Leica t vs sony a7ii

[bram.verlooy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

 

I have the opertunity to buy either a leica t with the 23mm f2.0 and the visoflex or thz sony a7ii with the 24-70 for about the same money. I am having a really hard time to decide. I love the leica lenses, but the sony sensor might be better.

I would use it mainly for street, landscape photography.

All opinions will be appreciated!

 

Kind regards

Bram

[Belle123]

Hi

I have the opertunity to buy either a leica t with the 23mm f2.0 and the visoflex or thz sony a7ii with the 24-70 for about the same money. I am having a really hard time to decide. I love the leica lenses, but the sony sensor might be better.

I would use it mainly for street, landscape photography.

All opinions will be appreciated!

Kind regards

Bram

You are comparing a full frame 24mp to a cropped 16MP camera. If you already have M lenses, and you like the T interface, then you might really enjoy the T. I don't have a Sony but a lot of people complain about its user interface, saying about the same complaints I have with Canon that I have since tossed. The T is more enjoyable to shoot with, in my opinion. Ditto for all Leica cameras I own, T Q and M. Try before you buy. See what feels right. Going on specs alone, you can't really choose a camera you are going to want to shoot with.

[Advertisement]

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

[luele]

Hi,

 

I had not the a7ii but test the a7r and the problem was the thick sensor glass. All wide-angels M hat smear at the corners and the visoflex in the T was in my opinion much better than the sony build-in viewer. I do'nt know the a7ii sensor but the pictures taken with the T had more Leica feeling. Also the menu in the Sony was disappointing me -  it was not so much comfortable. I test also the f/4 16-35 Sony/Zeiss. It was not bad but the corners are not as good as they could - there was much software compensation with much sharpening to raise the resolution.

 

Perhaps look in the T-shot threat and try it before buy.

[ropo54]

Hi

 

I have the opertunity to buy either a leica t with the 23mm f2.0 and the visoflex or thz sony a7ii with the 24-70 for about the same money. I am having a really hard time to decide. I love the leica lenses, but the sony sensor might be better.

I would use it mainly for street, landscape photography.

All opinions will be appreciated!

 

Kind regards

Bram

 

 

The autofocus on the T is a bit slow and that may impact its use for street photography.  

 

Full frame vs. cropped frame.  

 

And you get the wider 24mm. from the Sony rather than the effective 36mm perspective with the 23mm Leica; 

 

Leica lens is probably a bit faster in low light and on a controlled shot might even have more IQ.

 

Finally, the T interface is quite different - not that the Sony is any fun to use! - and you should look at the T first and see how comfortable you feel with it. Many love it, some do not.

Edited September 10, 2016 by ropo54

[dpitt]

I must admit I have neither. But I experimented a lot with non Leica bodies and Leica M or r lenses. Results are in most cases better copared to native lenses, but if you know what theLeica M or R8/DMR can do with the same lenses, it is still a compromise.

 

Having slow autofocus would not bother me for street... I often use manual focus with zone focus anyway.

[tom0511]

I have used both.

Technically maybe the Sony offers more (FF, Viefinder, faster AF).

However I really do like/prefer the T for its handling and simple user interface, I also like the output (very good skin color). The T lenses are very good and more compact than SOny lenses.

I would really recommend to handle both before deciding.

 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I had not the a7ii but test the a7r and the problem was the thick sensor glass. All wide-angels M hat smear at the corners and the visoflex in the T was in my opinion much better than the sony build-in viewer. I do'nt know the a7ii sensor but the pictures taken with the T had more Leica feeling. Also the menu in the Sony was disappointing me -  it was not so much comfortable. I test also the f/4 16-35 Sony/Zeiss. It was not bad but the corners are not as good as they could - there was much software compensation with much sharpening to raise the resolution.

 

Perhaps look in the T-shot threat and try it before buy.

Don't judge the Sony by its performance with M lenses - unless you intend to use them. Wide angle M lenses that cause this effect were designed for the M, not the A7, and the sensor structures are different. That is not the fault either of Sony or of Leica.

[luele]

Don't judge the Sony by its performance with M lenses - unless you intend to use them. Wide angle M lenses that cause this effect were designed for the M, not the A7, and the sensor structures are different. That is not the fault either of Sony or of Leica.

 

 

.. it is not going about faults, it is going about experiences with the cameras. Perhaps it could be imported when you buy an M-lens later. And second: I was not overwhelmed from the Zeiss 16-35 f/4 in the corners. Perhaps it is a similar problem with the thick sensor glass. It was better than with a M 18 or 24 mm M-lens but still far away from perfect also a perfect Wide-angle Zoom like the 14-24 Nikon.

