DP Review Studio Test Comparison

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I laughed at the Sony fanboys and trolls, but then I looked for my self and I'm quite shocked.

 

These are from the raw files which you can download yourself. SL is resized to the same as a7r II. The thread is near the centre, the plastic foliage is near the corner.

 

42MP Sony a7r II with 55 f1.8 - £3258

24MP Leica SL with 24-90 f2.8/4 - £8200

 

Comparing a zoom with a prime is perhaps not fair, but given it's the only lens available for a year or more, it's size, and that it costs more than 5 times the price I find this extraordinarily disappointing and quite perplexing.

 

The resolution is also far too low to compete with a 40MP camera that is half the cost.

 

I'm really hoping there is something wrong with this test unit or procedure. I couldn't find any evidence of front or back focus.

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!

Edited October 29, 2015 by Paul J

[edwardkaraa]

This has nothing to do with the camera, sensor or pixel count. It's just that the 55 sonnar is one of the sharpest lenses available and the SL zoom seems to be just average.

[Advertisement]

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

[almoore]

I'd be very surprised if the files coming out of the SL are as good as those from the A7Rii paired with the 55mm f1.8, but I'd be even more surprised if the SL zoom is as weak as it appears to be here.

 

There are too many potential variables (particularly human) for tests like this to be reliable indicators of performance. 

 

[Paul J]

This has nothing to do with the camera, sensor or pixel count. It's just that the 55 sonnar is one of the sharpest lenses available and the SL zoom seems to be just average.

No, it is a combination of these things.

 

Like I said, Comparing a zoom with a prime is perhaps not fair, but given it's the only lens available for a year or more, it's size, and that it costs more than 5 times the price (£600 v £3000) I find this extraordinarily disappointing and quite perplexing.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Paul J

[Paul J]

Here is the reported banding problem at low ISO with no adjustments.

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!

[biglou]

Don't think it is the lens, unless the SL one was defective.

More likely the sensor and internal programmation.

Any normally good lens will resolve more than a 24 MP sensor (and even 42MP) can record.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, it is a combination of these things.

 

Like I said, Comparing a zoom with a prime is perhaps not fair, but given it's the only lens available for a year or more, it's size, and that it costs more than 5 times the price (£600 v £3000) I find this extraordinarily disappointing and quite perplexing.

Actually if you use the same lens on both, the lower mp sensor will produce a sharper picture. I agree about the zoom though, but since I never use zooms, I'm not feeling concerned the least. Now when they release the 50 lux, it better wipe the floor with the sonnar. If not you will hear me complaining, loudly

[almoore]

Any normally good lens will resolve more than a 24 MP sensor (and even 42MP) can record.

 

In the central part of the frame, yes, further out, no.

 

There are many 'good' lenses that are weak in the corners, even stopped down.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Don't think it is the lens, unless the SL one was defective. More likely the sensor and internal programmation. Any normally good lens will resolve more than a 24 MP sensor (and even 42MP) can record.

 

 

Given Leica 'Solms' track record with truly excellent R zoom lenses, it's unlikely that the 24-90 SL (which would also have started out as a Solms rather than a Wetzlar design) is not an excellent design capable of much sharper results than the DP results imply. The review sample may have been in the hands of more than one reviewer (and courier) and 'centering' could have been compromised; it is an 18 multi-element design in 6 moving groups … thus maybe more liable to decentering - especially if doing the rounds of reviewers. Also, the Sony 55/1.8 ZE is a known stellar perfomer and would be interesting to compare it and the 24-90 SL after testing under laboratory conditions using actual test data. 

 

dunk

[pico]

Did they have image stabilization turned on? It should be off for tripod shots. No?

.

[satijntje]

If this is really true, this info will cost Leica a lot of SL clients!!!!!

Unbelievable 

John

[biglou]

If the lens was really out of specs i think the tester would have called Leica in order to get a normal one before publishing.

Here you see about the same difference center and corners.

[zlatkob]

DPReview does a number of things that make me skeptical of these results.  A few months ago they did an autofocus speed comparison that was extremely poorly designed and executed, with different focal lengths used on different cameras and the photographer behaving differently with each camera.  They normally test Canon cameras with one of Canon's cheapest lenses, the 85/1.8.  They've joined the (Sony) bandwagon that promotes 5-stop pushing of horribly underexposed files as a key measure of image quality.  They delete entire threads without explanation.  Etc.

Edited October 29, 2015 by zlatkob

[viramati]

I have the Q which I supposed to have pretty much the same sensor as the SL and I also have the A7rII and FE55 Sonnar.  Now the files out of the Q (of course it has the fixed 28mm lens which is optimised for the sensor) gives me RAW files straight out of camera that have an incredible level of sharpness and actually need for less sharpening in post to equal the Sony A7rII. So I'm sure with the right lens the detail will be there. More worryingly for me is the fact that it shows the same sort of banding issues as the Q which they quote Leica as saying  should be able to be improved in a firmware upgrade. As to the Leica 28-90 zoom I would have though that on centre it should at least perform as well or nearly as well as the Sony/Zeiss FE55

[psss]

is this really a surprise to anyone here?

the last couple of generations of sony sensors are simply the best sensors ever built...this is not fanboy talk, just facts....measurable, visible, just is....

the 35, 55 and 90 e mount sony lenses are among the best lenses ever tested....sharpness, contrast, color...measurable, visible....fact....

is it really a surprise to anyone here that the A7rII with the 55 will just blow away the SL with 24-90 zoom? really? 

