awilder
Alan Wilder
As a former M film shooter, I've glanced at glowing internet reviews of the latest M digital cameras. It's a given that M primes are tops in optics (especially wide open), build quality in a compact package. Coupled with accuracy of Leica's RF for short telephoto through wide angle lenses and lack of mirror slap, it also accounts for Leica M high IQ. This much I experienced with Leica film bodies but have long since left film for various reasons. However, I'm curious how much their CMOS sensor contributes to their IQ. Is this something achievable by manipulation of full frame RAW files from companies like Nikon, Canon or Sony? I'm assuming the big advantage of Leica is the IQ straight out of the camera with little or no manipulation. Anyone both owning the M240 and a high end DSLR of similar MP sensor size using a comparable prime focal length that could post a comparison image to illustrate the difference would be helpful. Thanks.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I own both Leica M-P and Nikon D750 cameras. Both are equipped with 24Mpixel CMOS sensors. I have excellent Leica and Nikon lenses for use with both cameras.
What you ask for is essentially impossible to be shown in any useful way. There is no metric for "IQ". There are metrics for resolution, color accuracy, contrast, and other properties of images, but image quality is an elusive beast that combines all of these easily measurable properties and other not-easily-quantified properties (like out-of-focus rendering, micro-contrast, the interactions of vignetting, coma, spherical aberration, rectilinear aberrtaion, etc) into an image. The capabilities of the in-camera image processing system also varies widely between the two cameras, and the settings are not directly convertible from one to the other.
You can take it for granted that both cameras produce top-notch, excellent photographs when a skilled user with a good eye uses them, both directly out of camera and when rendered from raw files external to the cameras. However, the results will be differently nuanced depending upon which camera and lens is used.
So why pick one over the other? All of the following decision points apply, and likely more:
It is literally impossible to make a credible statement of "which one is better than the other" based upon the notion of just "what image quality do they produce?" When you're considering cameras at this level of competence, other factors are far more accessible criteria by which to make such a decision. Posting a pair of comparison images to show the difference inevitably illustrates more about the photographer who made the photographs than it does about the cameras.
The best way to see the difference between them is to acquire both, and a few favorite lenses, and go work with them. After a few weeks' use, you'll know which camera works better for you and the photographs you make.
Or, you might discover as I did that both are excellent tools that have advantages depending upon what kinds of photographs you intend on making at a given time... That is why I have both. ;-)
G
What you ask for is essentially impossible to be shown in any useful way. There is no metric for "IQ". There are metrics for resolution, color accuracy, contrast, and other properties of images, but image quality is an elusive beast that combines all of these easily measurable properties and other not-easily-quantified properties (like out-of-focus rendering, micro-contrast, the interactions of vignetting, coma, spherical aberration, rectilinear aberrtaion, etc) into an image. The capabilities of the in-camera image processing system also varies widely between the two cameras, and the settings are not directly convertible from one to the other.
You can take it for granted that both cameras produce top-notch, excellent photographs when a skilled user with a good eye uses them, both directly out of camera and when rendered from raw files external to the cameras. However, the results will be differently nuanced depending upon which camera and lens is used.
So why pick one over the other? All of the following decision points apply, and likely more:
- Because you prefer one type of camera (RF or SLR) over the other.
- Because you prefer the rendering of a particular focal length lens of one brand over the other.
- Because you prefer the size/weight/ergonomics of one over the other.
- Because you want to use the camera to do specific kinds of photography that one is more suitable for than the other.
- Because one is less expensive than the other.
- Because it is easier to obtain service in your area for one more than the other.
It is literally impossible to make a credible statement of "which one is better than the other" based upon the notion of just "what image quality do they produce?" When you're considering cameras at this level of competence, other factors are far more accessible criteria by which to make such a decision. Posting a pair of comparison images to show the difference inevitably illustrates more about the photographer who made the photographs than it does about the cameras.
The best way to see the difference between them is to acquire both, and a few favorite lenses, and go work with them. After a few weeks' use, you'll know which camera works better for you and the photographs you make.
Or, you might discover as I did that both are excellent tools that have advantages depending upon what kinds of photographs you intend on making at a given time... That is why I have both. ;-)
G
awilder
Alan Wilder
Thanks Godfrey, I too own the D750, a few classic primes like the 45/2.8P, 55/3.5 Micro, 105/2.5, 25-50/4 but lately mainly shoot with AF-S lenses like the 70-200/4, 300/4 and 600/4. I also use the Fuji XE-2 for lighter weight shooting with their 14/2.8 and 18-135. Assuming output of a D750 and M-P are similar, I agree that the factors you mentioned will have more of a bearing on the image. Expense of course is the biggest drawback in acquiring Leica gear given the body alone is around 7K. I was just wondering if there any noticeable difference in the image to justify revisiting Leica down the road.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I own a Canon 5DmkII and a Leica M 240. Megapixel features are similar, I think the 5DmkII is 21MP, the Leica is 24MP.
