The Leica Look vs. the Sony/Zeiss Look and the micro-contrast BS

Using the A7Rii, there is definitely an improvement of the Sony images.

The SL package gives better results in most cases, but costs 3x the price of the A7Rii + the FE 50/1.4 lens. I am not sure the SL images are 3x better.

BTW, how is the SL 24-90 zoom?

If you have it, can you post some comparisons between it and the A7Rii with primes.

miro3 said:

Using the A7Rii, there is definitely an improvement of the Sony images.

The SL package gives better results in most cases, but costs 3x the price of the A7Rii + the FE 50/1.4 lens. I am not sure the SL images are 3x better.

BTW, how is the SL 24-90 zoom?

If you have it, can you post some comparisons between it and the A7Rii with primes.

Click to expand...

Have it and will do but won’t get to it before next Monday.

Just one thing on the Leica vs. Sony package. The FE50/1.4 has slightly more CA, still impressive how well controlled it is though, and the transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus areas is not as aesthetically pleasing as with SL50. With the SL50 it’s smooth as silk. This lens is so well corrected for spherical aberrations. I will post an example later on it. CA is virtually non-existent with the SL50 and I don’t think it’s achieved through firmware. I’ve removed the opcodes and it makes very little difference to CA. From what I can see, the only meaningful in-camera software corrections applied are for corner distortion. All of this is probably still not enough to justify the 200 percent price premium of the SL package for most people.

Aquarius2014 said:

miro3 said:

Using the A7Rii, there is definitely an improvement of the Sony images.

The SL package gives better results in most cases, but costs 3x the price of the A7Rii + the FE 50/1.4 lens. I am not sure the SL images are 3x better.

BTW, how is the SL 24-90 zoom?

If you have it, can you post some comparisons between it and the A7Rii with primes.

Click to expand...

Have it and will do but won’t get to it before next Monday.

Click to expand...

That would be really appreciated.

Aquarius2014 said:

Just one thing on the Leica vs. Sony package. The FE50/1.4 has slightly more CA, still impressive how well controlled it is though, and the transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus areas is not as aesthetically pleasing as with SL50. With the SL50 it’s smooth as silk. This lens is so well corrected for spherical aberrations. I will post an example later on it. CA is virtually non-existent with the SL50 and I don’t think it’s achieved through firmware. I’ve removed the opcodes and it makes very little difference to CA.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Aquarius2014 said:

From what I can see, the only meaningful in-camera software corrections applied are for corner distortion. All of this is probably still not enough to justify the 200 percent price premium of the SL package for most people.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

miro3 said:

Aquarius2014 said:

miro3 said:

Using the A7Rii, there is definitely an improvement of the Sony images.

The SL package gives better results in most cases, but costs 3x the price of the A7Rii + the FE 50/1.4 lens. I am not sure the SL images are 3x better.

BTW, how is the SL 24-90 zoom?

If you have it, can you post some comparisons between it and the A7Rii with primes.

Click to expand...

Have it and will do but won’t get to it before next Monday.

Click to expand...

That would be really appreciated.

Click to expand...

I’ll compare the SL 24-90 zoom with the FE 35mm/2.8 and the FE 50/1.4 on the A7Rii and post the pictures by Monday.

miro3 said:

Aquarius2014 said:

miro3 said:

Using the A7Rii, there is definitely an improvement of the Sony images.

The SL package gives better results in most cases, but costs 3x the price of the A7Rii + the FE 50/1.4 lens. I am not sure the SL images are 3x better.

BTW, how is the SL 24-90 zoom?

If you have it, can you post some comparisons between it and the A7Rii with primes.

Click to expand...

Have it and will do but won’t get to it before next Monday.

Click to expand...

That would be really appreciated.

Click to expand...

Just for your information, I took a couple of test shots yesterday with the SL 24-90 and the Sony FE 50/1.4. When stopping down the Sony lens to f/3.6 to match the aperture of the SL zoom at 50mm the images appear super sharp and contrast improves substantially. I’m not sure there is any point in comparing the SL 24-90 to the A7Rii with fixed focal length lenses. The SL zoom is good but is no match to stopped down Sony primes on 42 MP. I can still do some comparisons but you’ll be really disappointed, I think.

