Z7 with M lenses vs. M10 -image thread-

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

And now the crops. Again, one needs to upsize the M10 picture to 45.4 MPx. 

Z7 (its light sensitivity bothers me in situations like this)

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!

 

M10 (crop from a 45.4 MPx upsized JPEG)

There is nothing surprising here as one camera was designed to use this lens and the other was not. I would never do tests like this as they are completely pointless. Just use the M10 and Z7 to take real life photos as they are both great cameras. 

William

[Chaemono]

vor 22 Minuten schrieb willeica:

I would never do tests like this as they are completely pointless.

To some here they are not pointless.

vor 23 Minuten schrieb willeica:

Just use the M10 and Z7 to take real life photos as they are both great cameras. 

When I was growing up, I used to get advice like this from my parents and teachers. It served me well to follow it. It lead me to a point where I can now afford to buy different mirrorless cameras and lenses to compare and post the pictures on LUF. 😀

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

To some here they are not pointless.

When I was growing up, I used to get advice like this from my parents and teachers. It served me well to follow it. It lead me to a point where I can now afford to buy different mirrorless cameras and lenses to compare and post the pictures on LUF. 😀

You can, of course, do what you wish with what you own, but cameras are made to take photos (and I am speaking as a collector as well as a user). We should leave test shots to the manufacturers. Unfortunately, the introduction of digital photography has led to a whole hobby of pixel peeping looking at how Camera X matches with Lens Y or with its output processed in Software Z. We have long since passed the point of 'good enough' or even, some might say, 'absolute perfection' in respect of digital imaging.  My own main issues with cameras are related to things like handling and size as I have reached the stage in life where I have eyesight and other issues to contend with. In a few years I might not even notice smears at the edges. I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong. I am just trying to introduce a sense of proportion into the discussion. 

William

[pgk]

31 minutes ago, willeica said:

We have long since passed the point of 'good enough'.....

Just to reinforce this point. Over the last 35 years I have sold tens of thousands of photos and never once has anyone rejected one because the lens I used was not good enough. A 'good' photograph is primarily about content, not the technology of what it was taken on. To my mind content is the primary requirement of an image but the way it was taken is of course important - to the photographer. And to this end equipment selection can be (but is not always) crucial. The only time when utter, absolute precision of lens perfection is a prerequisite is in scientific application when the data being acquired demands this. Otherwise, in most other photography we have, as willeica says, 'long since passed the point of 'good enough'' and are tring to achieve things with hand held cameras for which they are not really well suited.

[Chaemono]

I get the point. The problem with image comparisons like mine above is that there can be variables that distort the results and lead to the wrong conclusion. For example, I attempt to compare corner performance with the same lens but have to crop the pictures so much that the difference in image resolution inevitably comes into play. I’m comparing 24 MPx corners to 45 MPx corners and crop the heck out of the pictures to do so. It’s impressive how well the M10 does when its 24 MPx are upsized to 45 MPx but one can definitely draw no conclusion about how relatively worse the Z7’s corners are.

[pgk]

43 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

I get the point. The problem with image comparisons like mine above is that there can be variables that distort the results and lead to the wrong conclusion. For example, I attempt to compare corner performance with the same lens but have to crop the pictures so much that the difference in image resolution inevitably comes into play. I’m comparing 24 MPx corners to 45 MPx corners and crop the heck out of the pictures to do so. It’s impressive how well the M10 does when its 24 MPx are upsized to 45 MPx but one can definitely draw no conclusion about how relatively worse the Z7’s corners are.

The thing is; you need to determine what conclusion you are trying to come to. Personally, I'm always amazed at just how good many lenses are when they are used in ways that their designers could never have imagined. I'd be much more interested in seeing examples of how effective lenses can be of different cameras than direct (and difficult as you say) side by side, comparisons. The other thing that I find makes a substantial difference in trying lenses out, is how well they integrate (ergonomically and usably) with various cameras. To me these are far more useful pieces of information although I accept that they are personal opinions.

