M10 and Sony A7R III

[lik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One more:

With the M-RF (and the SL too) focussing is definitely more accurate than with the Sony focus peaking. 

[onasj]

Here are some shots of the new 75 Noctilux at f/1.25 on the M10 vs the a7riii:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/oiqb6xj8338zuo4/AABdSn2uHBANQ-E9Z3DZszcpa?dl=0

 

To my eye, the take-home message is that a lens of such high resolving power provides much more detail on the a7riii sensor than the M10 sensor.

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

Here are some shots of the new 75 Noctilux at f/1.25 on the M10 vs the a7riii:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/oiqb6xj8338zuo4/AABdSn2uHBANQ-E9Z3DZszcpa?dl=0

 

To my eye, the take-home message is that a lens of such high resolving power provides much more detail on the a7riii sensor than the M10 sensor.

 

42/24 times the detail, in fact.

[HawkeyeHo]

I’ve gone on shoots where I carried both out together. That way I didn’t have to swop lenses. I’ve been pretty happy with that combo. The noise handling on the A7R3 is even better than the Nikon D850. And when doing street the tiltling lcd allows me to compose and shoot wide open with well focussed shots without having to resort to zone focusing.

[Chaemono]

I’m starting to post test shots with the 75 Noctilux on the M10. I’m very happy with 24 times the detail.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-PcSTJ7/

[Renatus]

I have both cameras and use M lenses. In usage they are not really comparable IMHO, I much prefer the M10. 

I use the Sony A7Riii with longer M lenses with the TechArt Pro adapter, to compensate for my eyesight and to help me catch moving subjects. That combo works very well, surprisingly (some loss of resolution at the edges perhaps). 

http://techartpro.com/product/techart-pro-leica-m-sony-e-autofocus-adapter/

So, I'd say the cameras are complementary. 

[OR120]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I went through 13 steps of my Leica-Sony bigamy: 

1. Having M240 buying a A7RII as a second body - enthusiastic with the Sony. I already had two Zeiss Batis Lenses from my first A7R. 
2. Finding out that I hardly ever use the Batis Lenses. Instead I had both with Leica M lenses. 
3. Finding out that the A7RII showed a little bit more detail on an APO Cron 50. 
4. Figuring out which Leica M lenses work well with the A7RII. Better than with the predecessors but not all of them really well. 
5. Finding out that apart from my APO Cron 50 and APO Telyt 135 very few lenses show a noticeable difference in resolution. And the two APO’s showed this resolution difference only at a 1:1 or 2:1 magnification on the screen. 
6. Seeing that also with these lenses the Leica M pics gave a more three dimensional impression.
7. Having the experience always feeling somehow restricted in choice of camera-lens combo. Because:
8. Finding in postproduction always annoying that I first needed not to forget the profiling in LR. Which also means figuring out which one of all the „unknown lenses“ LR showed really was mounted on the Sony. Annoyed to find out that the additional work afterwards is far more than just a few mouse clicks. 
9. Seeing that the color rendering is different - so needed that in one series adjustment between Leica and Sony needed. 
10. Watching my own behavior - automatically using the Leica (M240 as well as after change to an M10) by far more often and leaving the A7RII behind. 
11. Learning that after a time no use I always forget some aspects of the fiddling handling (focus magnification, peaking, unintentionally turning the exposure +/- wheel etc.)
12. Finding that for my most used lens by far (Noct 50) the Sony is useless. 
13. Since I always like to be with two bodies selling the A7RII, the two Batis and meanwhile feeling happy with two M’s instead. 

Just a very individual but real experience.

Best regards

lik

 

thank you for your detailed explanation (working through the Sony) in how you came to your two M system---- interesting path

[wolfloid]

The A7RIII is amazing with Leica glass. I initially got the Sony to mate with Leica glass as a light travel kit. Than I fell for an M10 as my first rangefinder.

I appreciate the shooting process with M10. It’s just difficult to shoot with at night so I use it with the visoflex.

Where I find the Sony has a few advantages over the M10’s

1. High ISO performance. I shoot a lot at night.

2. Better EVF

3. Titling LCD for waistlevel or Low level shots. More practical than the visoflex

4. IBIS

5. Very high magnification for very precise focusing.

6. Voigtlander VM adaptor allows for closer focusing of M glass.

7. Complete silent shooting.

 

I’m keeping both

 

 

That all sounds good. How is it in practice to focus Leica 28mm - 50mm lenses on the A7RIII? I know that it can be done accurately with magnification, but that is a little slow. Is it possible to focus fast and accurately without losing the complete field of view, by using the sharpening shimmer that one can get when one turns the JPEG setting up to maximum sharpness, for instance? Or is the viewfinder now good enough to focus quickly by eye without using any aids? The usefulness of the Sony with Leica lenses seems to me to turn on this issue.

