Leica M240 vs Canon 1DX - A Silly Review from Certain Angles

[Berlinman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did my best photos in the 80th with Canon F-1 New and manual focus etc. Then with new stuff Nikon F4, F5, D700 I lost quality over time. The M240 brought me back to my old quality. For that I love this camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

Yeah yeah as long as there have been Leica forums on the internet there have been some guys who claimed their half-blind grandmother can tell a Leica shot just looking at a neg, and imply that anyone who can't must be a lousy photographer. Lousy also if he can't see the huge and obvious superiority of the latest (read: most outrageously expensive) Leica lenses over the previous generation. Men can and will make a meat measuring contest out of pretty much anything

 

My Leica travel photographs are worlds better than my Canon ones. Because I travel with the Leica and my Canon stays home. Because if I took the Canon I would be tired and aggravated by all the bulk I was dragging around, and that would negatively impact my photography.

[CheshireCat]

I have both the Leica 50/1.4 aspheric and Canon's 50/1.4. The Canon is a perfectly usable lens but its an 'impersonal' AF lens with a very utiltarian manual focus and very straight 'image quality'

 

We are really comparing a Stradivarius with a garage-sale violin here.

There are great 50mm lenses for Canon DSLR too: the Sigma Art 50/1.4, or the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4.

Canon lens technology is also amazing, but they also produce low-end lenses.

We should cite great engineering achievements like the Canon 50/1 ("Canoctilux" ? ), or the 200/1.8.

Most people don't even know they exist and keep thinking Canon can only produce crappy plastic lenses just because most DSLR users around stick to kit lenses.

[pgk]

Most people don't even know they exist and keep thinking Canon can only produce crappy plastic lenses just because most DSLR users around stick to kit lenses.

FWIW I had the Canon 50/1.2L previously. The 1.4 isn't that far behind it, which may tell you something about the 1.2:eek:. The 1.4 is actually a very competent lens, but it does lack a little something - that said I am happy to use it professionally and nobody has ever complained..... . Perhaps my problem is that I can't see any point in upgrading the Canon 1.4 to a more esoteric 50mm while I have the Summilux;).

[indergaard]

If you are going to make that claim, how about backing it up with some objective proof?

 

I've only compared the Sony/Zeiss Sonnar FE 55mm f/1.8 to the Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH and Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 ASPH.

 

In all regards to pure IQ the Sonnar is better than both in all technical regards: edge sharpness, flat field of focus (as little field curvature as possible), even across the frame sharpness, accurate color rendition, pure resolution and so on... It's a $1000 auto-focusing prime vs $4000 and $11000 manual lenses.

 

I really don't feel the need to provide proof as I did the evaluation only for myself. The Sonnar also has character, but it's different from the Leica glass. The only technical superiority the Leica glass has over that Sonnar is the aperture values.

 

That's the technical stuff. Now, the look that these three lenses have are very different though. The Noctilux has it's own unique look, and the Summilux is sort of like a classic modern hybrid lens. It's seems like a lens that was co-designed by Mandler and Karbe together, in a way. The Summilux is sharp but soft and smooth at the same time. The Sonnar is more like the APO-Summicron in rendering characteristics. They both have very flat field of focus and very little field curvature, and a very modern look. The APO-Summicron has a warmer color temperature and is physically smaller than the Sonnar. The Sonnar is basically a Zeiss Otus that's been on a diet based on how it draws, except, it has auto-focus.

 

There are many, many tests out there that says the same... So I really don't feel the need to provide my own images where I did side-by-side tests with the FE 55mm + Sony A7 and a Leica M240 with a Summilux 50mm ASPH. I did this test for my own sake, and I did return the Sony combo and kept my M240 + Summilux combo, but... Technically... The Sony combo actually delivered technically better results, consistently. I didn't enjoy using it though. I do enjoy using my Leica. But I will gladly admit that technically, especially considering the premium price, the Leica is not the best choice.

 

But that's just me. I'm very objective. And I would never idolize or support a corporation who's main goal is to make money for their shareholders and/or owners. Be it Leica or Sony or any other company.

[zlatkob]

The Canon 50/1.4 is excellent when stopped down to 2.8 or smaller, but is a poor performer wide open. It was designed as a cheap lens and can't compare to a $4,000 Summilux. Its AF motor is not very good, and its not one of Canon's more reliable lenses. Sadly, this lens is long overdue for an update.

 

Canon makes some great lenses, but they are pricey. Lensrentals' Roger Cicala has tested a lot of lenses and describes Canon's 24-70/2.8II this way: "This is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever. It’s not close."

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We are really comparing a Stradivarius with a garage-sale violin here.

 

But none of us here is an Itzhak Perlman or Pinchas Zuckerman. Jack Benny owned a Strad but he readily admitted it was because he could afford it, not because he imagined it made a difference in his playing.

[zlatkob]

There are many, many tests out there that says the same...

 

Here is one test — that Sony 55/1.8 is pretty impressive for a $1000 lens: Most adorable 50s - Charts / Sharpness

[FlashGordonPhotography]

If you are going to make that claim, how about backing it up with some objective proof?

 

There's dozens of reviews of the Sony 55mm 1.8 on the net. They all basically say it's stunning. It's not hard to find comparisons to the 'Lux. They all say the Sony is as good at 1.8. It's not hard to see that the overwhelming tide say the Sony is as good (but different) to the Lux.

