The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly my view. The M9 has a very special CCD color rendering at base iso and in terms of high iso not worse than the M with the latest raw converters. It might actually be better if you take the M high iso banding in consideration.

 

The Monochrom is in a class of its own.

 

The M240 apart from a few refinements to the RF mechanism has a very bland CMOS rendering and even a step backwards in terms of color shift due to the non offset microlenses.

 

If I was buying a Leica right now, I would go with the ME or the Monochrom. The M is an unfinished product IMHO.

 

Hi Edward

I think that with the M240 this is a serious case of the Emperor's old clothes.

 

I'm not defending either the banding at high ISO, or the White balance in the initial firmware. But to call it bland CMOS rendering seems to me to be simply seeing what you want to see.

 

The M has quite a lot better dynamic range than the M9 - which inevitably means flatter images out of the camera (do you remember the MM being hammered for this? I certainly do). RAW files are just that, and we all need to learn what to do with them. The M firmware with the corrected colour balance is barely a fortnight old.

 

Mitch and I have agreed to differ about the M9, the MM and now the M . . . . I would predict that when the M has 'bedded in', then he'll come around to that as well.

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

Thanks jd.

 

Well that's that then? As I mainly use 21 to 50mm M lenses, especially the 28 Summicron (and now a 28-90 Vario-Elmar), it looks like the A7R will be a no go (but I won't cancel my order just yet).

 

So the search continues for holy grail of non-Leica digital cameras for Leica M wides.

 

Most importantly, looking at the extraordinary amount of traffic the Sony A7/A7R has generated on this forum in the past few days, Leica needs to pay attention to what many of their customers want, and then supply the demand which the M240 has clearly not filled for many.

 

An M (type360) with better EVF capability, electronic & firmware stability, and a better pricepoint (acepting the latter is unlikely unless they produce a variant model without an OVF, perhaps an E (type 360). Surely Leica could work with a substantial electronics company (such a Panasonic) to get the EVF electronics right.

 

Not that I'm anything but ecstatic with my lowly M (type 240) and Monochrom .

 

Oh if it's bad it's bound to get better. I'm too old to wait three generations of cameras to get where I am now.

[Borbarad]

Hi Jono,

 

I really like your work and appreciate your comments (was also surprise to see that Leica used your photos to "present the M Monochrom" at the Photokina stand) and I'm also a long time 4/3 user, but I'm not 100% confirm with your M 240 comments.

 

The basic firmware was crap and I think we all can agree on that (+ time will tell if the new one is really better). The M9(P) was and is special at base ISO(and up to 640..). I would say it was and is a digital Version of the Kodachrome in a M7. Also as for CCD magic well the same topic is still around with the Oly E1.

 

But I would swallow the CMOS with the right firmware if the M240 would be right and had the soul of a M9 and that is where from my point of view the M240 fails. The new "technical wizardry" is a consent to the zeitgeist, but in reality I would use any m4/3 for stuff like that and the new OMD E-M1 is a beast in that regards - basically runs circles around the M240.

 

The M240 has to much and wants to much and therefore misses the M9(or M7, MP....)core nature. In my point of view Leica should release(beside the M240) a digital MP: The improved rangefinder plus frame leaver, thinner body, classic MP design, no unnecessary buttons, no accessory port, no video(as this would require a bit more than just the function), only live view with via display....

 

 

 

B

[edwardkaraa]

Hi Edward

I think that with the M240 this is a serious case of the Emperor's old clothes.

 

I'm not defending either the banding at high ISO, or the White balance in the initial firmware. But to call it bland CMOS rendering seems to me to be simply seeing what you want to see.

 

The M has quite a lot better dynamic range than the M9 - which inevitably means flatter images out of the camera (do you remember the MM being hammered for this? I certainly do). RAW files are just that, and we all need to learn what to do with them. The M firmware with the corrected colour balance is barely a fortnight old.

 

Mitch and I have agreed to differ about the M9, the MM and now the M . . . . I would predict that when the M has 'bedded in', then he'll come around to that as well.

 

Hi Jono,

 

I definitely understand your point of view, and I truly believe each has different sensitivities to different aspects of a camera output. I have scrutinized many M files and I have to say I don't like what I see at pixel level. The files have this typical CMOS look with visible grain structure in the shadows and blue skies. I find the M9 output superb in this respect.

