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

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 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 including at the insistance Michael Reichmann 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. And some argue, fails to have the 'magic' that the CCD of the M9 did. These are but some of the points Chambers champions.

 

I am also the "owner and intensive user of an impressive array of the finest M lenses available" and use and own some of the finer R glass, and I've been shooting the M8, M9, and M along side top of the line Canon and Sony sensors. How about I save us all a lot of time and just suggest that your post is pretty much all a bunch of uninformed BS.

 

The M RF system is alive and well and faithfully and thankfully lagging "the incorporation of truly useful technology." I had to prove it to myself again over the last 9 days.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

In one essay, he raises the question of where the entire RF genre is going ....

You could say the same about photography itself. I was recently in Trafalgar Square on a very crowded day and I would guesstimate that the percentage of people shooting photos on mobile 'phones was very high indeed (~80% I'd suggest). Perhaps that's what will happen for most people, who knows? Personally I'll stick to my RF cameras and try to avoid predicting the future as this isn't something I feel I'm good at. RF is a genre that is still satisfying a good number of photographers and whether this will change only time will tell.

[james.liam]

I am also the "owner and intensive user of an impressive array of the finest M lenses available" and use and own some of the finer R glass, and I've been shooting the M8, M9, and M along side top of the line Canon and Sony sensors. How about I save us all a lot of time and just suggest that your post is pretty much all a bunch of uninformed BS.

 

The M RF system is alive and well and faithfully and thankfully lagging "the incorporation of truly useful technology." I had to prove it to myself again over the last 9 days.

 

Then do us all a favor and save the snark for yourself. The point of a discussion is to give a fair hearing and not belittle an opinion that isn't in lock-step with yours.

 

Have a nice day!

 

 

You could say the same about photography itself. I was recently in Trafalgar Square on a very crowded day and I would guesstimate that the percentage of people shooting photos on mobile 'phones was very high indeed (~80% I'd suggest). Perhaps that's what will happen for most people, who knows? Personally I'll stick to my RF cameras and try to avoid predicting the future as this isn't something I feel I'm good at. RF is a genre that is still satisfying a good number of photographers and whether this will change only time will tell.

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Rick]

I'm not sure why all the emotion? The comment was directed at your comments which all were in support of this fellow Chambers. I think he is full of BS (on the Leica matters of late). We've discussed these Internet photo sites and most are just trying to stir the pot. He may be a great guy (I like him), but he is wrong about the M system. The discussion over the last several months here about his comments have been pretty convincing that he doesn't know what he is talking about this time around. Maybe BS is a little strongly worded for some people's tastes, sorry. But, I think if I read between the lines, he is stirring the pot and trying to bring out the emotions in those that are waiting for any little bit of commentary that dethrones the M.

[jaapv]

Threads like this direct traffic to those sites and traffic=money. It pays to spout nonsense. Especially if wrapped in provoking statements.

 

Just look at us. An excellent review of the XVario by Erwin Puts: 3 responses. A nasty load of nothing: 45 resposes and counting.

[douglasf13]

I'm an owner of all types of film and digital cameras, from Leicaflex, to Hasselblad, to the M9 (recently sold) to the RX1, and here's my take on it.

 

Leica M is all about the rangefinder work flow. Period. You can't substitute that with any of the EVF/LCD based alternatives, and, if that's your thing, there really aren't any other digital options (outside of the old RD1.)

 

I've not shot any Leica f1.4 lenses, as I prefer f2 lenses, but I prefer the RX1's lens over any of the 35/2 Leica and ZM lenses that I've used. The sensor of the RX1 is also better than anything Leica has offered to this point. The RX1 is a real beast of an image maker in a very small package.

 

So, why did I get rid of my M9+35/2 ASPH (I'm a single lens shooter) in favor of the RX1? After shooting so many types of cameras in professional and personal settings, I've come to realize that the rangefinder workflow isn't any better for me than a waist level finder, a prism, a hotshoe OVF, heck, even just an LCD. I don't walk around with a camera glued to my face. I visualize scenes at the 35mm angle of view and briefly bring the camera to my face to shoot, so it doesn't really matter to me what method I'm using. I just let the camera get out of the way. The RX1 doesn't have a rangefinder, but it does have EVF, LCD and OVF options, so it is still pretty versatile. It also has a zone focusing scale, very accurate manual focus and AF options, so it is versatile in that regard, too.

