Upgrading the full frame digital box with Leica lenses

<p>The M240 upgrade from prior digital offerings seems to have satisfied many Leica users. One of the characteristics of some of us looking at upgrading our equipment (from say M8 or M9) and image output quality has been to acquire the highest resolution camera and optics in a basic system that has little need for automated operation (like autofocus), video or other features, simply an ability to seek near medium format performance from a small lightweight system and to have good dynamic range and ISO performance.</p>

<p>For those with Leica lenses, the apparent upgrade choices are the M240 (or monochrome versions) and the Sony A7R, in particular the A7RII. While the Sonys may have some limitations with the extreme corner or edge performance of wide angle short focus traditional RF lenses they do offer high resolution and ISO range (especially the A7RII) as well as a tiltable viewing screen (something I would really like to have in order to increase angle of view possibilities). The M240 is considered by Erwin Puts to be on the same level of image quality, or better, than the larger Nikon 800e with its 36 MP Sony sensor. His seems to be the only review aligned with that statement, although he seems to be a very careful or thorough tester.</p>

<p>With the A7RII at about half the price of the M240, and possibly a better performer, upgrading and staying with the Leica digital camera option is questionable.</p>

<p>Are there others seeking improved image performance over the M8 or M9 who may be facing this question and whether or not to to forgo an expensive full frame M240 for the new Sony? I understand that the two cameras are different operating experiences, so I am mainly interested in what you think about the relative picture making qualities of either, and also, whether you think that Leica may soon offer an improved version of the M240 (which has been out for a while now). <br>

</p>

<p>"Picture making qualities" covers many things. Here is my experience. When it became altogether too difficult to have film processed, I sold my M6 and bought a Sony A7. Soon I bought manual Nikkors to replace my assortment of Leica mount lenses. No complaints, and a fair bit of money came in. I might add that I am not after "near medium format performance": 24 megapixels is a good deal more than I need today.</p>

<p>The Leica M9 and later cameras have a 0.8 mm cover glass on the sensor. While much thinner than that of the A7 (2 mm), it is enough to affect the corners of RF lenses 35mm and shorter, but to a much lesser extent. I do not find it objectionable, except where corner sharpness is essential, as in large group photos or certain landscapes.</p>

If you are planning to use Leica lenses I'll offer you a perspective from a similar decision I made. I had an M8 and I

couldn't afford an M9 at the time so I bought a Nex-7 (previous generation of Sony cameras APS sensor). Ultimately

though I got good images from that setup (using my 35/2 Summicron ASPH for a normal lens), I eventually bought an M9

just because I was able to focus faster and more accurately with the Leica. With the Nex I needed to focus carefully with

the focus peaking and then magnify the center to fine tune the focus. Since I shoot landscapes this wasn't a deal killer but

it was more time consuming than just using the rangefinder to optically focus quickly.

 

The A7R and A7RII are doubtless much better in terms of EVF (the Nex was pretty great). Plus it was nice in the Nex to

review the pictures I'd taken in the viewfinder at much higher resolution than I can do with the M9. And I liked using all

kinds of old lenses with adapters. But I did like using the M9 better. Maybe this is because I'm used to the optical

viewfinder.

<p>I bought an M9 in the Summer of 2014, and was very pleased with the results. It was just too expensive and inconvenient to consider using film with my M2 and M3. While it is easy to use with lenses up to 50 mm, it is very difficult to focus longer lenses accurately enough to use them effectively wide open. The main reason is the low magnification of the finder, 0.68x. I bought a 1.4x magnifier, which helped enormously, but can't be used with lenses shorter than 50 mm (you can't see the frame lines). I am further handicapped with the Leica since I wear glasses and have some astigmatism. Even with a diopter (+1.5) in the finder, I still have trouble seeing the image merge in the rangefinder (astigmatism causes doubling).</p>

