But your point about Sony is not based on facts or use.
This is bizarre! I spent two days in London comparing the two side by side - I know what I saw. Plenty of images comparing f1.4 and f2 on the Sony with the leica at f2.
Arka wrote:
Candidly, I'm very happy to be "missing the point" if that's all it is - weird interface and heavy lenses that "perform" perfectly. Maybe it's good enough to make sales sufficient to justify Leica's continuing investment into the system - heck if I know.
The SL interface is "unique" but not necessarily in a good way (at least, that's how I felt about the SL2 I "test drove" for a weekend). And I haven't looked at an MTF chart in over a decade, let alone made a lens or system decision (either to purchase or use) based on one. It's probably more to do with where I am in my photography journey, but I'm much more concerned about weight and rendering style than across-the-frame sharpness. This is why I'm a huge fan of M lenses.
I suppose any camera system can get to lens perfection when budget and weight are a non-issue. I would be curious to know how many working photographers can monetize the alleged performance differences between SL gear and other high quality systems from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. I suspect not many but I don't have the data to make firm conclusions one way or the other. ...Show more →
I think Leica is aware, and OK with that being where you and the majority of photographers end up regarding the SL system. They are a luxury, niche player in the Photography World by design. They are hugely financially successful, with a loyal user base by focusing on that market position.
Except for the SL system Leica is very much focused on form factor, size and weight, while maintaining image quality. throughout their other camera lines. I would also not choose the SL system as my only camera equipment. I am primarily an M camera shooter. Compact, light, with superb IQ. I just spent a month traveling the Eastern Med with a tiny camera bag, two bodies, six top optical performing lenses from 21mm to 90mm most f/1.4 90mm f/2.8. Never felt I missed a shot due to lack of gear. For what I use the SL3 for the size and weight is not much of an issue. But, it is a secondary role in my photography for sure.
I could go around the World with this tiny Digital 60mpx/Film kit. Glasses and watch for scale.
If you want the best lenses and the best system capabilities, go Hasselblad and Fuji GFX - similar prices, sizes and weight.
Even in 35mm the Leica lenses do not beat everything else. I recently tested the Leica SL3 plus 35mm f2 Apo - a great combination, enough to satisfy anyone, with exquisite IQ, BUT not better than a Sony A7RIV (note) plus the fabulous GMII 35mm f1.4 - much, much cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter, better, more consistent AF across a range of situations, and of the two lenses, for me, in practice (not manufacturer produced charts), slightly better IQ - sharper centrally, especially at f1.4, better at the edges, better bokeh, better handling, just as much ‘pop’, and for my eyes, better micro-contrast. Some people even say the new Sigma equivalent - much cheaper still - is also a hot competitor....Show more →
Owning the A1 & Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM, and the Leica APO-SL 35mm F/2.0 I disagree with your findings. Yes, the MTF charts agree with me on that. I do agree that the Sony has superior AF if that is important to your use case.
But such disagreement are what make the World interesting.
wolfloid wrote:
This is bizarre! I spent two days in London comparing the two side by side - I know what I saw. Plenty of images comparing f1.4 and f2 on the Sony with the leica at f2.
Maybe you have a built in filter in your eye.
The thing about reports of results like yours is that they are subjective so can never be proven either way. The MTF charts which are largely objective are in direct and large disagreement with your observations however.
Leica's MTF charts are not objective - they are from Leica, they are marketing. Do we let them mark their own homework? Since the VW scandal, trust in German companies is no longer what it was.
The only relatively objective comparison I have been able to find is from Lens Tip comparing each lens on older 42mp sensors, which are considered close enough not to matter - Sony A7RIII and Panasonic SIRIi. Of course, I am aware that many will not accept this comparison, but it is the best I could find.
The conclusion is:
The Sony gives you:
f/1.4 + essentially the same peak resolution, plus excellent corners, plus dramatically less astigmatism, plus better flare resistance, plus arguably cleaner bokeh, plus 226 g less weight, plus with any moving subjects, superior, more reliable AF.
The Leica gives you:
near-perfect APO correction, plus exceptionally high resolution already at f/2, plus much lower vignetting, plus very low native distortion, plus very consistent/clean rendering.
My own experience across about 15 different scenarios, some of people and a few townscape/landscapes, is that the Sony/GM combination has an edge that is important enough for me.
That is far from many Leica user claims: that it easily beats any other FF 35mm lenses. It is, however, understandable emotionally that such claims are made After all, it is a not insignificant investment.
wolfloid wrote:
Leica's MTF charts are not objective - they are from Leica, they are marketing. Do we let them mark their own homework? Since the VW scandal, trust in German companies is no longer what it was.
The only relatively objective comparison I have been able to find is from Lens Tip comparing each lens on older 42mp sensors, which are considered close enough not to matter - Sony A7RIII and Panasonic SIRIi. Of course, I am aware that many will not accept this comparison, but it is the best I could find.
The conclusion is:
The Sony gives you:
f/1.4 + essentially the same peak resolution, plus excellent corners, plus dramatically less astigmatism, plus better flare resistance, plus arguably cleaner bokeh, plus 226 g less weight, plus with any moving subjects, superior, more reliable AF.
The Leica gives you:
near-perfect APO correction, plus exceptionally high resolution already at f/2, plus much lower vignetting, plus very low native distortion, plus very consistent/clean rendering.
My own experience across about 15 different scenarios, some of people and a few townscape/landscapes, is that the Sony/GM combination has an edge that is important enough for me.
That is far from many Leica user claims: that it easily beats any other FF 35mm lenses. It is, however, understandable emotionally that such claims are made After all, it is a not insignificant investment. ...Show more →
Just based on your own descriptions, it sounds like each is superior in different ways. Best to say something like I find the Sony best for my uses. This is a fairly technical gear forum, so blanket statements without caveats usually get challenged.
wolfloid wrote:
Leica's MTF charts are not objective - they are from Leica, they are marketing. Do we let them mark their own homework? Since the VW scandal, trust in German companies is no longer what it was.
The only relatively objective comparison I have been able to find is from Lens Tip comparing each lens on older 42mp sensors, which are considered close enough not to matter - Sony A7RIII and Panasonic SIRIi. Of course, I am aware that many will not accept this comparison, but it is the best I could find.
The conclusion is:
The Sony gives you:
f/1.4 + essentially the same peak resolution, plus excellent corners, plus dramatically less astigmatism, plus better flare resistance, plus arguably cleaner bokeh, plus 226 g less weight, plus with any moving subjects, superior, more reliable AF.
The Leica gives you:
near-perfect APO correction, plus exceptionally high resolution already at f/2, plus much lower vignetting, plus very low native distortion, plus very consistent/clean rendering.
My own experience across about 15 different scenarios, some of people and a few townscape/landscapes, is that the Sony/GM combination has an edge that is important enough for me.
That is far from many Leica user claims: that it easily beats any other FF 35mm lenses. It is, however, understandable emotionally that such claims are made After all, it is a not insignificant investment. ...Show more →
Such nonsense.
Except of course the part about which lens is best for you. We all must make that choice and it is always valid from our point of view.
