New to Leica but changing to a Sony A7*

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mixing systems just causes duplication, lack of consistency in function and combinations that just don't work. Each manufacturer has lenses mainly tailored to the peculiarities of their camera body and firmware.

 

I keep dabbling in photographic infidelity...... but after a brief spell of excitement it is always unsatisfactory in some way or other...... so the A7s and my residual Nikon/Fuji gear has been permanently retired....... and I have promised to resist the wandering eye in future ....honest .....

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

Buying into an adapted system on purpose is not the best.

 

Leica lenses are small, but not light as they are made from metal, not plastic.

 

Rent or borrow a Leica and see if you get along. There is a trial program going on with major retailers. Lens rentals.com.

 

I have yet to see an electronic viewfinder I liked.

[colonel]

Hi! As the title says, I'm completely new to Leica, but I'm seriously thinking about switching from Canon to Sony.The main reason I'm thinking about changing is size and weight. I'm very happy with my current lenses (very sharp, especially for zooms), except they're huge and heavy. Sony's f/4 lenses are not all that different in those regards to Canon's f/4 lenses, but the Leica primes seem incredibly small and light.

 

I was wondering if people might be able to recommend some good ideas on getting started with Leica lenses? There's so many different types, names, ages etc. Any tips at all would be hugely appreciated, and I look forward to joining in some topics here Thanks for reading!

 

I would not use Leica FLs less then 50mm on an A7 due to fringing. Basically the A7 series was not designed to use Leica M lenses which have a significantly different rear element design as compared to other manufacturers recent designs.

 

Frankly I am a big fan of the Sony A series but not a big fan of using lenses from different systems on a body from another system.

I know many people do it for fun and sometimes to great effect but really to get the full benefit of Leica lenses, in particular wide angle, you need a Leica body.

 

Also bear in mind that the Sony FE 35mm and 55mm are terrific in their own right and that Zeiss is just about to launch a 35mm and 50mm f2 lens for the A7 series which will be interesting to see.

 

Have a think about a M9 or M240 body if in your price range. Its a real culture shock after DSLR but if you like it there is nothing that can match it. If you want a FF system with AF that is small really the RX1 and A7 series are the only games in town. You will just have to sit on your hands for a few years in terms of lens range.

 

best of luck

[LostBoyNZ]

Thanks

 

I actually had a play with A7s the other day and the EVF seemed nice. I wish it was sharper still though, for critical focus. The level display is a useful addition for my landscape photography.

 

I was very impressed with the noise too, coming from a Canon 5D Mark II it's incredible to see noise that just looks like grain, not colourful noise with lines across it. I think I'd be very happy using the higher ISO's with noise like that.

 

I think I understand what you mean about not mixing systems, and the 35mm & 50mm are incredibly small and light.

 

I didn't feel like the auto focus on the A7r was too slow either, but then again it isn't fast on the 5D Mark II so maybe what I don't know (I'm missing) won't hurt me. haha.

[indergaard]

I was very impressed with the noise too, coming from a Canon 5D Mark II it's incredible to see noise that just looks like grain, not colourful noise with lines across it. I think I'd be very happy using the higher ISO's with noise like that.

 

You should check out the A7S. Oh my lord. The noise on that sensor is beautiful! It's the first type of digital noise that actually looks like grain! I was walking around with a A7S + 55/1.8 Zeiss last night, shooting up to 102400 ISO with ZERO focusing issues and a fantastic EVF. I haven't been this excited about a camera for a long long time! It's simply amazing, and my M240 has permanently been downgraded to a day-time only camera as of now. The A7S supposedly takes Leica lenses very well too, except the 28mm Summicron which is problematic. Haven't tried my 35 FLE and 50 Lux on it yet, and my brand new Novoflex adapter has a lot of play on it, so it's going back for a replacement (grrr!)

 

Say hello to high-iso with beautiful film-like grain. All of the images were converted from raw with 0 noise reduction applied. This camera does actually change everything for my type of shooting. In the last picture that is taken at a whooping 102400 ISO I couldn't even barely see the digging machine myself, as it was pitch black there. And even with a black background like that and at 102400 ISO the image looks completely usable. Normally you would expect loads of banding and ugly stuff in the black in such images. Not with this camera! Even the colors are kept intact and are completely usable far far up in ISO (50000). It's insane!:

 

ISO 10000:

 

 

ISO 51200:

 

 

ISO 20000:

 

 

ISO 102400:

 

[viramati]

I now have the leica M, Sony A7 and Sony A7S. I have had the A7 For a little over 6 months and originally bought it as a compliment to The leica M as it has a similar 24mp sensor (making workflow easier) and the FE55/1.8 is just an amazing lens. Doing documentary work I have always tended to work with 2 lenses the 28 and 50 and I have found the the combo of A7 with 55 and M with 28 works well for me. For landscape I have been working with the WATE on the leica and the FE 24-70 on the A7. I have recently bought the A7S which is a revelation in low light photography with great low-light auto-focus as well. I find all of my leica lenses work well on the A7s, apart unfortunately and critically for me the summicron 28 asph (my most used lens and the main reason I use the M).

