From Leica M to Sony A7s - comparison of user experience

[sleepyhead]

+1, which is just about what I had written earlier ( and had been ignored. it is so easy to bash the NEX for their badly designed menus ) but imo if one needs to dive into it one simply has not learned to use this camera well or has never set it up properly.

the hard buttons on my 5n set ISO, shoot mode, drive mode, exposure compensation, magnification and the wheel selects shutter speed. That's all I need.
( Actually I have access to a few more settings via hard buttons: on my cam the button left to the wheel sets drive mode ( single shoot, cont. shoot, self timer asf. ) the middle button ISO ( from there 4 more configurable settings can be accessed with another push of left / right buttons, e.g. WB, metering mode, quality and 5 others more to choose from ) the right button selects shoot mode ( A , S, M asf. ) the lower button around the wheel selects exposure compensation. Leicas are hailed for not being cluttered with buttons, the NEXes get criticized for not having more..)

regarding focus peaking, best set peaking sensitivity to 'low' and focus with lens wide open. Middle and high sensitivities easily show more in focus than actually is. I find the resolution of the EVF fine enough that I can rely on my eyes, not on focus peaking, but do use magnification which I find the more powerful tool. Some recommend to set the camera to B&W for focus peaking working best. If shooting RAW ( + jpeg ) the full file still is there, the B&W image only shows in the EVF ( and recorded jpeg ). My mayor gripe with the 5N is the location of the magnification button, that is improved on the A7 series.

All that said 'in defense' of the 5N, even though it's sensitivity and colors cannot be changed the focus peaking as implemented on my Ricoh GXR M works much better. I can rely on it, however because of the lower resolution EVF I also need to. ( generally I prefer the use and handling of the Ricoh. Can't get myself to buy a A7 because I love EVFs to be articulating, can't talk highly enough of it's many advantages. I consider an EVF taking over the limitation of an OVF of being fixed as a design flaw that I believe manufacturers consciously choose because cameras with fixed EVF 'look' better and therefore sell better )

Thanks for this input. I could have used you expert guys as consultants back when I had my NEX-5n. It sounds like I never had it set up properly to suit my needs.

 

[willie_901]

Hmmm...not sure what "creamy" means in this context. But the default tonal contrast from CMOS sensors may be too weak for a good B&W conversion. But with Silver EFEX it is possible to sharpen separately for finest details vs. edges.

CMOS sensors have less highlight space than CCDs (at the benefit of shadow details). If you mean blown-out or close-to-blown highlights, metering for the brightest spot (or always taking 1/3-2/3 stops away from the built in meter) may be a good idea. It is almost certainly less damaging to lift the shadows verses dim the highlights with a CMOS sensor.

What I do is meter for the highlights, then selectively lift the shadows, boosting contrast and detail sharpness as needed. Don't be afraid to push the settings around with A7 files - they can handle a lot more than your average CCD file.

I also find it crucial in processing B&W to make sure the monitor gamma is right. If the monitor itself is blown-out or has too much contrast, no amount of PP will make the files look right.

While I do not doubt some cameras produce monochrome images that are more pleasing than other cameras', I can not understand how the sensor timing and degree of modular construction affects tonality. Photodiodes are essentially identical in CCD vs CMOS sensors. The ability to record highlights and/or selectively push shadows is a function of the analog dynamic range when the shutter is open. The DR in turn is a function of full-well capacity (maximum signal) and inherent read noise. These are very different for older CCD sensors only because photo-diode full-well capacities and read noise are improved in newer technology (CMOS).

The similarity CCD and CMOS technologies is discussed here.

"Both technologies were developed between the early and late 1970s, but CMOS sensors had unacceptable performance and were generally overlooked or considered just a curiosity until the early 1990s. By that time, advances in CMOS design were yielding chips with smaller pixel sizes, reduced noise, more capable image processing algorithms, and larger imaging arrays. Among the major advantages enjoyed by CMOS sensors are their low power consumption, master clock, and single-voltage power supply, unlike CCDs that often require 5 or more supply voltages at different clock speeds with significantly higher power consumption. Both CMOS and CCD chips sense light through similar mechanisms, by taking advantage of the photoelectric effect, which occurs when photons interact with crystallized silicon to promote electrons from the valence band into the conduction band. Note that the term "CMOS" refers to the process by which the image sensor is manufactured and not to a specific imaging technology."

and

"Implementing a pinned photodiode (PPD) with a CMOS APS was technically challenging since the CCD PPD required high transfer gate voltages to reduce any potential barriers and achieve complete charge transfer. Such high voltages (12-15 V) were not generally compatible with CMOS processes. Inte- grating the CCD PPD into a CMOS APS was first reported in 1995 from a JPL and Kodak collaboration in which Kodak developed a low voltage PPD implementation [33]. Further refinement [34–36] and widespread adoption of the PPD in CMOS image sensors occurred in the early 2000’s and helped CMOS APS achieve imaging performance on par with, or exceeding, CCDs."