 

It's no big deal. If you're uncompromising on the rangefinder workflow, and you want to use more than one lens, digital Leica is a fanstastic, no-brainer option. If those things aren't an issue, the RX1 is tiny, relatively cheap, and creates fantastic images, so it is also a good choice.

 

Until there are other digital rangefinders on the market, any comparison with a Leica M is like comparing a dump truck to a minivan. What's the point?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I cannot understand is people presenting the RX1 as a cheap alternative to the M. It is not; it is bloddy expensive for a point and shoot with its limitations. There are plenty of cheaper high quality alternatives, starting with the X1. And don't start about full frame, the whole apples to oranges comparison was based on attainable quality disregarding other considerations. I am merely throwing a mandarin into the mix.

[colonel]

What I cannot understand is people presenting the RX1 as a cheap alternative to the M. It is not; it is bloddy expensive for a point and shoot with its limitations. There are plenty of cheaper high quality alternatives, starting with the X1. And don't start about full frame, the whole apples to oranges comparison was based on attainable quality disregarding other considerations. I am merely throwing a mandarin into the mix.

 

I agree is not a good system comparison.

However if someone only ever uses a 35mm f2 lens, say a biogon, they might consider this a comparison.

I think the shocker is that the RX1 is full frame as a compact.

 

For me a key reason to use FF in the first place is f1.4 and lower.

 

Interestingly the RX1R has lower scores on DXOMARK (your favourite site) then the RX1. DXOMARK have tested multiple times to confirm this. There are lots of theories for this but mine is the most simple, the RX1 has very precise tolerances and Sony simply removed the AA filter in the RX1R without re-engineering the camera. Thus the acuity is slightly out IMHO.

We know the camera needs to be reengineered as even Nikon couldn't do this properly in the D800E, they had to substitute half of the AA filter with a another filter effectively reversing the results.

 

Lastly, the RX1 should be tested the other way as well. You can argue that the X100S at less then half the price provides 90% of the IQ of the RX1 with a built in EVF thrown in and better colours, but I couldn't possibly say this

[pgk]

..... the whole apples to oranges comparison was based on attainable quality disregarding other considerations.

And rarely if ever is the 'quality' bit actually defined - its an amorphous, vague catch-all which is relevant only if everything else is equal AND the imagery being produced must be used in such a way that differences will show (and not in comparison but in a stand-alone situation). In my experience it is rare for images to be pushed to their absolute limits in terms of enlargement and precision in production.

 

That said I am having some images used at the moment A2 and A1 in size from a variety of cameras. What matters more than anything else IS THE IMAGE itself. Using a camera (system) which enables me to shoot to the very best of my ability is just as important, if not more than, as anything else, and ergonomics and familiarity (constantly changing cameras doesn't work for me) are very important factors which will potentially lead to better shots far more effectively than will the 'quality' output of the camera (given that many cameras have excellent outputs and we are talking about nuances).

 

In days gone past photographers got used to their cameras and kept them for many years which IMHO was not a bad thing.

[jaapv]

There are at least a dozen of cameras nowadays that provide more than ample quality for 98% of use. The RX1 is amongst them - but limited by its single focal length and limited manual focusing ability. For many users the XVario will be a better choice - trade sensor size and a bit of DOF for arguably the best lens ever put on a compact camera with comparable sensor performance and the bonus of a zoom. Similarily there are arguments for other cameras. We are back to the film days - the quality of the "sensor"was the level paying field of film - and still we were buying Leica M cameras.

[douglasf13]

What I cannot understand is people presenting the RX1 as a cheap alternative to the M. It is not; it is bloddy expensive for a point and shoot with its limitations. There are plenty of cheaper high quality alternatives, starting with the X1. And don't start about full frame, the whole apples to oranges comparison was based on attainable quality disregarding other considerations. I am merely throwing a mandarin into the mix.

 

Sony's Euro pricing makes things a bit more unbalanced compared to pricing in the US, since the camera is both $2999 US and 2999 Euro.

 

Either way, the comparison to the M240 makes sense only if you're talking about image quality, and the comparison to the X1 makes sense only if you're talking about form factor. The RX1 sits right in between those cameras, although the price is much closer to the X1.

