Leica / Zeiss: Who is better?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not quite certain how your comments relate to mine, though I agree with all your points.

My point was that once you reach a technological tipping point, as it seems these high MP sensors are crossing, technique alone does not suffice. When a commercial client requires large, data-rich and malleable files, only a studio and tripod-bound MF or D8***/50 MP 5D will deliver for these demanding but specific instances.

I'm aware from photographer friends that some high MP '35mm' digital sensor cameras are considered capable of replacing digital MF cameras and backs, but I'm not so sure and I do know others who are using digital MF to shoot landscape and outdoor advertising type material. I don't shoot MF and haven't done since I sold a Contax 645 system - a very good camera I might add. I'm not convinced that some MF or any LF can be replaced by '35mm' sensor cameras myself, especially when/if movements are required. The problem for those I know who have replaced their 'blads with Nikons/Canons can be lenses, but the a bigger question is whether the right tool is being used for the job rather than whether working at the limits of technique and lens ability is a seriously viable way for someone to operate longterm. Money is the prime motivating consideration though, and I personally don't know many pros who can now justify the cost of a full MF digital system and lenses, although they could quite happily shoot MF film because it didn't entail high and inevitable upgrade costs.

[james.liam]

I'm not convinced that some MF or any LF can be replaced by '35mm' sensor cameras myself, especially when/if movements are required. ......Money is the prime motivating consideration though, and I personally don't know many pros who can now justify the cost of a full MF digital system and lenses...............

The rental houses do a brisk business with astronomically priced kit, so its readily accessible without a large outlay (many pros buy a few good lenses and manage all along by just renting bodies). BTW, a nice example of a camera exceeding its glass is the Pentax 645 digital; it has suffered from a paucity of stellar lenses able to match the sensor's abilities, a well documented deficiency.

 

In the DSLR realm, Zeiss has done quite nicely filling in the performance gap that CaNikon has inexplicably neglected while Sigma has done the unimaginable staying toe-to-toe with Zeiss and for a pittance. Their lenses paired with a D8** or 50MP 5D, seriously test the distinctiveness of MF.

 

Sony, who I firmly believe will ultimately devour CaNikon mirror SLRs once the a9 series appears, wisely teamed with Zeiss on premium lenses from the start to keep up with evolving sensor technology. Since they make sensors for nearly everyone else, they are in the best position to order the 'shoes' well ahead of time to fit the new 'foot'.

[Mornnb]

 

In the DSLR realm, Zeiss has done quite nicely filling in the performance gap that CaNikon has inexplicably neglected while Sigma has done the unimaginable staying toe-to-toe with Zeiss and for a pittance. Their lenses paired with a D8** or 50MP 5D, seriously test the distinctiveness of MF.

 

Sony, who I firmly believe will ultimately devour CaNikon mirror SLRs once the a9 series appears, wisely teamed with Zeiss on premium lenses from the start to keep up with evolving sensor technology. Since they make sensors for nearly everyone else, they are in the best position to order the 'shoes' well ahead of time to fit the new 'foot'.

 

 

 

This, is why I would like a 50MP Leica M. Leica lenses are as good and often better than the best available for Canon and Nikon mounts. With high resolution lenses like the 50mm APO it would provide a similar level of performance to medium format in terms of resolution. Medium format that can fit in your pocket, the original Oskar Barnack dream.

Leica also has the potential to be part of the current trend towards the death of SLRs, for the Rangefinders have always been mirrorless cameras.

[james.liam]

This, is why I would like a 50MP Leica M. Leica lenses are as good and often better than the best available for Canon and Nikon mounts. With high resolution lenses like the 50mm APO it would provide a similar level of performance to medium format in terms of resolution. Medium format that can fit in your pocket, the original Oskar Barnack dream.

Leica also has the potential to be part of the current trend towards the death of SLRs, for the Rangefinders have always been mirrorless cameras.

The D8** series, as well as the a7R, make greater demands on technique because of vibrations fouling the image and smaller photosites requiring faster shutter speeds to defeat motion artifact. Personally found the D800 camera less useful in certain respects that the D700 for day-to-day casual use. There's a reason aside from high FPS rates, that Nikon stuck to 16MP for the D4. 

 

An M has meant an entirely different application for me and thus wouldn't want to need a tripod all the time. The freedom from heavy gear is why I sold off all my Nikon kit so a 24 MP sensor (or even an 18 MP Monochrom) + 50 APO--if I were able to afford or justify it-- would do just fine by me. 

[lct]

Rangefinders have never been made to shoot billboards and MF cameras have more pixels than CaNikons already so Leica will stay out of this resolution race and concentrate on quality hopefully.

[Mornnb]

The D8** series, as well as the a7R, make greater demands on technique because of vibrations fouling the image and smaller photosites requiring faster shutter speeds to defeat motion artifact.

 

 

 

That's correct, I had an a7R for a while. And I found to get a perfectly sharp shot required a shutter speed of around 1/125 to 1/250 for 35mm to 50mm lenses. A tripod is not necessary.

Hence, I would like to see a high resolution M. But it would be preferable as a separate version of the camera, in the way Sony does it.

[hiepphotog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

what are you assuming is unnecessary about the weight and size given the iq?

 

The usability for a 50 or an 85 focal length. If I get a lens in either of these FLs, I would shoot the heck out of it. The Otii have many characteristics that I really like, but I doubt I would take them with me that often. How often one needs a perfect across the frame performance at f/1.4 for a 50 or 85? Especially with the given size and weight? Now a WA/UWA with this WO performance is at least good for wide field astrophotography, environmental portrait with low aberrations, or T/S application in low light.