Simplified answer: the images from the Leica are far superior to what I can get from the Canon. I recently did an experiment shooting the same Autumn foliage with both cameras to compare the image quality. I used prime lenses, and shot both cameras with straight in-camera JPEGs.
The Leica easily won. Everything I value in a good image: colour rendition, subject separation, colour gradation, sharpness, etc. -- the Leica images had 'pop' and character. The Canon images looked highly processed and dull by comparison. I was really quite surprised.
Shooting the Leica M 240 in RAW mode gives you even more flexibility, if you're willing to invest some time in learning the in's-and-out's of RAW manipulation.
Where the Canon dSLR machines really shine is in their user interface. They are very intuitive to use and extremely versatile. The Leica is quite rigid in its menu structure and user experience. It also doesn't perform as well in low light as any of the recent model Canon or Nikon models.
Another telling clue: check out the DxO mark scores for the M 240 compared to Canon and Nikon models. For instance, the M 240 is rated much more highly than my aging Canon, and it really shows.
I don't have any direct comparisons to give but I can submit an image I recently took with the M 240 -- you can see the dramatic colours and image 'pop' that I'm talking about. The Canon couldn't even come close.
Simplified answer: the images from the Leica are far superior to what I can get from the Canon. I recently did an experiment shooting the same Autumn foliage with both cameras to compare the image quality. I used prime lenses, and shot both cameras with straight in-camera JPEGs.
The Leica easily won. Everything I value in a good image: colour rendition, subject separation, colour gradation, sharpness, etc. -- the Leica images had 'pop' and character. The Canon images looked highly processed and dull by comparison. I was really quite surprised.
Shooting the Leica M 240 in RAW mode gives you even more flexibility, if you're willing to invest some time in learning the in's-and-out's of RAW manipulation.
Where the Canon dSLR machines really shine is in their user interface. They are very intuitive to use and extremely versatile. The Leica is quite rigid in its menu structure and user experience. It also doesn't perform as well in low light as any of the recent model Canon or Nikon models.
Another telling clue: check out the DxO mark scores for the M 240 compared to Canon and Nikon models. For instance, the M 240 is rated much more highly than my aging Canon, and it really shows.
I don't have any direct comparisons to give but I can submit an image I recently took with the M 240 -- you can see the dramatic colours and image 'pop' that I'm talking about. The Canon couldn't even come close.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I'm starting to get the impression, perhaps wrong, that the M monochrome cameras have an insurmountable advantage in that chromatic aberration is far less apparent. In fact, a lot of lenses perform stunningly well on what intuitively should be the most unforgiving camera.
Dante
Dante
Has anyone compared images between the M240 with the Nikon D810 or Sony A7rII ?
awilder
Alan Wilder
Bobby, I really like the color and pop of those leaves but were those purple-magenta colors correct in the sharp foreground leaves? I'm assuming the Canon shots were muddier by comparison.
ferider
Veteran
I thought about your question quite a bit last night, and basically agree with Godfrey.
1) I have a 24 MPixel A850 and an M240. I can see a difference due to the filter stack on the A850 sensor (needs more sharpening in post even though the Minolta AF lenses that I use are high IQ), and I do notice the 2 bit difference in dynamic range (shadows are easier to pull with the M).
2) But: the A850 came our in 2009 and the M in 2012. So I attribute the difference in sensor output to the different sensor generations. Conversely, now you have the new BSI sensors that I am sure perform technically better than the M sensor. So, it's only fair to technically compare sensors from the same generation, IMO.
3) In practice, it's all about the lenses though: with the A850's stabilizer and AF. Auto Focus works ! I can take photos with a 85/1.4 that I simply cannt take with the M. Conversely, with the M, I have lenses that don't exist for the DSLR, like Sonnars from 1950, a teeny 90/2.8 lens, I'm about to get a 50/1.1, etc. If I wanted, I could go more exotic with a 21/1.4 or 1.8, a 50/0.95, etc. Note also, that in practice, the A850's image stabilizer makes up for the missing 2 bit dynamic range.
4) Under the bottom line, I like a small camera, I like to see frame-lines and I like to manually focus. And - as somebody else said on this forum - the A7* cameras are about as much fun to use as Outlook
. That "fun factor" is subjective and hard to measure.
For my next local people assignment, I will take the M with 35mm and the A850 with 85/1.4 AF and stabilizer. On the other hand, for my next trip to Asia/Europe, I'll take the M with 21/2.8, 35/2, and 90/2.8. And I know, I'll be happy with the IQ of keepers that return. Doesn't get much better than this, IMO.
Roland.
1) I have a 24 MPixel A850 and an M240. I can see a difference due to the filter stack on the A850 sensor (needs more sharpening in post even though the Minolta AF lenses that I use are high IQ), and I do notice the 2 bit difference in dynamic range (shadows are easier to pull with the M).
2) But: the A850 came our in 2009 and the M in 2012. So I attribute the difference in sensor output to the different sensor generations. Conversely, now you have the new BSI sensors that I am sure perform technically better than the M sensor. So, it's only fair to technically compare sensors from the same generation, IMO.
