Leica's organic rendering versus plasticized Sony 7RII

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's interesting that you've actually confirmed my point regarding 'noise-grain' with that dismissive reply. Used an X recently? Used anything else non-Leica which uses that sensor?

Huh? How did you distill that?? Which of my X cameras? I've got several, and a couple of NEXes with Sony sensors. I quite dislike the in-camera processing by Sony. The Leica files are cleaner; less noise-reduction effects. And the Sony colours require far more work in post-processing, even if I profile my cameras to match.

[CheshireCat]

Perhaps some of the differences you guys are seeing are explained in the recent DPR article dealing with Sony RAW compression, some interesting observations.......

 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2834066212/the-raw-and-the-cooked-pulling-apart-sony-raw-compression

 

Sony just announced a firmware upgrade for uncompressed RAW.

I wish Leica were so reactive to user requests.

[uhoh7]

Sony just announced a firmware upgrade for uncompressed RAW.

I wish Leica were so reactive to user requests.

We have been crying for that since 2010 when the first E mount cameras appeared. It will still likely not be available for the A7, but the newer models only, though this is still to be settled. A7sII will be first to have it. Such a fundamental issue addressed after years of bitter complaints. Oh yeah, Sony really listens.

[pico]

Ten pages of argument inspired by a person who described a camera/lens as more organic than another which we must presume to mean the other is an antonym, man-made. What in imaging is not man-made? Maybe the impression of a critic's face in mud from a face-plant; that's organic, and downright uplifting.

 

Come on, people, put your descriptive skills to the task. The OP's images were, well, nothing.

 

Organic. Gimmie a break.

 

Perhaps we can look to the Internet which entirely broke the sense of organic. Is there a site which requires posters to submit handwriting by stylus? There should be. OH! I'm off to make it so.

.

[wacka]

Bwahahaha. Nice one.

[fiftyonepointsix]

Sony just announced a firmware upgrade for uncompressed RAW.

I wish Leica were so reactive to user requests.

The M9 was introduced with uncompressed DNG. One of the main reasons I bought it, compressed DNG of the M8 bothered me much more than IR and the crop factor.

 

The M9 was also introduced with discrete mode for the shutter. Subsequently, the M8 firmware was revised to add discrete mode- after the M9 came out.

[guyfawkes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There will be differences, even using other Leica digital bodies.  But which is best, is down to photographers seeing different things. We do not all see colour/hue in exactly the same way so what one photographer views as best, won't be the opinion of another. 

 

What to me stands out, though, is that a child would come up with "plasticized/ plastic-looking" quite independently.  I take this with a pinch of salt.

[leicatraveller]

Returned my new Sony A7RII today and returning to use my Leica M240 after test with same Leica 50APO at f2.0 on both bodies. The lens was adapted to the Sony via Voigtlander VM-E. Crops are from center of both pictures so the thick Sony cover glass cannot be blamed for peripheral smearing on the Sony. The attached pictures represent the best of three shots taken with each body in a stabilized hand-held position, which gives a hometown advantage to the IBIS stabilized Sony body. These are jpg and not adequate to appreciate the organic look of the Leica versus the somewhat platicized rendering of the Sony. To confirm my observation, both my wife and daughter picked separately without privy to either's conclusion in a blind to the manufacturer test the Leica as the more realistic depiction when looking at both DNG/RAW files side-by-side at 1:1 on a high quality color adjusted monitor. Interestingly, they independently used the same descriptions of "realistic" and "plasticized/ plastic-looking" to describe the two pictures before they had any indication of the respective manufacturers. The moral I take from this story is that quality of render cannot rise above the quality of pixels, irrespective of downsizing a greater number of pixels. I like and respect Leica's organic philosophy above Sony's specifications because of what I see.

 

Leica

leica.jpg

 

Sony

sony.jpg

i preffer also the second one .....

[hexx]

 

See above the bit you quoted. I have an X100T and an X-T1 but I can see right through them as I don't necessary resonate to the form over function thing - which is also why I often have a very ambivalent relationship to the Leicas I may have at any given time, depending on the level of that they exhibit. It's early days but the Q might be my favourite digital Leica for this reason - it's probably the most Sonylike thing they've made so far.

 

Sorry, you misread my comment, I have X-Pro1 which is the only ILC from Fuji I like, X-T1 just doesn't feel right to me, has finicky buttons and don't like VF in the middle (have largish nose ). As great as the sensor in A7R is, the menu system and operation is just, to me, not very well thought out - it just can't disappear in operation and somehow always gets in the way. Both Fuji cameras and Leica are just tools and don't get in the way - but that's only my personal opinion. For that same reason I still shoot M6, Hasselblad V and Mamiya 6 -> simple, always ready, direct tools.

[mjh]

The M9 was introduced with uncompressed DNG. One of the main reasons I bought it, compressed DNG of the M8 bothered me much more than IR and the crop factor.

IR sensitivity was the much bigger issue. The lossy compression was hardly an issue at all.

 

The M9 was also introduced with discrete mode for the shutter. Subsequently, the M8 firmware was revised to add discrete mode- after the M9 came out.

Discreet mode was introduced with the M8.2 in September 2008; the firmware update implementing discreet mode for the M8 came in March 2009, six months prior to the introduction of the M9.

