Leica's organic rendering versus plasticized Sony 7RII

[Scott Root]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Returned my new Sony A7RII today and returning to use my Leica M240 after test with same Leica 50APO at f2.0 on both bodies. The lens was adapted to the Sony via Voigtlander VM-E. Crops are from center of both pictures so the thick Sony cover glass cannot be blamed for peripheral smearing on the Sony. The attached pictures represent the best of three shots taken with each body in a stabilized hand-held position, which gives a hometown advantage to the IBIS stabilized Sony body. These are jpg and not adequate to appreciate the organic look of the Leica versus the somewhat platicized rendering of the Sony. To confirm my observation, both my wife and daughter picked separately without privy to either's conclusion in a blind to the manufacturer test the Leica as the more realistic depiction when looking at both DNG/RAW files side-by-side at 1:1 on a high quality color adjusted monitor. Interestingly, they independently used the same descriptions of "realistic" and "plasticized/ plastic-looking" to describe the two pictures before they had any indication of the respective manufacturers. The moral I take from this story is that quality of render cannot rise above the quality of pixels, irrespective of downsizing a greater number of pixels. I like and respect Leica's organic philosophy above Sony's specifications because of what I see.

 

Leica

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Sony

[Jeff S]

Much of the difference shown here could be addressed with PP...exposure, etc.  But wouldn't matter to me without seeing a print....and there are myriad variables in the print workflow, the camera being only a small part, especially when both are good quality, which these are.  Adapting lenses from different manufacturers adds another issue to consider.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Clactonian]

I have no intention of getting into discussions about testing procedures etc. but I can understand Scott's conclusion from his tests. I have been a 'Nikon Man' for years now and have a clutch of their DSLRs, including the latest D750, all of which have produced immensely satisfying images. That is until my recently purchased M240 arrived. 

There is a quality about the Leica images that to my eyes set them apart from those from the Nikons which look over-processed by comparison, and to the point where I'm going back to some of my favourite images from the last few years to try and replicate that Leica look.

Maybe it's all in my mind, there's not a lot else in there when all is said and done. Maybe I'm just trying to justify my new purchase, which is probably nearer the truth. But if it makes me happy .........

[Jon Warwick]

The OP's comments are interesting, and a "plastic" look is a major axe I have with regards to digital if not done right. I am not disputing your Sony/Leica view given it's using the same lens. But I think lenses can have an influence here too - my latest Non-APO 50mm Summi renders on my M240 more organically than my 35mm Sumi ASPH. The latter needs to be tamed down in post in my view. But my efforts at Leica Mayfair with a 50 APO suggests that lens has a genius blend of both resolution AND organic look.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Jon Warwick

[microview]

So which was which? My preference for the lower pic is probably the wrong answer!

[viramati]

I no longer have the M but I do have the Q and the A7rII and while the files out of the Q are in many ways more pleasing and inherently sharp and the Sony's files can have a sort of plastic look I don't think the answer as to why is so simple. I find the the Sony's files need more work to get to where I want to be but with a few presets in Lr6 this is not to difficult. I am wondering if some of the so called 'plastic' look may actually be down to the extreme amount of detail that the Sony sensor can pick up and a bit like watching some of these really HD tv's can seem unreal so too can the Sony's output.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am wondering if some of the so called 'plastic' look may actually be down to the extreme amount of detail that the Sony sensor can pick up and a bit like watching some of these really HD tv's can seem unreal so too can the Sony's output.

I think you have a point, albeit it might be more to do with too high acuity (edge sharpness) rather than resolution - I have 20x24" prints off large format film that are HUGELY detailed, and yet look natural. So for me, the thing that jars me is perhaps not resolution. Indeed, when it comes to digital, I find the very sharp 35mm ASPH to look unnatural ("too sharp" in terms of acuity, to the point of looking a bit fake??) but am very content with both the 50s that I have mentioned.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Jon Warwick

[pico]

WTF does organic mean here?

[zlatkob]

Both look fine.  I see subtle differences, but nothing that stands out as showing better quality, or showing organic vs. plasticized. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by zlatkob

[Jon Warwick]

WTF does organic mean here?

Non computerised

[cirke]

I prefer the second one

[lct]

Jpegs are just good to compare firmwares. Are raw files available?

[fsprow]

Interesting thread.

 

I have, somewhat systematically, asked clients to pick out the most pleasing large prints from those in my portfolio.  From various Nikon digitals, Sony NEX, Leica M240, Hasselblad 501C and Leica M4.

 

Winner the Hasselblad, closely followed by the M240 and M4 (color and B&W respectively).  The Nikon and NEX images often receive the comments "too artificial" or "too unreal".  Admittedly these "faults" can somewhat mitigated in PP, but ..............

Edited September 4, 2015 by fsprow

[CheshireCat]

Jpegs are just good to compare firmwares. Are raw files available?

 

I understand those JPEGs have been exported from raw files using the same JPEG engine (gd-jpeg, as per EXIF).

[CheshireCat]

There, I took the liberty of fixing the M240 shot to match color and tones of the Sony (I also roughly matched the crop).

Comments ?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mornnb]

^An example of what I love about the M240, a few tweaks to correct exposure and colour curves and the image looks great. The camera has good colour accuracy right off the sensor.

[CheshireCat]

^An example of what I love about the M240, a few tweaks to correct exposure and colour curves and the image looks great. The camera has good colour accuracy right off the sensor.

 

Yes, however:

1) I could have done the same with the Sony image.

2) This is JPEG sRGB, therefore an easy match.

Edited September 5, 2015 by CheshireCat

[jaapv]

I think we are really counting angels dancing on the head of pin here. A few tweaks in the sharpening module of ACR and a slight adjustment of the clarity slider and nobody will see any difference in print.

[Mornnb]

The issue is not so much the clarity but the behaviour with colours.

I've owned the A7R. It does have a different colour tone to the sensor on the M240.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Mornnb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

I understand those JPEGs have been exported from raw files using the same JPEG engine (gd-jpeg, as per EXIF).

Do you see what raw converter(s) have been used and the settings chosen by the OP?

Edited September 5, 2015 by lct