<p>I bought a Sony A7ii when it was first available in December, 2014, and haven't looked back. The resolution at 24 MP is about the same as that of the 18 MP M9, since the Sony has an AA filter and the Leica does not. The Sony is ideal for manual focusing. I don't use peaking (any more), rather the focus magnification feature. I programmed a button near the shutter release (C2) which engages focus magnification in two stages, 5x and 12x. It turns off when I touch the shutter release button. Magnification absolutely nails focus for any Leica lens, including a Summicron 90/2 and Tele-Elmar 135/4. The lens always fills the finder - no frame lines required. The other "killer" feature was in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which works with any lens, including Leica lenses. You dial in the focal length to optimize IBIS performance. It's an extra step, but made easy by programming another button for quick access. I get more hits than misses as slow as 1/4 second with a 35 mm lens. (Usually it's the subject moving.)</p>

<p>This Spring I took delivery on an A7Rii, which is an order of magnitude beyond the A7ii - double the resolution and without an AA filter (effectively tripling the resolution over the A7ii). Moreover, it has the option of completely silent, electronic shutter operation - a boon for the situations I shoot professionally - classical concerts, musicals and plays.</p>

<p>I have mostly retired my Leica lenses, gradually replacing them with Sony/Zeiss lenses designed specifically for the A7 FF cameras. They don't have sharpness issues in the corners, and overall are sharper on the Sony than Leica lenses on the M9. Some of them are actually auto-focus. I should reiterate Leica lenses work well enough on the Sony to handle practically any situation, so you don't have to replace anything if you don't wish to, or you can take your time doing so.</p>

<p>An interesting situation arises with wide angle lenses at short range with the Sony. The focal plane is parallel to the sensor, and turns with the camera when you focus and re-compose. The object you focus on will no longer be in that plane. That's no big deal if you can only get as close as one meter with a Leica, but the Zeiss Loxia 35 and Batis 25 focus down to about 8". Either stop down or use the 4-way button to move the focus point.</p>

<p>I'll just follow up that I also have pretty serious astigmatism as well as some farsightedness and wear no light bifocal glasses while using the M9. I use 35mm and 50mm focal lengths typically with 24mm and 90mm occasionally. With wide angles it's easier to focus with a rangefinder than it is the typical SLR. I have cameras with long lenses but rarely use the long focal lengths. </p>

<p>That said, you have to use a system that works for you. The only way to know is to try the cameras in the increasingly non-existant camera store in your town.</p>

<p>Interesting point, Edward and David, on the astigmatism issue. I will try that with and without glasses. Thanks to you and to Mukul for your views. Possibly 18 and 24 MP are high enough in resolution for most images, other things being equal (minimum camera shake, accurate focus of desired subject regions, etc.), and that price or other features like high ISO and dynamic range may be important in considering the new Sony. As David suggests, a trial with the M240 or Sony A7RII is important and luckily Quebec City still has camera stores that carry at least the Sony (have to now go to Montreal to test the Leica from a store).</p>

<p>Edward, thank you for the salient points regarding EVF, focus accuracy, IBIS, resolution and silent shutter option of the Sony. Those advantages can add to my desire for a flexible (tiltable) monitor, which I would find very useful in a number of situations of normal handheld use and different points of viewing. The synergy of the M240 or M9 with Leica optics has to be placed against the possible higher resolution and added features (or those which are deemed important) of the Sony and its specifically designed lenses and whether the poorer edge performance of Leica lenses with it may necessitate purchasing eventually these specific optics designed for the Sony. Of course, selling very good condition Leica lenses, as Mukul mentioned, is not always a losing proposition financially and possibly only the less compatible ones (Apparently the 90mm Elmarit and longer lenses like the 135 work perfectly with the Sony) like the 35 mm Summicron need to be reconsidered and pehaps exchanged for Zeiss or other.</p>

<p>I trust a lot of this is not just splitting hairs on performance but really weighing (subjectively) the points in favor of one system or another, which can also vary with each user. Once done, thoughts are better addressed to photography subjects and approaches and we can place aside the specific reasons why we chose one equipment over the other.</p>