I tend to work with the FE lenses on the Sony's (55, 35, 24-70) most of the time but will use the CV 35 and 21 when I want the higher aperture and the 135 on the A7 is a joy.

The FE 24-70 which has some issues on the A7 with corner sharpness at 24mm and wide open at 70 really comes alive on the A7s. I am not really a zoom person but to be able to use this f4 24-70 lens in auto-focus in such low light is really something, if you don't print poster size and don't need shallow DOF this combo is pretty unbeatable.

 

135 apo-telyt works well on both (micro detail on A7 is stunning)

90 elmarit-M (narrow version) works well on both

50 Summilux asph works well on A7s not so good on A7

Cv 35/1.2 v2 works well on both

28 Summicron asph pretty bad on A7 slightly better on A7S (corner smearing)

CV 21/1.8 works well on both

WATE works fairly well on both though I definitely prefer it on the M because of the correction profile and the fact that I can use the EVF in vertical mode

CV 12/5.6 acceptable on the A7s but in all honesty it is problematic also on the M I code it as the 21/2.8

 

The wider lenses will vignette on the sony's but this can be corrected any colour cast can be corrected in Lr5 using the 'DNG flat-field' convertor but remember to import files as DNG's

 

I now only really use 2 lens on the M the 28 and WATE and feel that this is an expensive luxury for such a narrow use though for the time being I will be keeping it

 

You can see various A7 and A7s shots on my flickr stream

[SiOnara]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You should check out the A7S. Oh my lord. The noise on that sensor is beautiful! It's the first type of digital noise that actually looks like grain! I was walking around with a A7S + 55/1.8 Zeiss last night' date=' shooting up to 102400 ISO with ZERO focusing issues and a fantastic EVF. I haven't been this excited about a camera for a long long time! It's simply amazing, and my M240 has permanently been downgraded to a day-time only camera as of now. The A7S supposedly takes Leica lenses very well too, except the 28mm Summicron which is problematic. Haven't tried my 35 FLE and 50 Lux on it yet, and my brand new Novoflex adapter has a lot of play on it, so it's going back for a replacement (grrr!) Say hello to high-iso with beautiful film-like grain. All of the images were converted from raw with 0 noise reduction applied. This camera does actually change everything for my type of shooting. In the last picture that is taken at a whooping 102400 ISO I couldn't even barely see the digging machine myself, as it was pitch black there. And even with a black background like that and at 102400 ISO the image looks completely usable. Normally you would expect loads of banding and ugly stuff in the black in such images. Not with this camera! Even the colors are kept intact and are completely usable far far up in ISO (50000). It's insane!: ISO 10000: <img src="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=455888"/> ISO 51200: <img src="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=455889"/> ISO 20000: <img src="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=455890"/> ISO 102400: <img src="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=455891"/>[/quote']

 

Yeah the noise / grain off the A7s is truly amazing. I love shooting at 80000 ISO with this camera. It looks so good. Like a high ASA film.

 

I think the M240 looks great too up to 2500 but after that can get a bit hit and miss with banding.

 

The A7s just holds it together right up to 102400 ISO.

 

I also love the fact that you can just stop down when needed at any time. Need f5.6 at night. No problem.

 

I miss the rangefinder style shooting when I leave my M240 at home but it's good to mix things up a bit now and then.

 

My fave Leica mount lenses for the A7s: APO 50 Summicron, 50 Summitar and the crazy 12mm Voigtlander.

[LostBoyNZ]

... Wow! Those high ISO shots are very, very nice! The 5D Mark II just can't do anything like that, at least not that I've been able to get from it. Thanks for sharing

 

I've never shot with film, and 6 years ago the 5D Mark II was my first DSLR. So to me noise is something to be avoided, I've always liked a nice clean image when possible. But I could get behind that kind of noise in those photos

 

This isn't a wide angle, but given the poor (for the price) Sony FE 24-70, the Contax Carl Zeiss 35-70mm f/3.4 seems pretty good for the price. Maybe I've been spoiled by the sharp corners of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II though, haha.