[lik]

From my experience - but only on A7RII - without magnification the shimmer was hardly ever accurate enough to rely on. Too much shimmer on areas which in the end were not exactly in focus. I always needed the magnifying - which was a bit annoying....

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[HawkeyeHo]

That all sounds good. How is it in practice to focus Leica 28mm - 50mm lenses on the A7RIII? I know that it can be done accurately with magnification, but that is a little slow. Is it possible to focus fast and accurately without losing the complete field of view, by using the sharpening shimmer that one can get when one turns the JPEG setting up to maximum sharpness, for instance? Or is the viewfinder now good enough to focus quickly by eye without using any aids? The usefulness of the Sony with Leica lenses seems to me to turn on this issue.

If you are shooting Wide open you will need to use focus magnification for optimum sharpness. Sony focus peaking is not accurate enough for sharpness. I do not find this any much slower than using the range finder. The fastest way to shoot is still zone focussing.....that is if you can estimate distances well.

Edited April 1, 2018 by HawkeyeHo

[HawkeyeHo]

That all sounds good. How is it in practice to focus Leica 28mm - 50mm lenses on the A7RIII? I know that it can be done accurately with magnification, but that is a little slow. Is it possible to focus fast and accurately without losing the complete field of view, by using the sharpening shimmer that one can get when one turns the JPEG setting up to maximum sharpness, for instance? Or is the viewfinder now good enough to focus quickly by eye without using any aids? The usefulness of the Sony with Leica lenses seems to me to turn on this issue.

If you are shooting Wide open you will need to use focus magnification for optimum sharpness. Focus peaking is not accurate enough. I do not find this any much slower than using the range finder. The fastest way to shoot is still zone focussing.....that is if you can estimate distances well.

[darkinners]

Yes, I use both A7R III and Leica M10

 

M10 more of a walking around camera for me and I carry it everyday (with 35lux fle)

 

Sony for more specific shots, I don't carry it everyday but when I do carry the Sony system, they will be in the pelican case (with bunches of lens, strobe, tripod and stuffs)

 

[kimaldis]

I can't help you with the II but I just recently moved to M10 from A7RII. I can talk about that a bit and it probably won't be far off.

 

I found the Sony altogether a more forgiving camera than the M10. I like using the M10 and the results I get with it but I have to take more care, be more precise, particularly with exposure settings. The Sony's dynamic range is so wide you can get away with murder; shoot directly into the sun, scenes with massive backlight on auto exposure and it just eats it up where the M10  you'd have to compensate manually.

 

I also found the Leica isn't so good at calculating exposure when you start framing more than half to two thirds sky in the shot; it under exposes. The Sony would deal better with those situations.

 

The obvious difference is autofocus and there's not a lot to say about that. Except for low light work, maybe. I've been doing a lot of available light work in pubs and clubs. Seriously low. The Sony autofocus is just awesome in low light, it just latches on and bang. The Leica, I struggle with the rangefinder in low light because I can't see the split. I can guess it, to a degree but at f1.5 and around it's a bit hit and miss.

 

I haven't done any real testing but I'm pretty sure the Sony sensor gives sharper results at low light levels. Probably something to do with its massive resolution. Make no bones, the Sony sensor is the better all round but perversely I like the quality of image I get from the M10. I have a long background in digital VFX and I was always of the opinion that in the digital domain you could make an image look how you wanted but there's a quality to M10 shots that I'm not sure I could replicate on other cameras. In particular it renders shadow areas beautifully. Very filmic, reminds me of the feel I used to get with an old 6x6 Hasselblad.

 

The thing I didn't like about the Sony, and was ultimately the reason I bought the Leica, was that there's no depth of field scale or distance marking on the lens. Zone focusing is more or less impossible. You can set focus, to a degree, but it knocks off very easily.

 

The Sony is a great street camera - so is the M10, don't get me wrong, but the Sony is, as I've said, tolerant and forgiving. It's about the closest I've come to a quality point and shoot, which is what you want for street work. Also, I swear to god, Leicas make you invisible.