[douglasf13]

There are at least a dozen of cameras nowadays that provide more than ample quality for 98% of use. The RX1 is amongst them - but limited by its single focal length and limited manual focusing ability. For many users the XVario will be a better choice - trade sensor size and a bit of DOF for arguably the best lens ever put on a compact camera with comparable sensor performance and the bonus of a zoom. Similarily there are arguments for other cameras. We are back to the film days - the quality of the "sensor"was the level paying field of film - and still we were buying Leica M cameras.

 

If that's the case, then why upgrade the M9 to the M240? Or why upgrade older M lenses for the ASPH version? There is still a gulf in image quality between aps-c cameras and the RX1, assuming we're talking about more than just looking at web jpegs or something, where any m4/3 sensor or larger from the last 10 years is likely to be fine.

 

I think people underestimate just how difficult the RX1 was to design, as well as just how good the lens is. Sony had to develop special sensor mounts, heat sinks and electronics to make the camera so thin (which they are keeping a secret,) they had to match lenses to sensors and hand assemble them, and they were able to design a single lens and sensor to work in tandem (like the X1 and X-Vario.) It's a true little marvel of design, and the cost is reasonable.

 

Open up a Sony digital camera, and it is a work of art in the interior, compared to Leica digitals. Sony has a leg up on pretty much everyone, in terms of electronics design. If this RX1 was labelled the "Leica XL," Leica users would surely be clamoring to buy one for thousands more. It is better than m240+35/2 ASPH image quality in the X1 form factor, and only $1000 more than the X1 (at least in the US.)

 

Again, if rangefinder focusing and interchangeable lenses is your thing, the Leica M is an obvious choice, but, if not, the RX1 is a compelling camera.

[colonel]

If that's the case, then why upgrade the M9 to the M240? Or why upgrade older M lenses for the ASPH version?

 

Because incrementally better performance is always better

 

There is still a gulf in image quality between aps-c cameras and the RX1, assuming we're talking about more than just looking at web jpegs or something, where any m4/3 sensor or larger from the last 10 years is likely to be fine.

 

Actually there is not such a gulf between APS-C and FF when you want wide DOF. The main difference is the stress put on the lenses which is lower with FF, e.g. APS-C requires higher quality lenses. See photozone.de for comparison of MTA values.

The gulf betwen APS-C and M4/3s is up to the individual. For me the sensor at this size crosses the noise and DOF control barrier. I would prefer RX100 1" sensor then M4/3s, increased DOF and having just as much shaprness and almost as much ISO performance.

 

 

I think people underestimate just how difficult the RX1 was to design, as well as just how good the lens is. Sony had to develop special sensor mounts, heat sinks and electronics to make the camera so thin (which they are keeping a secret,) they had to match lenses to sensors and hand assemble them, and they were able to design a single lens and sensor to work in tandem (like the X1 and X-Vario.) It's a true little marvel of design, and the cost is reasonable.

 

No one I think underestimates this. Look the RX1 is a cracking camera, I don't see anyone knocking it in this thread.

 

Open up a Sony digital camera, and it is a work of art in the interior, compared to Leica digitals. Sony has a leg up on pretty much everyone, in terms of electronics design. If this RX1 was labelled the "Leica XL," Leica users would surely be clamoring to buy one for thousands more. It is better than m240+35/2 ASPH image quality in the X1 form factor, and only $1000 more than the X1 (at least in the US.)

 

Work of art of insides of camera is subjective and irrelevant as we don't pull these things apart.

 

Leica digitals are designed by a small company in conjunction with advice from suppliers and has hand made processes. The beauty of the construction and process is part of the desirability of the camera.

 

Its not better then the M240+35/2 and certainly not better then the M9+35/2. It all depends on what you happen to think is IQ. The M9 takes simply sublime pictures, especially with the Summilux series (which go to f1.4!!).

 

Again, if rangefinder focusing and interchangeable lenses is your thing, the Leica M is an obvious choice, but, if not, the RX1 is a compelling camera.

 

Its not just the RF, its the lens quality, construction quality and workflow. If it gels there is nothing quite like it.

 

Listen I used the RX1 extensively. Its a great camera. Corners on the lens are not great at f2, distortion is bad before correction, colours are very bland and need pumping up and ISO performance at the pixel is actually no better then the X100S, which is less then half the price and has an integrated EVF. i.e. the RX1 is subject from assault below.

