My Initial Assessment Comparing the XV vs the A7

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My initial assessment comparing Leica XV and Sony A7.

 

I will start at the end, for me, the A7 wins. If the XV had auto focus as good as the A7, it would have won despite many other short comings. To me the A7’s AF performance is nothing short of astounding in a FF mirrorless camera. It surprised me to discover and write this after reading so many reviews that barely mention AF performance. More on this performance later.

 

Appearance and Build:

 

In appearance and build, the XV is both the better looking and better built camera. This shows in small details like the all metal construction, including various access doors, the heft of the body and the feel of the dials and lens. Of course, appearance is a subjective and personal matter and I am expressing my own preferences here. The reason I don’t give as much weight to build quality is that beyond the point of providing protection and reliability for 3-4 years it really isn’t as important as it once was with film cameras. At least, it is not for me. In all likelihood, I will not keep the camera longer than 2-3 years, usually less, so its importance is substantially diminished. I like the feel of a quality product but that is only worth so much when I know that it won’t stay with me for 10 years given today’s fast paced change in technology.

 

Cont...

[Advertisement]

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

[barjohn]

Ergonomics:

 

This is a mixed bag and more challenging area to cite one over the other, but in my opinion the nudge has to go to the A7. The beauty of the XV is the fact that the aperture ring is on the lens barrel and the focus ring is marked off in distance with locks at both ends. On the other hand, the A7 provides a distance scale in the viewfinder with a more precise distance reading to the focus point. The main advantage to the XV method is that the focus distance can be set without turning the camera on. The XV also has marked dials for aperture and shutter speed. The A7 uses dials that can be assigned but the displayed value is only on the LCD or viewfinder. As nice as the old fashioned control means are, it is essential to have certain information available in the viewfinder or LCD. The basic information needed is shutter speed, aperture, ISO and histogram. The A7 provides all of these and more, including focus distance (under certain conditions), ISO selected by the camera when in auto ISO and a real-time histogram and display that previews the way the exposure will look (if desired). On the XV, the histogram disappears on the ½ press of the shutter and when in auto ISO, no ISO value is displayed, even on the ½ press. As a result, you can’t make decisions on which tradeoffs you should make to obtain the desired exposure/image.

 

Because the XV stores a less than optimal JPG preview, you cannot magnify the image fully to check critical focus because the image breaks up at the 16x setting. The A7 allows for full 1:1 magnification. Additionally, the A7 allows you to scroll through images at magnification. The XV requires you to go back to the unmagnified view to change selected images. This is a very big annoyance. While the XV lacks focus peaking, its manual focus is extremely easy to use and I actually prefer it to the A7’s though it is close. Both give you magnified views that make focusing pretty easy but it is automatic in the XV and requires a change to MF in the A7. However, the A7 does provide for two levels of magnification to the XV’s one.

 

The A7 has a built in EVF of excellent quality whereas the XV uses an add-on EVF of poor quality. In the end, the A7’s greater degree of customization and flexibility wins out over the more rigid and simplistic design of the XV.

 

In the hand, the XV feels better when it has the handgrip attached. It is a more comfortable to use and carry handgrip than the A7’s built in grip. It is really great wight he finger loop attached. Part of this is due to the body height not providing a comfortable place for the little finger to rest on the A7.

 

Cont...

[barjohn]

Lens(s):

 

If there is one area where the XV really excels, it is its lens. The only negative on the lens is its relative slowness, especially at the long end. When it comes to sharpness and contrast the XV zoom is a superb lens. In my tests on resolution charts, the XV was almost as sharp in the corners as it is at the center. It clearly bested the 35mm f2.8 prime from Zeiss which is saying a lot. Despite having only 16mp to the A7’s 24mp, its center resolution was a match and it clearly beat out the A7 in the corners. It was a similar story, only worse when comparing the kit 28-70 zoom FE lens. This high resolution performance matches my prior real world experience. Leica should offer that lens in the E mount, it would be a hot seller despite being a slow lens. I would take that lens over any of the other lenses currently being offered by Sony.

 

High ISO Performance:

 

I was surprised to see the XV produce what appeared to be cleaner files than those produced by the A7. In the A7, the NR is set to low for JPGs. It offers no control over RAW. On the XV, the user has no control over the NR settings. It appears that the XV may apply more NR to JPG files and even some to RAW files where the A7 only provides minimum to JPG and none to RAW. Is one better than the other? I don’t know without more testing that I haven’t had time to complete. At this point, all I can say is that the XV files look cleaner.

