Leica's organic rendering versus plasticized Sony 7RII

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.  

 

A legitimate question was raised by the OP, about the "feel" of the image vs hardware difference.

We went down this path of comparison to demonstrate it is not "Leica magic" (i.e. hardware difference), rather just different raw development defaults.

 

Not all "can be tweaked in post processing", but this "organic look" (whatever it is) can be.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

[...] I keep wondering why we go down this path of comparison.  

 

To show perhaps that there is no significant difference (besides vignetting here) when exposure, WB and contrast are set the same way. 

[Belle123]

To show perhaps that there is no significant difference (besides vignetting here) when exposure, WB and contrast are set the same way. 

I agree. Based on this thread, there is no significant difference. And as far as "Leica magic" being non existent as Cheshirecat suggests which seems to be his ongoing theme, this thread proves nothing in that regard.  Rather, shows there is nothing wowing us on the Sony image. All those extra pixels....what a pity.  Maybe just good for blowing up.

[CheshireCat]

And as far as "Leica magic" being non existent as Cheshirecat suggests which seems to be his ongoing theme

 

Well, I shoot Leica because of the lenses.

 

Each one of us needs some magic. Like Dumbo's magic feather.

[Belle123]

I believe in magic.  

Just saw Sony A7rii review mentioned problem with 'moire'.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a7r-ii.htm

 

Thoughts?  

[CheshireCat]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a7r-ii.htm

 

Thoughts?  

 

Every sensor without AA filter is subject to moiré.

Just find a nasty subject like a halftoned poster with the "right" dot frequency.

 

All digital M cameras suffer from the same "issue". Bummer, if your favorite subject is halftoned posters.

However - unlike good ol' Ken says - most of the times it can be removed in post.

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe in magic.  

Just saw Sony A7rii review mentioned problem with 'moire'.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/a7r-ii.htm

 

Thoughts?  

 

I've seen moire from various cameras, including the original 11mp Canon 1Ds years ago. Apparently Ken is unaware of the moire removal brush in Lightroom.

[Belle123]

Every sensor without AA filter is subject to moiré.

Just find a nasty subject like a halftoned poster with the "right" dot frequency.

 

All digital M cameras suffer from the same "issue". Bummer, if your favorite subject is halftoned posters.

However - unlike good ol' Ken says - most of the times it can be removed in post.

So, Sony isn't better.  And earlier in a different thread, you claimed to have an M240 besides M lenses?  I am assuming you own the new Sony.  Or, do you?  Why don't you post some side by side shots so we can compare on this thread?  

[uhoh7]

Well, I shoot Leica because of the lenses.

 

Each one of us needs some magic. Like Dumbo's magic feather.

Me too, but the lenses prefer the Leicas for the most part. Only because Sony is clueless in some small decisions. The day will come pretty soon when there is serious alternative, as opposed to half finished science projects which can sometimes be great

 

But I'm all for comparison. Upsizing is pretty silly, since in the end everything will be downsized. You will never see those 42 MP unless you crop. Since I don't very often, those tiny pixels are just extra mess.

[jaapv]

I've seen moire from various cameras, including the original 11mp Canon 1Ds years ago. Apparently Ken is unaware of the moire removal brush in Lightroom.

I am not a fan of KR, but I think this is a bit unfair The moiré removal brush works fairly well, but I doubt whether it would do an acceptable job on the example he shows. And even then, how are you going to take a good image of a Junkers Ju-52 with the corrugations appearing to run in all directions?

[CheshireCat]

But I'm all for comparison. Upsizing is pretty silly, since in the end everything will be downsized. You will never see those 42 MP unless you crop. Since I don't very often, those tiny pixels are just extra mess.

 

Indeed, 42 MP are not visible on the current generation of displays, but we are getting there.

Keep in mind that current 4K displays have 24MP (although arranged differently than the ones in a Bayer sensor).

 

But printers do upsize.

 

In any case, don't underestimate the value of tiny pixels. There's more to them than billboard work or extreme crops.

As an example, think about the much finer noise pattern you get. By the way, my A7R2 shows quite an "organic" () noise at extremely high ISO, no apparent banding.

 

Pixels are your friends. Who doesn't want 42 million friends ?

[jaapv]

Yes, printers do upsize if needed and there is good software to do so yourself before you print. But I doubt that it is conductive to meaningful comparisons of 100% crops.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

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

[CheshireCat]

So, Sony isn't better.  And earlier in a different thread, you claimed to have an M240 besides M lenses?  I am assuming you own the new Sony.  Or, do you?  Why don't you post some side by side shots so we can compare on this thread?  

 

Yes, you remember correctly: I claim to have both cameras and a few M lenses.

However, I only have the 55/1.8 in native E-mount.

 

If you (and others) let me know what you would like me to test, I will be glad to help.

Just please don't ask about performance in the corners with a particular M lens, as you can Google that, and you perfectly know the M240 is going to be better.

[CheshireCat]

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.

 

The M240 corrections are needed to fix color vignetting, but curiously this is not much of an issue with the A7R2 sensor.