[viramati]

... Wow! Those high ISO shots are very, very nice! The 5D Mark II just can't do anything like that, at least not that I've been able to get from it. Thanks for sharing

 

I've never shot with film, and 6 years ago the 5D Mark II was my first DSLR. So to me noise is something to be avoided, I've always liked a nice clean image when possible. But I could get behind that kind of noise in those photos

 

This isn't a wide angle, but given the poor (for the price) Sony FE 24-70, the Contax Carl Zeiss 35-70mm f/3.4 seems pretty good for the price. Maybe I've been spoiled by the sharp corners of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II though, haha.

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

[colonel]

I am a big fan of the A7 but the A7S is not for me.

I have read a number of detailed engineering reports (including in this months Amateur Photographer in the UK) and it has more noise and less dynamic range at base ISO then any current FF camera. This is a side effect of tweaking it to be better at high ISOs. Also 12mp is not enough for me these days.

So if you want maximum acuity you need a A7. Unfortunately the shutter needs to be sorted on the A7. On the A7 and A7R it's unacceptably loud and the silent shutter on the A7S has significant rolling shutter effect on moving targets.

The 55mm is a very nice lens but it's not as sharp or micro-contrasty wide open as the 50mm Lux and the 35mm is not open enough.

Lastly I love the work flow and build of the M240 above this system and enjoy using it more.

The A7 is a great system and I wish Sony well for the future. It's a system I have used and will use, but it can't match the RF focusing, speed of operation, jewel like qualities, lens range or enjoyment of the M240 for me,

It's widely accepted that the top cameras these days all have superlative sensors so buyers are looking for something more....

Best rgds

[viramati]

I am a big fan of the A7 but the A7S is not for me.

I have read a number of detailed engineering reports (including in this months Amateur Photographer in the UK) and it has more noise and less dynamic range at base ISO then any current FF camera. This is a side effect of tweaking it to be better at high ISOs. Also 12mp is not enough for me these days.

So if you want maximum acuity you need a A7. Unfortunately the shutter needs to be sorted on the A7. On the A7 and A7R it's unacceptably loud and the silent shutter on the A7S has significant rolling shutter effect on moving targets.

The 55mm is a very nice lens but it's not as sharp or micro-contrasty wide open as the 50mm Lux and the 35mm is not open enough.

Lastly I love the work flow and build of the M240 above this system and enjoy using it more.

The A7 is a great system and I wish Sony well for the future. It's a system I have used and will use, but it can't match the RF focusing, speed of operation, jewel like qualities, lens range or enjoyment of the M240 for me,

It's widely accepted that the top cameras these days all have superlative sensors so buyers are looking for something more....

Best rgds

Some interesting comments though I have to say that don't all match my findings

 

1. Whether or not the A7s has less dynamic range or noise at base iso I have yet to really verify though as you go up the range the results are astounding from a DR and noise POV especially when compared to the M. The A7 definitely has a great DR and the file are easier to use that the M files which unfortunately suffer from the green tinge issue when recovering shadow detail (luckily this can be solved in Lr5 with this great plug-in which can be found here Downloads)

2. While the shutter on the A7r is very noisy the A7 with it's electronic first shutter is a lot better and certainly not 'unacceptable' even though it does not match the M. the A7 silent mode can be very useful though of course with moving objects you can get the 'rolling shutter' effect.

3. Personally I am finding more micro-contrast and across the frame IQ (wide-open) from the FE55 than from the lux 50 asph and I can certainly hit the foci more quickly and accurately with the A7 and A7s with the FE 55 than with the M and Lux 50

4. Yes the 35 is slow and that can limit it's use though it does perform well wide open and on the 7S can still be used in very low light with fast focus speeds

5. I agree that in speed of manual operation, jewel like quality and lens range it doesn't match the M but more lenses will come soon etc. The fact that you can get an A7 and A7s, FE24-70 and the FE55 for less that the cost of a new M is a compelling argument. As much as I love my M it certainly has it's limitations (as of course does the A7 series) and as a photographic tools the the Sony A7s have a lot to offer.

[indergaard]

I am a big fan of the A7 but the A7S is not for me.

I have read a number of detailed engineering reports (including in this months Amateur Photographer in the UK) and it has more noise and less dynamic range at base ISO then any current FF camera. This is a side effect of tweaking it to be better at high ISOs. Also 12mp is not enough for me these days.

