Washashore
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 224
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What do we do now Kimosabe?
- Thread starter Washashore
- Start date
Solution
JDLaing
Veteran Member
well.......
As nice as the Sony probably is.......it is not a rangefinder.
It has no optical viewfinder of frame lines.
It is a camera designed for autofocus.
It is not a camera designed for Leica M wide angle lenses no matter how hard you want it to be.
If you buy this camera and have the intent of buying Leica lenses to use on it because you think you now have the best setup you end up with a hobbled system at best.
I see another useless statement by some sort of Internet reviewer with one thing in mind. His own website traffic.
As nice as the Sony probably is.......it is not a rangefinder.
It has no optical viewfinder of frame lines.
It is a camera designed for autofocus.
It is not a camera designed for Leica M wide angle lenses no matter how hard you want it to be.
If you buy this camera and have the intent of buying Leica lenses to use on it because you think you now have the best setup you end up with a hobbled system at best.
I see another useless statement by some sort of Internet reviewer with one thing in mind. His own website traffic.
Last edited:
Solution
Godfrey
Forum Pro
If you want to consider buying cameras as a competitive sport on features, Sony will win this contest.
I don't consider cameras that way, and I doubt Leica does either. I had an A7. It was never anything more than a kinda clunky camera with a good sensor and a decent viewfinder. I'll take a Leica M/M-P over it any time: the Leica M/M-P is a far better working/performing camera; I sold my A7 as soon as I had the M-P.
G
I don't consider cameras that way, and I doubt Leica does either. I had an A7. It was never anything more than a kinda clunky camera with a good sensor and a decent viewfinder. I'll take a Leica M/M-P over it any time: the Leica M/M-P is a far better working/performing camera; I sold my A7 as soon as I had the M-P.
G
Last edited:
S
Schroedingers_cat
Guest
Ignore people who want money for their opinions ? 
--
-
"Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named...but a dying culture invariable exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners is more significant than a riot."
This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. ...Friday, it is too late to save this culture--this worldwide culture... Therefore we must now prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too fragile..."
--Robert A. Heinlein in "Friday"
--
-
"Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named...but a dying culture invariable exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners is more significant than a riot."
This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. ...Friday, it is too late to save this culture--this worldwide culture... Therefore we must now prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too fragile..."
--Robert A. Heinlein in "Friday"
user_name
Veteran Member
1. I am not searching for 50mp. 10mp was not bad for the M8 when I used that, 24 hits a sweet spot for me. I have a D800 if I really need more resolution.
2. I am disappointed in the M240's archaic microprocessor. It's slow and the overall architecture of the system is far too limiting to allow modern EVFs. Leica blundered when they selected that architecture. Then to add insult to injury, Leica produces poor firmware, not bad, but clearly not excellent.
Lloyd, the reason we don't see firmware updates for the M is simply because the architecture can't support it. It would be like GM putting a 1.6L 4-cylinder Chevy Aveo engine in a Corvette.
3. The wide angle M lenses have yet to be tested on the new Sony A7r II. If they licked that problem, then Leica will have something to worry about.
4. I upgraded to the M240 over the M8 principally for higher ISO. Yes, the other features are nice and appreciated, but being limited to 640 ISO on the M8 was a handicap, particularly in the world when many cameras can reach above 12.5K to 25K ISO. Leica went to a CMOS sensor to improve ISO and what we got was maybe 1.5 to 2 stops above the M9. Appreciated, but Leica's competitors are doing much better.
Incidentally, base ISO should be 100, not 200, and we shouldn't need to push/pull to get there.
2. I am disappointed in the M240's archaic microprocessor. It's slow and the overall architecture of the system is far too limiting to allow modern EVFs. Leica blundered when they selected that architecture. Then to add insult to injury, Leica produces poor firmware, not bad, but clearly not excellent.
Lloyd, the reason we don't see firmware updates for the M is simply because the architecture can't support it. It would be like GM putting a 1.6L 4-cylinder Chevy Aveo engine in a Corvette.
