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

[woorob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sold my RX-1 after I discovered a consistent problem with chromatic aberration when shooting in high contrast situations. It wasn't my cup of tea, although I love the RX100 as a pocketable point and shoot.

[pnoble]

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...

 

Indeed. A few minutes comparing SonyAlphaRumors.com and LeicaRumors.com is indicative.

 

The former is filled with a constant blur of Sony and partner technology innovation: new sensors, cameras, lenses, mounts....

 

The latter is filled with stories about new Leica Boutiques, giant camera sculptures, celebrity charity events, hand tooled Italian leather cases, artisan soft shutter releases and currently and somewhat atypically, a new camera: the Leica C - where Leica's involvement was purely cosmetic. If I exaggerate, it's not by much.

 

It doesn't diminish the fine quality of Leica M lenses, nor the charms of RF for some, but Sony and Zeiss surely have Leica in their sights and are loaded for bear.

 

If the RX-1 is quality comparable, the RX-2 should be no contest, not to mention the Nex-FF with a new generation of interchangeable Zeiss lenses.

 

Leica is meanwhile becoming more and more a luxury fashion brand. A smart strategy with no alternative if they want to survive.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

We've got comparos between Nex-something and M9, now Sony-something vs M240... Apples and oranges as usual. Am i alone to buy rangefinders because i want rangefinders?

[kidigital]

We've got comparos between Nex-something and M9, now Sony-something vs M240... Apples and oranges as usual. Am i alone to buy rangefinders because i want rangefinders?

 

Damn, now I have to sell all of my gear and get ready for the next wave of new specs. And then I'll have to do it again in a few more months. And so on. And so on. The sky is most certainly falling.

 

Does anybody step away from their computer and just shoot anymore? So many seem to have a need to continually justify their purchasing decisions. Get out and shoot you gearaholics ... you are missing so many beautiful moments with what is most likely already fantastic gear.

[charles-k]

Kudos to Sony to their courage and foresight!

I have the RX1R, M240 and M-M which I carefully decided to keep for each of their amazing merits!!!

Sony has an amazing sensor, small FF with a great Zeiss 35 Sonnar designed lens. The RAW files from the RX1R, IMO are better overall, but this is only part of the my needs to be passionate about walking the streets and taking shots.

 

I love my 50 Nocti f/1.0, 75 Lux and soon 50 Cron Rigid II. These are like different paint brushes that cannot be replaced just by the best resolution cameras available with the sharpest lenses. The RX1R, of course has the classic Zeiss 35 Sonnar rendering, paired with an amazing sensor which is also unique.

 

I feel the sensor on the M240 does not have quite the same dynamic range as the RX1R, but in real photo taking ability there is little difference at the lower ISO's. I prefer the M240 in ergonomics, the IQ from the different lenses from which I can choose. Some of these lenses span back 50 years, so it is amazing that we can enable the great rendering of old lenses, with newest M bodies.

 

I do not agree with Mr. Lloyd as to the RX1R being superior, but I would agree it is a great camera and is at the fore front of FF technology.

Edited September 11, 2013 by charles-k

[k-hawinkler]

Charles,

 

Thanks, well put.

[Shade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All these reports and reviews are always subjective to the user. Despite how good a camera is made, it's always gonna be bad - or not good enough for someone. There is no one perfect camera.

 

In all technicality speaking, yes the RX1R does offer some benefits when compared to a Leica counter part. For example:

 

- It does have autofocusing, so in a sense it's "easier" to operate, you only need a finger to do it. Half press, and voila. But that does not necessarily mean better - I for one, have much better focused shot on the moment I want (I wait and see), than having half pressing the focus and then needing to refocus when I have that "golden moment" I have been waiting for.

