Does the Sensor Matter? Leica M10 vs. Sony A7RV!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июл 2024
- How much of the photo is in the lens, and how much is in the sensor? Join me in Yosemite as I shoot the Leica 50mm Summicron on both the Leica M10 and Sony A7RV!
0:00 - Intro in Yosemite
1:06 -Tunnel View
2:04 - The Test
4:44 - Real Talk
9:19 - Comparisons
14:42 - Summary
16:03 - Closing
Thanks Dave!! Wonderful video, more for your words and thoughts than the photos! I enjoyed it very much!
Thanks so much Jason! I appreciate comments like this!
This is great! Hope you hit 1,000 subscribers soon!
Thanks!
My first DSLR was a Canon 40D with a 50mm f1.8, then onto the A7S line including my current A7S III with a 24mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8. I also picked up a small Leica CL with a 23mm f2. I'm consistently impressed with the images the CL spits out given how small it is compared to my full frame A7SIII. The best way I can describe it is that my Leica CL conveys textures quite well. What you said about running your finger across El Cap and feeling every bit of it is what I find consistently in my CL pictures whether it's food, skin, textiles, or anything else.
That’s awesome! I’ve never used the CL but I love how Leica is very consistent in their experience.
What camera are you using for the video portions?
Sony A7SIII my friend!
Love your videos. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks so much!
I think this is the second or third video of yours I'm watching. Therefore subbed and greetings from Germany :)
I totally agree with you prefer more experienced based reviews / opinion over "scientific" ones. I guess that's also the reason, why I got a Leica Q2 Monochrome. The experience of shooting and the feeling I get reviewing the files is just great, which keeps me shooting and learning more about photography. But I also don't want to miss the AF tech from Sony - without it I would have missed several great memory shots of my daughter running around. Therefore I also have both Sony and Leica :D
Also amazing comparison! Didn't expect these results. Only thing I would love to see in this comparison is, if you had mixed in one of your old Sony A7R bodies into this. Would be interesting, if the sensor development within the same camera brand (in this case Sony) is noticeable using the same lens :)
Thanks for sharing! Couldn’t agree more. I absolutely love my Sony system and desperately need that auto focus at times! 😂 Also, I may do a shootout with the A7R3 and see how it compares. Good call!
Great thoughts. Thanks for your video.
Thank you!
what iso did you shoot this images?
I don’t remember, this video is a year old now. Sorry!
That was great man. Appreciate you!
Thanks Joseph!
I use an a7r4a with Voigtlander APO and old R Summilux and Summicon. I find lenses character are different with the same sensor (and camera), similar but to a lesser extent than your comparison.
During the film (Fujichrome) day, there was a big difference between Leica lenses and other brands.
We probably need to pick both camera body and lenses to ones liking in digital day’s although post shooting editing can help.
My friend only shoots vintage lenses on her A7RIV and her work has a ton a character. The sensor definitely plays a part in the look! Thanks for sharing!
Great to compare both beasts. What came first, the sensor or the lens? Nice job Dave!!
Haha great question!
This is a great test. Please do more :) It would be interesting to see if you could tweak the Sony in the settings and in post to get it to look like the Leica as near as possible
ruclips.net/video/A_72LpD7QS8/видео.htmlsi=l4lFqEzhjGqR4AOJ
I'm curious to how the leica look applies to film. I shot a leica iiif as a kid and a "newer" Minolta. The filrm stock dictated the look. So is the leica look for digital only? I was hoping you were going to show the film you got from the m6 as a comparison.
I'm actually going to do a video and break this down! It's a combination of the lens contrast and color rendition with the sensor readout (digital). Film 100% dictates the look as well, but the Leica glass plays a big roll in it.
Dave, I agree completely. I use (almost) the same set up as You (Leica M10 and Sony A7Riii). Minus Leica Q2. I've decided to wait for the Q3. As a cinematographer and editor I have the same idea about Leica vs. Sony RAW-files. Leica have "the Leica look" which give me almost "tactile" pictures. I can "feel" surface structures in my pictures. Sony give my RAW-files "to work on". Just one more thing. Leica engineers have put a lot of effort into designing the microlenses on the sensor to suit the the short distance between lens mount and sensor. Perhaps that also matters. And one more thing, I my opinon You have to add the processor to the chain. Processor programing also play a role in this drama. Small note; I don't use Lightroom. I work in Capture One, but my findings are exactly the same as Yours! Keep up the great work Dave!
Thanks for sharing! I did a video a few weeks ago about the sensor and the role it plays. You’re 100% right in the way you describe it!
Thanks. I know others may not agree, but I felt that this is one of the few helpful comparisons of the Leica m10 body in comparison to other camera bodies on the market. I would like to see even a more in-depth comparison, but none the less it is a good presentation of the two systems.
Appreciate it! I may do more in-depth in the future. What would you like to see?
same setup but with the Canon R5 or R6!!! Great video :) I shoot an M10R and A7RV but often wonder about the R5 I switched from... @@davidherring
My buddy has the R5. Maybe I can borrow it from him! @@collinheath3290
@@davidherring that would be awesome! I’m so curious as to how it compares..
What I would like to know is the degree of color tone separation in each camera. Or does it even matter?
I don’t know if it matters to me. Color is easily changed in post.