Aquarius2014 said:

miro3 said:

Aquarius2014 said:

miro3 said:

Using the A7Rii, there is definitely an improvement of the Sony images.

The SL package gives better results in most cases, but costs 3x the price of the A7Rii + the FE 50/1.4 lens. I am not sure the SL images are 3x better.

BTW, how is the SL 24-90 zoom?

If you have it, can you post some comparisons between it and the A7Rii with primes.

Click to expand...

Have it and will do but won’t get to it before next Monday.

Click to expand...

That would be really appreciated.

Click to expand...

Just for your information, I took a couple of test shots yesterday with the SL 24-90 and the Sony FE 50/1.4. When stopping down the Sony lens to f/3.6 to match the aperture of the SL zoom at 50mm the images appear super sharp and contrast improves substantially. I’m not sure there is any point in comparing the SL 24-90 to the A7Rii with fixed focal length lenses. The SL zoom is good but is no match to stopped down Sony primes on 42 MP. I can still do some comparisons but you’ll be really disappointed, I think.

Click to expand...

Yes, please post the images.

Thank you so much!

The 50mm f 2.0 Zeiss Planar is one of my all time favorite lenses. As a matter of fact, it is my lens of preference on my M9-P. It is an old fashion double gauss design and while non-apochromatic, it has always been able to hold its own against the best of the modern lenses. That being said, the images of the bronze eagle clearly shows that the superior micro contrast of the Leica lens produces greater apparent sharpness than does the Zeiss Planar. But for the much greater difference in cost, it should look sharper. The color rendition is quite close with some images showing slightly greater saturation. The colors really pop with both lenses.

Thanks for the comparison. It confirms what I always believed about the Planar vs. Leica Summicron's and Summilux's.

--
Jim

Thanks for your comments, Jim. I'm in the process of putting some comparisons together for miro3 using the SL 24-90 and two Sony primes on the A7Rii (have taken lots of pictures already). But just before that, in the link below four images comparing the SL50 with the Planar FE 50/1.4, again, but this time wide open and at f/3.5. I've used up my upload capacity on dpreview, so I have to upload them somewhere else. These are very large file sizes and they are exported from ARWs and DNGs in Preview with no adjustments. The fact is, the Planar is a bit soft wide open but contrast and apparent sharpness increase substantially when stopped down to somewhere between f/3 to f/4, I would say, possibly even surpassing the SL50 (difficult to tell due to 42 MP on the Sony). I think, one doesn't need to zoom in in the examples below to see the difference between the two lenses at f/1.4. That outperformance of the SL50 wide open comes, as you said, at three and a half times the price of the Planar FE 50/1.4

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9GFqjV/

Aquarius2014 said:

Thanks for your comments, Jim. I'm in the process of putting some comparisons together for miro3 using the SL 24-90 and two Sony primes on the A7Rii (have taken lots of pictures already). But just before that, in the link below four images comparing the SL50 with the Planar FE 50/1.4, again, but this time wide open and at f/3.5. I've used up my upload capacity on dpreview, so I have to upload them somewhere else. These are very large file sizes and they are exported from ARWs and DNGs in Preview with no adjustments. The fact is, the Planar is a bit soft wide open but contrast and apparent sharpness increase substantially when stopped down to somewhere between f/3 to f/4, I would say, possibly even surpassing the SL50 (difficult to tell due to 42 MP on the Sony). I think, one doesn't need to zoom in in the examples below to see the difference between the two lenses at f/1.4. That outperformance of the SL50 wide open comes, as you said, at three and a half times the price of the Planar FE 50/1.4

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9GFqjV/

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, My experience is limited to the Planar ZM f2.0, but the lens design remains the same regardless of the package it is put into; i.e., double gauss design and very special glass and coatings.
Jim

miro3 said:

Aquarius2014 said:

miro3 said:

Just for your information, I took a couple of test shots yesterday with the SL 24-90 and the Sony FE 50/1.4. When stopping down the Sony lens to f/3.6 to match the aperture of the SL zoom at 50mm the images appear super sharp and contrast improves substantially. I’m not sure there is any point in comparing the SL 24-90 to the A7Rii with fixed focal length lenses. The SL zoom is good but is no match to stopped down Sony primes on 42 MP. I can still do some comparisons but you’ll be really disappointed, I think.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, please post the images.