3. The wide angle M lenses have yet to be tested on the new Sony A7r II. If they licked that problem, then Leica will have something to worry about.
4. I upgraded to the M240 over the M8 principally for higher ISO. Yes, the other features are nice and appreciated, but being limited to 640 ISO on the M8 was a handicap, particularly in the world when many cameras can reach above 12.5K to 25K ISO. Leica went to a CMOS sensor to improve ISO and what we got was maybe 1.5 to 2 stops above the M9. Appreciated, but Leica's competitors are doing much better.
Incidentally, base ISO should be 100, not 200, and we shouldn't need to push/pull to get there.
JDLaing
Veteran Member
That's all well and good but we are not about EVF's. We are about optical rangefinder viewfinders. We are also not about speed. If those are things you want then Sony is what is best for you. ISO 200 is a perfect base ISO for the sensor we use. No need to go any lower. Higher by a few thousand would be nice. Leica will also have nothing to worry about id Sony corrects any errors with wide angle lenses. They will still sell lenses. Sony cannot compete with the quality, build and most importantly the size.
Leica has no competitors. They do exactly what they want. Fine by some of us.
Last edited:
Paul20
Veteran Member
I am extremely relaxed about this article.
P
--
biza43
Forum Pro
Well, if one filters away the expletives and exaggerations typical of internet posts, there is some good reasoning in the article.
The truth is, the FF Sony A7 system is, for many photographers, an excellent choice to shoot Leica M lenses; apart from some wide angles, of course, with all the known problems.
The truth is, it is eye opening to shoot such lenses using IBIS, and manual focus is a breeze with all the assistance from technology.
Say you have a series of M lenses (from Leica, from Zeiss, from Voigtlander), and want to overcome the problem of wide angle ones? No sweat, you can get a top quality Batis 25 f2; and no doubt Zeiss will bring out a wide angle Loxia in the near future, they know there is a gap.
I have no doubt that M cameras in the digital age still attract some photographers, but the completion is fierce... if you go to a shop and try out your M lenses on a Sony A7 (with high rez sensor, and IBIS, and huge and nice and crisp EVF), you might start wondering why have you paid thousands of USD for a M camera...
The truth is, the FF Sony A7 system is, for many photographers, an excellent choice to shoot Leica M lenses; apart from some wide angles, of course, with all the known problems.
The truth is, it is eye opening to shoot such lenses using IBIS, and manual focus is a breeze with all the assistance from technology.
Say you have a series of M lenses (from Leica, from Zeiss, from Voigtlander), and want to overcome the problem of wide angle ones? No sweat, you can get a top quality Batis 25 f2; and no doubt Zeiss will bring out a wide angle Loxia in the near future, they know there is a gap.
I have no doubt that M cameras in the digital age still attract some photographers, but the completion is fierce... if you go to a shop and try out your M lenses on a Sony A7 (with high rez sensor, and IBIS, and huge and nice and crisp EVF), you might start wondering why have you paid thousands of USD for a M camera...
RodluvanII
Senior Member
.. frog in the well has been located.
Gregm61
Forum Pro
People who want a Leica, will buy a Leica. Sony.....is not Leica. Sony will never be Leica. The people who will choose Sony over Leica, is not Leica's target market and those who write articles like that, have no clue.
biza43
Forum Pro
user_name
Veteran Member
I'm going to disagree with you.
For one thing, a faster processor and architecture would bring the M240 into the modern world with faster startup times, the option to attach a modern EVF like the one in the Q instead of that ancient EVF-2. It would also provide a road for further firmware updates to keep the M more current with new technology.
If you are afraid or don't want that new technology, don't buy it and don't upgrade your firmware.
You wrote, "ISO 200 is a perfect base ISO for the sensor we use."
Think about that for a second. Are you really saying that you would reject better IQ? That's what a lower ISO represents as well as a little more flexibility in bright sunlight. The difference between my D700 and D800 IQ is significant if not stunning.