@@davidherring That’s not what I mean. I think of the precision in the electronics to detect subtle tonal differences between pixels. Akin to microcontrast in lenses.
Could the difference between the two cameras be a result of how the software reads the Raw files? What would happen if you opened the same files in other programs?
This video is over a year old so I’m not really sure at this point.
Interesting, are you sure you have srbg on both cameras🤔? Great video👍
Yep, exact same!
Thanks dave, quite interesting comparison right off the bat, regardless it is interpretation alone, but that’s how we look at the photod
Thanks Riswan!
Im about to get an M10 myself very soon, just having a look if I can find a good deal. But Lens wise I‘ll probably go with either the 35 or 50 summicron
Can't go wrong with either of those!
Great video thanks!
Thank you!
I swapped my Leica M lenses between M and Sony when I used both systems .They do render differently on the Sony sensor although interestingly the sensor in the M11 is reputed to be the 61mp Sony sensor. Feasible because there is only one 61mp sensor on the market. Thank you for the video and your time .
I’d love to do a lens comparison between the M10 and M11 to see how it renders. A lot of what I’ve read says that the older or less sharp Leica lenses don’t work on the M11 because they can’t resolve that much. People who have the M11 typically have those Summilux lenses too! 😂
@@davidherringOlder lenses do work on the M11, but the more megapixels you have got the more deficiencies are clearly visible at maximum zoom. But the sharpness of the lens at the center of the frame at optimum aperture would be optimal still if the lens is a good one.
Unfortunately this doesn't end up being a comparison of sensors, but moreso a comparison of Adobe's default RAW file interpretation per manufacturer, irrespective of the "Profile" selected. In this case, the default interpretation of Leica's file starts with higher contrast, probably influenced highly by Leica themselves. The push and pull of each RAW file is where you see what kind of contrast and range each file can really give.
I actually addressed this in a different comment. I opened the same raw file up in Sony‘s software, and it looked identical to LR. That said, I understand that a raw has to be processed and the software processing gets a say in the image presented.
Both Adobe and Sony software are garbage at interpolation of RAW files, from any camera. It’s no surprise that most good young photographers have switched back to film.
2024 it’s safe to say that digital has been a complete failure.
@@t-money561gotta take lr class man
@@t-money561im agree, lr sucka motsly of the time. I use to used for bnw and since i star using nik sylver efex i dont wanna use lr anymore
Great content Dave.
Thank you!
Bingo, totally,, the sensor is the other half of the equation, always has been from the start, I remember the step away from CCD to CMOS, and how flat the CMOS seemed to be, while the CCD had a pop. A reason Leica held onto CCD longer, and I believed they worked extra hard to replicate the CCD look in their CMOS. I have both the modern SLRs and the M10 and I love the M10,, and the Q,, They just put out great images. Nice job on the video. I am beginning to settle into 24 MegaPixel as a ideal sensor size, I have multiple 45 Meg sensors, but frankly I seem happier with the 16-24 range. nice job.
Thanks Sebastian!
I remember when I had original 12mp A7S, and I made a comparison shots with A7Riii I immediately noticed the difference in image in terms of contrast and pop. The shots from A7Riii looked flatter, similar to what you showed here. I then thought maybe higher megapixels makes image look flat…
But after a bit of tweaking I matched the images. I’m not a specialist, but I feel that maybe it’s just some factory settings on the sensor that makes this impact to the image, even to the RAW image.
I feel that Sony has more standard, closer to reality look. While brands like Fuji and Leica make some tweaks to make it more pleasing right from the RAW.
I noticed that it’s always more pleasing to move blues closer to the teal, and warm colours brighter a bit and closer to orange.
And this is exactly what I see in Canon images compared to the Sony.
I tried Canon versus Sony photos and I don’t believe in Canons magic color science. It’s just factory preset to tweak a bit colours to make it pleasing for the people.
It’s easily to match Sony to Canon.
I don’t know about Leica, never tried :-)
For sure! I 100% agree with you that Fuji and Leica go for a more "out of the box" pleasing RAW file. My Sony files have huge latitude and I can do almost anything to them, but you can't deny how good that Leica looks right out of the camera. I think Sony and Canon definitely go for a more universal look, and I appreciate it. It sure is fun to shoot that Leica, though!
@@davidherring But I agree that Leica is so good out of the box! But that's the way Leica should be. This is a camera for the pleasure of the process. And Sony is a bit more like workhorse.
I love Sony and I even like how their angular shaped body’s look. But definitely Leica has some individualism in how it looks and feels
Awesome video. I love this stuff.
I think it might not even be the sensors themselves that play a huge role in image quality, but the filters on these sensors really do. If you take a look at the images coming from the Monochrome camera's where the filters are removed, they appear to have much more contrast and it's almost like how the dehaze filter works in LR. Just saying though!
Thanks for the comment. I love this stuff too!
How different are they in the center of the frame? The only contributor I can think of (aside from the secret influence Leica has on LR, though unlikely) is the super thin on-sensor filters Leica claim to implement. If it is the case, then the differences should be more obvious on the frame edges than the center.
Both photos are uncropped. I see a ton of texture difference in the entire image, personally.
Hey. colorist here. I shoot both Leica and Sony as well. I agree the Leica picture looks much richer - but I think in large it’s due to the Sony by default being much more blue in the mid tones where the Leica looks warmer. Would love to see an M11 comparison w/ Leica 50, vs. Sony w/ Sony 50.. just for fun.