[djwillia33]

Leica make their cameras with their lenses in mind. Sony does the same. A Leica lens on a Sony body will never be a true and fair comparison. It doesn't in any way represent what the Sony can do or how it looks. A coded Leica lens on a Leica body has all sort of corrections written to the raw file. And all current, new Leica lenses are coded. Putting one of those on an A7R2 doesn't pass on that coding information to the camera body. Try putting a 55mm 1.8 on the A7R2 and then put them side by side.

 

As someone who has both cameras I can say they're more different than alike. And both rather brilliant.

 

Gordon

 

You are on to something here.  The modern Leica bodies have suitable compensation for the foibles of (especially) the wider M-lenses. 

 

I ran older Zeiss, Takumar, Rokkor and (modern) Leica glass on my A7R. The Leica 24/3.8 & 35/2 were not happy campers (similarly for any wide Biogon design lenses) with the Sony A7 and A7R sensors. That is not specific to Sony as the wide Leica lenses are not trouble-free on Canikon full-frame either.  

 

I just sold the A7R in favour of the A7II (24Mpx) in order to get the stabilisation benefits when using older lenses with converters. The step back in sensor size I hope will not become a sore point. I sold the Elmar 24/3.8 and bought the Zeiss Loxia 35/2. Still searching for an outstanding 24mm !

[fiftyonepointsix]

IR sensitivity was the much bigger issue. The lossy compression was hardly an issue at all.

 

 

 

The IR issue was easily corrected using filters, so it did not bother me. I had a collection of IR cut filters from my early 1990s DSLR days. The lossy compression was, to me, the much bigger issue and the main reason I bought the M9.

 

I had forgotten about the M8.2 introducing Discreet mode. I bought my M8 already loaded with V2.004.

[djwillia33]

Ten pages of argument inspired by a person who described a camera/lens as more organic than another which we must presume to mean the other is an antonym, man-made. What in imaging is not man-made? Maybe the impression of a critic's face in mud from a face-plant; that's organic, and downright uplifting.

 

 

 

Have to agree that the pages of interchange about glass filters on sensors/etc/etc was a mind-numbing tangent which underlines the nonsense which started it all - the "plasticky" image versus the "organic" !!

 

However, I was particularly taken aback by the implication from the thread that "post processing" is some kind of necessary evil.

 

Out of camera jpegs are just some OEM engineer's version of the reality hopefully embedded in the RAW data capture - if the jpeg is good enough for you then that's fine, but don't use such images as a reference point for shouting to the world about the superiority of your favourite image-capturing toy. That is tantamount to expecting Ansel Adams to just slap down a contact print from his negatives whilst hoping the ultimate viewer can visualise what he saw and photographed.

 

My point?  No matter if you use Leica, Sony or whatever, the critical issue is the "development" of the RAW file into your interpretation of the image you saw at the time of capture.  Your choice of equipment may make the capturing step easier or more satisfying or more sensual, even "organic"(!?), but the RAW file from the camera is only step one on the path.

[MindsEye]

Thanks all for this Interesting thread and comparison. Obviously not clear cut and a lot of the final result (aside from processing) will also be subject dependent. I have to say that my A7RII is the first camera I've owned in a long time that caused me to say "Wow!" out loud when I first viewed the images. The last one being my Mamiya 7II shooting transparency film and before that my M4-2. The first images I saw from my A7RII were aerials from a helicopter I did on a photo shoot in Kauai. So perhaps that highly detailed sensor is behind the wow factor (I was using Zeiss glass.) Of course the bottom line IMO are prints. This discussion furthers my motivation to scrutinize the Sony with other subject matter. Happy shooting everyone!

[MindsEye]

Out of camera jpegs are just some OEM engineer's version of the reality hopefully embedded in the RAW data capture

 

My point?  No matter if you use Leica, Sony or whatever, the critical issue is the "development" of the RAW file into your interpretation of the image you saw at the time of capture.  Your choice of equipment may make the capturing step easier or more satisfying or more sensual, even "organic"(!?), but the RAW file from the camera is only step one on the path.

Great point.

[carbon_dragon]

Just a couple of things. First, the only reason I switched back to a Leica M9 from a NEX-7 was the sensor size difference and the fact that I like using the Leica better. Maybe there are some subtle differences to the images detectable with a "refined palate" or an electron microscope but I doubt most people could have told the difference if I didn't tell them what camera and lens took the picture.

 

Second, the M8's IR sensitivity seldom resulted in odd coloring (never in my use) but DID give me a great IR photography camera in near hand-holdability while being able to easily frame pictures in the rangefinder with near opaque IR filters. Can't do that on my M9 and I bet the M240 can't either. What I liked about the NEX was that I could use all kinds of lenses including my old Zeiss rangefinder lenses just to see what I could do with them. That was fun and I wasn't that anxious about the perfection of the images. Plus I handhold mostly these days because of back problems carrying even light tripods so that probably degrades performance more than in indefinable quality of the camera.

 

To some extent we use what we have confidence in and start with the idea that it's better and then look for evidence to support it. This isn't the best scientific procedure, but if you want to believe your choice is the right one, regardless of what it is, great. Your confidence might make that true because using a camera you DON'T have confidence in probably worries you enough to put you off your game a bit. The fact is that most cameras today are capable of pretty amazing performance. 

 

In a way it's pretty deja vu (all over again) because Sony (/Minolta) is using Zeiss lenses these days and hasn't there always been a rivalry between Zeiss and Leica with proponents of each talking about how the "look" of their images are so much better than the other?