So if you want maximum acuity you need a A7. Unfortunately the shutter needs to be sorted on the A7. On the A7 and A7R it's unacceptably loud and the silent shutter on the A7S has significant rolling shutter effect on moving targets.

The 55mm is a very nice lens but it's not as sharp or micro-contrasty wide open as the 50mm Lux and the 35mm is not open enough.

Lastly I love the work flow and build of the M240 above this system and enjoy using it more.

The A7 is a great system and I wish Sony well for the future. It's a system I have used and will use, but it can't match the RF focusing, speed of operation, jewel like qualities, lens range or enjoyment of the M240 for me,

It's widely accepted that the top cameras these days all have superlative sensors so buyers are looking for something more....

Best rgds

 

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.

[Jennifer]

I fear you have a point with regard to colour rendering and the M240. I find myself correcting it in lightroom, especially as you say, skintones. That being said my A7R has stayed in a drawer since I bought the M240 in May. I just find it more pleasurable to use and that's even before I factor in the great Leica glass much of which apparently doesn't work well with the Sony.

 

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.

[colonel]

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.

 

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

 

2. The printing argument is only one side of the coin. I often crop and 12mp is just not adequate. In addition, more pixels with equivalent detail allow more editing to the picture before deterioration

 

3. Well I find the A7 to be much louder then then M240 and the A7R much much more. Both are not only louder but longer drawn out with more treble. I can't understand any other conclusion.

 

4. I find the M240 colours.quite good. I guess its taste. Its true they are punchy and might need to be scaled back for some tastes. Conversely Sony's are flat and limp and need to be increased in certain areas.

 

5. I have no issues focusing RF. I can fully understand people liking AF better. I do in certain circumstances and not others.

 

I understand people not wanting to stay in Leica due to the cost but reverse justification to add to a cost argument is just that.

 

I have no issues having to like the equipment I am using and feel there is nothing to justify here. If I don't have pleasure from using something then I don't care about the specs.

 

For me I find the cost argument a bit false. I don't have many lenses anyway and in DSLR land all good lenses are over £1k, so at the end of the day sure there is a few thousand difference in total setup (bear in mind I mostly buy second hand) but split over 2-3 years its not that much for a premium hobby. Clearly cheaper then most people I know who are into golf or boats.

 

best rgds

[indergaard]

I fear you have a point with regard to colour rendering and the M240. I find myself correcting it in lightroom, especially as you say, skintones. That being said my A7R has stayed in a drawer since I bought the M240 in May. I just find it more pleasurable to use and that's even before I factor in the great Leica glass much of which apparently doesn't work well with the Sony.

 

Yes, the color issues are litteraly driving me nuts. Staring at the same image while color correction for a long time also makes me go "color blind", and when I finally think I've nailed it, I look at the edit the day after, and notice the image still needs more corrections. My fiance has a orange/red skintone, and nordic people in general have white and red skintone, which is what I find the M240 struggles the most with. It makes reds more red and magenta, it makes green grass on an overcast day look like it's yellow and lit by sunlight, and it makes orange look candy orange and way too punchy. My display is calibrated, my cameras are calibrated, and my lenses are calibrated, and even with colorimetric profiles the M240's color issues are very apparent, although much less than without the proper calibration profiles of course. But still, most other cameras nail neutral colors right out of the box.

 

Very frustrating.

[zlatkob]

This is a often repeated complaint on photography forums: "I bought Canon's biggest & heaviest zoom lenses and now they are too heavy, so I am switching to [some other brand]." But Canon also makes some incredibly good primes that are much smaller and lighter. I love the 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 100/2 and 135/2. Any of those has the potential to make great photos and is much easier to carry than a zoom in its range. Also, the 6D is smaller, lighter and better overall than the 5DII, and pretty amazing at high ISO.

[indergaard]

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

 

2. The printing argument is only one side of the coin. I often crop and 12mp is just not adequate. In addition, more pixels with equivalent detail allow more editing to the picture before deterioration

 

3. Well I find the A7 to be much louder then then M240 and the A7R much much more. Both are not only louder but longer drawn out with more treble. I can't understand any other conclusion.

 

4. I find the M240 colours.quite good. I guess its taste. Its true they are punchy and might need to be scaled back for some tastes. Conversely Sony's are flat and limp and need to be increased in certain areas.

 

5. I have no issues focusing RF. I can fully understand people liking AF better. I do in certain circumstances and not others.

 

I understand people not wanting to stay in Leica due to the cost but reverse justification to add to a cost argument is just that.