Something similar is coming soon! But unfortunately, not the M11 haha.
Judging on Adobe profiles and processing? Oh, yeah. A wasted money for Leica IMO
I have never tried Leica cameras, but have been shooting with Sony cameras for a long time. It would be great if you could share these raw files so we can see the difference for ourselves and maybe try different presets to see how the files react. Do you think it's possible? Thanks!
This video is pretty old at this point but in future tests I’ll include some files!
I have a Leica SL and compared it against, Nikon D810, Sony A7RIII, Canon R6 and R5, and Fuji XT3. I was blown away by the Raw files from the SL beat everyone in colors. Colors popped like they were ready edited.
Exactly!
Then you edit the others little bit more 😂 problem solved.
@@stanvandersluis8486 actually false, I've tried for hours to match Leica's raw files. Just about can't match them. Leica's sensor has a stronger red and blue color filter. The raw files look already edited sooc. No editing needed.
@@SpiritLifeMinistriesInt the difference in the video is so small if you bump up the contrast and texture you come close to it.
@@stanvandersluis8486 actually in light room I bumped up the red and blues and got closer.
I agree that the sensor matters. Different sensor designs will sense differently. The microlenses at the top of each pixel are real lenses that become part of the optical path. The thicknesses of various layers in the sensor design will each have effects. I have adapted many of my Leica M mount lenses for manual use on my Sony bodies and am certain that sensors matter. So many things to keep in mind as we go about making digital images keeps is part of what keeps it engaging and fun. Thanks for your video and this community.
Thanks Bert! Glad to hear you have had similar experiences.
Hope you all know, sony makes the sensors for leica. Its just leica tweaks the raw file in body, thats where the look comes from.
Right, but it all matters. Samsung makes some parts for the iPhone but it’s an iPhone, not a Galaxy.
Hi. Only recently when it comes to the M11, that they used the Sony designed sensor. Prior to this the sensors were Belgian made. Cheers
Loved the video and the comparison between the two sensors. Good to see Leica lenses performing well on a Sony Body. But I had one thought…
Since the photos weren’t taken at the exact same time, could the clouds not move and block the amount of sun hitting on the mountain causing the Sony to look more “flat”? You see in your video that there was a bit of time between the Leica photos and the Sony photos. Would it not be a fairer comparison if the photos were captured at the exact same time with the exact same conditions. Depending on the wind the clouds can move quick enough to change the sound of light on the rock face
Just thoughts. Loved the video :)
Thanks for the kind words. I actually addressed this is in another comment, but I had recently gotten the Q2 and the time was slightly off from the prior user. These cameras were triggered in unison on tripods, as seen in the video. It is possible that clouds change (as they do) rapidly, but there is a very different look to these two systems. I shoot both M, Q, and Sony and can attest these results hold up in many circumstances.
Can you make a video to see if you can match the “Leica look” on the RV?
See a more recent video. I did this very thing and made a downloadable profile!
Hi Dave. I think the difference seen between both has to do with the image processor rather than the sensor. Sony produces sensors for several other companies yet they all look different because of the processor. It seems to me that the Leica processor is baking more clarity and texture in the Raw file than the Sony which looks flat as you said. Great content. Cheers from Everett, WA!
Thanks for sharing!
This is correct. Same reason some Fuji shooters swear by Capture One as opposed to Lightroom.
I'd like to see you match the look on the Sony, save the preset, and run the test again with another scene and see if it's a consistent post-processing effect taking place in the camera or if it's really something fundamental to the way the sensor is engineered. If it's the former, boom - save the preset to apply on import for your Sony and voila - Leica look whenever you want. If it's the latter, I'd be surprised but guess it's good to know you're actually getting something special when you shell out the big bucks
Hmm, that could be fun! I’ll give it a try!
Yes… That’s what I thought he was going to do. I would have loved to see that. Pt II PLEASE 🙏🏽
I’ll make it happen 💪🏼
Great comparison, and I agree with your analysis. When you first showed the two shots, I thought the So y was ‘flat’, but in the way s-log is, so you can tweak the image to taste…I thought this before you mentioned the Sony being flat and made the comparison to S-log. I think it’s the right thing for Sony to do…and, conversely, I think it’s the right thing for Leica to set their camera up to give the ‘Leica look’. Two different approaches, neither is wrong.
What might have been interesting to show is, like how you tweaked exposure so they matched, if you had tweaked constraint too, and maybe some other settings in post to get the Sony looking closer to the Leica.
The other thing to maybe note, I believe the filter stack over the Sony sensor is thicker than the Leica, or at least significantly different. So while you made every effort to use the same lens in your comparison, the Sony sensor/filter stack is not optimised to the Leica lens. This can make an adapted lens perform differently (worse).
I’ve been adapting lenses since around 2008, and been part of online communities doing the same with folk sharing their findings, and the sensor filter stack ‘issue’ comes up a fair bit.
Like you though, if you like the images you get with x lens on y camera, who cares?
I used a 1938 Leica Elmar 35/3.5 on an A7R3 for a while, initially because it was the smallest lens + adapter I could find for the Sony, but then I loved the character the lens gave me on the A7R3.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah for sure, the sensors are definitely purposed differently. Leica is made to retain that Leica look, and nothing will convince me otherwise! Sony is made to be edited and graded. Love shooting both. Today I shot with my Sony system for the first time in a few sessions (been mostly Leica), and I forgot how much I love shooting and editing Sony. Both are excellent systems!
