Sony verses Leica

ndwgolf

ndwgolf

Messages
4,358
Name
Neil Williams
Edit My Images
No
Guys
I have just sold my wife's old Sony A7R as she wanted my old Leica TL2.
We got asking around as to why someone would pick a Sony over a Leica (vise versa) and most of the folks I talked to said they wanted a Leica for the amazing rendering but had to put up with the sony due to the higher cost of the Leica.......would that be the general concenious on here or is there something else........thoughts??

Neil
 
ndwgolf said:
Guys
I have just sold my wife's old Sony A7R as she wanted my old Leica TL2.
We got asking around as to why someone would pick a Sony over a Leica (vise versa) and most of the folks I talked to said they wanted a Leica for the amazing rendering but had to put up with the sony due to the higher cost of the Leica.......would that be the general concenious on here or is there something else........thoughts??

Neil
Click to expand...

Sony is cheaper, has cheaper and much more AF glass, can use pretty much any lens including leica via adapter, much better AF system, different sensors to choose from.

Its more like you're saying why would you pick any camera over a Leica or vice versa though.

Now wheres @dancook ? He's made the switch from SL to Sony and also has a Hasselblad.
 
Last edited:
I prefer the rendering and image quality of the Leica, but I sold it all (Q, SL, M10) for Sony because I needed the speed and flash compatibility.

I did then buy Hasselblad and prefer using that to Sony, but the Sony became a professional need.

If I was comfortable using the Leica and Hasselblad for professional usage on a more regular basis then I would.

Also the problem with Leica and professional needs is that redundancy is expensive...

p.s. I do miss Q
 
Last edited:
Hi, for me, it is not Sony vs Leica, but Leica M9 and Sony A7R2. Both systems have their merits, so I use them both (and Nikon), and I am happy and satisfied.
 
Last edited:
As a long term Leica user (starting with Leica 111A) I can't bring myself to use the M8, now on its third shutter at 16000 actuations, or to sell it so it just sits on the shelf and I happily use the vastly superior Sony cameras.

Leica may come in handy if ever I need to defend myself with a big lump of brass.
 
I’ll join the discussion based on nothing other than viewing many Leica images, dreaming that in some parallel universe I might be able to afford a Leica system.

I believe most of the lovely Leicaness is down to the lenses rather than the bodies, and the older lenses give more of ‘that look’ than the newer ones. For example, the SL lenses don’t appear to me to have that je ne sais quois, and pretty much look like any high end Canikon glass, albeit very sharp.

So based on this you could (in theory) get a very similar look putting Leica glass on Sony, however Sony do tend to struggle with their colours (imo) and so won’t render as nicely overall.
 
I have found you go for Leica for the experience of the shooting, and the quality of the build. Of course there are limitations, and the price, but there is something different about shooting a Leica M model (and I don't mean just the rangefinder). They are not the be all and end all though.

Sony's are handy, but still reletively new to the market, and also have limitations. They have some great features, but given the Choice I would keep my M6 over the latest Sony model. And I am by far a Leica fanboy.
 
If I had to pick one or the other I'd got Sony without a doubt. It is the camera for using in daily business situations, much faster and more modern.

Of course if you bring up Leica medium format that changes things, but that is easily beaten by top of the line Hasselbland or phase one.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
If I had to pick one or the other I'd got Sony without a doubt. It is the camera for using in daily business situations, much faster and more modern.

Of course if you bring up Leica medium format that changes things, but that is easily beaten by top of the line Hasselbland or phase one.
Click to expand...
Guess you dont like Leica then hahahaha
 
ndwgolf said:
Guess you dont like Leica then hahahaha
Click to expand...

It is not about "liking". Without AF and many other features it would be a liability in many jobs. The price is such that you may as well pick Pentax or Fuji MF probably for less and I will leave it up to you to conclude which will deliver more detailed output with higher success rate.
And the MF competition have top guns with bigger sensors.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It is not about "liking". Without AF and many other features it would be a liability in many jobs. The price is such that you may as well pick Pentax or Fuji MF probably for less and I will leave it up to you to conclude which will deliver more detailed output with higher success rate.
And the MF competition have top guns with bigger sensors.
Click to expand...
I think k you miss understood my question....... I shoot photography for fun not for work so the need for fast accurate AF in my case is not necessary.........if I needed that then I would use a Nikon.
My Leica M is fantastic for a walk about camera I guess the same as a Sony A would be. My Leica S is also great for fast action but a PITA as it's heavy for a day out. My H6D100c blows all my cameras away when it comes to IQ but is also a PITA as a walk about camera but is my go to camera for everything else.
As for rendering the Hassy and Leica blow away the competition and would be my preference over the Sony A cameras
Neil
 
It's not one or the other for me. I put Leica lenses on a Sony A6500. I simply can't justify the cost of a Leica body.
 