The Q has a base ISO of 100. Are you saying Leica made a mistake?
Everyone is gushing about the new Q's IQ and EVF. I suspect that the market would welcome an improved rangefinder with open arms if it improved on the M240's 24mp sensor and added the option of attaching a modern EVF, but feel free to keep your gear because no one is forcing you to buy new gear. No one is denying you happiness.
I think Leica does have competitors. I think that if the competition gets far enough ahead at half the cost some people will trade the rangefinder focusing for something else and cut and run. Some won't, but Leica needs market share to stay alive.
Save yourself the trouble.
Here's the gist; Sony makes a better camera than Leica. Leica better take note.
Author seems to have missed Leica has taken note. See Q and T lines. No one buys Leica as a value proposition. Or rather we don't all define value by the $.
Here's the gist; Sony makes a better camera than Leica. Leica better take note.
Author seems to have missed Leica has taken note. See Q and T lines. No one buys Leica as a value proposition. Or rather we don't all define value by the $.
I admit.
In my case I keep trusting M lenses so I invest massively in them. I have no interest in auto focus though.
Regarding M bodies...I am too disapointed about Leica and I agree on the EvF wich just prevented me to invest in an M240. Why do they provide such an external evf if they dont upgrade it ?
Last week i decided to sell my M9. I bought a sony a7 ii with metabones adapter. My only regret is that i didnt do that earlier. This combo is really impressive and with all options included I already gave around 2500 euros to sony and not Leica.
Leica has to move its ass seriously or they wont see my money again for their bodies. Leica Q kind of set new standards and hopes for the brand but at the price they ask we have to be serious about the product we get for the price. If they ask a premium price the product need to be premium. And when i mean premium and not only talk about the quality feel but also the technology inside.
In my case I keep trusting M lenses so I invest massively in them. I have no interest in auto focus though.
Regarding M bodies...I am too disapointed about Leica and I agree on the EvF wich just prevented me to invest in an M240. Why do they provide such an external evf if they dont upgrade it ?
Last week i decided to sell my M9. I bought a sony a7 ii with metabones adapter. My only regret is that i didnt do that earlier. This combo is really impressive and with all options included I already gave around 2500 euros to sony and not Leica.
Leica has to move its ass seriously or they wont see my money again for their bodies. Leica Q kind of set new standards and hopes for the brand but at the price they ask we have to be serious about the product we get for the price. If they ask a premium price the product need to be premium. And when i mean premium and not only talk about the quality feel but also the technology inside.
Godfrey
Forum Pro
The assertion that a sensor with a lower base ISO is invariably better image quality is false.
The Q sensor is not the same as the M/M-P typ 240 sensor, that's all. Considered from looking at a lot of Q DNG files compared to M-P DNG files, the typ 240 sensor achieves better image quality AND has a higher base ISO, even if the Q sensor can achieve lower noise at more elevated ISO settings.
The observation of the two Nikon cameras is irrelevant and not useful to judge the two Leica cameras as they both have very different sensors from anything in either of the Leica cameras.
G
I own an M240 and spent a week with the Sony A7ii (with both a few Sony lenses and a metabones adapter for my Leica lenses). By the end of the week, I wanted nothing to do with the Sony.
1 - Battery life is bad. One must carry several batteries to get through a day.
2 - The Sony lens selection is poor. Even the best (35mm and 55mm) are no match for any Leica lens made.
3 - The Leica wides below 35mm do not perform very well on the Sony bodies.
4 - The A7ii shutter is very noisy. Yes I know the A7Rii will have a silent shutter.
5 - The Sony menu system is not very intuitive at all. Options seem to have no rhyme nor reason as to where they are located.
6 - Most importantly, image quality in my opinion was not what it should be for a 24mp sensor. I find that both Leica and Nikon colors and tonality are far better, Fuji about the same.
I own 3 systems...Nikon, Leica and Fuji. I find that each has its advantages and disadvantages for the type of shooting I am doing at any given time.