 

but that is not the whole story....

i was surprised to see how soft the files looked....not compared to the A7rII but compared to A7II which is a sensor with the same specs....

i got to play and shoot some file with the SL and 24-90 combo and the files i got show no softness at all...i shot everything wide open and the lens looked surprisingly sharp to me....

 

the banding is a real issue...i have it in my files, it is hard to tell how much it would show up in real world situations, it definitely does not show up in a file like the one shown here (dark skin tone, that should really not happen and does not in the files i shot).....i wonder if leica has tweaked something already and the body i shot with had a later FW....but it still shows up if you play with sliders.....i can't make this happen with my sony A7II.....i am starting to wonder if this is a sensor issue which means....not good, not good at all.....can't go back to the drawing board if your sensor has issues.....

 

the banding issue is part of a bigger issue with the SL.....the bottom line is that any sony (or nikon with sony sensor) has crazy DR....it's just a joy to go in and push sliders left and right and still get good detail/color/contrast....it's all there.....even without the banding issue, the SL just does not have this flexibility.....so you can't just overexpose to save the shadows because your highlights are clipping faster already and you can get them back....and underexposing to save the highlights is definitely not an option because of the banding issue.....

 

i am not worried about the quality of the lens...the one i tried was great and i would take it in a second....it is much better then all the canons, sonys, tamrons, nikons i have worked with in this range....and the fact that it goes up to to 90 is awesome.....i guess it might be worrisome that one copy be that bad (as in this test) for this price there should not be such a difference in quality?

 

the sensor is a tricky story....i know i can for with the DR, i have worked with less and all in all i am pleasantly surprised it does have a nice,less clinical "look" reminding me of leaf digital backs......i wish leica would come out and address the banding issue.....you can't come out with 2 cameras this day and age and just ignore something like this.....maybe FW is in the works and will take care of that....

[psss]

DPReview does a number of things that make me skeptical of these results.  A few months ago they did an autofocus speed comparison that was extremely poorly designed and executed, with different focal lengths used on different cameras and the photographer behaving differently with each camera.  They normally test Canon cameras with one of Canon's cheapest lenses, the 85/1.8.  They've joined the (Sony) bandwagon that promotes 5-stop pushing of horribly underexposed files as a key measure of image quality.  They delete entire threads without explanation.  Etc.

this is not a crazy, unrealistic test, banding shows up pretty fast.....

the 85/f1.8 canon is actually one of their sharpest lenses..better then the 85/1.2...

they are owned by amazon now (i believe) and sell all brands....any test shows similar results.....check dxo marks.....although they are sometimes a little too technical for me (there is more just numbers).....the Preview comparator is pretty awesome to a get an idea....and they always have raw files for download.....nothing hidden, no agenda....

[zlatkob]

the 35, 55 and 90 e mount sony lenses are among the best lenses ever tested....sharpness, contrast, color...measurable, visible....fact....

 

You're likely referring to DxO tests, which put these 3 lenses in their "top ten".  But DxO's lens ratings are based on the resolution of the sensor that was used for the test.  While they've tested Sony, Nikon, Sigma & Zeiss lenses on 36mp sensors, Canon lenses were all tested on 22mp or lower sensors.  They apparently haven't tested any Canon lenses on Canon's current 50mp cameras (or haven't published such tests if they did).  Canon and Leica lenses have almost no chance at being in the DxO "best ever" unless they're tested on a 36mp sensor or higher.  If and when DxO tests lenses on Canon's 50mp cameras, that "best ever" lens list will likely get reshuffled, and two of those lenses may easily drop out.  All 3 are excellent lenses, no doubt, just not deserving of some of the extreme praise they're getting.

 

LensRentals.com recently tested Sony's 35, 55 and 90 on an optical bench and found that the 35 & 90 were inferior to Canon's comparable lenses (35 & 100).  Yet, Sony's 35 & 90 are in DxO's "best ever" top ten list, while Canon's 35 & 100 aren't.  

 

Reading DxO you might believe that the Sony 55mm is almost right up their with the Zeiss Otus 55mm (both being in the top ten).  By comparison, Lenscore.org ranks the Otus at #4 while the Sony is around #39 ... not quite in the "best ever" category.

[thighslapper]

Try looking at the RAW comparisons .......... 

 

The differences shown above virtually vanish ....... and any that remain are appropriate for the different sensor resolutions ...... the only true comparison is RAW processing with the same processor and then trying to get the best image possible with adjustments.

 

The default JPEG processing from various cameras is always different and primarily a CHOICE of the manufacturer..... you are not comparing like with like. 

 

Who pushes images 6EV anyway ? It never gives good results ..... and 3 shot HDR is by far a better option. 

 

..... and banding, or lack of, is more a product of firmware image processing and the quality of signal amplification than the fundamental qualities of the processor.

 

You can get rid of most Leica banding in Define2 very easily.

Edited October 29, 2015 by thighslapper

[saxo]

 

is this really a surprise to anyone here?

the last couple of generations of sony sensors are simply the best sensors ever built...this is not fanboy talk, just facts....measurable, visible, just is....

the 35, 55 and 90 e mount sony lenses are among the best lenses ever tested....sharpness, contrast, color...measurable, visible....

 

 

You are shure about the Sony 1,4/35 and the macro 90mm, realy?

 

Look at this: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests

 

You must be lucky....

 

MArtin

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[davewolfs]

The zoom example is so bad I wonder if they got the focus incorrect - it doesn't make sense.  You would think they noticed this and tried again to ensure the test was correct but who knows.  Leaving IS on while doing this is highly possible.  They could have screwed up.  Regardless, having owned Nikons 24-70mm f/2.8 I have no intent of ever owning a zoom like this again.  They are large and not fun to hold all day.  

 

The banding seems odd.