux, especially in the sense of practical photography.

 

The foregoing does not rule out rendering style issues, every lens design having its own distinct 'drawing signature'. The Leica 35/1.4 Summilux is truly lovely in its image rendition as my own field shooting has proven to me over the years. But the Zeiss 35/2 Sonnar is no less impressive in that regard."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily find too much to fault with Mr Lloyd's assessment, mainly as I haven't compared them myself (and no interest in doing so). However I do think his assessment misses the point of the different niches these cameras fit into.

 

To illustrate my point: if I was about to embark on a hypothetical trip and decided I wanted to supplement my hypothetical M240 camera with a 35mm lens to complement the two hypothetical lenses I already have (lperhaps a 21mm and a 90mm), would I take the Sony camera into consideration as an alternative?

 

Now if I was looking for a compact 35mm camera or camera and lens combination it would be different.

 

If I wanted ultimately IQ I would probably skip both and go for a large format camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In all honesty, who the hell cares? Nothing in either of those cameras is going to prevent you from shooting good photos. In any case, they are two very different cameras with different target markets.

 

Also, that site better be one important tank of knowledge to ask $250/year.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lloyd has repeatedly made clear by his own admission that he is unable to focus a rangefinder properly, a basic photographic skill that most if not all posters in this forum have mastered.

 

You may be right, but in context with other articles on his subscription site, I understand his thoughts about RF more in these lines:

 

- RF can be off and with M9, which does not show good 100% preview on the LCD, you don't know until you load your images into LR

- RF can't handle focus shift

- RF can't handle field curvature

- RF will cause focus & recompose error

 

Also, rather than "unable to focus a rangefinder properly" I understood his statements more like "unable to consistently gain the full potential of Leica lenses and AA-less sensor".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but he is talking the M, which has an EVF which will show you exactly with great precision whether your rangefinder is off. Some repairmen I know are replacing their collimator by an M because it is far more precise.

 

You can use the EVF iF you have a lens with focus shift or field curvature. (Or compensate if you know your gear)

 

An RF will only cause a focus-recompose error with photographers that are unaware of the phenomen and don't know how to compensate.

 

Framing error again is only an issue if you don't understand how an optical viewfinder works. In that case there is the EVF.

 

He is confusing pilot error by not knowing how to use a system, with system error.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted my thoughts on an other thread...however in my opinion and from what I have seen on the internet the RX 1 is a superior recording devise (not by much) but still edges on top on most images I have seen except a few which favor the M240....In fact today I noticed IR issues in a shot from a reviewer on the M....Two different types of cameras however with two different kinds of experiences....I am transitioning to an M from an M9 and will be buying a used RX1 as a backup or who know maybe it will be the other way around...(I only shoot 35 and sometimes a 28)...

 

Alexandros Demetriades - Photographer

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"(...) The value proposition is simple: equal or better image quality, superior usability and reliability and all that for 1/4 the price. It bears thinking about even for diehard Leica M fans.(...)"

Are Leica M 240 owners (and I'm one of them) so blinded :rolleyes:not to recognise that they can pay less for more and to waste their money in a camera offering such a clear gap in photographic performance?

 

The value proposition for the Sony RX series utterly fails from the onset because it does not have true manual focusing capabilities. Baring technical cameras, Leica is the only game in town. For people like me (a minority within a niche) who simply fail with AF, there are limited choices available and no amount of IQ or value proposition can overcome this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

especially in the sense of practical photography

 

........ well if we are going to use this as a tape measure then there is bugg*r all difference in the final results between a huge range of moderately to high priced cameras ......

 

..... its all down to ergonomics, aesthetics, 'system values', functionality, complexity versus simplicity, disposable income, personal idiosyncracies and a host of factors which have nothing to do with the actual image the camera produces.

 

there is precious little sanity in choice of camera, so there is little point trying to convince me to get an RX1. It will end up in the safe unused with the X100 ...... another excellent camera .... that for me turned out to be a soul-less box of electronics... :rolleyes:

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an extract to give you the idea of his arguments

 

"Field curvature and possible nuances due to both exact focus and focus shift must be taken into account; small differences here and there are of no relevance. What matters is the total image quality understood as a whole. When this is done and everything accounted for, the following conservative conclusions are defensible:

 

Overall, the Leica M Typ 240 + famed 35/1.4 Summilux shows no superiority to the Sony RX1R with its Zeiss 35mm f/2 Sonnar. Not in sharpness nor in any other aspect of imaging performance.

Overall, the Sony RX1R produces more sharpness in total in the nominal (expected) plane of focus than the Leica Summilux.

This example meets reasonable expectations for subject matter for general shooting; it is not an artificial construct. The Sony RX1R has delivered a superior image. Extensive field shooting with the Sony RX1R leads to a similar conclusion that the Sony RX1R with its Zeiss 35mm f/2 Sonnar is at least the equal of the Summilux, especially in the sense of practical photography.