3) In practice, it's all about the lenses though: with the A850's stabilizer and AF. Auto Focus works ! I can take photos with a 85/1.4 that I simply cannt take with the M. Conversely, with the M, I have lenses that don't exist for the DSLR, like Sonnars from 1950, a teeny 90/2.8 lens, I'm about to get a 50/1.1, etc. If I wanted, I could go more exotic with a 21/1.4 or 1.8, a 50/0.95, etc. Note also, that in practice, the A850's image stabilizer makes up for the missing 2 bit dynamic range.
4) Under the bottom line, I like a small camera, I like to see frame-lines and I like to manually focus. And - as somebody else said on this forum - the A7* cameras are about as much fun to use as Outlook
. That "fun factor" is subjective and hard to measure.For my next local people assignment, I will take the M with 35mm and the A850 with 85/1.4 AF and stabilizer. On the other hand, for my next trip to Asia/Europe, I'll take the M with 21/2.8, 35/2, and 90/2.8. And I know, I'll be happy with the IQ of keepers that return. Doesn't get much better than this, IMO.
Roland.
Hsg
who dares wins
The Leica M240 does not have image stabilization in-body or in its lenses.
How important is image stabilization? That is something that you have to find out for yourself... In my experience image stabilization is very useful.
How important is image stabilization? That is something that you have to find out for yourself... In my experience image stabilization is very useful.
willie_901
Veteran
IQ can has many aspects. One aspect can be measured objectively based on statistical analysis of un-rendered raw data.
The M240 data stream has a competitive analog signal-to-noise ratio. Since SNR is the main factor in determining analog dynamic range, the M240's DR is also competitive.
Other brands may have superior SNR, but the differences are not worth discussing. Optimum exposure when the shutter is open is can more important than SNR performance. Of course people who often work hand-held in extreme low light (where the sensor must be under exposed) may find other brands produce marginally better IQ... especially in shadow regions. For most of us this is not the reason to buy one brand over another.
Color rendition depends on other factors such as the IR filter characteristics and the frequency bandwidths of the RGB filters in the Bayer color-filter array. This topic is more subjective.
The M240 data stream has a competitive analog signal-to-noise ratio. Since SNR is the main factor in determining analog dynamic range, the M240's DR is also competitive.
Other brands may have superior SNR, but the differences are not worth discussing. Optimum exposure when the shutter is open is can more important than SNR performance. Of course people who often work hand-held in extreme low light (where the sensor must be under exposed) may find other brands produce marginally better IQ... especially in shadow regions. For most of us this is not the reason to buy one brand over another.
Color rendition depends on other factors such as the IR filter characteristics and the frequency bandwidths of the RGB filters in the Bayer color-filter array. This topic is more subjective.
Fraser
Well-known
My own personal opinion you can get any look you want out of any the big brand top end cameras as long as you spend enough time getting the camera setup how you like it and don't expect the camera to produce the finished pic.
4) Under the bottom line, I like a small camera, I like to see frame-lines and I like to manually focus. And - as somebody else said on this forum - the A7* cameras are about as much fun to use as Outlook
Always been the right reasons for using a RF. However, I will add that plain ergonomics, old school controls, and RF patch being my favorite way to manual focus are also part of the appeal. You don't buy a digital leica M because it is the best camera, results wise, for the money. You buy one because you can't imagine using something else.
FrankS
Registered User
Well said. You should be in marketing!
ferider
Veteran
Well, in my case, I got one as a gift. She must have known that I cann't imagine using something else
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I know the purple / magenta / blue colors look exaggerated but there was minimal post-processing done on the leaf photo.
I took the photo early in the morning and the sun was just rising, the sunlight was coming in from a very oblique angle and the blue sky was brilliant -- some of the blue in the image came from the perfectly blue sky.
I've had several comments (not just on RFF) from people who like the photo but think I pushed the levels ... but that wasn't the case.
On the other hand, I have found the DNG files from the M 240 to be wonderfully malleable. There are definite advantages to shooting in DNG if one is inclined to put in some extra effort to learn how to work with them. But there's definitely a learning curve involved.
FrankS
Registered User
Fantastical leaf picture, Bobby!
awilder
Alan Wilder
Thanks Bobby, great to know it wasn't manipulated.
uhoh7
Veteran
Oh people are doing that constantly.
If you do not crop the M240 with good lenses wins hands down I think.
But once you start really peeping all sorts of variables come into play. The Sony can only play with the other two at 25mm, 35mm, 55mm and 90mm where there are natives designed for the thickly covered sensor.
With those lenses the Sony will win any crop contest.
The D810 is the mature pro machine, and offers the only complete system of the three.
Now....what will Cosina come up with?
Lss
Well-known
The two are/can be the same (given current market), when the results being discussed are actual photographs and not lab results. A large part of photography simply cannot be effectively reduced to mere comparison shots. Comparison shoots, perhaps. But at this point it's already subjective.