 

Cont...

[barjohn]

Auto Focus Performance:

 

This is where the A7 just surprised the hell out of me. Every review I read played down the AF performance In my real world use and testing I found the AF performance to be second to the EM-5/EM-1 & G7/GM-1. I would guess the difference to be about 0.100 to 0.050 seconds. I consistently could obtain measured values of around 0.229 sec. That is quick enough for many applications. In daylight that camera would AF faster than I could think about it. If my finger brushed against the shutter button it AF instantly. The most surprising thing to me was the night performance. I read so many reviews that talked about hunting in low light that I expected to see it slow down dramatically at night. I was shocked to see it didn’t. Sure, one could make it hunt if you shot in virtual darkness and the subject had not sharp contrast features. However, I went out on the street at night shooting moving subjects and into darkly lit bars and the camera focused instantly every time as fast as I pushed the shutter button. No hesitation or lag. I was shooting auto ISO and the camera was selecting ISO 6400 in most cases. In my XV focus timing tests, it frequently takes more than a second for the camera to lock focus. At night or in a home in the day time it frequently cannot lock focus This was especially true for faces; not so with the A7. Focus lock was all but instantaneous. The eye focus is a real plus feature when one wants to be sure to lock focus on the eyes. In my case, I want to be able to shoot pictures of my grand children as they quickly move about in play and the XV just can’t keep up even in broad daylight, much less at night. The A7 can.

 

Value:

 

Unless you are totally mesmerized by the red dot, the A7 offers considerably more value for the money. First, it has a superb 24mp sensor in a well designed and crafted body and in combination with the forthcoming Zeiss zoom would still cost less than the XV with hand grip and EVF. It would offer a faster camera in everyday over the XV with greater flexibility and the ability to use a wide range of lenses including fast primes.

 

Conclusion:

 

If fast AF isn’t a requirement but you want superb optics in a great feeling package, the XV is hard to beat for its small size. It really is a very good camera that produces images that clearly punches out of its weight category. However, if you need fast AF, flexibility to choose from a wide range of lenses, excellent electronics that are fast, then the A7 is your best buy.

 

Your thoughts, questions and comments welcome.

[rob_w]

Thanks John. Very interesting and answers a lot of questions. Just wondered whether you should post this - or a link - over in the A7 thread in the Digital forum?

[XVarior]

Nice review john, you took your time on this one :-)

But generally speaking, I don't see why everyone is comparing the A7 to the XV!

They just don't belong to the same category. One is interchangeable the other is fixed, one is full frame the second is not.

A good comparo would be putting the A7 face to face to the M and then see who wins. It's not the price tag that should trigger the comparos but rather the specs.

Now, can someone find on this planet earth a lens as sharp and perfect end to end of the spectrum as the one attached to the X Vario. The answer is NO.

Is there a package on planet earth that deliver the kind of IQ of the XVaro? The answer is again a NO.

Super specs never made a super camera, it's the whole package that does it.

A good comparo would be also against the 5D MK-III which is already done for video and the A7 fails big time.

Video comparison - Sony A7R vs. Sony A7 vs. Canon 5D Mark III - which is better? - motionVFX Blog

[stuny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John -

 

I've only briefly touched the A7 at the Photo Expo in NYC in October so I have no real first hand knowledge of that camera. However, your review seems remarkably balanced. Regarding having to get out of magnified review to see the next recorded image, my guess is that the XV (I've not tried it since I only had use of an XV for a few hours in October) will let you at least jump down to non-magnified by pressing the center button - It's that way on other Leica cameras -- saving some effort and time, but I would like the ability to go from magnified image directly to the next magnified image.

 

Regarding XV slow autofocus in lower light. I've found that cameras with three lens settings (AF, Macro, Manual) will hunt for focus in Macro if accidentally used in non-macro shots. Is there a chance that this was the case in your tests?

[barjohn]

Stuart,

The XV only has a pseudo macro capability at the long end of the lens. There is no setting for macro-focusing. There is only AF or manual. When you turn the focus ring and move it from the AF position you are in manual focus with stops at each end. I was testing using a digital stop watch with display to the thousandths values. The moment I saw a 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 on the LCD I pressed the shutter button. I could then look at the time elapsed in the captured image and average the times. I was about 1 meter from the display. If you try the two cameras it will be quite apparent.