[pgk]

The D8** series, as well as the a7R, make greater demands on technique because of vibrations fouling the image and smaller photosites requiring faster shutter speeds to defeat motion artifact. Personally found the D800 camera less useful in certain respects that the D700 for day-to-day casual use. There's a reason aside from high FPS rates, that Nikon stuck to 16MP for the D4. 

 

An M has meant an entirely different application for me and thus wouldn't want to need a tripod all the time. The freedom from heavy gear is why I sold off all my Nikon kit so a 24 MP sensor (or even an 18 MP Monochrom) + 50 APO--if I were able to afford or justify it-- would do just fine by me. 

IMO its the law of diminishing returns kicking in. Increasing MPixels only makes sense if you have total control over all the factors which come into play when shooting. In a studio you might, outside its far less likely. And the real question to be asked is: do we need 50Mpixel + for everyday use? I know that I don't, although in some circumstances it might be useful, they are a small minority. And size and weight matter.

[edwardkaraa]

I'm personally very happy with 24 mp. If Leica can keep the same resolution and work on improving the peripheral performance necessitated by the steep light angles, noise, banding... etc, that would be really great.

[k-hawinkler]

IMO its the law of diminishing returns kicking in. Increasing MPixels only makes sense if you have total control over all the factors which come into play when shooting. In a studio you might, outside its far less likely. And the real question to be asked is: do we need 50Mpixel + for everyday use? I know that I don't, although in some circumstances it might be useful, they are a small minority. And size and weight matter.

Well, for me the MP question depends very much on what I take pictures of.

The digital magnification one gets from more MP can be very helpful from cropped images of rather small creatures like hummingbirds. A 36 MP camera with the APO-R 280/4 gives much more detailed results than 12 MP. Therefore I would welcome higher MP cameras and feel less the need to get even longer tele lenses that are even bulkier and heavier. Also properly executed landscape shots would benefit from more MP. If one shoots with a tripod then the larger size of the Zeiss lenses really doesn't matter to me. Of course, for walking around situations I prefer an MFT system anyway.

[uhoh7]

I'm personally very happy with 24 mp. If Leica can keep the same resolution and work on improving the peripheral performance necessitated by the steep light angles, noise, banding... etc, that would be really great.

 

I agree. One thing we have learned with 36mp A7r and some other hi mp cameras: pixel quality trumps quantity, and there is often an inverse relationship.  Witness popularity of A7"s".

 

In fact the M9 nearly hits 5K on the nose. For un-cropped images I see no advantage of 24mp over 18, unless one is printing very large.

[jdlaing]

I agree. One thing we have learned with 36mp A7r and some other hi mp cameras: pixel quality trumps quantity, and there is often an inverse relationship.  Witness popularity of A7"s".

 

In fact the M9 nearly hits 5K on the nose. For un-cropped images I see no advantage of 24mp over 18, unless one is printing very large.

It didn't take the Sony high megapixel camera. "We" knew about pixel quality ten years ago.

[james.liam]

That's correct, I had an a7R for a while. And I found to get a perfectly sharp shot required a shutter speed of around 1/125 to 1/250 for 35mm to 50mm lenses. A tripod is not necessary.

Hence, I would like to see a high resolution M. But it would be preferable as a separate version of the camera, in the way Sony does it.

 

One of the things I loved most about shooting an M (M6 and MM) is the ability to shoot at very, very slow shutter speeds unthinkable with a slap-happy DSLR and achieved with minimal efforts at bracing myself. Something I could not do with an a7R or D8***. Nor a D700, for that matter. Limited to 1/250 is about as desirable as being limited to ISO 400-800 on an M9. Doesn't fly

[k-hawinkler]

One of the things I loved most about shooting an M (M6 and MM) is the ability to shoot at very, very slow shutter speeds unthinkable with a slap-happy DSLR and achieved with minimal efforts at bracing myself. Something I could not do with an a7R or D8***. Nor a D700, for that matter. Limited to 1/250 is about as desirable as being limited to ISO 400-800 on an M9. Doesn't fly

 

But can easily be done with a camera with IBIS, like E-M1, E-M5, E-M5 II, or the full frame A7 II.

[james.liam]

But can easily be done with a camera with IBIS, like E-M1, E-M5, E-M5 II, or the full frame A7 II.

 

...why I'm awaiting the arrival of my a7II for color and as the platform for my R lenses.

[k-hawinkler]

...why I'm awaiting the arrival of my a7II for color and as the platform for my R lenses.

 

Great choice.  I am waiting for the A7R II. 

[Mornnb]

...why I'm awaiting the arrival of my a7II for color and as the platform for my R lenses.

 

It will be called the a9R, and the rumours are saying 50megapixels.

[k-hawinkler]

     

[rodluvan]

The usability for a 50 or an 85 focal length. If I get a lens in either of these FLs, I would shoot the heck out of it. The Otii have many characteristics that I really like, but I doubt I would take them with me that often. How often one needs a perfect across the frame performance at f/1.4 for a 50 or 85? Especially with the given size and weight? Now a WA/UWA with this WO performance is at least good for wide field astrophotography, environmental portrait with low aberrations, or T/S application in low light.

ah, so you're not saying the weight and size is unnecessary, but unfortunate and that which is unnecessary is a lens performing that well in those focal-lengths'. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

The digital magnification one gets from more MP can be very helpful from cropped images of rather small creatures like hummingbirds.

The problem is that as you magnify, (with a lens or digitally) technically everything has to be more carefully dealt with. And cropping images even from exceptionally lenses may still not be as technically excellent as using a longer focal length lens, which will probably always be the optimal solution I would say. The law of diminishing returns will still apply I'm afraid.