Web shots, I know, don't really tell you a lot but if you're looking for comparisons, my stream on Instagram. Anything before December 2017 is Sony, anything after is the M10. look for account kim_aldis.

[kimaldis]

 Sony focus peaking is not accurate enough for sharpness.

For what it's worth, I agree. I had the opportunity to use an Olympus FE. Its peaking is much better, it snaps in and out where the Sony's peaked over a much wider range. I couldn't use it.

[proenca]

Well, just depends on what you are looking for with a Sony camera.

 

I went through quite an ordeal to get where I am today, with the M10 :

 

1. Taking photos since .... well, dozen of years, when digital was not an option and then bought my first digital camera ever, on launch date - a Fuji S2Pro
2. Traded it for a Nikon D100, because, everyone knows that Nikon is better. It wasn't
3. Pro bodies do make fine pictures because, well, of reasons. Traded for Nikon D1x , which to be honest, I love and still have it today - just doesnt take better pictures - however, it was a paramount difference in terms of focusing
4. Nikon D2h was out and because it was newer, takes better pictures. Bought one. Got a bit down with the 4mp.
5. Canon was hot and because of that, I went with the 5D - just hated the thing, couldnt live with Canon ergonomics. Did the obvious thing :
6. Bought a Canon 1DS because pro bodies are superb. They are, But also you need a mule to carry them around. Not that I had any ( mules ), which lead to...
7. Started leaving the camera at home - again, mules are not a common sight where I lived at the time - London. Go figure
8. Went to a camera shop, Rathborne place and was looking around and one camera caught my eye and the store manager ( smart guy ) saw my look and said - its a Leica M7. Leave your Canon kit here and you can borrow it for the weekend and if you like it, we talk then about a trade in. Seems a perfect size camera to carry around ( lens was a 35mm F2 ASPH ) and decided to take it for fun, knowing that film was not in my life for ages and was cool to have a Leica for the weekend - and took the offer
9. Monday I was selling my kidney and trading my Canon gear for a Leica M7 and a couple of lenses
10. Leica ethos was getting into me, loving the RF thingy and traded the M7 for MP
11. M8 arrived in the scene - bought one on launch day. Love and hate relationship - afterall, it was a bit buggy, jammed all the time and had to take the battery out to reset the camera from time to time
12. M9 arrived and bought one in launch date. Black Paint and still have it today - all brassed and banged, but still kicks out lovely Velvia like pictures
13. My first kid was born, wanted a mirrorless, fast AF camera - so I bought a Sony A7R
14. AF is buggy, battery life is like Donald Trump ( just stupid ) so I traded teh A7R for a A7RII
15. After a while, AF still sucks, could sometimes use the M9 faster than the A7RII and AF, so decided to put the A7RII for sale
16. Got a great deal on a MD262 - bought it and sold the A7RII
17. Love the MD to bits on its ethos but never ever got to love its colors. So I found a great deal on a Leica SL and jumped to the SL.
18. SL is fantastic but.... its no M. And M its a bug. So I found a great deal on a M246 ( mono ) and traded the SL
19. 246 is one of the most enjoyable cameras I had until today - loved it, although had a very hard learning curve how to process its files to my taste - files come very flat and boring, need a lot of "spice" to really show its potential.
20. Life is good but.... relying on the M9 for color is not good - specially that the M9 developed the famous sensor crack - went to wetzlar to be replaced.
21. In the meantime, got a direct trade M246 to M10.
22. New kid is born
23. "oh I have a new kid, i must have AF". Sold the M10 ( still at a profit ) and bought a Fuji GFX50S
24. Fuji had/has freaking lovely colours, but few major flaws : 1 - it is NOT supported in Capture One, only in Lightroom. I greatly prefer C1 and dislike Lightroom. 2 -actually it shines in term of colors, on an independant software called Iridient. But if C1 is worse than Lightroom on DAM ( assset managing ) , Iridient is a joke. also the weight ( although very light for a MFD , had a Leica S2 and Hasselblads and the Fuji is light... but very heavy with a good lens vs a Leica ) started to weighn down.
25. Got a fantastic buy offer for the GFX, lost zero money on it.
26. Went to Leica Shop Vienna and bought a new M10.
27. End of story

 

So it took me, more or less , 27 steps to get where I am.

 

Why there is no substitute for M ? because there isn't. its a unique, precision and ethos that you do not find anywhere else. I can actually focus faster with my M's than any AF camera. I said focus, not tracking. Once the M gets into your skin, its hard to go anywhere else.