 

I also see what you mean about the increased DR, but then having to push the files in the raw converter to get a punchy look inevitably increases noise and exacerbates any underlying banding.

 

Finally I have come to the conclusion that the M relies much more on software correction than the M9. I personally work always with lens profiles off because corrections introduce noise in the corners where the vignetting occurs. The M sensor is definitely not as good in terms of corner performance.

 

Of course, the M has plenty of other advantages but the above points make it difficult for me to prefer it.

[MarkP]

Jono,

 

I'd just finishing a PM to John covering most of your points about the M240 with which I agree. In particular:

Better shutter

Better viewfinder

Better IQ & colour, and as you raised the significant improvement in dynamic range of the M240 which rarely gets mentioned. I'm often surprised how well the M240 copes with very high contrast scenes (like the Monochrom but better highlight recovery).

 

Re bland CMOS rendering I dont think so. I have kept my M9 for the moment and now have trouble picking the difference at base ISO. The M240 colour is perhaps a little more neutral.

 

Mark

[onceuponatime]

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224

 

I’ll spill the beans now – none of the rangefinder lenses performed as well on the a7 as they do on the M9, specifically referring to image smearing into the edges/corners. Some are not so bad and are good enough when stopped down sufficiently, but some are outright horrible (ZM21, 28 Cron), to the point where one would think the lens was defective. Naturally there were some variable that couldn’t be tested, such as whether the Novoflex NEX-Leica M adapter I used was perfect.

 

and

 

My take on the results: I’m hoping these lenses will fare better on the a7R. Results on the a7 are for the most part disappointing. All I can surmise at the moment is that the toppings on the a7′s sensor work against achieving optimal (or in some cases, good enough) results with the rangefinder lenses I had available for this test.

 

A7r with non phase detect, non AA ; ie the version geared towards manual focus lenses should do better with wide angle M mount.

How much better A7r does and how it holds upto digital M waits to be seen.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry guys I didn't mean to turn this thread into another M9/M240 controversy. My apologies.

[Paul J]

The M is a £6K (with USB+EVF) side step with some extra functions which are mostly side effects, a couple, like being able to use other lenses a benefit for some. It has a slight increase in IQ that is not, IMO, worthy of a £6K figure.

 

It's a very frustrating 3-4 year wait for a new model and Leica appear to be asleep at the wheel, with not only R+D, but also manufacture and delivery, so who knows what difference that will make.

 

To be a serious consideration in the next decade the S should be 60MP and the M should be 40MP. Leica needs to wake tf up and get with the program before it's too late, continuing down this path, or lack there of, will to lead to category most feared, and very difficult to get about of: "well made luxury toys for an amateur".

[Guest malland]

...To be a serious consideration in the next decade the S should be 60MP and the M should be 40MP. Leica needs to wake tf up and get with the program before it's too late, continuing down this path, or lack there of, will to lead to category most feared, and very difficult to get about of: "well made, luxury amateur toys".

Wow, 40 MP is a sine qua non? You're joking, right? I don't know about you, but I find 100x150 cm (40x60 inch) pictures large enough, which current Leica-M cameras can do even after some cropping. Leica cameras don't have to be the best ones on paper. Even Leica lenses were never, necessarily, the best ones on paper: just look at what Gunther Osterloh wrote on this subject in his Leica-M book. Despite what people state in this thread, my feeling is that Leica will stay in the real world.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Paul J]

Wow, 40 MP is a sine qua non? You're joking, right? I don't know about you, but I find 100x150 cm (40x60 inch) pictures large enough, which current Leica-M cameras can do even after some cropping. Leica cameras don't have to be the best ones on paper. Even Leica lenses were never, necessarily, the best ones on paper: just look at what Gunther Osterloh wrote on this subject in his Leica-M book. Despite what people state in this thread, my feeling is that Leica will stay in the real world.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

No joke at all. An M9 print at 40x60 is fine, personally not good enough for me. I do not use an M for that sized prints. Put it next to a 40MP, 60MP 40x60 print and I can tell you which one I (and my clients) will pick.

[Guest malland]

No joke at all. An M9 print at 40x60 is fine, personally not good enough for me. I do not use an M for that sized prints. Put it next to a 40MP, 60MP 40x60 print and I can tell you which one I (and my clients) will pick.