I took a look at the Sony as a possible replacement for everything. However, point number 6 above especially was the deal breaker. I found that the Sony image quality is just not up to par with any of the others (Fuji being the only possible exception). That combined with my other points just made me give up on the idea. Perhaps Sony is headed in the right direction but I just do not find that they are there yet.
1 - Battery life is bad. One must carry several batteries to get through a day.
2 - The Sony lens selection is poor. Even the best (35mm and 55mm) are no match for any Leica lens made.
3 - The Leica wides below 35mm do not perform very well on the Sony bodies.
4 - The A7ii shutter is very noisy. Yes I know the A7Rii will have a silent shutter.
5 - The Sony menu system is not very intuitive at all. Options seem to have no rhyme nor reason as to where they are located.
6 - Most importantly, image quality in my opinion was not what it should be for a 24mp sensor. I find that both Leica and Nikon colors and tonality are far better, Fuji about the same.
I own 3 systems...Nikon, Leica and Fuji. I find that each has its advantages and disadvantages for the type of shooting I am doing at any given time.
I took a look at the Sony as a possible replacement for everything. However, point number 6 above especially was the deal breaker. I found that the Sony image quality is just not up to par with any of the others (Fuji being the only possible exception). That combined with my other points just made me give up on the idea. Perhaps Sony is headed in the right direction but I just do not find that they are there yet.
user_name
Veteran Member
There may be exceptions (I don't know what those would be), but as a general rule, the lower the native base ISO, the better the signal to noise ratio of the sensor.
But wait, there's more.
By lowering the true base ISO of a sensor you effectively start matching performance of a larger sensor.
Let's look at a moden example and compare the Nikon D810 with the Pentax 645Z medium format sensor. The Pentax has 1.78 times the sensor area as the 35mm FF Nikon, but is limited to ISO 100.
The D810m has a base ISO of 64, giving it a 2/3 stop more light than its older 100 ISO D800 counterpart.
That puts the new D810 very close to the light gathering power as the Pentax sensor (based on area), which means, in theory, that the D810 can gather the equivalent light that the medium format Pentax sensor can at similar noise levels.
And noiselevel/dynamic range is but one facet of a lower base ISO for a sensor.
An extra stop (i.e., 200 ISO versus 100 ISO) down gives me more latitude when shooting outside with bright lighting conditions. The M240 is already limited at a shutter speed of 1/4000, which forces me to stop down my lens to compensate. That's okay when you want a wider depth of field, but if shallower depth of field is what you want, your only recourse is to put a filter over the lens. We all know how convenient that is.
Nikon released the D800 with a base ISO of 100 8 months earlier than Leica released the M240, which means that there really wasn't a large technology gap in the industry when both began development.
Now, the M240 can pull down to ISO 100, but you surrender dynamic range to get there, essentially the software in the camera is overexposing the image and pulling it back, which I can also do in LightRoom.
It's still a little too early before a quantitative analysis is complete, so I will have to wait before I can comment on that.
That is true and it was not a good comparison. It doesn't negate my original point, only demonstrates it was a poor or bad argument.
A little off-base of the argument is my D800 IQ trounces my M240. I love my M, but I am still paying twice as much for the joy of using the Leica and getting less dynamic range and less high ISO performance, which is a little disappointing.
Asking for a significant improvement in Leica's IQ on their next go-around is not out of the ball park when you see what other competitors are doing with their latest batch of sensors and the imaging engines that work with them. I think the Q is demonstrating that Leica can do better and its everyone's hope that they do.
Les Lammers
Veteran Member
+1 but to each their own.
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,705
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Very silly article. I use a Sony A7II and like it. However, if you want a digital camera with a mechanical rangefinder... it'll never scratch that itch. Additionally, he is upset with the Q's lens needing distortion correction, but fails to realize that Sony's 28mm f/2 for the A7 series needs just as much correction. An A7RII and a 28mm f/2 aren't that far off the Q in price. I love when someone has an opinion and then extrapolates it out to make it like everyone could have no choice but to agree with their conclusion.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum