Jump to content

M10 + 75 Noct vs. A7RIII + 75 Noct vs. A7RIII + 85 GM


onasj

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(Following up my post in the Iceland thread with this separate thread since the discussion has moved away from Iceland):

 

JTLeica asked:

"I dont mean this as a dig, but I would love to know what you do with your A7RIII images that you cannot do with your Leica images... Being someone that shot an A7RII for two years."

 

First, to reiterate what I posted above and many times before in the forum, I love my Leica, the plurality of my disposable income goes to Leica, and I shoot more often with my M10 or my CL than with any other camera (including my phone).  In fact I brought my M10 with me into work today, like I do most days, whether or not I expect to run into any apparent photogenic subject matter.

 

But I am also objective enough to call it like I see it, and from my perspective—consistent with many other observations and data, including some postings in LUF—the A7rIII offers some real *imaging* advantages.  That doesn't mean that the a7rIII is overall a "better" camera (I carry the M10 daily, not the A7rIII, after all), as it's not so black and white.  Size, fun factor, and other considerations weigh in as well.  

 

But since you asked about imaging, here are some advantages I've seen with the A7rIII over the M10, which includes many comparisons using the best native lenses for each system, as well as using the same M lenses on both the M10 and the A7rIII:

 

1) Cropping capability and detail.  As you might expect, having 42 MP vs. 24 MP means you have significantly more cropping flexibility and can show more detail.  Here are two photos taken with the A7rIII that are a 10 MP crop and a 16 MP crop out of the 42 MP original:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hfrphgligas10s/Sony%20a7riii%2010.3%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdnqbuf3yboik1d/Sony%20a7riii%2016%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0

 

There's not much else in the original frames that I liked.  If I had taken the same photos with a 24 MP camera, even ignoring the other imaging advantages listed below, the same crops would have been 5.9 MP (6" wide printed at 300 dpi), and 9 MP (10" wide @ 300 dpi). I appreciate that for some viewing or printing formats, even a 5.9 MP image is fine.  But for printing beyond small size, or viewing on a 15 MP display like the 5K monitor that I'm using now, it's not ideal.

 

As a related point, 42 MP also helps when capturing details is important.  Here's a comparison of a test subject:

 

A7rIII + 85 GM @ f/5.6:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/inb8frdf7hkf8we/85%20GM%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0

 

M10 + 75 Noctilux @ f/5.6 (about the sharpest a Leica M lens gets):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oru79iyb5alqbrt/75%20Noct%20at%205.6%20on%20M10%20center.jpg?dl=0

 

A7rIII + 75 Noctilux @ f/5.6:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrcdu83gcs7fi9o/75%20Noct%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0

 

To my eye, the A7rIII shots capture much more detail, either using the native Sony lens, or using the 75 Noctilux. 

 

2) Noise and ISO performance.  Consistent with other reports, at higher ISOs (>5000), the combination of a brighter frame for the A7rIII even at the same ISO setting as the M10 (see other LUF posts that have extensively discussed this topic), and an inherently less noisy sensor, I get about 1.5 stops more ISO latitude with the A7rIII than with the M10.  What might be less publicized is that even at lower ISOs I see substantially less noise with the A7rIII.  Here are two images of the same subject using the 75 noctilux.  The M10 photo was taken at ISO 800, and the A7rIII photo was taken at ISO 1000.  Yet the sensor noise in the out-of-focus wall areas is actually lower for the A7rIII photo than the M10 photo:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wa65iut21uoslcc/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20M10%20center.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rp6y0x4unk0hs1t/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20Sony%20a7riii%20center.JPG?dl=0

 

3) Color.  The M10 photos using AWB generally come out more yellow than real life, while the A7rIII photos using AWB are usually closer to real life in my experience.  The wall color in the above two photos is a good example—the actual color of the wall is very close to the A7rIII capture (rust-colored, not ochre-orange).  I routinely fix this in post, but I'd rather not have to.

 

4) Raw file headroom at the top end.  The M10's DNG files leave almost no room for highlight recovery.  The raw files of the A7rIII, like the various Nikons's I've shot in the past (D700, D800E, D810, D810A, D4, D4s) all offer quite a bit more room for highlight recovery.