That may be fine for medium-format cameras and no reason for Leica-M digital cameras to go there. I don't think it makes sense for you to assume that what you're rather specific and unusual needs are should be what Leica should aim for with M-system cameras.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[thighslapper]

the S should be 60MP and the M should be 40MP. Leica needs to wake tf up and get with the program before it's too late.

 

And what are you going to do with all those extra pixels except clog up more hard drive space and slow down processing ???

 

Whatever is produced it's always, 'we want more pixels' we want higher iso', 'we want more buttons and menu options' etc.

 

My car does 160mph but my average speed since I bought it is 24mph

 

Whilst speculation no doubt makes a good read, the amount of fact in the 1200+ post to date is pitiful.

 

Leica has a particular niche brand and appeal based primarily on optical excellence and historical lineage and compatability.

 

If the A7 line cannot use ALL my Leica lenses satisfactorily then it is dead as a choice of second/spare body.

 

As an alternative to Leica there are plenty of other choices in the unlikely event I am deluded enough to want one...... but quite what the point is of have a number of systems on the go is eludes me...... I already have a cupboard full of 'spare' cameras that I never use without adding another one.....

[Paul J]

That may be fine for medium-format cameras and no reason for Leica-M digital cameras to go there. I don't think it makes sense for you to assume that what you're rather specific and unusual needs are should be what Leica should aim for with M-system cameras.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

You can think 18-24MP is enough, as much as you like, but there is a new generation that begs to differ, with new tools being offered to them at a break neck speed. When you stand an 18-24MP print next to a 40-60MP print, you can instantly see the difference.

 

This whole "good enough" standard will not last in a modern age. Certainly not if your livelihood counts on it and that already applies now. I won't print an 18MP much larger than 20x30.

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

 

I really like your work and appreciate your comments (was also surprise to see that Leica used your photos to "present the M Monochrom" at the Photokina stand) and I'm also a long time 4/3 user, but I'm not 100% confirm with your M 240 comments.

 

Well thanks for the kind words (and I didn't know that Leica used my shots at Photokina )

 

But I would swallow the CMOS with the right firmware if the M240 would be right and had the soul of a M9 and that is where from my point of view the M240 fails. The new "technical wizardry" is a consent to the zeitgeist, but in reality I would use any m4/3 for stuff like that and the new OMD E-M1 is a beast in that regards - basically runs circles around the M240.

 

Well, for my personal work that's just what I do (use the E-M1 for that stuff) Having said that I do use Live View when out and about and want more accurate framing with wide angles (WATE principally). I also like to shoot the occasional macro shots with the EVF.

APART FROM THAT I'd really welcome the opportunity to turn the whole lot off. Don't need no reprogramaable buttons, just LIVE VIEW OFF option.

 

Soul requires familiarity, Last Friday I spent the afternoon in an unlit Tannery with two bodies, one with the 35 FLE the other with the Noctilux. It was a positive joy, and I'm pleased with the results. The camera didn't get in the way and to my eye the colour is rich and satisfying. That counts as soul to me.

 

The M240 has to much and wants to much and therefore misses the M9(or M7, MP....)core nature. In my point of view Leica should release(beside the M240) a digital MP: The improved rangefinder plus frame leaver, thinner body, classic MP design, no unnecessary buttons, no accessory port, no video(as this would require a bit more than just the function), only live view with via display....

 

B

Well, never did much like the M7. Give me an M6 ttl with the MP finder any day

I quite agree about a digital MP, except that I don't think it should have live view on the LCD either (less is more)

[Paul J]

And what are you going to do with all those extra pixels except clog up more hard drive space and slow down processing ???

 

Do you think computer technology will stall at current offerings?

[naturephoto1]

I know that I am in a minority here not having been a Leica M user but rather being a Leica R user since 1984. As far as I and other R users are concerned, Leica abandoned us abruptly and then backed out several times on a digital replacement due to what they thought might bankrupt them. Finally they came out with the M240 which they dubbed as a Leica R solution. But, unfortunately for many of us this was actually a step backward for using our R system. Not only had we lost our optical view finders and our long shutter speeds, we also lost our ability to focus anywhere on our screens for composition (the EVF that most of us would require has one fixed focus point and can not be moved), and our auto aperture (replaced by EVF).