[JonPB]

Most people today replace their cameras more often than they replace their lenses, but we still tend to stay within a given camera system. Buying into a system based on its glass has always been good advice, never more than it is today. There's a huge difference in size and use cases between a compact, moderately wide prime and a large, standard zoom. So I'd say that difference would be decisive in this case.

 

Between the cameras, I'd say there are four differences worth looking at:

 

Does the Sony offer features you want that the T does not offer? The Sony offers lots of features, and while most of them are genuinely useful in highly specific applications, the result of offering all of them in one package is an ungainly interface. Even using my A7 II on a daily basis, I've never grown comfortable with using it. I seem to always press the wrong button or turn a dial in the wrong direction. (I should add that I'm very tech literate and am generally a gadget early adopter, so I'm not someone who thinks of anything more than the M's interface to be useless bloat.) The Sony can be made to do exactly what you want it to, but only after a bit of wrestling with it. The T, on the other hand, looks quite elegant, and while I haven't used it I would certainly prefer it on the theory that it can't be worse.

 

What sort of light do you usually shoot in? I'm convinced that the Sony is designed to be ideal in low-light, handheld situations. Its Bayer filter is thin, passing as much as light as possible through; its sensor is large; and its image stabilization is quite effective at minimizing (but not eliminating) handheld blurring. On the other hand, I'm convinced that Leica's designs are optimized for better color and tonality, using thicker Bayer filters to better differentiate kinds of light. In base ISO sensitivity, I'd expect to prefer the T's sensor. Yes, it is smaller and has fewer pixels, so you resolve less detail upon close inspection. But viewers only inspect images closely when they're already drawn to the image, and getting color and tonality right makes all the difference on first impressions. The 16 megapixel APS-C sensor is ubiquitous because it is more than enough for more uses and in most shooting situations. There are certainly valid arguments for wanting larger and/or higher resolution sensors, but I think the T represents a good balance.

 

Does size matter? Looking at camera plus lens size, the Sony FE system is simply much larger than a comparable T system. I cannot say whether that makes a difference to you -- some prefer larger kits because they are easily to grapple with, while others prefer smaller systems that are easier to carry and pack. But my impression is that to get equivalent quality of the 18-56 Leica lens for an A7 would require Sony's GM line, which is a much larger difference than between just the cameras themselves (although the GM gives you quite a bit of additional speed, which may or may not be important).

 

Does cost matter? Leica is expensive, period. Sony is more cost-conscious with its design optimizations. Personally, I've fully moved into the camp where it is better to buy what you really want once than to buy lots of stuff that is incrementally better, but everyone has their own individual finances and values.

 

I'd get the T, but would fully understand why someone else should get the A7 instead.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[earleygallery]

You're comparing a small 2 seater sportscar with a large family estate car.

 

It's impossible for anyone here to tell you which is better for your needs, from the little you've told us.

 

Choose the one that's best for you.

[Einst_Stein]

Hi

 

I have the opertunity to buy either a leica t with the 23mm f2.0 and the visoflex or thz sony a7ii with the 24-70 for about the same money. I am having a really hard time to decide. I love the leica lenses, but the sony sensor might be better.

I would use it mainly for street, landscape photography.

All opinions will be appreciated!

 

Kind regards

Bram

 

 I have Sony a7RII + Contax N (17~35mm + 24~85mm + 70~300mm), recently my wife got Leica T + 18~55mm kit and she is planning to get the 11~23mm + 55~135mm soon. So I had the chance to play with both systems.  I also have Leica M9 + a set of M lenses. But Leica M9 is very different from the Sony A7 or Leica T in term of handling in my experience. It is very unfair or improper to compare Leica M with anything else unless you already appreciate it.

 

I had a long resistance to Sony A7RII though there are a lot or praise about it, till I saw it's the chance to bring back the life of Contax N lenses.  I had some problems with the combination of A7 and Contax N due to their incompatible power systems. Sony A7 is a 7.2V system while Contax N is 6V, after some struggling and hacking on the A7 to Contax N adapter, for the moment it is in peace. How's the long term is yet to watch.

 

Now back to T and A7 in terms of IQ. I am biased to favor the bigger format since I played with medium format. I found the game is quite different in the digital world. In the film world, the film size can easily override the strength in the lens. But in digital sensor, the strength of the film size is equivalent to the light gathering capability per pixel untill the number of pixel matters. I found the light gathering capability dominating the IQ untill the printing size reached the pixel count limit.  Where is that print size limit perhaps depends on your printing habit or need.