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 10 Stunden schrieb pgk:

The thing is; you need to determine what conclusion you are trying to come to.

I think you’re right. The topic in this thread has been pretty vague or not formulated well at all. And most cameras today, including APS-C ones, are good enough.

I would like to start another topic/thread on how each camera, Z7, α7R III, and M10 meter a scene (center weighted) with the same lens when put in A Mode. I may use base ISO or close for each, meaning ISO 64 on the Z7, ISO 100 on the α7R III, and ISO 200 on the M10. I think that’s an interesting project to see what shutter speed each camera comes up with and how exposure will look. I’ll set EV to -0.7 on each. It’ll take me a while to start this project but I think that’s a good one for the slow days during and in between the holidays. What do you think of that?

[Exodies]

I think you’re crazy but why not?

In the real world exposure is part of the design of a picture.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

What do you think of that?

In the past (film days), manufacturers used to make a big deal over the precise way in which their version of centre weighted metering actually worked, and if I remember correctly some may even have varied with the focal length of the lens in use. Each manufacturer produced a variant and extolled its virtues. Then came spot and evaluative and so on. It would be worth seeing if manufacturers still publish data on the way their centre weighted metering operates (might be in their manuals) before going further. I expect that you may find some differences between cameras even today. That said many still rely on automated (evaluative/matrix.whatever) which assesses far more than simply 'brightness'. To me this is still automation and has the potential to be unpredictable. If I were you I'd invest in a grey card and colour checker chart (whatever the Macbeth one is called today) too, to ensure that other variables such as colour temperature and colour biases are ironed out. Photography is a very simple idea overlain with innumerable complexities ..... which is why simple comparisons work superficially but not quantitatively.

[willeica]

6 hours ago, Chaemono said:

I think you’re right. The topic in this thread has been pretty vague or not formulated well at all. And most cameras today, including APS-C ones, are good enough.

I would like to start another topic/thread on how each camera, Z7, α7R III, and M10 meter a scene (center weighted) with the same lens when put in A Mode. I may use base ISO or close for each, meaning ISO 64 on the Z7, ISO 100 on the α7R III, and ISO 200 on the M10. I think that’s an interesting project to see what shutter speed each camera comes up with and how exposure will look. I’ll set EV to -0.7 on each. It’ll take me a while to start this project but I think that’s a good one for the slow days during and in between the holidays. What do you think of that?

Words fail me. Have you not got some subjects that you might like to photograph (not make files, please) with the cameras? That is what they are for. I always ignore such nonsensical comparison reviews on other websites. You must have some 'very slow days' as you say or else you are winding us all up.

William

[Chaemono]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb willeica:

Words fail me. Have you not got some subjects that you might like to photograph (not make files, please) with the cameras?

No, I buy cameras and lenses to do comparisons. 

vor 27 Minuten schrieb willeica:

I always ignore such nonsensical comparison reviews...

Apparently you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t keep coming back here to look at them.

vor 27 Minuten schrieb willeica:

...on other websites.

It’s not a website, it’s a forum with many threads to choose from. Think of it as the Land of Cockaigne where topics are so abundant that one only needs to open her or his eyes to take in what she or he desires. 

vor 27 Minuten schrieb willeica:

You must have some 'very slow days' as you say or else you are winding us all up.

Your getting all worked up about some planned harmless comparisons between the Z7, the α7R III, and the M10 with the same lens instead of just moving on (here’s an idea for you) makes me suspicious now. I’ll do some extra comparisons just for you. 😀

 

 

 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

No, I buy cameras and lenses to do comparisons. 

 

 

 

Thanks. That explains it. I buy modern cameras to take photographs with and older cameras sometimes for that and sometimes just to add them to my collection. 'Chacun a son gout' as the French might say. You are absolutely entitled to do what you want with your own property and to post the results here. I am just saying as someone who owns both the M10 and the Z7, I do not see anything interesting here.