 

Again, for most situations I enjoy shooting the M10 more than any other camera, which is why I use the M10 more frequently and own more M10 gear than Sony gear.  But my love for Leica does not cross into blind fanaticism (despite what my wife says!), and when shooting under conditions for which the above imagining strengths of the A7rIII are critical, I take the Sony instead.

 

These findings are also reasons why I'm excited by the rumors that Leica continues to release new full-frame cameras.  If the rumored C-M has a sensor and/or software that addresses any of the above issues, I will buy it, along with its native lenses.  

Edited by onasj
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside: there has been some discussion of whether or not Leica lenses 50 mm or longer in focal length can still yield sharp images, even in the corners of the frame, on the A7rIII given the much thicker sensor stack of the latter compared to that of the M10.  I shot this test subject in the center and corners using the 50 APO and the 75 Noctilux at f/5.6 on an A7rIII.  

 

A7rIII + 75 Noct @ f/5.6, center:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrcdu83gcs7fi9o/75%20Noct%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0

 

A7rIII + 75 Noct @ f/5.6, lower left corner:

 
A7rIII + 75 Noct @ f/5.6, upper right corner:
 
 
A7rIII + 50 APO @ f/5.6, center:
 
A7rIII + 50 APO @ f/5.6, lower left corner:
 
A7rIII + 50 APO @ f/5.6, upper right corner:
 
 
And here's the comparison with the A7rIII with its own native 85/1.4 GM lens @ f/5.6:
A7rIII + 85 GM @ f/5.6, center:
 
A7rIII + 85 GM @ f/5.6, lower left corner:
 
A7rIII + 85 GM @ f/5.6, upper right corner:
 
 
Clearly both the 50 APO and the 75 Noct can result in sharp captures on the A7rIII under these (admittedly idealized) conditions, even in the corners.  
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

... there has been some discussion of whether or not Leica lenses 50 mm or longer in focal length can still yield sharp images, even in the corners of the frame, on the Sony A7R III, given the much thicker sensor stack of the latter compared to that of the Leica M10.

Longer lenses are more or less insensitive to varying sensor stacks. It's the non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses which will become critical when the sensor stack is different from what the lens designer had anticipated (retrofocus wide-angles, i. e. those designed for use on SLR cameras, are less sensitive, similar to normal or short telephoto lenses).

 

That said, I clearly see a difference when using the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph on either Leica M10 or Leica SL. The performance near the edges and corners is slightly but noticably better with the M10. Never tried any of the Sony Alpha 7 models though.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4) Raw file headroom at the top end.  The M10's DNG files leave almost no room for highlight recovery.  The raw files of the A7rIII, like the various Nikons's I've shot in the past (D700, D800E, D810, D810A, D4, D4s) all offer quite a bit more room for highlight recovery.

 

 

 

If you need to recover highlights then that is a photographer issue, not a sensor issue.

 

With digital Leica Ms, you expose for highlights. The ability to recover shadow detail is formidable (up to 5 stops) and this ability started with the M8.

 

Ernst

Edited by Ernstk
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to recover highlights then that is a photographer issue, not a sensor issue.

 

With digital Leica Ms, you expose for highlights. The ability to recover shadow detail is formidable (up to 5 stops) and this ability started with the M8.

 

Ernst

 

Obviously the photographer could have done a better job but it's also nice to have a more forgiving sensor when you make mistakes. Form factor and lenses are what drives the M cameras, if M11 has the Sony sensor 99% of us will be ditching the M10. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 stops of shadow detail ? id love to see a usable-printable-for-sale-example of that

 

 

If you need to recover highlights then that is a photographer issue, not a sensor issue.

 

With digital Leica Ms, you expose for highlights. The ability to recover shadow detail is formidable (up to 5 stops) and this ability started with the M8.

 

Ernst

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to recover highlights then that is a photographer issue, not a sensor issue.

 

With digital Leica Ms, you expose for highlights. The ability to recover shadow detail is formidable (up to 5 stops) and this ability started with the M8.

 

Ernst

 

 

You can do the same on the Sony, and Nikon's, and partially Canon's... And the result will always be mediocre compared to using proper techniques.

 

ND grads and/or exposure bracketing is always gonna be far better than clipping shadows or highlights. Some things will never change (getting it right in the camera).

Edited by indergaard
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to recover highlights then that is a photographer issue, not a sensor issue.