<p>Arthur, I purchased an A7 last year specifically to be used with my Leica-M glass. Back then, it was assumed that lenses 35mm and longer would be fine - as it turned out, that didn't apply to the 35/2 ASPH. No color cast, but smearing in the corners. Not all that bad really - but I do not need to carry a $3000 lens around that performs no even at the same level as the 28-70 Sony kit lens. Not the lenses fault for sure - tried the same lens on a M (240) - and the differences were clearly visible even without pixel peeping (just the corners though). And since the Leica's sensor doesn't perform any better than the Sony, and because I have never been particularly fond of the rangefinder concept, the choice was an easy one for me - the 'cron is for sale and its proceeds will fund (almost) the entire lens system I acquired to round out my A7 system. Eventually, I will get a A7II, just for the IBIS - but I am not in any particular rush. The A7RII is tempting - but I have already enough trouble managing the huge files from the D810, no need to exacerbate the situation with even larger files - for what I use the A7 for, 24MP is plenty enough.</p>

<p>A most interesting thread.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The M240 is considered by Erwin Puts to be on the same level of image quality, or better, than the larger Nikon 800e with its 36 MP Sony sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I haven't read that review (in fact I might do so today!). But I can believe it, partly because the difference between 24Mpx and 36Mpx is, roughly, 15%-20%. Not much.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This Spring I took delivery on an A7Rii, which is an order of magnitude beyond the A7ii - double the resolution and without an AA filter (effectively tripling the resolution over the A7ii).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just a nitpick, expanding on my previous comment. The difference between 24Mpx and 42Mpx is not even 50% (but that is still significant). To double the resolution of the A7, you need 96Mpx.<br>

<br>

I do wonder why there is no electronic shutter on the CMOS Leicas. And I also wonder if the next M will feature a CCD, now that the SL exists. The SL can do video. Let the M be purely about photography.</p>

<p>The Nikon D800E has an AA filter of a special sort, for which the effect is partially reversed by another anti-AA element - the optical equivalent of adding sharpening in post. The M240, with an unfiltered 24 MP sensor is easily equivalent to a 36 MP sensor with an AA filter. </p>

<p>It is quite correct to say that resolution is proportional to the square root of the number of pixels. I mispoke in that respect. It is also correct to say the difference between 24 MP and 42 MP is significant, further enhanced by losing the AA filter in the process. Mathematically, the improvement is about 40%. Subjectively the improvement is closer to 70%.</p>

Read some things and looked at video reviews of the Sonys and came to the conclusion I have no interest

in them. I still like the simplicity and logic of the Leica design. Nothing has surpassed it for me.

<blockquote>

<p>Mathematically, the improvement is about 40%</p>

</blockquote>

<p>32.5%</p>

<p>Ray, I appreciate your point about the logic of the M systems, with a design particularly pertinent for street photography. The contrary choice of Dieter is also of interest as the RF-VF is either easily accessible or not to some of us, and the image stabilization feature of the A7II or A7RII is a desirable thing. The 35mm Summicron asph is classed by many as one of Leica’s best relatively recent (1990s?) lenses for film photography, but I agree that losing that capacity on the A7 is problematic and I look forward to comparing it on both my M9 an A7 to my 35mm f2.5 « classic » VC lens that is a more modest lens. Yes, large files are the price of added resolution as MF digital photographers surely know, and as Karim and Edward point out, the increase of pixels and file size are not directly proportional to image quality improvement (square root multiplier). </p>

<p>I am glad that Ray and Dieter bring the discussion to one of operational characteristics (handling, viewing, focusing,...) that distinguish the RF from SLR type (or its rough equivalent the mirrorless uses EVF through the lens) cameras. Image performance is only one, albeit an important, parameter. I didn’t overuse my humble film Yashica FX-3 2000 and ML or Zeiss Japan optics, as one who prefers RF-VF cameras in most cases, so I wonder if the finder and tiltable screen of an A7 series would be enough of a handling advantage (It would be clumsy to hold a Mirror at 45 degrees to the back of an M240, but I guess it could done as a last resort).</p>