Thank you so much!

Click to expand...

Some examples comparing the SL 24-90 zoom to the Planar FE 50/1.4 and the Sonnar FE 35/2.8 on the a7Rii in an external link below as my upload capacity on dpreview is used up. The files are at full resolution. EXIF data is included. Same settings used in all (almost) except for shutter speed sometimes.

When I said you’ll be really disappointed by the relative performance of the 24-90, I meant that you’ll be disappointed if you need to crop. But then again, it’s a zoom so why crop. Also, stopping down the Sony primes to match the SL aperture at the same focal length increases apparent sharpness and contrast. This is particularly true for the FE 50/1.4 which is a bit soft wide open.

I’ve included crops in the first four pairs, I didn’t bother afterwards.

Pictures 1-10: Default sharpening in LR left on and exposure adjusted slightly in one or the other to try to match. Tones and WB only adjusted in the pictures with the motorcycles. It’s striking how similar the two look.

Pictures 11-20 (church pictures at ISO 1600): Default sharpening in LR left on and exposure adjusted upward slightly on the Sony images to try to match the SL ones at the same shutter speed. Also, temperature reduced by the same amount for all, SL and Sony. IMO the Sony captures the difference in tones better than the SL with the zoom at this ISO level. It's subtle but if one looks at the gate/door in the pair No. 20, for example, the Sony shows richer tones of the wood and it’s not due to WB. At the exact same settings (ISO 1600, aperture 3.2, same shutter speed) the Sony images come out looking slightly less exposed than the SL images. I then pushed exposure up a bit in (+0.15 on the LR slider) to match the SL level of brightness. The Sony shows less blown out highlights than the SL does at ISO 1600.

Pictures 21-42 (horse racing): Sorry, had taken the SL 24-90 and one Sony prime with me but ended up using the SL50 instead. What an impressive lens (have many more photos from the day). Default sharpening left on in LR, tiny tweaks to exposure and shadows here and there but most of them hardly touched. The micro-contrast of the SL50 and the look this creates wide open is jaw dropping. Take a look at the plasticity of the horses, especially in the first eight images. Those muscles almost pop out of the screen. The colors are gorgeous. The bokeh is smooth as silk. AF is not an issue and allows for precise and fast enough focusing with tracking to capture the action of horse racing. This 2016 Leica "Look" lens is un-freaking-believable.

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-7Wx3DS/

Thank you very much for the meticulous comparison.

Looks like I will wait for the SL v2 to be released by Leica later this year or earlier next year.

Also, looks like the 24-90 zoom is quite close in performance to a bunch of primes. Hopefully a slightly increased resolution in the SL v2 will allow this lens to shine better.

Thank you tremendously, Aquarius2014!

miro3 said:

Thank you very much for the meticulous comparison.

Looks like I will wait for the SL v2 to be released by Leica later this year or earlier next year.

Also, looks like the 24-90 zoom is quite close in performance to a bunch of primes. Hopefully a slightly increased resolution in the SL v2 will allow this lens to shine better.

Thank you tremendously, Aquarius2014!

Click to expand...

You're welcome. From a commercial point of view, the priority for Leica with the SL v2 should be to close the gap to Sony's A7Rii sensor as far as high ISO performance and greater dynamic range are concerned. They cannot fall too far behind there otherwise they won't be able to keep the big price premium based on what some perceive as their superior lenses alone.

Personally, I'm happy with 24 MP. After using the A7Rii for a couple of weeks now next to the SL, 42 MP don't matter to me. I couldn't crop enough where it would make a difference on pictures viewed on a computer screen.