If these articles are in error I need to know what the errors are so I can re-educate myself.

Otherwise, I contend the differences you observe are due to differences in the color filter arrays, IR filter properties, other data stream characteristics or optical effects that have nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS construction.

 

[YYV_146]

I just went and had another go at using peaking on the A7S and found it worked usefully for me if I turned it to its lowest setting and used my ZM lenses at or near wide open - f2 for the 35 f2 Biogon and f2 for the 50 f1.5 C Sonnar. Interesting comment about Zeiss lenses getting false positives out of the focus peaking because of the high contrast. It's great getting different ideas on these things. I'll have to try my '59 Elmar wide-open! Thanks for nice comments about my Bhutan photos. Much appreciated. Photo from today with focus peaking helping things at f2 on ZM C Sonnar:

Great photo. I always use peaking wide open and stop down to shoot. If I need speed and stopped down shots, I go straight to f4 and scale focus my lens.

The beauty of the A7S is that big pixels also make scale focusing easier. I can eyeball my 35mm Summilux at f2.8 and get a pretty high keeper rate - just like using film

 

[YYV_146]

While I do not doubt some cameras produce monochrome images that are more pleasing than other cameras', I can not understand how the sensor timing and degree of modular construction affects tonality. Photodiodes are essentially identical in CCD vs CMOS sensors. The ability to record highlights and/or selectively push shadows is a function of the analog dynamic range when the shutter is open. The DR in turn is a function of full-well capacity (maximum signal) and inherent read noise. These are very different for older CCD sensors only because photo-diode full-well capacities and read noise are improved in newer technology (CMOS).

The similarity CCD and CMOS technologies is discussed here.

"Both technologies were developed between the early and late 1970s, but CMOS sensors had unacceptable performance and were generally overlooked or considered just a curiosity until the early 1990s. By that time, advances in CMOS design were yielding chips with smaller pixel sizes, reduced noise, more capable image processing algorithms, and larger imaging arrays. Among the major advantages enjoyed by CMOS sensors are their low power consumption, master clock, and single-voltage power supply, unlike CCDs that often require 5 or more supply voltages at different clock speeds with significantly higher power consumption. Both CMOS and CCD chips sense light through similar mechanisms, by taking advantage of the photoelectric effect, which occurs when photons interact with crystallized silicon to promote electrons from the valence band into the conduction band. Note that the term "CMOS" refers to the process by which the image sensor is manufactured and not to a specific imaging technology."

and

"Implementing a pinned photodiode (PPD) with a CMOS APS was technically challenging since the CCD PPD required high transfer gate voltages to reduce any potential barriers and achieve complete charge transfer. Such high voltages (12-15 V) were not generally compatible with CMOS processes. Inte- grating the CCD PPD into a CMOS APS was first reported in 1995 from a JPL and Kodak collaboration in which Kodak developed a low voltage PPD implementation [33]. Further refinement [34–36] and widespread adoption of the PPD in CMOS image sensors occurred in the early 2000’s and helped CMOS APS achieve imaging performance on par with, or exceeding, CCDs."

If these articles are in error I need to know what the errors are so I can re-educate myself.

Otherwise, I contend the differences you observe are due to differences in the color filter arrays, IR filter properties, other data stream characteristics or optical effects that have nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS construction.

No, no, I am only talking about output, specifically output of modern Sony (among other modern sensor makers) sensors that have a flatter output response. This is technologically advanced(better diodes) and good news for processing, but bad news if you want nice-looking OOC files.

The articles are right - sorry for the misunderstanding. However, CCD manufacturing has not improved for several years. The M9 and Pentax 645D are IMO at the lead for CCD performance, yet these cameras suffer miserably in the high iso/low iso dynamic range department compared to the latest CMOS sensors (they were competitive in 2009, though). I own a 645D and find the OOC pleasing, but shadow recovery is a big issue, and highlight capacity at most slightly exceeds the A7 and matches the A7S.

 

[danielsterno]

I have an M9 and a Sony A7. I've not used the NEX cameras other than very superficially; I've used the M9 and A7 extensively. The A7 for me is a body to use with my Leica R and Nikkor SLR lenses. I do occasionally use an M-mount lens on it, but it works better with SLR lenses in general.

The $1300 price tag on the A7 body was justified by the fact that I expected it to prove the best way to make use of what was (when new) about $16,000 worth of excellent lenses, and a lot less expensive than the upgrade cost of going from M9 to M typ 240.

Using the A7:

- It's a clunky little plasticky-feeling camera.