<p>Will Leica keep its minimal features approach while offering a new M with heightened resolution, perhaps CMOS with backlit pixels like the A7RII (and many P&S fixed lens digitals), higher ISO, and also offer a tiltable monitor? I hope so, but I won’t hold my breath. In the meantime, it is probably worth renting or borrowing an A7RII to see if the latter unseats Leica (or by how much...which may be more to the point) in performance and handling. </p>

<p>The next color M should be out within a year from now, taking the release cycle of Monochroms as a reference, especially considering how much Leica showed off in the Q & SL. - Taking into consideration how long we resisted the 240, it makes little sense to buy it before sale out or new at all.<br>

I feel not very tempted by an increased pixel count and doubt owning glass up to that resolution at all. So if there is a Sony for me, it would be most likely an A7SII right now. <br>

I'm wondering where Leica are going in the pixels race. Will they start building primes for a high res SL or use the M line to introduce new sensors since the SL seems made for zooms?</p>

I love my M240, no way I would compromise and get a Sony anything, I only paid 4K for it mint used. It does better in low light than the test / enthusiast

crowd would have you believe as well. But it is not my first choice for Leica and is strictly for paid shoots that need color

or quick turnaround. I still by far and away prefer the real photographs I get from black and white film in my M3 & M6.

 

But the 240 has a great look to it, really nice tonal distribution with a richness and sharpness that is only surpassed by my

new 50MP Hasselblad CFV50c digital back.....again, a device I choose second over film.

<p>Daniel, as a professional photographer your appreciation of the M240 is a welcome addition to the OP question. I quite agree about the quality of B&W film via the Leica or medium format (in my case usually the RF Mamiya 6 or Fujifilm GSW 690III), especially when time permits the creation of silver prints via the darkroom. Our local shortage of chemicals and papers means I often end up digitally shooting a lot of intended B&W subjects. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Our local shortage of chemicals and papers means I often end up digitally shooting a lot of intended B&W subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The closest source for those items for me is about 200 miles and two 12,000 foot mountain passes away, I have been ordering from B&H and Freestyle for 100% of this since 2002.<br>

If it ever comes to be that I can no longer get them, I will simply exit photography.</p>

<p>Arthur,<br>

About a year and half ago I purchases a Leica M-E at a great price. It was my first digital M, but I used film M's for many years, so I already had the glass.</p>

<p>I'd like to put a different spin on this. Why did we shoot Leica M's in the first place in the film era? For me, at first, it was about the mystique of the Leica M itself. I remember the first time I enlarged images from my first M2 with a 35mm Cron. I was blown away by the sharpness, contrast and clarity compared to my Nikon 35mm lens.</p>

<p>After using the M for about a year, I noticed something changed in my seeing and compositions; my images became more dynamic and composition less rigid. Seeing through the rangefinder window was liberating. Everything from near to far is perfectly sharp. You start to see spatial relationships. Through the SLR I was seeing everything at f/2.</p>

<p>The images I was making with the M were more satisfying than those I was making with an SLR. That sold me on Leicas, or perhaps better stated, the RF way of seeing.</p>

<p>When digital rolled around for me in 2003 I started down the DSLR path with Olympus, then Pentax and finally FF with Canon. The M8 held no interest. And it was a rough start for Leica. I could not swallow the price of the M9 upon introduction.</p>

<p>Stumbled upon the M-E at a show and was smitten. It felt better than any M9 I has played with. Rented one for 10 days and purchased mine soon after. It's by no means a low light monster, but up to 1600 it's usable for me.</p>

<p>I was thinking about the Leica MA the other day. It gave me hope Leica would one day continue with a digital Leica MA, which would really just be the 240, sans video and live view.</p>

<p>Unless you are invested in seeing through a RF camera, you are probably going to be better served with other offerings at a better price. For the pure RF way of seeing the Leica M-E/9/240 are about the only options. They are still wonderfully simple digital cameras compared to anything else I've used.</p>

