Jump to content

Leica's organic rendering versus plasticized Sony 7RII


Scott Root

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

 

I don't see any of the cited compression artifacts in the Sony image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One can on the uncompressed images, but once again angels dancing etc...

Reality is that the quality delivered by current sensors is so high that differentiating by sensor is not very productive any more. Basically we are back to the situation that the results are approximately the same across the line, be it a Bessa or M6, the difference being the camera and the lens. And mostly the photographer :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

raw pictures can be downloaded from public dropbox at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rxs6elnb4auhwad/AAAO43hnCfRzZvJyklXQqUQGa?dl=0

 

This time, I processed the Sony image to look like Leica, manually correcting WB, exposure and vignetting.

The match could have been much better with proper camera profiles.

This is JPEG sRGB, but it looks pretty much the same on my wide color gamut display.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally, to my very personal "development" taste (colors a bit overdone...):

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any of the cited compression artifacts in the Sony image.

The lesson may be in the DPR article and its comparison with Canon and Nikon and their approach, not in the OP's image in particular, as if it needs saying.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seems like CheshireCat's efforts to reduce vignetting have mainly benefited to the Sony which has a problem here IMO. This is the first obvious difference to me. Otherwise exposure, WB and contrast and also, to a lesser extent, field of view were different so drawing any subjective conclusions on the grounds of the raw files would not be serious to me. What i'm interested in is the actual difference, if any, in resolution. I will have a look at this and report here if it is of any interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lesson may be in the DPR article and its comparison with Canon and Nikon and their approach, not in the OP's image in particular, as if it needs saying.

 

This is what you said in your previous post, referring to the OP's image:

 

Perhaps some of the differences you guys are seeing are explained in the recent DPR article [...]

 

So gimme a break.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution comparo part 1.

Raw files developed in C1 v8, linear response, default settings.
Exposure, contrast and WB (more or less) equalized in PS3.
Leica file upsized to 42MB (bicubic in CS3).
100% crops.
Sony crop above.
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution comparo part 2.

Raw files developed in C1 v8, linear response, default settings.

Exposure, contrast and WB (more or less) equalized in PS3.

Leica file upsized to 42MB (bicubic in CS3).

100% crops.

Sony crop above.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution comparo part 3.

Raw files developed in C1 v8, linear response, default settings.
Exposure, contrast and WB (more or less) equalized in PS3.
Leica file upsized to 42MB (bicubic in CS3).
100% crops.
Sony crop above.
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution comparo part 4.

Raw files developed in C1 v8, linear response, default settings.
Exposure, contrast and WB (more or less) equalized in PS3.
Leica file upsized to 42MB (bicubic in CS3).
100% crops.
Sony crop above.
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution comparo last part.

Raw files developed in C1 v8, linear response, default settings.
Exposure, contrast and WB (more or less) equalized in PS3.
Leica file upsized to 42MB (bicubic in CS3).
Full size.
Sony pic above.
100% jpeg files can be downloaded here: 
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The top photo is the Leica and bottom picture is the Sony. I should have labeled the pictures but did not know how to attach labels to photographs in the context of this forum, but the pictures have the file names "leica" and "sony" and file names appear as captions when a person clicks on the pictures for a larger view.

Oh thanks, I just dragged pics to iMac desktop where they are called <post-5641-0-45673700-1441381558.jpg> and <post-5641-0-03874200-1441381541.jpg> and then opened in CS3. 'File info' was entirely blank. hence my query. Did not think of clicking on pics for a caption!

So I did prefer the original Sony upload.  :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowing, my 12 year old daughter said she preferred the Leica images over the Sony ones primarily for the colour balance. Without seeing them side by side, she wouldn't have a preference - ie, she would be unlikely to say that a Sony image was "plastic". 

 

I found the the differences too subtle to matter. There are other more important issues (and limitations) to my photography than this. 

 

What at I am finding interesting is that I do quite a lot of processing with Monochrom files, and I did quite a lot with my M9;  with the M 60, I can often not improve on what comes out of the camera. It's impressive. 

 

Cheers

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for actually providing some real samples. It is hard to see the differences when the images have been compressed by the browser (particularly chrome).

 

There is clearly an advantage to having almost 2x the pixels. And high ISO performance and dynamic range are better with the more modern sensor. Similarly, having image stabilisation and, for a shot like this, a good viewfinder for focusing, and off-centre magnification, are significant benefits.

 

i remember going from 12Mpx to 24Mpx and having to take extra care to see the benefit. Now that 24Mpx is the norm, even more care is needed to get the most out of the sensor.

 

For me, the A7r II extends the shooting envelope (of situations in which it will produce a better image, more easily) over the M240, which is a camera that I quite enjoy using.  But, albeit with slightly different processing, I get a bigger proportion of keepers with the Sony, even with Leica lenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at the original post, the Leica image looks better and that is strictly my taste in images and has nothing to do with one being superior to the other.  This is all about personal preferences.  All can be tweaked in post processing to our heart's desire.  Nice images, both of them.  I keep wondering why we go down this path of comparison.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...