 

The RX1 does not compete with the M240. Many people who can have both.

I was running a RX1 and an M9 but decided the RX1 takes flat pictures so sold it and use a X100S alot, but since acquiring the X-Vario I find this is so sharp with such good colours its an ideal partner for the M9 when a zoom and/or perhaps video is required (which is very good on the X-Vario and often overlooked). I will probably get the M240 in a few years but in the meantime am unlikely to be tempted by a NEX-9, however many people lugging heavy DSLRs will be and good luck to them!

 

Leica M has never appealed to people who buy cameras on spec. sheets or who don't appreciate the really precise manual focus. The argument on spec. goes on everytime Leica releases a camera but it doesn't convince people who love the Leica workflow and it won't convince the spec. boys or girls to buy Leica. I mean for the cost of the M240 body you can buy a EP-5+EVF+75mm + RX1 + Macbook air - there's alot to play with there....

[jaapv]

Sony's Euro pricing makes things a bit more unbalanced compared to pricing in the US, since the camera is both $2999 US and 2999 Euro.

 

Either way, the comparison to the M240 makes sense only if you're talking about image quality, and the comparison to the X1 makes sense only if you're talking about form factor. The RX1 sits right in between those cameras, although the price is much closer to the X1.

Form factor? You miss my point. The lens of the XVario is comparable to the Apo-Summicron.

[lct]

...Again, if rangefinder focusing and interchangeable lenses is your thing, the Leica M is an obvious choice, but, if not, the RX1 is a compelling camera.

Yes why not but nobody denies this here do we? If i were after a fixed lens chimping camera i would be interested certainly. Not sure if i would pay that much though but it is another story. Give me the same with interchangeable lenses and a decent viewfinder, i miss a digital CL too much. With an M mount please.

[Duane Pandorf]

My personal opinion doesn't mean much as I've only been shooting with a Leica body for less than a year. Having said that, I do know what its like to travel 180 days out of the year carrying a camera. I will never again travel with a camera that requires an attachment (EVF) that sticks out of the top of the body to enable eye level focusing, period. Too easy to break pulling it out of the bag plus they can fall off too easy and the attachment gets in the way while carrying. I shot with the Ricoh GXR + EVF + M mount. (This includes a future Leica M if Leica were to remove the rangefinder mechanism and not replace it with a built-in view finder.)

 

I also will not carry a camera that restricts me to a single FOV.

 

I also want the option, not that I can afford the newest version, to have a fast aperture. To me this adds a different dimension to the "artistic" look I prefer.

 

I shoot with a Leica digital M because it has a simple focusing system, almost 60 years of M mount lens options and even more with LTMs.

 

Then there's the rest of the M that's just plain stupid simple to operate. I could give a big %(($# about video, dedicated exposure comp (I use the shutter dial for that), and all the other options the engineers try to cram into the software.

 

I'm going out to take some more photos. Have a nice day worrying about what Sony is going to do next. (BTW, maybe that's why they name one of their camera models: NEX, to keep everybody wanting to see what they're going to do NEXt).

[thighslapper]

 

Listen I used the RX1 extensively. Its a great camera. Corners on the lens are not great at f2, distortion is bad before correction, colours are very bland and need pumping up and ISO performance at the pixel is actually no better then the X100S, which is less then half the price and has an integrated EVF. i.e. the RX1 is subject from assault below.

 

 

Therein encapsulates the whole issue........

 

Leica strive to perfect the optics and the mechanics/ergonomics and produce good imagery that way ....

 

..... most other companies strive to manipulate the output digitally to compensate for the fundamental deficiencies in the camera......

[algrove]

I bought the RX-1 while waiting for the M to deliver. I never meant it as a replacement for my M and M+R lenses.

 

However, there is only one comparison IMHO which is valid when comparing the 2 cameras and that is through putting a 35/2.0 on the M not 35/1.4. Ideally the Leica 35/2 would be the best choice since it a Leica system lens and not a Zeiss 35/2.

 

I like the way both cameras produce images and at times there are images I could not have gotten with the M where the RX-1 has worked and worked well for me. Why? Mostly due to its AF capabilities. Otherwise I reach for the M first.

 

Price wise any one is kidding only themselves that the RX-1 is close to the M. Come on-- the M+35/2 is US$10k without inferior EVF and the RX-1 is US$2.8k without superior EVF.