William

 

 

[Martin B]

Thanks for posting the tests and pls continue.....very helpful to me. Seems like the Z7 is a very good contender to be used with (some) M lenses. The results are more than good enough for me if I need to buy a new (non Leica based) MLC at some point. That's the big advantage of MLC technology - not to be fixed just to one lens environment of the camera brand. 

[Felipe]

On 12/9/2018 at 5:38 PM, Chaemono said:

And now the crops. Again, one needs to upsize the M10 picture to 45.4 MPx. 

Z7 (its light sensitivity bothers me in situations like these)

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!

 

M10 (crop from a 45.4 MPx upsized JPEG)

The M10 image is noticeably sharper to my eye.

[Timmyjoe]

On 12/9/2018 at 11:26 AM, Chaemono said:

To some here they are not pointless.

Hi Chaemono,

Took me about a week of searching the internet to find this thread, but I want to thank you, this is exactly the information I was looking for. It's a big help. Wanted to see how the Z7 compared to the Leica digitals, when it came to using Leica M glass. And you showed me the answer.

Thanks again,

-Tim

[Chaemono]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Timmyjoe:

Hi Chaemono,

Took me about a week of searching the internet to find this thread, but I want to thank you, this is exactly the information I was looking for. It's a big help. Wanted to see how the Z7 compared to the Leica digitals, when it came to using Leica M glass. And you showed me the answer.

Thanks again,

-Tim

Hi Tim, you’re welcome. I saw your post on dpreview and you make some valid points there. I’m glad there is choice for those who want to shoot M-mount lenses and don’t want to pay up for an M body. On high ISO performance, as you say, the Z7 and the α7R III have an advantage but don’t underestimate the M10 sensor at ISO 200 to 640, which is where I shoot 80 percent of the time. Those very light sensitive sensors of the Z7 and the α7R III just don’t handle scenes with extreme Highlights and Shadows as well as the M10 does in that ISO range. It may have to do with larger pixels. The M10 captures shadow details effortlessly while controlling Highlights really well. I don’t care what the charts show, I have tons of RAW files comparing the three cameras with the same lens in that range. I still own all three of them and I always grab the M10. It’s my absolute favorite for IQ at ISO 200 to 640. I couldn’t have said the same about the M 240. That was a bit of a pain. BTW, the best high ISO FF combo I’ve used is the α7R III with the 55 Otus. At ISO 6400 the images are so clean, it’s unbelievable. But the combo is so unwieldy. 

I’ll compare the Sony and the Nikon to the SL2, actually the S1R which uses the same sensor but will be out sooner. I find it very intriguing that Leica and Panasonic chose a non-BSI sensor even though TowerJazz Panasonic semiconductor foundry most likely makes the Nikon BSI sensor. A bit risky IMO, but they must know what they are doing. Maybe Panasonic thinks that the S1 is the low-light monster anyway and at $2,500 it’s economically attractive to buy as a complimentary body (it’s like half a lens for SL users 😁). Fortunately, they didn’t put an OLPF in it. Anyway, I have M-mount adapters for all three cameras, maybe I’ll test the S1 as well, and I’ll compare them in low-light, high ISO, and base ISO in scenes with extreme Highlights and Shadows. I’m not sure where I’ll post the images. They will all be so good but I think the S1 with the 75 Summicron-SL should be an absolute stunner in low-light and beat the α7R III with the 55 Otus. And the Panasonic/Leica combo will be more comfortable to hold and handle. In the meantime, at ISO 200 to 640 the M10 rules. 😀

 

[Timmyjoe]

Chaemono,

The real reason I'm researching the Nikon Z camera line is I'm looking for a digital solution to my Nikon S rangefinder lenses, from 21mm to 85mm. The Amedeo adapter with a Leica M to Nikon Z is pretty much the only game in town, especially with the 21mm f4 & 3.5cm f1.8. We'll see how it works, looking specifically toward the Z6, as the budget is tight.

Best,

-Tim