I have had a couple of M2s which were nice, but the M6 was amazing, would love to be in a position to afford Leica. Build, looks, using the camera...
 
BethAtTheHug said:
It's not one or the other for me. I put Leica lenses on a Sony A6500. I simply can't justify the cost of a Leica body.
Click to expand...
Hi, this is one way of using Leica. Originally, I went mirrorless to adapt Leica glass from my M6, starting with the Olympus Pen-1, followed by Sony Nex-3, Nex-5n, Nex-6, which worked
best with Leica, Voigtländer and ZEISS M mount glass.

The A7 suffered from colour shift and weak corners, as does the A7R2. Colour shift can be corrected in-camera using the Sony Lens correction app.

Meanwhile, I have a few native Sony/ZEISS lenses, so I adapt Leica Lenses from 35mm up nowadays. I appreciate the tilt screen, live view, IS, high ISO performance of my A7R2 compared
to my Leica M9.

(Nikon I use solely for taking pictures of moving cars. I was not satisfied with the Sony AF performance for this application. Nikon being too heavy for me, I do not use walking about. -
This rules out medium format for me, which should be called "super-FF" ... )

My M9 I like for the rendering, and the handling experience. Of course, I am biased. I bought my first Leica M6 in 1988. - But even then it was not my only camera. I had a Minolta XD-7, ROLLEI 35s,
ROLLEI 2.8 GX, Fuji Gs645.

I am in the (un)fortunate situation of being able to buy everything I like for my hobby, photography. So I can be flexibly rational ...

Sorry, folks, for this long story ...
 
justpix said:
The A7 suffered from colour shift and weak corners, as does the A7R2. Colour shift can be corrected in-camera using the Sony Lens correction app.
Click to expand...

Yup, you do have to be careful. My Zeiss C biogon 35mm has a little corner colour shift, but it's not usually noticeable (on APSC of course). When it comes to full-frame I'll have to re-think that one. In the meantime I have a brilliant small lens. The 25mm Biogon, no C, does not suffer the same fate. If I go wider I'll save up for a Loxia 21mm.

ndwgolf said:
That's a shame.......your missing out on the Leica magic [emoji3][emoji3]
Click to expand...

I don't feel I'm missing out at all. Quite the contrary, I have a pocketfull of cash I can spend on the lenses I like.
 
BethAtTheHug said:
My Zeiss C biogon 35mm has a little corner colour shift, but it's not usually noticeable (on APSC of course). When it comes to full-frame I'll have to re-think that one. In the meantime I have a brilliant small lens.
The 25mm Biogon, no C, does not suffer the same fate. If I go wider I'll save up for a Loxia 21mm.
Click to expand...
Hi, my ZEISS Biogon 2/35 is open a little soft in the corners with the A7R2. My best 35mm (out of 5) is the ZEISS Distagon 1,4/35, also on the A7R2. Very good is also the Voitgländer Norton 1,2/35 V1.

There is a lot of experience now with Leica Glass on SONY. Originally, I started to adapt with the illusion of using high-quality Leica glass on high-performance medium price Sony bodies.

Very few Leica lenses perform on Sony as well as on Leica.

The 2,8/25 ZEISS Biogon is excellent on the M9, useable on the A7R2.

I have the 21mm Loxia, too. It is excellent on the A7R2 and my favourite lens when travelling, visiting big cities. (Of course, it is the best 21mm for Sony FF. My Leica Elmarit 2,8/21 ASPH is my best M mount 21mm,
compared to the ZEISS 4,5/21 and the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 4/21.)

All I do here, is describe my experiences with my equipment. I am not an internet analyst ...
 
BethAtTheHug said:
I don't feel I'm missing out at all. Quite the contrary, I have a pocketfull of cash I can spend on the lenses I like.
Click to expand...
I agree it's good to get nice lenses but unless you shot Leica glass on a Leica body then you will never get that Leica magic ............it's the same with Hassablad gear. :)
 
ndwgolf said:
Guys
I have just sold my wife's old Sony A7R as she wanted my old Leica TL2.
We got asking around as to why someone would pick a Sony over a Leica (vise versa) and most of the folks I talked to said they wanted a Leica for the amazing rendering but had to put up with the sony due to the higher cost of the Leica.......would that be the general concenious on here or is there something else........thoughts??

Neil
Click to expand...

I have never owned a Leica :D

I've had a couple of film RF's and they were fun but maybe best used with short to 50mm or so lenses. Not being able to move the patch was a pain and being able to place the focus point anywhere and to then be able to greatly magnify the subject is just so... lovely :D And then there's the hassle of changing the film with a Leica, maybe they weren't all like that, I don't know :D

I do sort of see the attraction of Leica's mostly as a metal camera and lens fondling manual RF experience thing but the further the products get from that the less likely I am to pay attention. There's the maintenance too. I've had a couple of old MG's and they were lovely but they needed too much of my time and I had other things to do. MX5's just get on with it. Ditto RF's v newer stuff that doesn't need fettling anywhere near as often.