I shoot with an A7R3 & a Leica M10-D. I can't say I particularly 'enjoy' shooting with the Sony, but I do appreciate how good it is at what it does, I value its performance.
The Sony's always seem to take flak online for their colour science, but its never bothered me, in fact, if I had not read about it so much online, I wouldn't even have thought about it. Besides, if you dont care for it, its easy enough to tweak things in post these days. I've been very impressed with the low noise in the A7R3.
Which camera system I grab depends upon what I am going out to shoot. If its action, or distant or dark, I'll typically take the Sony.
70% of my shooting is landscape though, which I used to use the A7R3 for, until I got a GFX 50r.
The GFX 50R is the camera I grab for landscapes now though. This is a camera that I really do enjoy using, & despite the age of the sensor, the files from it are still fantastic to work with.
The A7R3 & 50R actually partner really well for me, because they both excel in their own areas.
The M10-D purchase was to satisfy my curiosity. To scratch an itch. I was also mostly shooting the A7R3 with adapted manual focus lenses & in manual exposure mode too (thanks to the annoying exp comp dial on the A7R3 that is right on the edge & doesn't have a lock button). Not sure I've really reached a verdict on the M10D yet though, despite having it for a few years now, probably because it struggled to get a look in due to my other cameras. There are aspects of the M10-D I love, but there are also 1 or 2 which I find frustrating. When its in your hand it just feels so good - for me, this isn't about being 'seen' with a leica, I can be out in the sticks on my own & I still just want to keep the M10-D in my hand, its hard to explain or comprehend. I dislike the viewfinder information in the M10-D though, this is the biggest let down for me, & the image noise is not up to the A7R3 or 50r.
If I could only have one camera though, it would have to be the Sony, because it is the best all-rounder.
Is it "just a straight out of the camera raw file" 11:18 Or is it the interpretation of your raw processor default or previously altered settings for that camera raw file? Try a different raw processor and see if the "straight out of the camera raw file" looks the same. Ask yourself. Am I ever seeing a real raw file or is it always a corrected visual representation of one?
I addressed this in a different comment. I opened the Sony file up in Sonys software and it looks identical to the LR version. I don’t have Capture One for that comparison, but LR does a fantastic job interpreting the intent of the RAW.
@@davidherring OK that is not surprising as Adobe will ape the manufacturer. However it is still a color corrected visual representation as determined by the software as opposed to the sensor. I would say you are more testing software defaults (programing) than you are testing a sensor. This is very similar to the Straight out of camera jpg crowd. They brag on not editing their photos and "do it all in camera" All they did in camera was settle for the rendering of the image as programed in the camera. In short they confessed to a lack of creativity and likely understanding. When you view the raw image in your raw processor which simply copies or simulates the manufacturers interpretation of the file you are again looking at what the camera would do to make a jpg. Although you hopefully have greater bit depth.
Maybe putting interpretations of raw files next to each other is not really a test of the sensor but a display of the programmers work. Sure both sensors can photograph a well lit scene and there will be a slight variation in the rendering but is that the sensor or the rendering? What you are showing is a processed image. It does not matter that you did not process it further.
@@masterofphotography Interesting, thanks for sharing!
@@masterofphotography His comparison is simply a scenario that may apply to a significant percentage of shooters out there. Not everyone has the time to edit their photos and their use case is certainly valid. I'm sure you could edit both raw files to look exactly the same with the main exceptions being in differences in dynamic range of the respective sensors. Your comment is just asinine. Is it just the interpretation of the raw processor SMH. Along the same logic, your observations are just the interpretation of your eyes and your untrained mind. Who's to say what the actual raw file looks like! Seriously dude. You must be miserable at parties.
@@Stealther Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Sorry you don't understand. Keep at it. One day it will click. Thanks again and keep shooting!
the difference could be the light change. from the time it took to take each picture. otherwise numerous examples taken simultaneously could show it is better than the sony. i'm not a sony fanboy, just saying the test needs to be fair... even 1 second of light change can make a huge difference. it looks like the leica just had a bit more light giving extra contrast from a cloud that moved away out of scene to the right. you can see the clouds are different in each shot. i'd be curious to see a more controlled test. either way, both look great and neither is "noticeably" better than the other really, just a bit different.
I have been shooting Leica and Sony for a while now, and I promise you it’s more than lighting. They are vastly different. Not a right / wrong thing… just very different.
There was also the discussion that M lenses don't work well on the Sonys because of the distance from lens to sensor. I can't remember it exactly but I heard that M lenses on Sony produce "smudigier" images than on Leica. Different story with Leica R. Maybe this plays a role too why the texture rendering is so different?
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Yes. I find this result as well. Tried the various M lens on the A7s with Novoflex Adaptor . Not as clean as having the M Lens on the M body.
Same here. Noticed that I lower 1 stop my Sony due to being used to Leica and Nikon too.
It’s interesting how different companies calibrate what a proper exposure is!
Here’s another consideration. The M10 Sensor being 24 MP is built to optimize Leica lenses. The Sony pairs better with Sony G-Master lenses. An interesting comparison would be to compare the 60 MP Leica M11 with the Leica Lens and the Sony with the G-Master with optimized for 60 MP.