 

I have both and use both. I agree with the reviews. They're both great lenses.

 

I do, however, have an issue with the word "better" (or superior etc...) when it comes to lenses. Choosing a standard is such a personal thing and one persons better is another photographers "meh". It's the same argument as the CCD vs CMOS thing. Why does one have to be better? Why can't they just be different?

 

I've had many 50's. It's my favourite focal length. The 1.2L Canon was the most frustrating (and why I left the system and moved to Leica?Olympus/Sony). Capable of greatness but often disappointing and held back by focus shift over a big range. I had the 1.0L and it was special, if you had the patience to wait for the focusing group to meander into position. I love my 'Lux ASPH most days but occasionally shoot with a $300 CV 50. My 55 Sonnar is amazing. Sharp and reliable. But occasionally I shoot a camera with uncompressed raws when I know the Sony would be easier.

 

Of the glass that's really knocked my sock off, most of them have not been technically perfect lenses. If I could have all my favourite lenses in one bag I'd still have a 50mm f1.0L and an 85 1.2L. I'd keep my 135 Sony (Zeiss), my 100 Zeiss MP, my WATE and my 50 Lux and my CV 85 Helliar and my CV 50mm Noktons (1.1 and 1.5). I'd buy back my CV 35mm 1.4 and sell my pre-FLE 35mm 'Lux.

 

As soon as someone starts quoting MTF curves my eyes glaze over. Sure they're useful in lens evaluation but a great MTF curve doesn't make a great lens. Lenses are great, to me, when the make it possible to record what *I* see, the way I see it.

 

The Sony 55mm is a great lens, to me. It doesn't need to be compared to a "Lux or an Otus. It's just great, standing there all on it's own. If you haven't used one you definitely should. It's tiny and light and sharp and all kinds of wonderful.

 

Still most of the time I shoot with my Leica's anyway, because I like the lack of buttons. I like the simplicity and the purity of the experience. Some days I prefer the accurate AF of my A7's and it's superior flash system. Fortunately, whichever I choose I have a great standard to stick on the front of it and I'm happy.

 

Gordon

[CheshireCat]

But none of us here is an Itzhak Perlman or Pinchas Zuckerman. Jack Benny owned a Strad but he readily admitted it was because he could afford it, not because he imagined it made a difference in his playing.

 

I never played the violin, but I can appreciate the difference between the latest Leica 50/1.4 and the Canon 50/1.4.

But I am sure that many people own Leica just because they can afford it. And very few of them will admit it.

[bocaburger]

I never played the violin, but I can appreciate the difference between the latest Leica 50/1.4 and the Canon 50/1.4.

But I am sure that many people own Leica just because they can afford it. And very few of them will admit it.

 

I never owned the latest Leica 50/1.4 or the Canon 50/1.4. But I do own the 50/1.8 (metal mount) and the lastest-optical 50 Summicron-M and I can always appreciate the difference if I'm looking at lens testing shots. In practical photography not so much, because often other variables take center stage.

[CheshireCat]

In practical photography not so much, because often other variables take center stage.

 

In practical photography, sometimes it is what you do not notice that makes the difference.

For example, the Canon 50/1.8 is awfully prone to flare, and if you use a better lens you don't realize how bad the result would have been

[FlashGordonPhotography]

In practical photography, sometimes it is what you do not notice that makes the difference.

For example, the Canon 50/1.8 is awfully prone to flare, and if you use a better lens you don't realize how bad the result would have been

 

Unless, of course, you're trying to use flare creatively. Then the 50 1.8 is better. Or is it?

 

Gordon

[CheshireCat]

Unless, of course, you're trying to use flare creatively. Then the 50 1.8 is better. Or is it?

 

Definitely, it is better in 0.001% of my shots.

Now, if it focused properly and without being a birdcall for crows, I would have one in the bag in case I need crappy colors (creatively)

[Echo63]

Yeah yeah as long as there have been Leica forums on the internet there have been some guys who claimed their half-blind grandmother can tell a Leica shot just looking at a neg, and imply that anyone who can't must be a lousy photographer.

 

I can tell the difference between my files from my X100, M240 and 1DX when looking at them in Lightroom.

its kinda cheating though, they all have different "film" (Sensors and processors)

 

 

I have an M240 as my personal camera, and work issue me with a pair of 1DX and a big bag of "L" Glass.

they are both great cameras, but are almost opposite sides of the same coin, the M is compact, has tiny lenses, simple controls, and is better suited for slow, considered photography.

the 1DX is big, heavy, and is essentially a machine gun that sees in the dark.

 

In terms of Image Quality, i would say the M wins, but the 1DX is cleaner at high ISO.

to me, the M files are noisier, but the noise is more pleasant, and the camera seems to retain more detail, it isn't processed smooth.

 

Ease of Use, the M wins, menu system is simple, and really, has 4 controls you need, power/shutter, focus, shutter speed and aperture.

the 1DX has a million buttons, and may require a bunch of setting up - it took me 45 mins of digging through menus to set mine up the way i like it.

 

they really are two different cameras though, for field sports a 1DX is the weapon of choice, with a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 attached.

 

for a solemn church service, the M240 gets the nod, preferably with a nice fast 50mm

 

I like both, but to carry around all day, i prefer the M

[carta]

Thank you all for your kind comments and insight!

Great to hear opinions from all kinds of fields.