[blacksinner]

its two different system though. why would anyone compare? M is a rangefinder camera. its just different. maybe you want to compare to an SL. thats a good rival. SL and A7iii is more comparable. M system is on their own league.

[indergaard]

After comparing an M10 and an A7rIII with Sony/Zeiss glass for a while now, I have come to the simple conclusion that resolution and DR doesn't equal good image quality. Yes, the resolution of the A7rIII in optimal settings with matched glass is great. And the DR is nice. Although honestly I rarely see much of a real-world difference in DR between the A7rIII and the M10. The high DR of the Sony if anything just makes the images look flat and artificial.

 

Even though the A7rIII has a higher resolution sensor, the lenses are still not up to par with the Leica glass I have. The Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 vs the Summilux 50 ASPH for example:

An image from the M10 at f/5.6 focused at infinity with the Lux, upressed to 42MP is almost just as detailed as the A7rIII with the FE 55mm. In the corners, the M10 + Lux combo is actually sharper. The Lux has no visible vignetting or fringing at this aperture, while the FE55 still struggles with noticeable visible vignetting, which again causes noisy corners on the A7rIII. The FE55 also struggles with purple fringing even at f/5.6 in some situations. The M10+Lux combo displays far crisper images (micro-contrast probably) also, and the images have a more pleasing three-dimensional look. Basically the M10+Lux combo's images look much more alive. These are all "small" differences in the grand scheme of things when compared to color and overall rendering, which is far more pleasing on the M10. The images from the A7rIII look flat, lifeless and sterile when compared to the images I get from the M10.

 

It doesn't matter which raw converter I use (Latest LR Classic CC and Capture One 11). Even if I match the WB settings and color profiles (Adobe Color for example), the images from the M10 has a certain crispy glow and life to them. Far more micro-contrast, but still smoother and more pleasing. The FE55 looks contrasty and harsh by comparison. Basically the images from the M10 requires very little post-processing. To get photos from the A7rIII to look as good as the files from the M10 I have to do some real work on the raw files, and I still can't match them.... Post-processing is something I don't want to spend my available time on!

 

Yes. The A7rIII is technically the superb camera by technological metrics. But that's the only category it wins. It might have IBIS and all sorts of things, but none of that beats having the exposure triangle visible at my fingertips without having to look at an LCD or EVF.

 

And regardless how nice the Sony's EVF is, it is still an EVF, and cannot compare to an optical rangefinder. It just cant. I even prefer my wife's 5DII's OVF to the A7rIII's EVF.

 

WYSIWYG is overrated, unless the photographer doesn't know what they are doing.

 

I didn't even bother to compare the FE 35/2.8 to the Cron 35/2, or the FE 28/2 to the Cron 28/2. There is no point. The Sony lenses aren't anywhere near in the same league. To get equal IQ to small Leica glass in the Sony world you have to go big - DSLR big. Lenses like the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ZA, Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4, and so on... But then I'd rather use my small Leica glass... The small glass on the Sony, with the exception of the FE 55, doesn't even come close.

 

And then there is the usability issues on the Sony:

 

1. Remember to turn EFCS OFF if your shutter speed is 1/1000 or faster, or get really nasty bokeh or weirdly shaped highlights

2. Remember to turn EFCS ON if your shutter speed gets low to avoid shutter shock

3. Electronic shutter distorts movement, as it reads the data of the sensor at about 1/15-1/30s

4. The camera sometimes makes all sorts of sounds after it has been turned off (it can even fire off the shutter after being turned off to detect dead pixels.. totally random)

5. After very gentle use, the plastic side doors are starting to bulge

6. Pixel shift is useless. It adds visible artifacts in dark/black areas of images (uncompressed, compressed, 14 or 12 bit, doesn't matter).

7. Remember to turn IBIS off if you are panning a shot

8. Remember to turn IBIS on if you are using slow shutter speeds

9. Remember to turn IBIS off if you are using high shutter speeds (as it can affect the sharpness of images taken at high shutter speeds, especially if the camera is being moved)

 

 

To use the A7rIII you kind of have to enable and disable features all the time based on your shooting conditions, or else... And it's just becoming annoying to have to remember all this all the time to get the most out of the Sony. I've almost considered writing all of this down on a note and glue it to the camera itself so I don't forget.

Edited June 6, 2018 by indergaard

[nlk10010]

-snip-

 

I also found the Leica isn't so good at calculating exposure when you start framing more than half to two thirds sky in the shot; it under exposes. The Sony would deal better with those situations.