Another more realistic comparison might be to try the Leica lens with the 60 MP M11 body and the A7R5 and the Leica M11 60 MP body. The rumors are that Sony makes the sensor for the M11.
We know sensors for Nikon, but that the Nikon processor uses a slightly different color science. APS-C sensors for Fujifilm are also made by Sony, but the X-Tran sensor is specifically designed for Fujifilm and uses a different color architecture and structure than a CMOS sensor thus a different post processing engine is preferred over Lightroom by many users. Fujifilm medium format does use CMOS.
So it’s not that one is any better. The lenses still rule. At some point the resolution required by newer higher pixel count sensors outpaces older lens designs. At that point the older lens biggest selling point will be its “character”. 🤷🏼♂️
This video is a year old and I’ve done comparisons like you’ve mentioned. Feel free to browse some of my other videos to see results. Thanks for the comment!
It would be interesting to compare Leica M11 with the newest Sony. Apparently, they have the same sensor.
For sure! But the Leica M11 is out of my reach until....2027ish? Haha
Just a random opinion here, but I've seen quite a bit of resistance to the M11 from die-hard Leica users. I know of several that went to eh M11 and then dropped back to the M10/M10R. The "look" is just very different and not in a positive way in many cases.
One of the things that I heard from a couple of M11 owners is that their lenses were not designed for a 61mp resolution image. Unless your entire kit is lux, a lot of the classic lenses don’t look very good and such high resolution. There’s also maybe one of the reasons why this video doesn’t really help out the Sony A7RV. But I want to further explore that before jumping to that conclusion.
Yes, the M11 is designed to work much better with the newer lenses only. The older M lens is less ideal due to the sensor resolution. This is an important criteria if one is planning to get the M11 and retaining old lenses. That is why I did not get the M11, as I have the older Mandler designed M lens
I've been shooting Fuji for a few years now (purely a hobbyist), but recently picked up a used Leica Q2. While I cannot compare them with the same lens, my unscientific feeling so far is that I don't have to do as much slider-pushing in Lightroom to get the results I want on the Leica files. It's not a drastic difference, but a noticeable one.
I have had a few Fuji’s through the years, most recently an x100v until this past fall. I enjoyed it, but never really bonded with it. It always felt like a compromise. I wanted a point and shoot, and the trade off in lens and experience was worth what I was looking for. Then I got the Q2 and wow… very noticeable difference. They’re not really comparable, especially in terms of price point, but the Q2 is a dream and I could never go back!
Funny, I had GFX100s and I feel the same lol. I found working with Leica files easier as there isn’t much to do with it.
I have never bonded with a camera. I have had Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon, Fuji and Ricoh GR. The best one has always been the one I have with me. And more often than not it's the GR cameras.
but pushing a few sliders is cheaper than a Leica 😊
@@hejakma4682 -- For sure. It's like buying high-end stereo gear: the more money you spend, the less improvement you get per dollar/pound/euro/etc. I was fortunate to be in a position where I could afford a Q2, but I think I'd have to win the lottery before I started investing fully in the Leica ecosystem.
The Sony may be affected by the thicker filter stack affecting the light from a Leica lens with a close rear element.
Possibly. But I think overall, they’re just very different.
Each camera has a different sensor stack thickness which can and does affect IQ, that could be one factor you are seeing here. Another potential issue is the Leica also has to resolve 61mp and it maybe that it doesn't actually perform that well on that level of resolution.
Definitely possible that the 61mp resolve could be one of the issues, but this would be unfortunate for anyone with an M11.
@@davidherring Perhaps its one of the reasons why the M11 has three resolution modes. I imagine most modern Leica glass can resolve 36mp with no issues at all, might be that’s where a lot of them perform the best.
Mr. Herring, please make the same test opening the same raw files in Capture One - Linear Response mode, you'll unfortunately see that Adobe raw processor degrades the image quality compared to Capture One quite drastically, and the results will be very different. And thanks for the good content.
I don’t use Capture One, so I’m sorry, can’t help you with this.
Right feeling is more important than tec. I aggre 100% what you said Dave.
Absolutely!
I have both those cameras, and the sensor and microprocessor really do matter. I'm thinking of selling my M10 because when I want to shoot in color I grab my a7rV. I get consistently better results with the Sony. I'm keeping my M10 Monochrom though.
Thanks for sharing!
The M10M is a dream camera. Best investment I ever made. The IQ is amazing and I can shoot it in pretty much any lighting situation. It's so different from a color sensor. It has its own unique look for sure. @@davidherring
12:50 I don’t know enough about Leica or the Leica lens to have an opinion or bring up facts about it, but a lens has to be able to resolve the resolution for a high-megapixel sensor such as the Sony A7RV’s. For instance, you might be able to get better results using that same Leica lens on a Sony A7III than you could on an A7RV.
Yeah, I’m aware of this for sure. This is one of the biggest criticisms I’ve heard of the M11… that most lenses don’t resolve well on a sensor that large.
Yep. Older lenses. You must use modern lenses
The metering on the M10 in "Live View" should be closer to the Sony. My M10-R underexposes all photos with a sky with the spot meter. I either have to adjust exposre by pointing the camera down or by using exposure comp.