 

With digital Leica Ms, you expose for highlights. The ability to recover shadow detail is formidable (up to 5 stops) and this ability started with the M8.

 

Ernst

I’m comfortable recovering 3-4 stops of shadow detail with the M10 DNG files, but sometimes the subject includes more than about 12-13 stops of dynamic range (not uncommon outside the studio, especially for landscapes). In this case, the M10 forces (in single-shot mode) the photographer to choose between clipped shadows or clipped highlights. I have to make that choice less often with the A7rIII, as it has about 2 stops more dynamic range than the M10, in my hands at least.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m comfortable recovering 3-4 stops of shadow detail with the M10 DNG files, but sometimes the subject includes more than about 12-13 stops of dynamic range (not uncommon outside the studio, especially for landscapes). In this case, the M10 forces (in single-shot mode) the photographer to choose between clipped shadows or clipped highlights. I have to make that choice less often with the A7rIII, as it has about 2 stops more dynamic range than the M10, in my hands at least.

 

 

Well now, 2 stops is a strong exaggeration. I own both an M10 and an A7rIII myself, and the difference is definitely not that big in DR between the cameras. Even DXOMark rates them at 1.5 stops apart (13.2 vs 14.7) at ISO 100, and as you probably know - DXOMark is highly optimistic.

 

See here: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica%20M10,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3

 

This database is considered far more accurate than DXOMarks charts, and as you can see, the difference isn't that big. It's about 1.1 stops advantage to the A7rIII but ONLY at ISO 100 (uncompressed, 14-bit, no electronic shutter on the A7rIII). At ISO 200 up to ISO 640 they are identical, but the Sony's 2nd gain stage kicks in at ISO 640, which again creates a more or less consistent lead of up to 0.5 stops of DR advantage for the Sony up to ISO 20000 for both cameras.

 

This difference will hardly make or break any photograph as long as the photographer has the slighest clue on how to expose for any given scene.

Edited by indergaard
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Onsaj, you have just spent 45 mins of my life "sniffing" pixels in your photos. 

 

I am surprised to see that 75 Noct is very sharp.  I think you might have boost up the sales of this lens.  

 

 

You're welcome? :)

The 75 Noct is quite sharp, even wide open, and breathtakingly sharp stopped down.  Indeed, I just reviewed all the MTF curves of the sharpest Leica lenses I know of (50 APO, 75 APO, 90 APO, 75/2.4, 135 APO)... the 75 Noct at f/5.6 beats them all, at any aperture for which Leica shows MTF data.  The 50 APO at f/5.6 comes close, but the 75 Noct is still a bit better.

 

That said, the difference between sharp, very sharp, and absurdly sharp is not that evident until you print large photos or view tight crops.

Edited by onasj
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Onasj,

Appreciated - I do think the 75 APO would perform slightly better here but maybe not...

 

So the Leica CM that is rumoured, will feature and M mount with more like an SL style EVF design? I am assuming nobody really thinks Leica is going to introduce yet another FF mirrorless option? Do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Onasj,

 

Appreciated - I do think the 75 APO would perform slightly better here but maybe not...

 

So the Leica CM that is rumoured, will feature and M mount with more like an SL style EVF design? I am assuming nobody really thinks Leica is going to introduce yet another FF mirrorless option? Do they?

LeicaRumors suggests the “CM” will be a FF L-mount (adaptable to M of course) mirrorless, presumably much more compact than the SL, with AF... something like a Q but with interchangeable lenses.

 

We should know soon I hope!

Edited by onasj
Link to post
Share on other sites

LeicaRumors suggests the “CM” will be a FF L-mount (adaptable to M of course) mirrorless, presumably much more compact than the SL, with AF... something like a Q but with interchangeable lenses.

 

We should know soon I hope!

 

Ok so it'll take L lenses... The issue with that is the size of the L lenses no? Even if the camera delivers what you want, will you be happy with the larger lenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so it'll take L lenses... The issue with that is the size of the L lenses no? Even if the camera delivers what you want, will you be happy with the larger lenses?

For me, if the prime lenses are the size of the 35/1.4 TL/CL or smaller (that is, roughly 50/1.0-M or 50/0.95-M-sized) with AF, I’ll consider purchasing them. If they are 50-lux-M-sized or smaller, I’ll be thrilled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...