 

The foregoing does not rule out rendering style issues, every lens design having its own distinct 'drawing signature'. The Leica 35/1.4 Summilux is truly lovely in its image rendition as my own field shooting has proven to me over the years. But the Zeiss 35/2 Sonnar is no less impressive in that regard."

Each time I try to get a bite on the content of this quote I end up with wool between my teeth. It is just a mishmash of vaguely understood concepts without any substance. The concept sharpness he seems to base his ideas on is a subjective observation that has no value in the measuring of lens performance.
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digilloyd has been making a series of more erratic comments over the last year. Not just on Leica but also on Fuji and some other cameras (e.g. D800).

None of these I have found very useful.

e.g. He seems to have difficulty focusing Fuji X-Pro1, D800 and M240. Funny as he never seemed to have difficulty with the M9 before (the RF focus is unchanged on the M240).

 

I have used all these cameras and their focus is excellent, I have never missed a picture due to focus. The best is of course the Leica RF function, with its ability to be exact about where you focus (e.g. eyeball vs eyelid) albeit slower then some AF methodologies.

 

The RX1 is certainly a breakthrough excellent camera but it doesn't have a built in VF, interchangeable lenses or f1.4. I also found the default colours and draw inferior to the 35mm Summilux f1.4 and the Summarit f2.5 (I do not have extensive experience of the Summicron) and the corners at f2 softer then the summilux corners at f1.4. I prefer using the RX1 at f2.8 and above but am happy to use the Summilux at f1.4.

 

I would refer readers here to more useful reviewers, such as Sean Reid who is still the best combination of technicality and observation IMHO

Edited by colonel
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if your only aim in photography is to own the highest resolution camera then sometimes other cameras will come along where their owners can say 'my camera is better than yours'. I think Leica cameras have more often than not throughout their history allowed the photographer to say 'my photograph is better than yours'. A subtle difference that is priceless, and where resolution is a sideshow, a nice bonus to have, but not essential.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad that 50mm and 90mm lenses are my most used lenses. I am looking forward to the comparison of those with an M vs Sony RX1R.

 

Wait, there are RX1Rs with those focal lenses.:rolleyes::eek:

 

I think a proper comparison would have been to Leica X2, then it would have been more relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony RX1R may very well produce a better file. But that's no reason for the Leica fan club to feel that their feathers have been ruffled and get defensive. This sort of dialog has been going on forever. In the 'film days' there were always arguments about the quality of competing brands versus Leica optics and its rangefinders and SLRs, etc., etc. This stuff is never going to go away.

 

And in the digital age, with sensors taking the place of a film's quality and characteristics, there are bound to be other products that perform as well or better than a Leica M.

 

But so what? Leica doesn't need to be the 'king' in the minds of its users in order to be an affective tool for making photographs. Despite the cost (and the cost argument was around in the 'film days' too), the Leica M system is used for a variety of reasons and not just based on 'cloning the world' via high resolution. I personally think that digital is still at the stage where people are getting intoxicated over a sensor's resolution. We're still being amazed by the progress and quality of each successive generation of electronics. It's kind of like the very early days of film and motion pictures where everyone was in awe of this new invention.

 

There are going to be 'better' choices than Leica, just like there always was. But that 'better' part of the decision making will be made by a user, just like in the past. The high cost of Leica is something each individual will take into account, also like it was in the past.

 

And if one wants to judge a product with cost at the forefront, then Leica isn't a clear choice. And cost is real to many people (myself included and one of the reasons why I don't currently own the M240.) The cost factor will always be a big part of the 'Leica dialogue' just like it was in the 'film days.' But there are a lot of reasons why people spend money on things that aren't necessarily the 'best.' Leica has a lot of mythology surrounding the brand name. And so the 'feel good' part of the equation can be a strong factor. And there's nothing wrong with that.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

When the RX series is introduced with interchangeable lenses I will sell all my Leica gear. The electronics are far far superior and the image quality of the 35 mm lens is better. Leica is struggling with a faulty/buggy EVF and firmware. Sure the Leica lenses are pure bliss, but it won't be long before Zeiss and Sony close the door on compact FF cameras. Not to mention, the Sony focuses faster by far. Even battery life is better in the Sony. It is only a mater of time...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When the RX series is introduced with interchangeable lenses I will sell all my Leica gear. The electronics are far far superior and the image quality of the 35 mm lens is better. Leica is struggling with a faulty/buggy EVF and firmware. Sure the Leica lenses are pure bliss, but it won't be long before Zeiss and Sony close the door on compact FF cameras. Not to mention, the Sony focuses faster by far. Even battery life is better in the Sony. It is only a mater of time...

 

Leica M is about workflow, build, feel, the lenses (a biggie) and the wonderful RF manual focusing. The picture quality is of course sublime when done properly,

If you don't want most of that you need to ask yourself why you are buying Leica M.

 

Oh and the RX1 battery life is worse then the M9, let alone the M240.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...