 

For me, my largest print size is 24"x26". This is the largest size my printer can print, and is also the largest size to go with economical print house, such as Adoramapix. Within this size, I found the per pixel capability is still more important than the total pixel count. However, this does not imply the Sony A7RII's per pixel capability is inferior to Leica T. I found they are quite similar. So at this point, they are on par.  It's just that I don't see the advantage of the larger pixel count on A7RII yet. --- Well sometimes I do, it's when I need to heavily crop the image. In such case  A7RII wins.   I don't see this is a relevant strength, but may be you do,

 

What surprised me is the color rendering. I guess this is something to do with the camera's firmware as well as the RAW converter. I use Capture-1 for A7RII and Lightroom for Leica T. I think after sharpening the skill to use the RAW converter, it should be able to match one with the other, but I am not there. I use them almost in the out-of-the-box mode.  In this condition, I am more happy with Leica T. A7RII seems more difficult to handle. The best way to show what I meant would be post some pictures side by side. I am having a trip to Glacier National Park, I will take both and bring back some photos worth to show.  

Edited September 20, 2016 by Einst_Stein

[rijve044]

I am anxious to hear your conclusions.

Did some comparisons with Leica T with Super Elmar M 21 (31mm)mm and Leica Q 28 mm.

Couldn't see differences in street scenes regarding sharpness, contrast at 100% from

bricks, roof tiles at 50 metres.

[Belle123]

I have Sony a7RII + Contax N (17~35mm + 24~85mm + 70~300mm), recently my wife got Leica T + 18~55mm kit and she is planning to get the 11~23mm + 55~135mm soon. So I had the chance to play with both systems.  I also have Leica M9 + a set of M lenses. But Leica M9 is very different from the Sony A7 or Leica T in term of handling in my experience. It is very unfair or improper to compare Leica M with anything else unless you already appreciate it.

 

I had a long resistance to Sony A7RII though there are a lot or praise about it, till I saw it's the chance to bring back the life of Contax N lenses.  I had some problems with the combination of A7 and Contax N due to their incompatible power systems. Sony A7 is a 7.2V system while Contax N is 6V, after some struggling and hacking on the A7 to Contax N adapter, for the moment it is in peace. How's the long term is yet to watch.

 

Now back to T and A7 in terms of IQ. I am biased to favor the bigger format since I played with medium format. I found the game is quite different in the digital world. In the film world, the film size can easily override the strength in the lens. But in digital sensor, the strength of the film size is equivalent to the light gathering capability per pixel untill the number of pixel matters. I found the light gathering capability dominating the IQ untill the printing size reached the pixel count limit.  Where is that print size limit perhaps depends on your printing habit or need.

 

For me, my largest print size is 24"x26". This is the largest size my printer can print, and is also the largest size to go with economical print house, such as Adoramapix. Within this size, I found the per pixel capability is still more important than the total pixel count. However, this does not imply the Sony A7RII's per pixel capability is inferior to Leica T. I found they are quite similar. So at this point, they are on par.  It's just that I don't see the advantage of the larger pixel count on A7RII yet. --- Well sometimes I do, it's when I need to heavily crop the image. In such case  A7RII wins.   I don't see this is a relevant strength, but may be you do,

 

What surprised me is the color rendering. I guess this is something to do with the camera's firmware as well as the RAW converter. I use Capture-1 for A7RII and Lightroom for Leica T. I think after sharpening the skill to use the RAW converter, it should be able to match one with the other, but I am not there. I use them almost in the out-of-the-box mode.  In this condition, I am more happy with Leica T. A7RII seems more difficult to handle. The best way to show what I meant would be post some pictures side by side. I am having a trip to Glacier National Park, I will take both and bring back some photos worth to show.

 

The OP was/is considering the A72 vs the T, not the A7RII. Different animals. But the fact you compare the A7RII to the T is a big compliment to the T!

[Ecaton]

And what are you using today? Besides price and the fact that one can take pictures with both the two options you mention have very little in common.

[almoore]

I have the opertunity to buy either a leica t with the 23mm f2.0 and the visoflex or thz sony a7ii with the 24-70 for about the same money

 

The Sony, once it's set up properly, is a much more capable camera than the Leica.

 

Arguably, it's not as pretty as the T, but it's more practical in every way. I'd suggest teaming it with the very compact Sony/Zeiss 35mm f2.8 rather than the more expensive zoom.

[Belle123]

The Sony, once it's set up properly, is a much more capable camera than the Leica.

 

Arguably, it's not as pretty as the T, but it's more practical in every way. I'd suggest teaming it with the very compact Sony/Zeiss 35mm f2.8 rather than the more expensive zoom.

Well, here is another take on this. I have had several similar cameras to the Sony, lots of buttons and confusing menus. I usually play with them a bit then forget about them, then pick them up and have to relearn their confusing buttons again...use for a bit, put down....repeat.....and they sit growing dust and unused. No fun to use. All my Leicas, and especially the T, are so well made and thought out in ergonomics, they get used constantly. A well thought out camera makes a big difference. If you enjoy your camera, you use it. So, if buying a Sony camera that won't be used is practical, to each his own. Not going to be a practical camera for everyone.