 

I have no issues having to like the equipment I am using and feel there is nothing to justify here. If I don't have pleasure from using something then I don't care about the specs.

 

For me I find the cost argument a bit false. I don't have many lenses anyway and in DSLR land all good lenses are over £1k, so at the end of the day sure there is a few thousand difference in total setup (bear in mind I mostly buy second hand) but split over 2-3 years its not that much for a premium hobby. Clearly cheaper then most people I know who are into golf or boats.

 

best rgds

 

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.

 

2. If you need to do heavy cropping you need to practice precise framing and either get closer or use more adequate focal lengths.

 

3. I'll gladly make a recording of the A7S and M240 side-by-side.

 

4. Most people that know color know that the M240 files require substantial color correction and profiling to look good. There are many threads about this issue on this forum, as well as many other websites. Then again, some people like old stock film looks also, so it's a subjective thing. Nonetheless, I prefer my raw files to be neutral and flat. A digital negative, so to speak. The M240 does absolutely not deliver in this regard, as I can get more accurate skintones from my Leica lenses adapted on other cameras.

 

5. I was not talking about AF. I was talking about manually focusing with an EVF, focus peaking and focus magnification.

 

I don't know where you got the cost argument from. I never said anything in regards to cost. I've had and have a nice collection of Leica equipment myself, and I love using it, but it is by far not the best cameras in the world. I'll gladly admit to that, as I don't feel that I need to "protect my investment" and claim that it's better than other rivals simply because I've put down a lot of money on buying it.

[colonel]

This is a often repeated complaint on photography forums: I bought Canon's biggest & heaviest zoom lenses and now they are too heavy, so I am switching to [some other brand]. But Canon also makes some incredibly good primes that are much smaller and lighter. I love the 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 100/2 and 135/2. Any of those has the potential to make great photos and is much easier to carry than a zoom in its range. Also, the 6D is smaller, lighter and better overall than the 5DII.

 

I agree the 6D + some of Canon's non premium primes is a great value FF kit. I also like Canon's colours alot. I always hated the "L" lens thing where Canon simply doesn't put the best coatings on the cheap lenses which means their flare and abberations can never match up to the L lenses. This is just marketing, but I do feel short changed on their otherwise excellent budget lenses.

 

Nikon does the same and I have enjoyed the usage of the Df as a light camera with great dynamic range. Again the new Nikon f1.8 series is excellent, sans the best coatings of course.

 

I think we are spoiled for choice in FF at the moment, some quite reasonable.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

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.

 

2. If you need to do heavy cropping you need to practice precise framing and either get closer or use more adequate focal lengths.

 

3. I'll gladly make a recording of the A7S and M240 side-by-side.

 

4. Most people that know color know that the M240 files require substantial color correction and profiling to look good. There are many threads about this issue on this forum, as well as many other websites. Then again, some people like old stock film looks also, so it's a subjective thing. Nonetheless, I prefer my raw files to be neutral and flat. A digital negative, so to speak. The M240 does absolutely not deliver in this regard, as I can get more accurate skintones from my Leica lenses adapted on other cameras.

 

5. I was not talking about AF. I was talking about manually focusing with an EVF, focus peaking and focus magnification.

 

I don't know where you got the cost argument from. I never said anything in regards to cost. I've had and have a nice collection of Leica equipment myself, and I love using it, but it is by far not the best cameras in the world. I'll gladly admit to that, as I don't feel that I need to "protect my investment" and claim that it's better than other rivals simply because I've put down a lot of money on buying it.

 

1. I am talking about proper technical analysis, not the rumor mills. we can park this one.

 

2. Light cropping is often useful and 12mp is very limited even for this. I have heard the MP argument used to justify small MP cameras many times. I used to love using a Canon 30D but time has moved on ...

 

3. There are some good youtube video comparisons with db meters. I have not seen one yet of M240 and A7 but I stand completely by my ears at the moment.

 

4. You are undoubtedly more experienced then me on this point so I will accept your analysis. However all that I can say is that I do little colour correction and prefer the colours much more then the nikons I used to use, particularly on skin tones. I do have a "professional colour" monitor but have not calibrated it or my computer specifically

 

I am sure the Leica is not the "best camera" in the world but would have difficulty putting this moniker on any camera. If you wanted my vote on the best camera ever made it would have to be the Sony RX1R but this would obviously provoke howls of protest from many quarters so I will refrain from saying so ....

[wattsy]

Again the new Nikon f1.8 series is excellent, sans the best coatings of course.

 

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.