algrove Posted April 12, 2014 Share #181 Posted April 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 Hi algrove, Take a look here Leica M240 and lux 35/1.4 really outperformed by Sony RX1R?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted April 12, 2014 Share #182 Posted April 12, 2014 […] The Sony RX1 has more dynamic range and is quite amazing at high ISO and does not produce banding at medium ISO like the M240 […] I have no experience with the RX1 but i never got banding below 3200 iso with the M240 i must say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 12, 2014 Share #183 Posted April 12, 2014 Nor I… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted April 13, 2014 Share #184 Posted April 13, 2014 I have no experience with the RX1 but i never got banding below 3200 iso with the M240 i must say. When I stated that the RX1 "does not produce banding at medium ISO like the M240" I was talking about medium ISO of the RX1 which goes up to 25,600. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted April 13, 2014 Share #185 Posted April 13, 2014 Does it really matter how much better (or worse) any other camera is compared to a Leica ? Leica sits alone in the digital world,as the only manufacturer of a digital camera with a mechanical coincident rangefinder focusing mechanism (and yes, i know about the RD1, but its no longer in production) For those of us who want a proper rangefinder, the choice is Leica. Looking for a camera in an almost rangefinder type size range - there is a multitude of choices, sony, fuji, olympus - and they are all cheaper than the leica, all are pretty good, some better at some things than others. I have an X100 - its a great camera, but i dont get along with it, i love the form factor, the manual controls, and the IQ - but cant stand the slow AF, VF blackout and manually focusing with an EVF (although it is much better with fw2.0 and peaking) over 2 years i have put the equivalent of a roll of film a week through it (a little over 2000 frames) By comparison - i have shot 1500 photos in the first month with my M (the equivalent of 15 rolls a week) Comparisons like this only work, if you ignore the things that make the M an M - namely the rangefinder. For the money i spent on my M + lens i could have bought a 1DX and 85 1.2 or a 5d3, 24-70 and 70-200 Both choices offer better high iso, wonderful image quality, and the AF on the 1DX is brilliant (havent used a 5d3) but do you know what ? I wouldnt trade my M for them - carrying an SLR is too much like hard work to me but i do recognise that SLRs have their place - i wouldnt pick an M to cover a game of footy, but when im not working i want a small light camera that gets out of the way and lets me take pictures, without auto modes and a computer getting in my way, the M is the only camera i have found that strips everything back to a "pure" simple system As a car analogy - its like comparing a Caterham r500 to a GTR Both are bloody quick, but the Caterham is very simple, light, with no tech to keep you out of the scenery The GTR on the other hand has a bunch of tech to help you go quicker, ABS, Traction control, Stability control, Launch control, AWD etc Two very different ways of getting the same result, but the caterham requires much more skill, but can be more enjoyable in the right conditions - for a drive to work in the rain i would prefer the GTR, for a cruise on a fun road on a nice day, the Caterham (for what its worth, i have neither, but drive subaru instead) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 13, 2014 Share #186 Posted April 13, 2014 All of you folks trying, and DIGLLOYD failing with his reviews and reasoning is, that basically you try to compare two very different systems: One is Leica that is consistent and solid for those last 60 years and counting and the other is Japan with what was dSLRs up till now and mirorless fullframes from now on with RX1 and a7r etc... The Japanese makers are now forced to produce compact full frames as people are fed up with all their heavyweight champions:rolleyes: Leica wanted us to carefully observe the scene, compose and take the shot. For that they gave us a superb optical VF that allows us to compose. Our Japanese friends wanted to use electronics and speed and they actually made now a hybrid between what photography was and what cinema is. If CaNikon are now able to produce cameras that can take what? 15fps shots? 20fps shots? This is photography? This is what you guys want? Go do a 1hr shooting and then browse through 10000 of pictures to get the one you like? If you had to use film you would be able to do the same? So what is more wrong? Shooting of yesterday or Tommygun photography? (Btw Rick, that is why you still prefer shooting your Leica over RX1) Leica will never understand why someone has to make a tool that is capable of doing 10fps continuously and having 1000000 of ISO. Their cameras have lasted for more than 70 years and they surely last another 70yrs. Now if someone really needs to shoot a F1 racing event and catch that moment where the cars turn then by no means grab an D4s a 1000 tele and take 5k shots of the event. For all the other cases why not a Leica? DigLLoyd will never understand what a Leica is and who cares if he does? But personally I am offended when I have someone telling me where to spent why and how my cash. His reasoning is very very poor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted April 13, 2014 Share #187 Posted April 13, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Btw Rick, that is why you still prefer shooting your Leica over RX1) Yep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2014 Share #188 Posted April 13, 2014 When I stated that the RX1 "does not produce banding at medium ISO like the M240" I was talking about medium ISO of the RX1 which goes up to 25,600. I have no banding at 25,600 either . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmclalla Posted April 15, 2014 Author Share #189 Posted April 15, 2014 Still a comparison the aim of which I can't understand:rolleyes:. Quoting from Diglloyd website: "That Sony A7R sensor is a first rate performer, and at 36 megapixels, any Leica M owner should ask the above, because why not get state of the art image quality at 36 megapixels instead of 24, and with far superior focusing capability (EVF)? In other words, could the Sony A7R be considered a superior platform over the Leica M240 on the basis of a better EVF and notably higher resolution (and at 1/3 the price)?