New to Leica but changing to a Sony A7*

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought a 50/F1.8 the other day for £149. It feels like it came out of a Christmas cracker but it is astonishingly good optically. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me considering the money I have spent on Leica optics over the years.

 

it you want a real eye opener pick up a cheapie second hand E-M5 or E-M10 and throw the (£120) sigma 60mm f2.8 onto it ... goodbye Canon 85mm f1.2

Its even made of metal - I kid you not

[Advertisement]

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

[viramati]

1. The A7S definitely does not have more noise at base iso (100). On every single file that I have from the A7S at base iso and the m240 at base iso, the M240 has visible noise in every single picture, whereas the A7S has absolutely no visible noise what-so-ever.

 

2. If you print bigger than 16x24" then yes, you need more resolution. The A7R will get you up to 27x40". Both at exhibition quality print.

 

3. The A7S apparently has the same shutter sound as the regular A7. I don't find the A7S to be any louder than the M240. It's a different type of sound, yes, more "mechanical", but by no means loud and unacceptable.

 

4. The workflow of the M240 consists mostly of fixing the colors of the images before you start tweaking them, even with calibrated color profiles. Magenta/red hue and too much saturation of greens, and reds that has a magenta cast. It can be fixed by using Capture One Pro, however, this gives you the opposite - pictures with green casts. The A7S's images gives you a completely neutral starting point. I find this to be excellent, as I don't have to waste time on fixing things before I can start tweaking. I would say the Sony workflow is significantly faster and more enjoyable.

 

5. RF focusing is great if you like it - in good light. Go night time shooting wide open with RF, then compare it to the A7's EVF for manually focusing in the same conditions with focus magnify and peaking. The EVF is required on the M240 for this type of use. Unless, of course, you think "Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept" - Henri Cartier Bresson.

 

6. Jewel like qualities. There. You said it. That pretty much sums up 50% of the Leica user base. Completely fine for film cameras that last but a complete waste on digital cameras that become old and dismissed after two years on the market.

 

In regards to buyers looking for something more... That is also true, in regards to most of the Leica userbase. So did I. I enjoy the feel of my M240, MM, 35 and 50 Lux, Noctilux 0.95, and all that stuff. Does it make any better images than the A7S, A7, A7R, or any other camera though? Nope! Absolutely not. The M240 is the camera that I have struggled most with in regards to color, and still do, even after numerous calibrations. Pre-cooked raw files out of the camera should be a big no-no, but Leica does that to make their "jewelry" userbase be happy about their "pretty pictures", I assume. After a lot of calibration efforts, the M240 files finally appear "normal" again, but still, there are some color casts that are simply unavoidable. Something that other digital cameras (and I've had and tried many) never have given me headaches about. Not even the M9 - even though the M9 also gave users pre-cooked raw files.

 

And if you need maximum acuity, you should get a D810 or a A7R and mount a Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 and 85/1.4 on them. That will beat anything in the 35mm world in regards to acuity and resolution. As they say - different tools for different purposes.

 

I'm considering selling my M240, but keeping my lenses. Maybe the next iteration of the M will be better in regards to neutral color response, especially on skintones. I just don't like the way the M240 handles colors. The files require too much work to be satisfying.

 

I pretty much agree

I have been working on some shot taken with the A7s this afternoon and have to say that I can only be impressed by the total absence of noise even at base iso with the files have beautiful smooth feel to them. As to the DR the ability to pul life back into the shadows without any build up of noise in any way is truly impressive and certainly knocks the M into long grass!!

Another impressive addition to the A7s is the 'lock on centre focus' you can lock onto a subject and them move around, zoom in a and out and even point the camera in totally different direction and then come back to the subject and it will lock focus!! great for documentary work.

All this said I won't be giving up the M quite yet as the 28 summicron and WATE both perform better on it. As a versatile working tool the A7 and A7s wins

[CheshireCat]

it you want a real eye opener pick up a cheapie second hand E-M5 or E-M10 and throw the (£120) sigma 60mm f2.8 onto it ... goodbye Canon 85mm f1.2

Its even made of metal - I kid you not

 

Comparing an 85/1.2 lens on full-frame to a 60/2.8 (120mm equivalent) does not make a lot of sense...

[bocaburger]

I tried out the A7 and A7R, wasn't all that happy with the performance of wide angle Leica lenses on it. Decided to go with a Nex6. It's a backup for my M240 anyway, and the form factor lends itself more to taking up less space. I wouldn't want it or an A7 in place of the M240. Or my 5D (original 12mp model). EVF's just don't do it for me.

[viramati]

Just got hold of a cheap Minolta M-rokkor 28/2.8 which seems to perform pretty well on the A7 and A7s when compared to the leica 28's. Wouldn't use it for critical work but I think it will be fine for street shots on the A7s when I want the high iso and totally silent shutter

[Carduelis]

I'm not sure I would call the FE24-70 exactly poor for the price, It certainly isn't perfect on the A7 but on the A7S it almost seems like another lens. So much so that I wonder if this wasn't the camera that it was made for

 

Has anybody tried the Leica R 35-70 f4 zoom on the A7 camera as an alternative to the FE24-70?

[alan.y]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. Do you have evidence to support that statement? "Read around" - articles on the internet are mostly based on assumptions, and nothing else. I've heard this statement so many times now, and it's been said about every camera manufacturor; Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Pentax, and so on.

 

I think the claim that the A7S at low iso has less dynamic range than the A7R is traceable to DXOMark's tests. If you click on "dynamic range" in the comparison below, you see that the A7R has an advantage up to 400 or so, after which the A7S takes over.

 

Sony A7S versus Sony A7R - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

[indergaard]

I think the claim that the A7S at low iso has less dynamic range than the A7R is traceable to DXOMark's tests. If you click on "dynamic range" in the comparison below, you see that the A7R has an advantage up to 400 or so, after which the A7S takes over.

 

Sony A7S versus Sony A7R - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

 

I am aware of that. The A7S sensor is tuned for high iso performance, and even though it performs superb at base iso, the A7R and A7 slightly beats it for DR at base iso. Different cameras tuned for different purposes. Still, though, the A7S has higher DR than my M240 at base iso.

 

My response in regards to evidence wasn't about DR. It was regarding this statement:

 

1. The A7S definitely is noticeably more noisy at base ISO based on all the analysis I have read. Sony builds noise reduction into raw, so what you are seeing is a smoothed output, you will find it has reduced detail. Read around, particularly the AP article

 

Which has nothing to do with DR.

[Exodies]

I thought there were two limits to dynamic range - build-up of noise at one end and overblowing at the other.