I can’t stand the LV on the M10. It looks so bad 😂
@@davidherring you don’t have to use it for framing . My point is that the metering in live view is a different system . It averages samples in the whole frame as opposed to the spot metering . In the M11 , they went with this approach in both normal vf view and live view . If I was comparing to a mirrorless camera, I would take the exposure from the LV if you want something closer before making adjustments in LR . It would be interesting to also do your test with a sony 50mm prime designed for that camera. Lens designers take into account the geometry / sensor of the particular camera . I’m a Leica user , but I’m a bit skeptical of the validity of the test . You should be getting good contrast / rendering out of the Sony , but your images don’t show that . Did you use same iso ?
Ahh makes sense. Didn’t know that!
@@davidherring I didn't know it either until I got my M10R and saw that my exposure was way off compared to similar shots with my Olympus mirrorless. After some discussion with some of the leica experts, I learned that the camera really has two meteriing systems. I think the idea was to preserve the spot mertering so that camera reads light like a typical lieca film camera - the philosophy that the leica digital camera is really a film camera with a sensor, but that has changed now with the M11. I'm guessing the M12 will be even more like a typical mirrorless EVF camera that mimicks rangefinder workflow.
Yep exact same settings! I think the Sony is flatter as a RAW. Still great contrast and editable. But Leica just has way more punch.
I watched the comparison portion of your video, but not the entire video itself. Most likely the Leica M10 has no AA filter, and the Sony A7RV has a very weak AA filter, to prevent moire, if you do some fashion pics with the Leica M10, you may see more moire than with the Sony. That's why the landscape image seems to have more bite, though Leica has always had bite in their images, going back to the Leica M8.2 days, thats the first time I got a Leica back in 2011, and noticed it right away that Leica bite.
Thanks for sharing! Also, never heard it called the “Leica bite” but that’s a great phrase!
This is not about the sensor solely. The differences are also due to software algoritms in the processor of the camera. Few people realize that also raw files get processed in camera. It determines defaults for noise reduction, sharpening and color & contrast interpretation. Of course you can further adjust. Just consider that the basic 61MP sensor in the M11 is the same as in the A7R5, except for the microlens layer and of course the processor. Yet the files look totally different.
Another issue is M-lenses adapted to other cameras. I’ve used my personal M-lenses sometimes on Nikon Z and Sony E for professional fashion and beauty work. Yet, I was never really impressed, until I switched to an SL2. The difference was huge. The sensors in SL cameras are specially adapted to accomodate also M-lenses and the output was as great as on an M10-R.
Finally, I must say that the A7R-series never was my favourite. The images, and esp. skintones looked a bit ‘plasticky’ and overprocessed. Files from my SL2, SL2-S and M10-R require a lot less work in post compared to the Sony files, when you prefer a more ‘natural and organic’ look.
Thanks for sharing!
Very true. I find in LIghtroom I need less adjustments on my M digitals as compared to Sony or Fuji
The best camera for a Leica M lens is an M then an SL. Having the Leica SL & the Sony A7IV I really prefer the Leica output SOOC
For sure. It's interesting to see how these lenses work on a different system.
Any sensor nowadays is cmos, and most of the sensors are Sony, even the one in the m10 i think. So the subtle difference between them are just in the color tweeking between the brands. If ou want to see a real difference you have to shoot an M8 or M9 with ccd sensors or the Sigma quattro with foveon sensor. Those 3 cameras are really not for fast shooting but for quality and true to life images they are the best. I have a sony a9 if i need Speed and High iso. Unfortunately There has not been a real Evolution in cmos tecnology in the last 10 years. They Just worked in the High iso, and that's about it...Good work still❤
Thanks for sharing!
My Sonys are nearly colour perfect. That being said I shoot on Leica M and SL like 70% of the time due to how little I need to do to edit.
For sure. Love my Sony system but I really love how Leica looks!
The processing matters even more.
Always
Btw Sensors in Leica after M8 & 9 are made in Sony, even the new M11 has a Sony sensor, but on the other hand, front sensor microlenses, color filters, no AA filter plus color science made the Leica sensor different.
I've heard this, but I don't think it's ever been confirmed.
Only M11 has the Sony 61mp sensor - nobody else manufactures this. The Leica M before this was made either by CMOSIS or STMicroelectronics ie 100% European
@@izzyleicanut9190 24pmx sensor was from Sony as well
Beloved Yosemite! Perhaps a more precise approach would have been to have both bodies mounted with their own copy of the lens for actual synchronicity in a comparison such as this. The light will take only seconds to change, and the two scenes depicted and provided for this comparison, at least to me, are clearly not lit with the same moment of light, IMHO. The two images could have been taken with the same kit moments apart with similar differences in the result. The moment will always matter more than the sensor. The two sensors would have to be offered the same exact moment of light within which to rationally inform the differences between them. This comparison would certainly merit a retake with those factors taken into consideration. My apologies if this has already been brought up in the thread… My brief perusal did not bear that out. As artists, we have all certainly been concerned with the way light changes from one moment, one second, to the next… what more in such a test as this?
Thanks for sharing! I don’t disagree about light and how fast and subtle changes can completely change a scene. But other / ongoing tests I’ve done show similar results. Leica = more punch and contest. Sony = flatter, but easier to grade in any direction.
