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

[douglasf13]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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......

 

That's odd, I could swear that my M9 still corrects for vignetting and color shift of my lenses digitally??

 

You can still leave all of the RX1's corrections off. In fact, I normally don't correct the distortion, especially if I'm shooting people.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

That is not a correction of the lens but of the sensor.

[douglasf13]

That is not a correction of the lens but of the sensor.

 

I think we're getting into semantics a bit. Maybe I'll say the same about the RX1's sensor, in that they could have used a slightly curved sensor, rather than correcting the distortion of the lens. I'm kidding. More seriously, though, I use Lightroom's profiles with distortion correction for my Leica lenses, too, so it doesn't really matter.

[ehovv]

I tried the RX1 for a few hours and have owned M240 for a month.

 

If you want a compact camera the RX1 seemed a little bulky -- too big to put in your pocket. I'd rather get a Leica C. When the version with interchangeable lenses comes out it might gain some traction.

 

M240 with 1.4 35mm is the better value play too. What is the Sony RX1 going to be worth in 5 years? How about $250? I just can't see it being worth much. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. So you lose $2500.

 

35mm/1.4 + m240 will probably cost you about $3500-4000 in lost value. Leica is not much more costly.

[jaapv]

I think we're getting into semantics a bit. Maybe I'll say the same about the RX1's sensor, in that they could have used a slightly curved sensor, rather than correcting the distortion of the lens. I'm kidding. More seriously, though, I use Lightroom's profiles with distortion correction for my Leica lenses, too, so it doesn't really matter.

No, the corrections of CA , distortion and optical vignetting are a cover-up of lens faults. As you correctly say they can be corrected to some extent in postprocessing, but that does not make the lens better. Which was the point Steve (Thighslapper) was making.

The correction of cyan drift and incidence angle vignetting are to compensate for shortcomings of the sensor. The RX1 undoubtedly has those as well, but I cannot imagine Sony making those switchable.

[don daniel]

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.

 

You are right. But you should do what you write not write what we should do!

[douglasf13]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, the corrections of CA , distortion and optical vignetting are a cover-up of lens faults. As you correctly say they can be corrected to some extent in postprocessing, but that does not make the lens better. Which was the point Steve (Thighslapper) was making.

The correction of cyan drift and incidence angle vignetting are to compensate for shortcomings of the sensor. The RX1 undoubtedly has those as well, but I cannot imagine Sony making those switchable.

 

As I said, I was kidding.

 

My 35/2 ASPH also has more distortion than my 35/2 IV, but (and even more so with the Nokton 35/1.4) a little bit of distortion can be a good thing for 35mm lenses with people outside of the center of the frame.

 

Since we're talking about digital, I inevitably end up correcting distortion in LR with my Leica and non-Leica lenses, so it really isn't an issue. If we were talking about shooting film and printing from an enlarger, rather than adding a computer to the mix, it would obviously be a much different story, and, if distortion could be an issue in a scene, I'd take an older, pre-asph Leica 35mm all day.

 

FWIW, the Sonnar in the RX1 vignettes less than any of the equivalent Leica lenses that I've seen (with vignetting correction off,) which makes sense, because the rear element of the RX1 is essentially the same size as the sensor and sits right on top of it. I generally don't even bother correcting the RX1's vignetting.

 

I've used many M 35s, since that is basically the only focal length I shoot, but to compare the Sonnar with Leica's latest (albeit aging a bit) 35/2 ASPH, here's my opinion:

 

- Both lenses have distortion, but the Summicron has less. When shooting any type of scene that requires straight lines, I correct the distortion of both lenses in LR.

 

- The RX1 has more CA (that I correct in LR.) It isn't terrible or anything, but the Leica is definitely better.

 

- With or without distortion correction, the Sonnar is essentially sharper and more even across the frame at any aperture or distance. There is much less of a Zone B dip going on than any of the other Leica 35s (until we see a 35 Summicron AA or something.)

 

- The rendering of the Sonnar is preferable. The out of focus areas are smoother than any 35mm lens that I've seen. Now, some may prefer more busy out of focus areas with more drama, so this is just an opinion on my part. The Sonnar certainly has a "look" that I've not seen in other 35s, but I'm sure others may not prefer it. As I've seen others mention, it kind of reminds me of the bokeh from a tele, but in a 35mm lens.

 

The bottom line for me is, if one were to tell me to pick any lens for the M9/m240, and the RX1's Sonnar was somehow an option, that's the lens I'd choose. I'm not saying that it is better in every way than other M lenses, but it has the right combination of things, for me. At the very least, I think it's fair to say that the image quality of the RX1's sensor and lens at least rival what one could get from the m240's sensor and 35mm lens.

 

I'm not here to bash Leica. I happen to like a lot of Leica products very much. Just because the output of the RX1 rivals, or, in my opinion, betters Leica M cameras doesn't mean it is a better camera. The usability of a Leica M is an entirely different ballgame, which, to get back to the point of this thread, is why comparisons are so tough to nail down. It sounds to me like DIGLLOYD doesn't really understand the appeal of using a rangefinder camera.