 

Commonality stops at FF, 24MP, color sensor. Just remembered the ISO performance of the RX-1 outshines the M in many situations I have encountered by a long shot.

 

However, I still reach for the M first.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[douglasf13]

Form factor? You miss my point. The lens of the XVario is comparable to the Apo-Summicron.

 

I was referring to "There are plenty of cheaper high quality alternatives, starting with the X1."

[douglasf13]

Because incrementally better performance is always better

 

 

 

Actually there is not such a gulf between APS-C and FF when you want wide DOF. The main difference is the stress put on the lenses which is lower with FF, e.g. APS-C requires higher quality lenses. See photozone.de for comparison of MTA values.

The gulf betwen APS-C and M4/3s is up to the individual. For me the sensor at this size crosses the noise and DOF control barrier. I would prefer RX100 1" sensor then M4/3s, increased DOF and having just as much shaprness and almost as much ISO performance.

 

 

 

 

No one I think underestimates this. Look the RX1 is a cracking camera, I don't see anyone knocking it in this thread.

 

 

 

Work of art of insides of camera is subjective and irrelevant as we don't pull these things apart.

 

Leica digitals are designed by a small company in conjunction with advice from suppliers and has hand made processes. The beauty of the construction and process is part of the desirability of the camera.

 

Its not better then the M240+35/2 and certainly not better then the M9+35/2. It all depends on what you happen to think is IQ. The M9 takes simply sublime pictures, especially with the Summilux series (which go to f1.4!!).

 

 

 

Its not just the RF, its the lens quality, construction quality and workflow. If it gels there is nothing quite like it.

 

Listen I used the RX1 extensively. Its a great camera. Corners on the lens are not great at f2, distortion is bad before correction, colours are very bland and need pumping up and ISO performance at the pixel is actually no better then the X100S, which is less then half the price and has an integrated EVF. i.e. the RX1 is subject from assault below.

 

The RX1 does not compete with the M240. Many people who can have both.

I was running a RX1 and an M9 but decided the RX1 takes flat pictures so sold it and use a X100S alot, but since acquiring the X-Vario I find this is so sharp with such good colours its an ideal partner for the M9 when a zoom and/or perhaps video is required (which is very good on the X-Vario and often overlooked). I will probably get the M240 in a few years but in the meantime am unlikely to be tempted by a NEX-9, however many people lugging heavy DSLRs will be and good luck to them!

 

Leica M has never appealed to people who buy cameras on spec. sheets or who don't appreciate the really precise manual focus. The argument on spec. goes on everytime Leica releases a camera but it doesn't convince people who love the Leica workflow and it won't convince the spec. boys or girls to buy Leica. I mean for the cost of the M240 body you can buy a EP-5+EVF+75mm + RX1 + Macbook air - there's alot to play with there....

 

You made a lot of nice points, so I'll just respond with a list:

 

- Leica's hardware build is fantastic, but the electronics leave something to be desired. In fact, when I took my M9 into a VERY well known Leica repair shop, they were laughing about just how rudimentary the electronics were. They said something like "It looked like the electronics were from the '80s." My simply point was that Sony are at the top of the heap in this realm, and the RX1 is quite an accomplishment, in terms of packing everything into such a small body.

 

- If you can find a 35mm Leica lens that has better corners at f2, then you must have had a bad copy of the RX1. There really isn't a Leica 35mm lens that competes with it across the frame, as they all have a zone B dip. The only 35mm M lens I can think of that is as even across the frame is the ZM 35/2, and that would only be stopped down at infinity.

 

- I also owned, and recently sold, the X100s, and I don't think it really even compares to the RX1. Fuij overstates their ISO by nearly a stop, so the high ISO isn't as good as the meter is tricking you into thinking, the lens isn't in the same universe, and the files still have issues with the various raw converters.

 

- I agree that Leica isn't about the spec sheet. I'll reiterate that all that I'm saying is, if you want Leica level IQ, and you don't need interchangeable lenses or a rangefinder, the RX1 is comparable. If you do need those things, there is no comparison. Leica M all the way.

 

Comparing the RX1 is kind of like comparing the Fuji GF670 to either a Leica M or a Hasselblad V. It has the form factor/focusing style of one, and it has the image quality of the other.