Thank you very kindly for the dialogue… I don’t disagree that the Leica sensor/lens combination may well possibly deliver more punch/contrast in other tests. Those would be interesting to see. I refer only to this test. Due to the absent control of the moment of exposure and the character of the light being from two different moments, the methodology of this particular test is unable to fully and materially support the suggested conclusion.
Sensors are nothing but analogue devices to convert the energy of photons into electrons. They differ from each other in the way the photosites that ultimately produce the voltage before the onboard ADC turns them inot zeros and ones, makes ' electricity '. So yes, how a sensor produces the elctrons and its spectral response do matter somewhat, but what matters most is post ADC when all those billions of zeros and ones have to be interpreted and reconstructed by the computer inside your camera using highly sophisticated algorithms, and this is where the real difference comes from. Leica has a very unique interpretation of colour, as evident in your photographs. It is not better nor worse than any other manufacturer, but to me it is more appealing ' out of the box '. That it stands up to the 60MP Sony is a testament to the Leica lens. The magic that the lens performs is even more important if not paramount, in film photography, as here it is only the film and the lens that record the detail, the camera is just a black light tight box .
Thanks for sharing!
I;ve owned more mirrorless systems than I care to admit and can tell you with 100% certainty that modern mirrorless systems from the big 3 owe way more of their output characteristics to baked in image profiles than the lenses themselves. People will scream to high hell (esp sony shooters) that any result is achievable with RAW, but I have yet to see that in reality - even when attempted by professional editors.
Thanks for sharing!
I guess it's the combination of both lens and sensor.
Definitely
This is the reason why I ditched my Sony camera for Olympus. You should put that like a lens on a Olympus body with their color science. It will blow your mind. Specifically, you didn't bring out who makes the sensors their Kodak sensors on that like a an Olympus e500 has the same sensor is the like a M8 or M9. The color science on Olympus is superior. Try it with your like a lenses
Thanks for the idea!
It's never just the lens. It's the sensor and the lens.
For sure
@@davidherring Even bokeh can be different with different sensors.
its because sony has thicker sensor glass. leica has thin sensor glass from the first generation of m camera. that makes a huge difference that no one care about
Thanks for sharing
It's actually a Sony sensor and a Sony sensor, LOL. Just different protocols from Leica and Sony when importing into the RAW processor. Undoubtedly Leica just bumps the sharpening and contrast on the import.
Thanks for sharing.
You started to lose me at cheap adapter. While lenses being optimized for the sensor stack may be "science" it is critical to making this sort of comparison since you do discuss the sensor which is a scientific product. When you were going back and forth between the two shots, it reminds me of what I see with my A7RIV when I compare photos shot on my Voigtlander APO vs the same thing shot on a borrowed Sony G Master lens. Those Voigtlander lenses have color and tone that has a feeling that I like versus the sharpness of Sony lenses. Which I'm not a fan of. And pixel peeping aside, I've seen great photographs made by all sorts of gear. I would say that your end discussion about lenses and sensors would be well served by reviewing multiple lenses on a single camera body. Add to that most people's use case.
Thanks for the comment.
While this is an interesting comparison, I don't think you're really comparing sensors just by using the same lens and settings. The sensor itself doesn't collect color information, only luminance. Colors have to be interpreted later in the image processing.
You're using Adobe color as a profile, so this is more like a comparison of Lightroom interpretation of RAW files by 2 different manufacturers. If you used Sony's own RAW converter or Capture 1, etc you'd get a very different look and I believe you could easily tweak the Sony image to match the Leica almost exactly.
LR seems to generate a flatter image for the Sony when compared to the Leica, but considering the amount of editing that goes into any raw file, I don't see how these slight differences are relevant enough that they'd make you change your advice from "get a good lens" to "get a good sensor". I believe a good lens plays a much bigger role than the sensor does, and the Leica "look" is a mix of great lenses + Leica's default punchy/contrasty profiles.
Interesting take. I don’t necessary disagree, but I just swapped out profiles and the look really didn’t change much. I even opened the raw in Sony’s software and it looks identical to LR.
@@davidherring Your comparison image had very muted colors so they might look the same, but Sony's conversion looks very different in general. Try it with more saturated images, with greens, oranges, browns and you'll see.
My point here is raw files have tons of information, and what you're comparing is just Lightroom's default intepretation, which varies from camera to camera. I have no idea how Adobe decides what their default is like, but I'm guessing the A7RV has a more modern sensor with more DR, so the decision was to default to a flatter file to begin with, with more information in the shadows.
The only conclusion from this video is that you like Leica's default better, which is valid. I do have a Fujifilm and a Sony and I also like Fuji's profiles better as I can get to an image I'm happy with much quicker, but it has nothing to do with the sensor.
Also, the famous "Leica look"(whatever it is) precedes digital, it's always been about the lenses.
Forgot to mention - There's a company called Cobalt Image that has come up with a solution to mimic camera camera looks. They created a base DCP profile tailored for each camera, and then a XMP preset that piggy backs from this DCP. You can make your Sony files look 95% like a Fujifilm, Leica, etc. It's not perfect but it's very good. More evidence that most of what you're seeing is not related to the sensor at all.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing!
@@MauricioMasciaYou must own a Sony?😂
It got nothing to do with the sensor, it about the software processing in the camera.
Thanks for sharing.
Sensors always matter, because not all sensors are created equal.