[douglasf13]

I forgot to mention one thing about the RX1 that is potentially bothersome. Since the lens is attached and electronic, I've read reports that dropping the camera onto something hard, like concrete, could potentially screw up the lens and cause a camera error. Now, with an interchangeable lens camera, you could simply switch lenses, but, with the RX1, you're out of luck without a backup. Of course, with any camera, backups are a necessity if shooting important assignments, but it is something to think about. If I still shot professionally, or if I take on some kind of serious personal photo project in the future, I'll likely buy a used RX1 as a backup. As it is now, I just use another mirrorless camera as a backup.

 

The RX1's body is built like a brick, and I'm not really worried about its durability, but I do worry about lens-first falls, and I'm not sure how much such a repair would cost. Of course, dropping any camera lens first is bad news, but it's a bit trickier with a fixed lens camera.

[Ecaton]

For Sonnar fans, get both, a RX1 and a M9 with ZM Sonnar. And by the way, the pronounced distortion of the RX1 lens bothers me sometimes, and so does the sticking out EVF. Up to iso 800 I still prefer M9 files over anything else. But then I seem to prefer files produced by cameras which suck in Dox benchmark tests anyway, including Sigma Merrill ones.

I hope Leica will release a no nonsense, bells and whistle free M9 successor with the M240 sensor, shutter, buffer, lcd screen, the MP (the real MP) body size and everything about 100-150g lighter than the M9. It will kick the RX1`s and NEX FF and whatever butt imho.

Philosophy wise, the M9 is a beautiful artistic instrument with the necessary electronics added to make it a digital camera whilst retaining as many mechanical components and analog controls as possible. The RX1, in contrast, is a computer to which a very nice lens has been glued. I like both.

[mwilliamsphotography]

What is the point of struggling to scientifically quantify creative subjectivity?

 

I freely admit to subjectively preferring how Leica images look compared to any from anything else. I also subjectively prefer interchangeable lens rangefinder handling and methodology. When someone tries to convince me otherwise with their subjective opinion in the guise of logic and selective facts ... my bias ladened, unsupportable opinion wins ... every time.

 

I remain open to subjective assaults on my believes (and have even bought into some alternatives) ... but in the end haven't been swayed after 30+ years of being open to them. 30 years makes you a bit of a skeptic about competitive claims, and more wary about buying into them. I'm probably not alone since Leica is still here, and doing quite well.

 

This bias doesn't make me a blind believer ... I remain unconvinced about the M240 image qualities and have passed up two opportunities to secure one from my dealer. This time I'll let others sort it out first ... or replace my M9 with another if the M240 never meets my subjective needs.

 

The thought of some alternative from Sony or whoever doesn't figure in the mix, since there isn't one ... in my subjective opinion.

 

 

- Marc

[Rick]

I remain unconvinced about the M240 image qualities and have passed up two opportunities to secure one from my dealer. This time I'll let others sort it out first ... or replace my M9 with another if the M240 never meets my subjective needs.

 

 

Marc -

 

The image quality of the M240 is actually convincing. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for? Contact Leica and talk to them. I'm being sincere and trying to help you...

 

Rick

[IWC Doppel]

I think I'm sliding into the minority here, I still find M9 images more pleasing than the M, and the M more pleasing than the RX1R. Admittedly only from other peoples images regarding the Sony, I have not used a Sony and have no interest in it tbh. I have used an M. I still maintain there is a difference in 'look' between CMOS and CCD. I know I'll get shot down in flames, I remember suffering the same with vinyl vs CD when I was not overwhelmed !

 

I have a sneaking suspicion about where these differences lie and that is the graduation out of black and the 'in chip' sharpening. I think this has a fundamental difference on how depth is portrayed, and this appears to contradict pixel peeking resolution. Please try the following experiment and humour me Move your eyes away from the screen and look carefully and objectively at some edges around the room. As they move further away the sharpness gradually reduces and contrast reduces too. Play with sharpening and the scene becomes 'digital' and 'false' reducing this effect.

 

My thoughts are how objective are some tests from not only real world and unreal world in respect of in chip processing, but also what are you after in respect of the image output of the camera accepting that we don't as yet have the perfect sensor or camera so there will be a compromise and design choices will be made to enhance through processing. So why have I mentioned the M9 given this is about the M240 and the Sony R1XR, well it's because I suspect the decision around the compromise with sharpening, noise reduction etc in chip will be different between Sony and Leica. I suspect Leica appreciate the CMOS high ISO advantages and EVF/Video options but also the careful compromise about too much in chip torturing.

[Guest malland]

I agree with you on the preference for the M9 look over that of the M240 and that of the RX1R, a sentiment that has also been expressed in another thread by charlesphoto99 and here by fotografz. However, my preference relates to color rendition and is based on subjective judgment. Therefore, I'm interested in what you say about "the graduation [gradation?] out of black and the 'in chip' sharpening" — and whether this could be subject to objective testing, although I do think that subjective judgments are important.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[colonel]

I have used an M. .