 

I had prior to last year 11 R lenses and no M lenses and purchased an additional 5 R lenses (including the 100mm Macro Apo and the 280mm f4 Apo Telyt) last year in anticipation (and the anticipated price increase of these lenses) of the soon to be released M240. I handled the Prototype M 240 at PhotoPlus last year and the camera had promise but as more and more was released about the camera it became less and less palatable. This was due not only to the price of the camera (which would be in excess of $8500 for the camera,EVF, Multifunctional Grip, and extra batteries, etc.) along with the loss of abilities mentioned above, the waiting time, and the reported issues with the camera.

 

Now it is a year later and Leica still is unable to fill its orders for the M240 and all of its promised accessories. In the meantime I have had Quadruple Bypass Heart Surgery in May so my health is somewhat a concern and I can no longer just wait for Leica to work at a snails pace in filling orders, doing firmware updates and releasing a new product that better fits my needs. It would be nice, but I will be 60 in less than 3 months.

 

Now Sony has announced the soon to be released A7 and A7r which to say the least is a real eye opener for many. I am hoping that the A7r will work well with at least some of the WA Leica M lenses. In preparation for this I have purchased Leica M to NEX adapters and also invested in what we hope at least to work adequately a tiny Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 Rokkor-M as my first foray into Leica M mount lenses.

 

So for me, and others the new Sony A7r appears to be a much better R solution than the Leica M240 that requires all of the add ons and additional costs price wise, size wise, and weight wise. As a result, I have a pre-order in for a Sony A7r. I think that the Sony A7r will provide me with a camera that can work much better for doing macro, zoom, telephoto, wildlife, nature, landscape, etc. in a smaller package than the Leica M240 and offers a vast amount of additional capabilities. Hopefully it will work well with all or almost all of my Leica R glass. If it works well with at least some of the WA M lenses that would be great as well as I am considering at least 1 or 2 to lighten my load a little, give me a smaller package when wanted, and may well be an improvement over the performance of some of my WA R lenses including the 21mm f4 Super Angulon and the 24mm f2.8 Elmarit. If the Leica M WA lenses do not perform well on the new Sony A7r and my existing R WA do not prove adequate, I can consider other SLR lenses including some Contax lenses (from the RTS sytem) as well as the new lenses that Zeiss and Sony will release for the new camera.

 

Rich

[jonoslack]

Wow, 40 MP is a sine qua non? You're joking, right? I don't know about you, but I find 100x150 cm (40x60 inch) pictures large enough, which current Leica-M cameras can do even after some cropping. Leica cameras don't have to be the best ones on paper. Even Leica lenses were never, necessarily, the best ones on paper: just look at what Gunther Osterloh wrote on this subject in his Leica-M book. Despite what people state in this thread, my feeling is that Leica will stay in the real world.

 

—Mitch

 

Hi Mitch

You said it for me. I agree with every word.

[biglou]

And what are you going to do with all those extra pixels except clog up more hard drive space and slow down processing ???

 

 

Maybe come closer to what was considered normal in the good old days of kodachrome ?

Digital is still a new technology with a lot of space for improvements.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jonoslack]

 

So for me, and others the new Sony A7r appears to be a much better R solution than the Leica M240 that requires all of the add ons and additional costs price wise, size wise, and weight wise. As a result, I have a pre-order in for a Sony A7r. I think that the Sony A7r will provide me with a camera that can work much better for doing macro, zoom, telephoto, wildlife, nature, landscape, etc. in a smaller package than the Leica M240 and offers a vast amount of additional capabilities.

 

Rich

 

Hi Rich

I don't think anyone could possibly disagree with this (I certainly don't). The A7r is clearly going to be an excellent solution for R lenses (better than the M240). The only sad thing to my mind is the failure to include Image Stabilisation. Not just R lenses, but all the excellent Contax / Zeiss lenses, and the manual focus Zeiss lenses too. Just not convinced about M lenses.

 

We seem to be back on topic, sorry for my part in the diversion

[Paul J]

If you really are happy with 60 inch prints from an 18MP camera, then great, I can understand why you don't care. However you are speaking for a generation that is happy to make do with "good enough", but things are changing at a rate of knots. Neither are you speaking from a professionals perspective where the ante is increasing, not by the year, but by the project both commercial and personal.

 

Do you really think that Leica does not care about, or need this market?