 

The real "hardware" incompatibility problem is the following:

1) M lenses are designed for film, therefore M camera sensors are designed to emulate film.

2) Sony sensors are optimized for digital, therefore they have thicker layers on them that are part of the optical path and cause optical aberrations with rays having a steep angle (typical of compact M wides).

 

There might be a way to mitigate this issue in post by deconvolution, but the algorithm would require both the lens model and the focusing distance.

[Scott Root]

 

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: 

https://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/4330522731_JFsGnhd-D.jpg

https://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/4330512358_snVz3vp-D.jpg

 

Crop_tot.jpg

 

 

Thanks for the time, effort, and expertise you put into this comparison that has resulted in me becoming convinced that the organic flavor that I associate with the Leica digital body is not hardware. There is an organic flavor to Leica out of the pan,  but it is not a secret sauce as demonstrated by your efforts. Can you share with us the Lightroom recipe you used to give the Sony file a Leica-like flavor?

 

Nevertheless, I am not going to reorder another Sony 7RII based on these results because my disillusion with that camera body on a couple of other fronts. First and foremost was my disappointment with the monster Zeiss-badged 35 1.4 FE lens that is not on the same planet as the Leica 50 APO in all respects. The Zeiss 35 1.4 FE as not only a letdown for me in terms of render, but the lack of depth-of-field markings and no dead ends on the focus throw had me loose all sense of the kinesthetic muscle memory. I was lost without looking at the back screen or through the viewfinder. Gone was my ability to use my mastery of hyperfocal focusing. That letdown spurred me to try and make my Leica lenses work on the Sony body rather than try the more reasonably sized Zeiss-badged 55 1.8 FE.

 

In good faith, I tried to make my Leica lenses work on the Sony body. Hyperfocal focusing worked on the Sony body when using the Leica lenses, of course. Moreover, the Voigtlander VM-E Close Focus Adapter is a jewel and joy. However, there is no focus coupling between the Leica lenses and the Sony body. This hardware issue translates into requiring the user push one of the programmable buttons on the back of the body to initiate a focus box, twice to zoom one manifold, and thrice to achieve maximum focus zoom. That degree of calisthenics makes use of Leica lenses on Sony bodies a non-starter, in my opinion.

 

So, in my attempt to justify the Sony purchase and convince myself that even though I hit fifty years old and not set in my ways, I began to compare the rendering of the Sony versus Leica digital bodies that resulted in my surprised findings that my family preferred the out-of-the-pan Leica organic flavor. It has been demonstrated that the Sony can be tweaked to achieve that same taste, but I now have a bad taste in my mouth due to aforementioned and not willing to go a second round with the Sony body irrespective of its impressive specifications.

 

I have arrived to the conclusion that the rendering of any current digital body is no longer grounds for changing genre as the user interface now trumps what differences we notice in the pictures that can be seasoned to taste with any manufacturer. More important are the lenses and, in my case, ability to make use of muscle memory to hyperfocal focus. Leica may have a niche market in that respect,and I look forward to what will hopefully be something along the line of a full frame interchangeable lens autofocus Leica Q. It’ll be interesting to find out if the speculated new Leica digital body with autofocus lenses will hopefully maintain dead ends to the focus throw and depth-of-field markings like employed on the Leica Q. I am no longer mesmerised by the Sony specifications and delighted to continue to use my Leica M240 with Leica lenses until a manufacturer can offer a hyperfocal focusing experience for me that includes autofocus for my aging eyes. Thanks to everyone that participted in this chain of postings in helping me get through my midlife crisis.

[lct]

[...] Can you share with us the Lightroom recipe you used to give the Sony file a Leica-like flavor? [...]

 

I did not try to mimick anything. Nothing else than what i said in the headers of my posts:

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).

In my modest experience, the most important thing is WB.

Try another comparo doing manual WB and equalizing exposures then besides vignetting of the Sony body, you will get the same flavor out of both cameras. 

BTW this is not valid for all cameras because some of them keep more or less strange colours in their raw files so you have to struggle in PP to adjust them. But judging by your raw files, it is the case for neither the M240 nor your Sony body.

Happy snaps!

[viramati]

I'll throw this quote into the mix from an A7rII review

We’ve heard about copper wiring being used to speed up the data transfer on the sensor. It turns out this probably has more beneficial effects than a simple speed boost. In HiFi, copper has a “low res” highly natural sound. If sounds organic, fluid and analog where other metals can sound shrill & brittle. The A7rII feels exactly like this. More airy, more atmospheric, more natural. As if 12 bits had been upped to 16 …

Full review here

http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/20/392-sony-a7r-vs-sony-a7rii-what-evolution/

And hey these are his words not mine

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[chrismuc]

Sorry, but with such a silly motive and undefined illumination (should be daylight w/o reflections from colored walls which give an artificial tint to the image like here) it is impossible to judge two excellent sensors.

[CheshireCat]

And hey these are his words not mine 

 

Keeping distance ? Why ?

I added extra copper wiring on my fridge to make the food feel more organic.