<p>Jim, good arguments that I for one can really appreciate. There are only a very few things that a mirrorless with live view and EVF can perhaps do better than the M8, M9 or M-E, but those are still tempting I think (The A7RII's better ISO performance, image stabilisation, tiltable monitor) even if the advantageous RF features of an M camera may be lost or curtailed. Hopefully Leica will introduce at least a few of these features, a bit overdue, on a future M or its more economic equivalent (like M-E to M9) with the new features.</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>In full disclosure, the Fuji X100T has become my other favorite camera. I purchased the original X100 when it came out, hoping it would cure my rangefinder viewing itch. I had a love/hate relationship with that camera. It sat unused most of the time after about a year when I gave up on it.</p>

<p>When the X100T came out all the reviews spurred me on to rent one. I had previously rented the X100S but it didn't fix the usability flaws for me. The T is a whole different camera operationally. Fuji pretty much nailed it. I sold the X100 and bought the T. It has become my every day carry camera. It's so small and light you don't have a reason NOT to take it everywhere. The Leica M-E has become the camera I take when I out just to photograph. It's so zen and the the sensor is still stunning. Since the 35mm FOV is my favorite these two cameras form a versatile duo depending on my whims and needs. I have found myself using the EVF and flash on the X100T from time to time. It's nice to have them.</p>

<p>Having a camera always available is a plus. I don't know the X100T, but imagine it is like having had a Minox GT (or GTE, etc.) at hand in the days of common film use. That and a Rollei 35TE (love the Tessar lens) enabled photos of subjects that were too appealing to forgo during the daily life. Good pocketable digitals with a reasonable size sensor are not all that common. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>When the X100T came out all the reviews spurred me on to rent one. I had previously rented the X100S but it didn't fix the usability flaws for me. The T is a whole different camera operationally. Fuji pretty much nailed it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did they ever fix the issue in that the only way to see the menu or menu-like items was to either put the damn thing in live view or keep your eye glued to the viewfinder as you fumbled around for buttons in order to make even basic adjustments?<br /> Because that sir, is what I consider to be the single biggest user interface blunder by any camera maker in my 21 years of using digital cameras professionally. After the first firmware update did not address it, I got rid of that stupid thing, bought a clean used M240 and never looked back.<br>

<br /> Fuji *really* blew it on the T with that mess...hardly what I would call "Nailed it".</p>

<p>Daniel, yep, that is the one stupid thing about the X100T. Fuji went brain dead on this one. A firmware fix would be welcomed. But it obviously doesn't bug me as much as it did you. I rarely go into the menus now I configured the camera to my liking. I've trained myself to hit the menu or Q button, hit the live view button, makes my changes, then hit the view mode button 3 times to cycle back to viewfinder only mode. </p>

<p>Talking about stupid decision, I'm still peeved over Canon's lack of Exposure Compensation when in manual mode with auto iso engaged. Leica got this right with the M9 and Fuji not until the X100T.</p>

<p>101,381 shutter activations on my M8.2 and it's a great camera. If the M8.2 were full frame I'd be happy as a clam (however happy they are). I suppose if I had the finances and a new M9P were available that'd be good. But I don't have the finances and an M-E wouldn't work for me. Only issue is wanting full frame. I am more interested in the quality of my photographs as opposed to quality of the sensor. The M, as is, is a perfect camera. Shutter speed dial, aperture, film speed, mechanical rangefinder - it all works so well together. The camera doesn't need a bunch of gizmos, doo-hickeys and extras. The M8.2 is as comfortable and easy to use as my first M2 purchased in 1966, that I still have. Good luck to all of you and your photography.</p>

<p>John R, you are quite right as the M8, despite some shortcomings, is a very fine camera with a color response as good as, or better, than the M9.</p>

<p>I tried to see your photos via your kink on your photo.net home page, but that didn't work for me. Is there an error in the address or has it possibly been changed? Thanks - Only secondary to the discussion, but I am always interested to see the work of those posting.</p>