 

This evening I just did a high ISO comparison. The A7 is a full stop better than the XV provided you properly expose the image. What I mean is that looking at the histogram, I find that the A7 tends to underexpose almost a stop compared to the XV. To obtain equal brightness in the image I had to add +1 to the exposure compensation dial. Even without doing that, the level of detail present is still better on the A7. as the images are presented or viewed at less than 100% one can almost get the opposite impression. I shot my test subject in a poorly lit room to obtain realistic nighttime exposure testing rather than the daylight exposure tests in bright conditions and just changing ISO.

[barjohn]

John -

 

I've only briefly touched the A7 at the Photo Expo in NYC in October so I have no real first hand knowledge of that camera. However, your review seems remarkably balanced. Regarding having to get out of magnified review to see the next recorded image, my guess is that the XV (I've not tried it since I only had use of an XV for a few hours in October) will let you at least jump down to non-magnified by pressing the center button - It's that way on other Leica cameras -- saving some effort and time, but I would like the ability to go from magnified image directly to the next magnified image.

 

Regarding XV slow autofocus in lower light. I've found that cameras with three lens settings (AF, Macro, Manual) will hunt for focus in Macro if accidentally used in non-macro shots. Is there a chance that this was the case in your tests?

 

Nice review john, you took your time on this one :-)

But generally speaking, I don't see why everyone is comparing the A7 to the XV!

They just don't belong to the same category. One is interchangeable the other is fixed, one is full frame the second is not.

A good comparo would be putting the A7 face to face to the M and then see who wins. It's not the price tag that should trigger the comparos but rather the specs.

Now, can someone find on this planet earth a lens as sharp and perfect end to end of the spectrum as the one attached to the X Vario. The answer is NO.

Is there a package on planet earth that deliver the kind of IQ of the XVaro? The answer is again a NO.

Super specs never made a super camera, it's the whole package that does it.

A good comparo would be also against the 5D MK-III which is already done for video and the A7 fails big time.

Video comparison - Sony A7R vs. Sony A7 vs. Canon 5D Mark III - which is better? - motionVFX Blog

 

The reason I compared the two is because for me, it is the difficulty of deciding which to keep and which to dispose of. I understand the difference between full frame and more pixels. However, I love the rendering of the XV lens and its small size and the solid feel of the camera. I could live with just the one zoom lens for my needs. The fact that the Sony has interchangeable lenses is only a factor if you plan to buy a bunch of lenses. I don't. I would be quite happy if Sigma, Leica or some other quality lens maker came out with a high quality small zoom with fast AF for the A7. I shoot so little video that I rarely look at the video tests so that has not been a consideration for me. I will probably dispose of the XV just because I can't justify having $3K tied up in a camera just because I like its looks or feel.

[brill64]

Thank you, John.

[mben]

Hello John,

 

thanks for the detailed report.

 

After having sold my X Vario (I am sort of restless), I could not resist from grabbing the first A7r I saw in a store. Body only, no lenses. I played for half an hour with both A7 and A7r and concluded that the latter was overall better, despite the double-clack shutter noise and slightly less snappy AF in good light (surprisingly, in less than good light, the A7r is faster than the A7). And I could not really do with that "kit lens" bundled with the A7 - will wait for the 24-70mm f4.

 

After adding to the A7r a "sort of calibrated" Voigtlander M adapter, the Sony tourned out to be the closer "M240 proxy" I used so far, provided that rf lenses below 35mm are carefully chosen.

 

I made some indirect comparisons with the XV, as my "test shots" are more or less always the same, either with M lenses (quite an unfair comparison, though) and with the aps-c cropped Zeiss 24mm f1.8.

 

Taking aside tha A7r's quirks, as no camera is perfect, I have frankly to say at either 36 mpix or 36 > 16 mpix (as to equalize resolution), the A7r takes the lead over the XV. Also comparing the XV at 35mm equiv. with the A7r auto-cropped at 15 mpix with the Zeiss 24 mm at same apertures (f4.5 and up), the Sony exibits an ability to differentiate micro details and color tones which is above the already excellent X Vario.

 

The above on both raw and jpeg, as the A7r's jpegs are really outstanding.

 

Maybe it is the Zeiss lens, or lack of AA filter - I could not clearly figure out.

 

By looking hard at pixel level, it looks like the XV applies some kind of edge sharpening which gives images a good dose of micro contrast but make "fatter" edges as well, which somewhat eats up micro details separation. I am no expert nor technician, and my analysis could be - and probably is - totally wrong, but visually speaking the A7r has the ability to reproduce foliage getting down to a details level that the XV cannot follow, resulting in a more "clumped" rendering of trees. I had already realised that "fat edges" effect by looking at XV vs M240 prints, and concluded that it probably was a side effect of 16 vs 24 megapixels.