- In use, because I use it with manual focus, adapted lenses, it feels more like a compact DSLR.

- The EVF is very good quality. For lenses 50mm and up, I can focus critically with neither magnification nor focus peaking. I find focus peaking only a moderate assistance at the best of times; magnification is more useful with short focal lengths.

- The sensor is very good and nets very clean results up to ISO 6400, with still "very good" results at ISO 125000 and 256000 if I'm careful with exposure..

- Although there are a bunch of mostly useless buttons and features for my uses, there is just enough cutomizability that I am able to use A and M modes with direct access to ISO, shutter time and aperture without needing to dig into menus. There are a few options that you must dig into the menus, but once you remember where they are, it's not off-putting.

- The EVF and LCD are very good, but the EVF lacks some of the sophistication of the Olympus E-M1 EVF and does not adapt as well to bright sunlight conditions.

- The in-camera panorama and video capture are useful plusses, occasionally.

By comparison to using the M9, the A7 is more versatile and better suited to long lenses or very short lenses (I have R lenses down to 19mm and up to 180mm). The M9 I find to be best used with 28 to 50, occasionally 90, mm lenses where the coupled rangefinder/viewfinder works best. Where I can get marginally good B&W out of the M9 at ISO 2500 and decent color at ISO 1600, the A7 nets two stops more sensitivity. The A7's live histogram, level indication, etc, all provide a great deal of flexibility when shooting.

Which do I like using more? The M9, certainly. It just feels better, better finished, and, when used with 28, 35, and 50 mm lenses that are a good match for the sensor, the image results are easily a match for the A7's 24Mpixel sensor.

Which do I use more? Well, the A7 gets the nod as I feel it works better with a 24mm or 90mm lens.

These are very different cameras. If my goal was to maintain use of my R lenses but keep only one body, I'd sell both the M9 and A7 in exchange for an M-P typ 240. The Live View, optional EVF, improved responsiveness, larger battery, etc, all combine to make it a significant upgrade to the M9.

But I'm lucky and happy to be able to keep both bodies and enjoy them for their individual merits.

G

Godfrey: FYI- Wanted to get you insight and appreciation on the thorough analysis. As a primary film person and only fuji x100, I am trying to analyze my first multi lens camera with the "street" usage as well as low light, Leica lens with other typical needs and you covered 90%. Though I am a little concerned of the interaction/comfort aspect. I plan on renting final choice pre-purchase...

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

FWIW, I have a good time with the focus peaking on the Sony cameras (NEX-5N and A6000). I use MF lenses for available light portraits indoors, shooting pretty much wide open.

Seems there are two classes of Sony cameras: The 5N has a menu system like a maze challenge. The A6000 is much better in the controls and menus. I understand the A7 menus are in the same family with the A6000.

 

[GaryLH]

I have both the a6000 and the a7. The menu setup is exactly the same outside of feature differences. If u are familiar w/ the a6000, u should have no problem w/ the a7 and vice versa.

Gary

 

[sleepyhead]

FWIW, I have a good time with the focus peaking on the Sony cameras (NEX-5N and A6000). I use MF lenses for available light portraits indoors, shooting pretty much wide open.

Seems there are two classes of Sony cameras: The 5N has a menu system like a maze challenge. The A6000 is much better in the controls and menus. I understand the A7 me nuts are in the same family with the A6000.

THANKS for the info colonel. I'm actually leaning towards the A6000 at the moment instead of the A7s. I see it as a cheaper way to determine if I will like the EVF experience, and focus peaking. Good low light performance compared to the Leica M9 is what I want the most, and the occasional telephoto shot, which the A6000 may even be better for due to the smaller sensor.

 

[jsrockit]

Sounds like a smart plan SH... especially with the A6000 being $449 these days in the US. Not sure if you have similar deals in your area.

 

[Huss]

THANKS for the info colonel. I'm actually leaning towards the A6000 at the moment instead of the A7s. I see it as a cheaper way to determine if I will like the EVF experience, and focus peaking. .

The EVF experience is different between the A6000 and the A7s, as the A7s has a higher quality larger and sharper unit.

 

[furcafe]

I'm more like Godfrey in that I use my A7 primarily as a digital platform for my legacy manual-focus film SLR glass (in my case, Zeiss Ikon Contarex mount); in other words, it's my manual focus dSLR. As a hardcore RF user who's fortunate enough to have a M 240 for my Leica-mount glass, the only Leica-mount lenses I use on the A7 are those w/focus shift &/or focus alignment issues (predominantly vintage glass that works fine on my film bodies but is noticeably off on the M 240 & was on the M9/M8). The M 240 gets used for more candid, quick shooting (I can still focus an RF much faster than a manual focus SLR VF or EVF), while the A7 is used for slower situations where precise composition is critical or I need longer focal lengths or closer focusing.