And as we know, there's more than a few different manufacturers of sensors.
Seems to me like Sony is one such manufacturer, but Sony cameras are not particularly desirable unless you're one of the rare consumers who fills their niche.
Sony seems to be a company where you can surely get nice items, but you need to pay an arm and a leg for it. Not very practical for the average person. Furthermore, Sony does not even manufacture their own lenses. Sony only has a famous brand name which was gained very much outside of the camera market. Nikon, on the other hand, has been making camera and lenses for untold decades. But Nikon's hubris eventually caught up to them, to the point where Fuji got its foot in the door and now ranks among the most desirable DX cameras, and even their medium format cameras which are very attractively priced are extremely desirable, not to mention extremely well made. Hasselblad and Mamiya make a few of those frightfully expensive medium format cameras, which quite seriously offer nothing superior to the Fuji medium format options.
Generally speaking, Fuji always gives you one hell of a lot for the money spent.
Fuji currently outsells all DX and medium format options available -
In other words, it outsells all others in the categories where Fuji exists, because Fuji has not entered, nor is it very likely to enter the Full Frame market.
Sony makes crap. And Leica makes, well ... fairly good crap which is frightfully expensive. Seems like Fuji makes a camera body which can survive being under the tire of a car. Leica can likely achieve the same with a body or two, but the privilege would cost you five times as much money as a more or less equivalent Fuji.
Thanks for sharing!
Tienes mucho potencial, solo que "cantiflear" mucho, me desesperó.
Thanks for the feedback
sony is one of the worst platforms for m lenses due to the thick sensor stack. You can get a sony sensor modified so it renders m-lenses very sharply.
The SL have microlenses to make sure the m-lenses render sharply on the SL. The Nikon Z line is also pretty good.
If you want to use Sony, the R lenses would do better
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Dave 🤗
What a great video. The comparison of the Leica M10 and the Sony is very interesting and well executed. To me it seems that the extra megapixels of the Sony do not show their advantage in the perceived sharpness of the image.
May I share my thoughts about the origins of the differences in rendering between Leica and Sony? It is a fact that the Leica sensor, among others, renders different as a result of the much thinner coverglass on the Leica sensor in comparison to the Sony sensor. But I have the impresssion that differences in rendering are mainly due to differences Is the Analog Digital converter and the in camera processing of the data. In a digital camera, the sensor readout is analog. The analog signal is processed by the camera to obtain a digital image in full color using the information of the three color signals from the Bayer filter on the sensor.
And that is where the know how of the Leica engineers shines. To deliver an image that is just a bit different from the other brands.
I much prefer the color science of Leica as it suits my taste.
I look forward to upcoming videos on your RUclips Channel. Thanks for sharing 😊
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I am using the Sony A7s and the GFX as well. I find the Leica M's color science better suited to my tastes as well. It also requires much less editing in Lightroom . Images are not flat unlike the others
It’s not the lens nor the sensor. It’s the software. Both cameras have a Sony made sensors. Software is playing a bigger role every generation of cameras.
Thanks for sharing!
Yes, the software inside the camera.
Perhaps you meant the sensors ? The M10 sensors are European. They only started using the Sony sensors in the M11
What you are seeing is the algoritme at work, the Leica is more red saturated
Thanks for sharing!
How is it possible you and Mr Leica came to the opposite conclusion? He shows images and makes the argument the lens drives the look.
Not sure but thanks for watching.
I’ve shot the same lens (50 Summilux ASPH.) on my M10 and Nikon Z6. My non-scientific way of looking at the results is that Nikon paints the world through a nice glass of whisky, and the M10 through a line of coke. 😂
Haha
@5:48 please don't go to Tony Northrup for 'science'. His 'opinion' is totally biasd towards whatever new product he's testing/comparing/providing affiliate links to buy.
Ha
You aren't comparing raw files at all. You are comparing Adobe interpretations of said raw files, through the profile you use. Standard Adobe is very poor with Sony. From support for new cameras or lenses, to actual interpretation of raw files. It gets better with custom linear profiles (look at Tony Kuiper's page). Ultimately no tool will give you the best result for both manufacturers, so it's difficult to compare. But what you are showing in your Video has nothing to do with Leica or Sony, but everything with Adobe. There is simply no way that you'd get such a huge difference in contrast when using two modern cmos sensors. Its obvious that the Leica files are boosted.
Cool, thanks for the feedback.
You have to understand that every Leica lenses are calibrated and engineered for Leica cameras and their specific sensors. Dont waist your time comparing with other camera brand using a Leica Lens. Make no sens.
Thanks for the comment.
This comparison is very miss leading since you cant compare the sony with an m10 but handicapping the sony with a 35 cron that will perform like crap on the sony. Different microlenses and sensor stacks..sorry but this is so wrong..
A better comparison is with the GM 35.
Thanks for the feedback.
@@davidherring if you want a sony look a bit like leica, the voigtlander E mount lenses could help a bit
for one photo? really?
Not really sure what you mean with your comments but thanks for commenting!
Who makes most of the sensors? Oh yes. Sony!
Hardware is nothing without software.
@@davidherring True but it does go some way to explaining the similarities you demonstrated.
The biggest differences I see in images are between cameras using totally different sensors rather than customised but similar sensors from the same origin.
Which makes sense I guess!