 

- Better sharpness? Well probably - I never cared to go for such detailed review anyway, as long as I see my lens is producing sharp results on the LCD, I'm happy enough. But there might be better sharpness in the RX1R due to the "one lens configuration" of the camera, so they can fine tune the only lens to the sensor, to produce maximum results. Whereas a Leica will need to "generalize" a little so the sensor stays sharp all over the field with different lenses, even wide angles where the light hits awkwardly to the sensors.

 

- 1/4 the price? Well sure, that's a bonus. Will "die hard Leica fans" buy it? Maybe as a second body, but I think the point is moot. I would rather buy a summarit for that kind of price and stick it to my M body. Or a vintage lens.

 

Overall, I think there's a market for that camera, and I have seen great and beautiful images from it. It also looks good physically, and I think it's a well thought out camera. However, despite the fact that it's such a nice camera at 1/4 the price, I still bought my M240. Why? Because the images are different and I am unable to replicate a Leica image, especially in B/W, on any other cameras. Even my wife can see the difference. Maybe someone can do it, but not me, and I'm not going to spend my time at the moment to try finding out.

 

That's my two cents.

[hyper67]

The Rx1 should have been Leica's mini M concept and the new M should have been a dedicated rangefinder with no bells and whistles that outperforms that....

[pascal_meheut]

I have no doubt that the RX1 can produce excellent images and even for some uses be an alternative to the M.

 

What I fail to understand is why instead of saying so, a reviewer like Mr Lloyd would feel the need to imply that we might prefer a M240 not because of 'mystique & red dot' but because of all the real advantages already discussed here.

 

During the long M lifespan, alternatives with fixed lens of equivalent or better quality have often been available. Sometimes, even alternatives with interchangeable lenses too and even AF.

 

Thinking that the M survived only because their buyers are "snobs" is insulting. And frankly quite stupid.

I have not respect for those who because the like something feel the need to depreciate everything else as well as those who do not share their tastes or needs.

[Rick]

Agh... Back to shooting the M with classic RF today in Oia, Santorini. Left the EVF behind. My testing of it is over, for sure. Not so sour on the old M today. The handling is back to my usual fast street and travel photo speed. Plus, I found myself back to thinking about light and exposure and focus-plane and depth of field... all in the flow of the RF experience, with the great 35/1.4 and the 28.2 and a quick change to the 90/4 and the WATE. Pure Bliss!

 

Back to the RF I can shoot and view, when needed, on the LCD much faster than waiting for the slow LV to recover. And, my battery life for the morning barely budged. With the EVF on the camera, battery life (everyday over 9 days tested) was sub-RX1 and sub-sub-M9 by a large margin. As I said before, you will need 3 batteries for a full day shooting with the EVF. I'm sorry, but this is just true.

 

I found shooting in classic RF mode with a few genrous chimps should last all day on a battery... maybe one in the pocket for security.

 

I retract my statement above. I will not switch to the RX-system if it comes out with interchangable lenses. This was silly. The RX1 we have along is a great camera and my wife loves it and I love it for what it does well. As stated above by somebody, it could have been the M mini. But, why? Sony does this sort of thing so well.

 

Linda, has been shooting the M some of the time. She is not into fiddling around. She had me take the EVF off the camera when she used it almost from the first day. She can focus the RF well and just used the LCD at night when the camera was on the tripod. I should have given up earlier as well. But, again, I was trying to test it and hopefully give some feedback to Leica. I have a lot to say about this, but I have left my comments for Leica and I think that is fair.

 

I hope Leica stays right where it is! Sure, get the EVF and the other "add-ons" up to speed, but I really don't care. Keeping perspective, the M is an extremely solid camera when shot to its strengths. Best yet by far.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Besides, "RickSony" just doesn't have the same ring to it : -)

 

The "M" in any flavor past, present and hopefully future, is an interchangeable lens OVF rangefinder and the others are not. More so with FF Ms. End of comparison.

 

For some time now I have professionally used Sony Products and am familiar with their sensor technology and electronics under fire in all sorts of shooting conditions ... not just some brief testing scenario. I prefer their offerings to Nikon and Canon, but not Leica.