The A7 is my 1st Sony camera, so I can't compare it w/any of the NEX bodies, but I can say that the EVF & rear-screen experience is far superior to that on the Fuji X-Pro1 & M 240 (not surprising given the improvements in display technology) &, in good light, rivals my classic manual-focus SLRs (Nikon F & F2, etc.). The A7's EVF still gets jerky in available darkness, but at least you can still shoot (much better hit rate w/slow or stationary subjects, of course); not sure if the A7S's superior high ISO translates to better EVF responsiveness. Like some of the others who have posted, I've had no problems w/focus-peaking, but I mostly rely on the magnification function for critical focus, which reminds me of using a Rolleiflex. Learning the functions & customizing dials/buttons is obviously more daunting than the M 240 & the manuals are woefully bad (maybe better in Japanese?), but the process was not nearly as painful as my 1st dSLR (D700); it was about as fast as the X-Pro1 & in some ways simpler because of the lack of an OVF.

Hi All

I'm seriously thinking of getting a Sony A7s to use alongside my Leica M9, and possibly to replace the M9.

I know that different people are different, but I'm hoping that some of you who have used both cameras (or systems) can help me decide if I'll enjoy using the Sony A7s.

First some background: I've used film cameras for 40 years, and pretty much only non-digital Leica Ms and Hasselblads for the last 30 years.

 

[sleepyhead]

Well, after much thinking and comparing features and photos onlne, I have decided to buy a Panasonic GX7 with 20mm f/1.7 lens in 2015.

It will neither replace nor compete with my Leica M9. I plan to use it as my everyday, carry with me and don't worry too much about it camera. It will give me at least a few more f-stops of light sensitivity over the M9, and autofocus for my aging eyes.

Looking at the Sony A7s and A6000, they just didn't seem like cameras that I would get inspired to use.

The GX7 with 20mm will be more like returning to my Rollei 35S (I hope). And likewise be small enough to slip into a coat pocket.

 

[noimmunity]

I have been reading and re-reading internet commentary on the A7s with M lenses. In the end, it seems that there really isn't a consensus.

I have seen a number of images that have a certain "magic" or compelling look.

It does look like it would be an excellent set up for candid portraits in all kinds of lighting situations. Perhaps not as suitable for landscape if corner sharpness is desired.

Many people say that it is slower in use with M lenses than an RF body.

I wish that I could try one out, but this is not so easy in France/Taiwan as it would be in the United States.

 

[Lss]

It will give me at least a few more f-stops of light sensitivity over the M9

That is pretty optimistic unless your Leica lenses are slower.

 

[dseelig]

I have a sony 7s and an r and I have an M Ihave no trouble focus peaking my my lenses I ahve the 44 35 50 75 luxes. I think the Sony A7 s is a great low light camera and I actually love it. I think getting a 7s for a back up and lowlight alternative tot he M9 is a great idea.

 

[Huss]

I shoot the A7s and a Leica Monochrom.

I can't speak for using fully manual focus lenses on the A7s (I use the 35mm f2.8, which has AF) while I do leave it on manual focus, I tend to punch in my focus when required (using the button in the AF/MF switch). Never used it with a Leica lens, sorry.

Settings wise, shutter speed, aperture and iso all have their own dials, which given ISO on an M is behind a menu (Least M9 / MM), it is slightly more useful.

I always convert to B&W, so tend to leave my ISO to auto, manually setting speed and aperture.

Only frustrating thing for me is you can't have the silent shutter mode set to a custom button.

1/50th f5.6 ISO 5000

This shot illustrates to me why I do not like AF. Often it focuses somewhere else than the intended spot. Here it has focussed on the zipper, not on his face. With MF, you know where you are placing the focus all the time.

 

[Lss]

This shot illustrates to me why I do not like AF. Often it focuses somewhere else than the intended spot. Here it has focussed on the zipper, not on his face. With MF, you know where you are placing the focus all the time.

Face is one key feature where a modern AF system is often able to focus even under fairly challenging conditions. Assuming one has face detection activated.

 

[YYV_146]

This shot illustrates to me why I do not like AF. Often it focuses somewhere else than the intended spot. Here it has focussed on the zipper, not on his face. With MF, you know where you are placing the focus all the time.

Center focus and then compose. Same with any film RF.

I only use DMF or center point mode on AF cameras. Another good way is to map the AF trigger to another button. This way you can prefocus and then check exposure.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

As you do with AF, if you use it properly.

 

[Michael Markey]

This shot illustrates to me why I do not like AF. Often it focuses somewhere else than the intended spot. Here it has focussed on the zipper, not on his face. With MF, you know where you are placing the focus all the time.

Not if you are trying to manual focus on a moving horse or indeed anything else which is changing direction.