 

-snip-

 

+100. I almost keep +7 EC dialed in on my M10 whenever I'm dealing with more than half sky.

 

I am also struggling with the decision as to an alternative street/general purpose camera. My eyes are not great so, while I CAN focus the M10 it takes me a little longer so there are many situations in which auto-focus would serve me better. I have an Olympus E-M1 II, which is well suited for wildlife and other action shots, but above about 800 noise starts to be a problem and it's too big to use as a casual street shooter when I go into NYC. I also have a Sony RX1R II which is a gem of a camera offering much of the advantages of the A7 III (and A7RIII) in a tiny package, but I am not good at getting in peoples' faces and the fixed lens is limiting. The A7 (whether it be III, RIII) and A9 are kind of big for the street but certainly not outlandishly so, I'm also considering a Fuji (X-E3) as the output quality seems very close to the M10's (which I love).

 

Agreed, I'll be thrilled if this is the worst problem I have, but I'd love to be able to settle on a compact auto-focus street shooter with interchangeable lenses.

Edited June 6, 2018 by nlk10010

[indergaard]

+100. I almost keep +7 EC dialed in on my M10 whenever I'm dealing with more than half sky.

 

I am also struggling with the decision as to an alternative street/general purpose camera. My eyes are not great so, while I CAN focus the M10 it takes me a little longer so there are many situations in which auto-focus would serve me better. I have an Olympus E-M1 II, which is well suited for wildlife and other action shots, but above about 800 noise starts to be a problem and it's too big to use as a casual street shooter when I go into NYC. I also have a Sony RX1R II which is a gem of a camera offering much of the advantages of the A7 III (and A7RIII) in a tiny package, but I am not good at getting in peoples' faces and the fixed lens is limiting. The A7 (whether it be III, RIII) and A9 are kind of big for the street but certainly not outlandishly so, I'm also considering a Fuji (X-E3) as the output quality seems very close to the M10's (which I love).

 

Agreed, I'll be thrilled if this is the worst problem I have, but I'd love to be able to settle on a compact auto-focus street shooter with interchangeable lenses.

 

 

You can also just half press the shutter button on the area you want to expose for, and re-compose. There will be a little red dot that shows up in the viewfinder next to the shutter speed when the exposure is locked. Center-weighted meters, as the M10 uses, all behave this way. Expose for the subject, re-compose so that half the sky is in the frame, shoot. Much quicker and easier than using the exposure compensation dial.

 

An X-E3 or X-Pro2 with the Fuji 35/2 or 50/2 sounds like an excellent choice for you if you want something with a bit more reach than a 35mm, and with AF, and a silent shutter. Those lenses will be the equivalent of a 50mm or 75mm in FF. And they are both excellent lenses, especially for their price!

Edited June 6, 2018 by indergaard

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nlk10010]

You can also just half press the shutter button on the area you want to expose for, and re-compose. There will be a little red dot that shows up in the viewfinder next to the shutter speed when the exposure is locked. Center-weighted meters, as the M10 uses, all behave this way. Expose for the subject, re-compose so that half the sky is in the frame, shoot. Much quicker and easier than using the exposure compensation dial.

 

An X-E3 or X-Pro2 with the Fuji 35/2 or 50/2 sounds like an excellent choice for you if you want something with a bit more reach than a 35mm, and with AF, and a silent shutter. Those lenses will be the equivalent of a 50mm or 75mm in FF. And they are both excellent lenses, especially for their price!

 

Right, well, there are center-weighted schemes that I've found not to be quite as bad as the M10's, but of course center-weighted metering in general was created precisely to correct for the problems of averaging metering, one of which was underexposure of this precise sort.

 

Modern matrix metering is far better than any center-weighted scheme, including Leica's.

 

But I don't really care; yes, half-press and hold is fine (and is alluded to in the M10's manual), but using EC doesn't bother me in the least, really. I so love the M10's rendering that having to make these kinds of adjustments is of no consequence to me (YMMV, of course). 

 

Thank you for the post and thanks for your thoughts on the Fujis. I just bought an X-E3 with an 18-55mm lens, I've downloaded sample raw files from this camera and frankly I like the look almost as much as the M10's. I also tried the store demo X-E3 out and the size, handling and focus acquisition speed were fine (stipulating to the fact the testing wasn't comprehensive). Frankly, I had tried the CL and I loved those files as well but the Fuji's, to my eyes, are almost as good at a quarter of the price.

Edited June 6, 2018 by nlk10010