By the way, given that Leica's product cycles are longer than two years, I doubt that an SL v2 will be introduced by the end of this year or by early next year.

Late to the party, but I must say the Leica pics definately have a pop to them!

How you do these pictures color much so close?

Though I've never been a giant fan of SL glass for many reasons. If you'd taken low light shots this might actually become more apparent. However I did finally give the SL the boot and plan to stick to Sony for modern mirrorless - unless Nikon gets seriously into the game since their imaging is still clearly superior to Sony.

Also, no RAWs and these probably aren't unprocessed RAW-JPEG - personally I really like starting from the Leica RAW.

lightandaprayer said:

Aquarius2014 said:

"With an existing computer technology it is entirely possible to emulate the Leica look in post-production, yet, getting it in-camera takes no time, while the alternative requires serious Photoshop skills, sizeable amounts of time and, in the first place, knowing what you are trying to emulate." In other words, with Leica it comes effortlessly.

Click to expand...

If the "Leica Look" can be emulated via computer processing, can't you do the heavy-lifting one time, create a preset and then apply the preset to other images? Or does the nature of recreating The Look require custom processing of every image?

Click to expand...

To some extent--yes--but you cannot create information digitally that the camera/lens has not captured in the first place.

Rob

There are multiple factors that contribute to depth rendering, but one that is rarely mentioned is what I call "microtonality," which is the separation of very small differences in tone. This is not the same as microcontrast. Microtonality creates a senses of fullness and presence and can be seen in areas which are devoid of much detail. Look carefully at some of the car pictures, and you can easily see how many more tones are present in the Leica images. The hood of the car in the first pair is one place where it is obvious, but I think it is there in all of the images. Microtonality is often very subtle, but its effect on 3D rendering can be great.

Rob

Aquarius2014 said:

First the Sony then the Leica and a crop of each.

Click to expand...

The moment you say this people start seeing differences. Only a true double blind test can be used to separate the BS from all other “special look” claim.

Aquarius2014 said:

Click to expand...

yogi4fitness said:

The moment you say this people start seeing differences. Only a true double blind test can be used to separate the BS from all other “special look” claim.

Click to expand...

I disagree for, let's say, a multitude of reasons:

• When a sentence is spoken in the street or in a pub, it is often, but not always perceived differently from sentences spoken on a stage or in a film. A blind test would put both scenarios at the exact same value
• When wine is consumed, people "look" closer when the bottle costs 100.00 over a supermarket special. Blind tests might reveal that a 20.00 and a 100.00 bottle could be closer, but you still "look" differently, with more intent.
• I could see the difference in particular in the close-up shot of that whatever it is, grey-thing. I would have seen this in a blind test too. Like I often see past the price tag of a zoom or prime and look at the results only. I would however doubt that a lot of lay-people could see the difference.
• The Sony combo is not exactly on the cheap side.

So in short: in my opinion, the "look" is also an integral part as to what you want to see. A placebo. Sometimes. But not always.

I could now post gazillions of pics taken with, what I would consider, above average lenses. If you are aiming for replication with other systems, I find (in my case) that the Q-series have a rather distinct way to deal with shadows, pics taken in dull light - or clouds.

But will post a pic taken with the fabulous Batis 40/2 CF (close focus):

[ATTACH alt="Zeiss Batis 40/2 There is a "look" to that lens"]1658404[/ATTACH]
Zeiss Batis 40/2 There is a "look" to that lens


Zeiss 35/2 another example for a "look"


Leica Q2 - an example for clouds


Leica Q2 - another example for clouds

I am sure that others could chime in with some other pictures, taken with some Summilux or crons?

Will leave it at that.

Deed

P.S.: You DID realize that this thread is half a century old, right??

I have an M11 with a Summilux 50mm ASPH and a Sony a7rv with a 50mm f1.4 GM and cannot see the added “Leica micro contrast and 3D pop”, certainly not for an additional 8k+ is what the price difference is. Leica gear is certainly special and that’s why we buy it and use it, but certainly not the best bang for your buck and the end result is, at best, subjectively, nicer than the alternative