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 15, 2014 Share #190 Posted April 15, 2014 Typically Digiloyd - by his own admission he has never aquired the skill to focus a rangefinder. And "superior image quality" measured in a one-step increase in Mp? There is more between Heaven and Earth, I fear.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted April 15, 2014 Share #191 Posted April 15, 2014 "....could the Sony NEX-6 be considered a superior platform over the Sony A7R on the and basis of better pixel density (means same lens mounted can provide more detail) and notably lighter weight (and at 1/3 the price)?" I just made it up. But its true !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted April 16, 2014 Share #192 Posted April 16, 2014 Could the Leica M240 be considered a superior platform over the Sony A7R on the basis of a better optical viewfinder, quieter shutter, notably less shutter-shake and far superior lens selection? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted April 16, 2014 Share #193 Posted April 16, 2014 Could the Leica M240 be considered a superior platform over the Sony A7R on the basis of a better optical viewfinder' date=' quieter shutter, notably less shutter-shake and far superior lens selection? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/quote'] More the fact that Sony's corporate attention span is so short that there's a danger that the A7 will be an orphan platform before much time passes. I like dogging Leica for being technologically backward, but I can't fault it for stick-to-it-iveness. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 17, 2014 Share #194 Posted April 17, 2014 Why is Leica technologically "backward"? What makes you say or feel this way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 17, 2014 Share #195 Posted April 17, 2014 Probably that they commissioned a dedicated CCD sensor for the M8 that used ground-breaking microlens technology, got Fujitsu to develop a dedicated version of their processing chip, co-developed a bleeding-edge CMos with CMosis, started a new digital format with the S, are the only company that can make wideangle rangefinder lenses work properly on a sensor, and so forth..... Why is Leica technologically "backward"? What makes you say or feel this way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 17, 2014 Share #196 Posted April 17, 2014 Still a comparison the aim of which I can't understand:rolleyes:. Quoting from Diglloyd website: "That Sony A7R sensor is a first rate performer, and at 36 megapixels, any Leica M owner should ask the above, because why not get state of the art image quality at 36 megapixels instead of 24, and with far superior focusing capability (EVF)? In other words, could the Sony A7R be considered a superior platform over the Leica M240 on the basis of a better EVF and notably higher resolution (and at 1/3 the price)?" Why not ? Because I'm fed up of MB to manage on my disks... 36 is 50% more than 24 which imho are MORE than sufficient for ANY enlargement I have to print.... the 10MP of my M8 seem INDECENT nowadays, but still give me excellent prints... should the M240 had been at 18 like M9, I had probably bought it anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lss- Posted April 17, 2014 Share #197 Posted April 17, 2014 I've had the RX1 for over a year now and it has been a wonderful camera. I've been using the RX1R for the past six months or so alongside my trusty M8. It has been a pretty good product. The image quality is obviously wonderful. As a camera, I find it a fairly average digital point-and-shoot with great many faults. Something like a Fuji X100s (that I have not used extensively) must be a better camera, but the Sony image quality actually is a significant step above the M8. A step that seldom takes me anywhere, but a significant step anyway. Overall I use and like it enough to keep it. But I think one must have very specific criteria to say it outperforms something else that plays a very different game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 17, 2014 Share #198 Posted April 17, 2014 Probably that they commissioned a dedicated CCD sensor for the M8 that used ground-breaking microlens technology, got Fujitsu to develop a dedicated version of their processing chip, co-developed a bleeding-edge CMos with CMosis, started a new digital format with the S, are the only company that can make wideangle rangefinder lenses work properly on a sensor, and so forth..... Let me add to that: they have invented the autofocus technology and showed in photkina '76 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/668067-post30.html They have invented for all those years the mirorless cameras that the "real advanced tech" Sony and Co. just begin to realize and use... They are the makers of excellent state of the art lenses and so much more... and the list goes on and on, but it really appears that technologically "backwards" is better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 17, 2014 Share #199 Posted April 17, 2014 Also they were the first to use computers with a dedicated program (COMO) for lens design - but that was in the 1950ies...,aspherical lenses, blank-pressing, laser interferometry, etc... The were not the first to use TTL metering, but the swinging sensor in the M5 and CL was revolutionary, The TTL in the M6 was developed together with the University of Munich, because at the time it was extremely miniaturized, etc... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted April 19, 2014 Share #200 Posted April 19, 2014 I never really understand how useful these threads are here. What Is the person who passes on the comments from a reviewer going to get from the thread? Are they trying to convince themselves to buy Leica..or not buy Leica? Or do Leica users get convinced to switch Of course you can make great photos with all manner of cameras and different systems have different strengths. If some photographers choose to use Sony or the excellent Fujifim cameras or their phone or anything else, good luck to them. I don't follow why they want to convince others here though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.