 

In any case, as I am exclusively using the A7r with M lenses (and looking for some R's for 28mm and 21mm), the mf shooting experience is great and the output challenges the M240 - like 80% IQ at 30% price, not bad at all as a proxy / backup camera. M8 or M9 vs A7r ? Well, that looks awfully tough...

 

Best regards,

 

Mauro

[barjohn]

Mauro,

 

Thanks for the information. I have been debating whether the A7R would be a better camera for my use or not. I would like the greater detail and lack of AA filter but fast AF is a key requirement. I keep reading conflicting reports on which camera has faster AF. One reviewer will claim the A7R is faster and another will say the A7 is faster. Some claim A7R wins in low light and some say it wins in good light. I have played with turning off the PD area and I can't really tell any real difference. Until I try shooting in a real life situation with my grand kids I won't know for sure. On the street, the A7 is fast enough to focus on subjects walking toward me in a flash. I am guessing it will be quick enough. The question is would the A7R be equally capable? Any further insight you can share or anyone else can share would be appreciated.

[XVarior]

Too much typing, too many words and not a single image. I think its time to spice your debate with one OOC B&W image coming from the Vario side.

Enjoy while prepping the next wave of technical debate.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[barjohn]

XV on its way back to Leica. In the meantime I now have both A7 & A7R and will be testing both. If I get some time tomorrow I will post some image comparisons of all three.

[tmldds]

XV on its way back to Leica. In the meantime I now have both A7 & A7R and will be testing both. If I get some time tomorrow I will post some image comparisons of all three.

 

I will be looking for your careful evaluation. I was in a Sony store in Houston today and got to handle the A7. The grip is very comfortable, but the shutter button should be on the extended grip as in a DSLR rather than on top. The playback button is too far down, and the menu button is on the left side. Overall, even though I do not own an XV, I had a chance to handle it at Houston Camera Exchange, and it felt like a Leica. The Sony just felt like a Seiko, and the XV, like a Rolex. Seiko watches probably keep better time, but I prefer Rolexes. I am still indecisive regarding whether I should buy a Sony for its versatility and incredible capability, or an XV for its Leica feel, look, and stellar performance within its limited design goals.

[XVarior]

I will be looking for your careful evaluation. I was in a Sony store in Houston today and got to handle the A7. The grip is very comfortable, but the shutter button should be on the extended grip as in a DSLR rather than on top. The playback button is too far down, and the menu button is on the left side. Overall, even though I do not own an XV, I had a chance to handle it at Houston Camera Exchange, and it felt like a Leica. The Sony just felt like a Seiko, and the XV, like a Rolex. Seiko watches probably keep better time, but I prefer Rolexes. I am still indecisive regarding whether I should buy a Sony for its versatility and incredible capability, or an XV for its Leica feel, look, and stellar performance within its limited design goals.

 

... And that is what makes the difference between having a camera that takes pictures and a camera that invites you to take good pictures.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jlindstrom]

... And that is what makes the difference between having a camera that takes pictures and a camera that invites you to take good pictures.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well said!

 

//Juha

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[barjohn]

Leica NJ received my camera on 9 Dec, today I was informed that repairs would not be completed until 7 Jan. I have requested a replacement. There is no reason that it should take 5 weeks to repair a camera that was only a few months old when they have plenty of inventory of this camera and it is not an inexpensive camera. I would be without the camera for the entire holiday period. I certainly don't consider that to be good service. No additional information on why it should take this long to repair. I will keep the site's readers informed on Leica's response to my request.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest]

Leica NJ received my camera on 9 Dec, today I was informed that repairs would not be completed until 7 Jan. I have requested a replacement. There is no reason that it should take 5 weeks to repair a camera that was only a few months old when they have plenty of inventory of this camera and it is not an inexpensive camera. I would be without the camera for the entire holiday period. I certainly don't consider that to be good service. No additional information on why it should take this long to repair. I will keep the site's readers informed on Leica's response to my request.

 

hallo john

 

5 wochen zeit für tests mit sony's A7 / A7R, danach fällt Dir die entscheidung leica vs. sony sicher leichter.

 

merry merry christmas and kind regards

klaus-michael

[stuny]

John -

 

Leica NJ closes every year for at least two of those weeks around the holidays, maybe more.

 

What went wrong with your XV?