 

The thing is, when you say this what do you mean.

Do you have an M, have you taken a few pictures in a shop, used it for an afternoon or for a few weeks ?

 

My point is that I have not used an M in anger and therefore do not comment in its picture quality. From what I have seen it looks at least as good as an M9 in terms of colour. I have not seen detail.

 

For example Ming Thein's photos looks at least as good, perhaps better, in terms of colour, definition, micro-contrast, harp etc. on the web:

The 2013 Leica M Typ 240 – Ming Thein | Photographer

[IWC Doppel]

I have only used one for a few shots with shop sample and other cameras on 3 occasions, but have looked at a lot of shots taken with them (perhaps 30-40 or so) and downloaded a lot from the early days before concluding my interest in one. Perhaps I'm wrong but there has been sufficient consistency for me.

 

The other advantages, battery life, EVF, video, live view have no interest to me, so it was all about image 'quality'. I agree some people have done some great things with the M, Ming Thein being one, I read his reviews. The M240 would be my second favourite if the M9 was not an option.

 

For better or worse I preferred the images I got out of my M9 to those from the M. I tried to adjust them to match and I couldn't, which to some extent is a pointless exercise in reality.

 

I guess it's like lenses some prefer one rendering over another.

[knisely]

I have been wrestling with both the M240 and the Monochrom when it comes to focusing on my two fast moving grandchildren. I have used my D-Lux 6 however, the IQ isn't on par with the Ms. After reading this thread I went out and purchased an RX1R.

 

Overall impression is the build is nice and the IQ is outstanding. I have had the X1 and X2, the RX1R is superior. At least, in my opinion. It is nice to have auto focus along with great image quality in a small package. It will never replace the M240 or Monochrome, they offer so much more in regards to lenses. Unfortunately, the EVF was out of stock. I will try one and see if it helps me connect emotionally to the composition in the same way as a Range Finder. Obviously, this is important when photographing my family.

 

As an additional note, I am almost sixty and my eyesight precludes me from fast focusing the M.

 

Tom

[Guest malland]

Tom, photographing children that are running around is somewhat akin to street photography that can be dynamic, as the photographer walks and turns in different directions to photograph subjects in various moving in various directions. In either situation, my experience is that, even with the best of eyes, M-camera rangefinder focusing is not fast enough — what one needs to do is to pre-focus (zone focus) and to learn how to change that quickly by just looking at the DOF markings on the lens barrel.

 

Fast autofocus, in my experience (with a Nikon D300), is not a panacea either because it's very easy, in such dynamic situations, for the camera frequently to focus on the wrong subject as the intended subject is moving around. On balance, I much prefer M-camera rangefinder focus for this type of street photography.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[tom0511]

2 or 3 years ago I have read some of Loyds reviews (I paid for it of course) with great interest.

However in some important cases I could not share all his conclusions when I used/tested the same cameras myself. I am sure he makes many valid points.

I do believe however that he focuses too much on some single factors. IMO there is a high risk of coming to a conclusion which has not much to do with real life.

 

If we take the original post in this thread, and compare the RX1 with a Leica M.

Does anybody here believe the image quality differences between those 2 cameras would be the main important thing when deciding for one or the other?

I dont think so.

I have owned a RX1 for a while and the IQ was great. In the end I decided to not keep it because a) I dont like to be limited to 35mm I prefer an optical viewfinder c) I prefer the user interface of the Leica. I can clearly see how other might prefer the smaller size or having AF and therefore prefering a RX1.

What I can not see is how one of those 2 cameras "outperforms" the other. They are a) much to different to be really comparable, and they are both much too good to be outperformed.

(IMO)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

...

This bias doesn't make me a blind believer ... I remain unconvinced about the M240 image qualities and have passed up two opportunities to secure one from my dealer. This time I'll let others sort it out first ... or replace my M9 with another if the M240 never meets my subjective needs.

 

- Marc

 

Hi Marc,

I was also struggelingif I should go new M or not. In the end I decided for the new M amd I really enjoy it. I admit that I somewhat miss the way the images came out of the M9 in regards to color and pop (sometimes). I say sometimes because under some light M9 images came out great but under certain mixed light they were difficult to get them right.

 

But one thing where I now really would not like to go back to the M9 is the higher ISO capability of the M. I feel much more freedom to shoot with the appropriate DOF and exp time when using the M since I use all the range up to ISO3200. Thats great and gives me more flexibility. I dont want to spend endless time to post the M in a way the image look like the M9. thats also the reason why I did not keep my M9. I will just try to get the best out of the new M. And I am not unhappy with the results. Still hope that it will get even better with a firmware upgrade.

[skuromis]

Hello, I always read superior IQ of RX1R. While this can be true, that doesn't make the IQ of Leica M any worse. At a certain point of time, there will be aways someone with a better IQ, build, screen, strap, focus (you name it). What counts for me is a very high standard and the overall package. On the other hand, competition was always a good driver for improvements