 

IMO, all color sensor digital cameras perform poorly in low light requiring higher ISOs ... while claims are made by makers and users, they all generally suck at dealing with color fidelity. The last ditch solution for the usual crap light temps and poor color separation is conversion to B&W.

 

Sony, Nikon nor Canon offer a B&W solution that skips all the ills of low light digital photography ... Leica does.

 

So, if one has the need, and owns a MM, then they already have the lenses for color photography in better light. A M9 will suffice, but a M240 is there if one has the money and is okay with the CMOS rendering.

 

- Marc

[colonel]

Meanwhilst in north London ....

 

I am still happy with the M9 (and enjoying the super sharp x-Vario immensely btw).

 

Slowly contemplating the M but it might take a year or two.

The M9 is such amazing eye popping quality whilst the RX1 seems to produce slightly dead pictures (I guess the difference between "on paper" and "real results"). I sold mine.......

 

Anyho back to choosing a new 28mm ......

Edited September 11, 2013 by colonel

[pgk]

Meanwhilst in north London ....

 

I am still happy with the M9

And up here in north Wales ....

 

I'm rediscovering that the M8 and 21/3.4 SA is a lovely comination - super sharp but old feel lens, cropped in-camera to avoid poor corner performance and proving surprisingly flare resistant (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/299791-sky-sea.html & http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/street-photography/299112-busy-sunny-central-london.html as examples - both shot against the light). My M9 hasn't been used for two or three weeks as a result.....

 

There is much more to photography than the ill-defined 'best image quality' so often stated as being the apparent ultimate goal. I like using the M8/SA because its a pleasant tactile experience and one which forces me to think about basics such as exposure (in effect it is meterless and I reckon to be within a stop by estimate if I stop and consider the conditions). And the results, well pretty good although a bit of colour adjustment is required, which I accept as being a price worth paying.

[Rick]

Besides, "RickSony" just doesn't have the same ring to it : -)

 

The "M" in any flavor past, present and hopefully future, is an interchangeable lens OVF rangefinder and the others are not. More so with FF Ms. End of comparison.

 

For some time now I have professionally used Sony Products and am familiar with their sensor technology and electronics under fire in all sorts of shooting conditions ... not just some brief testing scenario. I prefer their offerings to Nikon and Canon, but not Leica.

 

IMO, all color sensor digital cameras perform poorly in low light requiring higher ISOs ... while claims are made by makers and users, they all generally suck at dealing with color fidelity. The last ditch solution for the usual crap light temps and poor color separation is conversion to B&W.

 

Sony, Nikon nor Canon offer a B&W solution that skips all the ills of low light digital photography ... Leica does.

 

So, if one has the need, and owns a MM, then they already have the lenses for color photography in better light. A M9 will suffice, but a M240 is there if one has the money and is okay with the CMOS rendering.

 

- Marc

 

Marc, I agree with you on all of this. Also, I agree that after thinking about it, the main disadvantage to a Sony system, no matter how good it might be... is, RickSony just doesn't have the cache. I don't think I'd be able to live with cyber-self.

 

Hey, I tried to make the EVF work, I really did. It was a good lesson in what photography is for me. The only thing better than the M RF concept would be something even simpler and more mechanically direct and I can't imagine that... maybe an ISO wheel on the top deck somewhere. I think I understand why some people got a little put out having the M (for movie) button intruding on their space.