I do think that some of the more bling Leica things and also some of the more "nice thing to have" things are highly dubious :D Want a rebadged Panasonic at an inflated price? No thank you. I sometimes think of Bang and Olufsen, a bit overly styled and not necessarily the best :D Sorry to anyone who has a passion for B&O stuff :D

I do wonder how some of their products would be received if they were just as good but made by some no name Chines upstart company? :D But I do know that we're not supposed to wonder about things like that and if people like using Leica kit because it's Leica kit then life is too short to spend any great amount of time debating the technical or otherwise merits.

Sorry for the intrusion.
 
Last edited:
I've seen many images produced by Leica cameras, and if I didn't know from the off I would possibly have thought they were just more dslr shots with a certain type of processing - maybe that is this 'Leica look'? - I have a 'Leica' lens atm, a 'Summilux' more produced by Lumix, though leica do make the optics, and it is a damn fine little lens with punchy colours and razor sharpness where you want it - it certainly has it's own feel, very different to Panasonic's own primes at least. Combined with a Leica sensor I guess there will be that certain magic that other cameras and lenses just cannot compare with.
 
ndwgolf said:
I agree it's good to get nice lenses but unless you shot Leica glass on a Leica body then you will never get that Leica magic ............it's the same with Hassablad gear. :)
Click to expand...
This ist true. However, it depends on the combination. The Sony gives you IS (a monopod might otherwise be required), live view (get an M10), a tilt screen (bend your knees), high ISO performance (don't stay up late).

I get the best results using Sony with Sony/ZEISS glass, Leica with Leica (and Voigtländer/ZEISS). In some cases, you get a more compact combo (Summicron 2/35 with A7R2).

Panasonic glass with a Leica label on it is not Leica glass. The same goes for Sony/ZEISS glass. The design is from ZEISS, manufacturing by Sony, large sample variation being the consequence.

Looking more closely, when comparing, let's take the Leica Elmarit 2,8/21 ASPH and the M9. Functionally equivalent with the Sony A7R2 and the ZEISS Loxia 2,8/21 I use the Leica universal finder,
aka Frankenfinder, which also has an inbuilt level. I get functional equivalence, but the compactness is diminished.

Ergonomics of this combo I do not discuss. I am ergonomically robust, having worked with DOS 2.10 and IBM 3270 screens.

My favorite comparison for the Leica M9 (or 10) is the Mercedes G-Glass. Classic design, some modern ingredients, very, very nice to have, maybe not as the only car ...

I see myself as a realistic Leica enthusiast, a little like my avatar, the garden dormouse, rare and shy.:D
 
Last edited:
justpix said:
Panasonic glass with a Leica label on it is not Leica glass
Click to expand...


But it is, glass is what makes a lens, it's just isn't constructed by them. Even Kai the irritating Leica fanboy admits so:
 
Cagey75 said:
But it is, glass is what makes a lens, it's just isn't constructed by them. Even Kai the irritating Leica fanboy admits so:
Click to expand...
Hi, a lens is not just a lens but a complex mechano/optical device with electronics and SW. So, there is the proper glass part, the housing with shims keeping the lenses in position,
the assembly in manufacturing, the quality control and the microcode, naming major components.

When is a Leica lens a Leica lens? If and only if it is designed by Leica and made in Germany by Leica engineers, purists would say. (But some components are delivered by suppliers.)

Anyway, this explains why Leica lenses have their price and value.

What I find most important about Leica/Panasonic lenses is that they are Leica designed but made in Japan by Panasonic, with Panasonic quality control.

From my mft days I still have the Olympus Pen-1, and the Panasonic LUMIX G 1,7/20, an excellent lens.

I would say, Panasonic makes excellent lenses, with or without Leica written on them
 
justpix said:
Hi, a lens is not just a lens but a complex mechano/optical device with electronics and SW. So, there is the proper glass part, the housing with shims keeping the lenses in position,
the assembly in manufacturing, the quality control and the microcode, naming major components.

When is a Leica lens a Leica lens? If and only if it is designed by Leica and made in Germany by Leica engineers, purists would say. (But some components are delivered by suppliers.)

Anyway, this explains why Leica lenses have their price and value.

What I find most important about Leica/Panasonic lenses is that they are Leica designed but made in Japan by Panasonic, with Panasonic quality control.

From my mft days I still have the Olympus Pen-1, and the Panasonic LUMIX G 1,7/20, an excellent lens.

I would say, Panasonic makes excellent lenses, with or without Leica written on them
Click to expand...


I'll tell people that mine's a Leica anyway :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top