[albireo_double]

I have the RX-1r and the M9 with the Summilux 35 FLE. My experience so far is that, despite lower resolution, at the base ISO, the M9 with the 35 FLE produces images that I much prefer to the RX-1r. Perhaps it is a question of post-processing, but I just prefer the Leica files as I think the colours are somehow "cleaner". Of course, at higher ISOs, the RX-1r is much superior thanks to the modern CMOS sensor. The Zeiss lens on the Sony is sharp but has strong barrel distortion and vignetting (can be fixed in LR at the expense of some image real estate but can be more of a pain in situations where I don't hold the camera level and the lens barrel distortion combines with converging verticals). The Summilux has very little distortion, in comparison. And I am not even mentioning ergonomics, where I find shooting with a rangefinder and a manual focus lens much quicker and more accurate than the not so good AF system on the Sony. So having the Sony will not make me cancel my position on the M waiting list. Having said that, the Sony is a great little camera with excellent image quality for occasions where I want to travel light (cycling, skiing, hiking, running). And the battery problem is not that bad if you take a spare with you; they are really small.

[jaapv]

Interestingly Digilloyd holds an opposite view from his equivalent reviewer Ken Rockwell, who slams the RX1 for.... the quality of its lens. And the implementation of the design.

[Rick]

I've been sitting on the deck here in Santorini and going over almost 3,000 M files and 2,300 RX1 files. The color from the M is very pleasing. I wish I could say more about this.

 

Interestingly, the RX1 has a huge amount of distortion in the lens just before LR applies the correction. It is really something to watch the picture morph. Optically speaking, the software can be no substitution for good optics. The images from the Leica lenses are just amazing to look at. 28 Summicron/35 Lux/50 Lux/90 Macro Elmar - wow/and the WATE -one of my favorite travel lenses. These lenses are gems.

 

All in all, the Leica photos in LR are much better. I am really loving the color. Leica has done a great job with this CMOS sensor. Just more pleasing than the RX1 (which you know I like a lot).

Edited September 11, 2013 by RickLeica

[albireo_double]

Yes, I read the KR piece before buying the RX-1r and I agree with him on this point about the lens. I did not find the yellow/green bias that he also mentions to be an issue, though. The lens characteristics didn't keep me from buying the Sony, for the other benefits and complementarity it brings. I wouldn't necessarily "slam" the lens as it is quite good, but it is not as good as the Lux 35 FLE or the Cron 35 Asph. Reminds me of the latest Cron 35 pre-asph, in terms of drawing (which is not a bad thing at all...), but in my view produces more barrel distortion and vignetting than even that lens. So in terms of resolution and character, I hypothesize that the RX-1r could perhaps be closest to the new M plus Cron 35 pre-asph (version IV), but I still think the colors will be coming better out of the M.

Edited September 11, 2013 by albireo_double

[mabbo]

I think I understand why some people got a little put out having the M (for movie) button intruding on their space.

 

+1

I often forget about the (M)ovie button unless somebody asks me 'does it shoot video?'

Which is usually the second question after the initial 'is that a film camera?'

With the M I'm content *just* shooting photos RF style all day long.

The 6D and GH3 stay in the trunk until I need the particular strengths/features of those cameras (mostly for videography work).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[james.liam]

If you've followed Chambers's Leica log regularly as I have for several years, you will also see that he's an owner and intensive user of an impressive array of the finest M lenses available, more than most people on this or any site will ever see, let alone use and own. In one essay, he raises the question of where the entire RF genre is going in light of the high quality items appearing, like the Sony. Aging eyes and inherent RF inaccuracies, overly long Leica product cycles, a tendency to lag in the incorporation of truly useful technology, these are clearly demonstrable issues. Rather than knocking him, see that many points he makes have merit.

 

Look at the M240; the 'adequate' EVF isn't the R solution they were touting or many of us were hoping for, focus peaking was only included at the insistence of Michael Reichmann (The Luminous Landscape) and others, while the sensor, though of a completely new design does not provide the additional resolution to adequately extract the most of the finest glass in the world. Lloyd's big point, IMO, is the inherent value of a very high-resolution sensor and in-camera downsampling to reduce noise and artifact.

 

And some argue, including participants here, that the new CMOS lacks the 'magic' that the CCD of the M9 did. These are but some of the points Chambers champions.

Edited September 11, 2013 by james.liam