Before anyone pounces on me, this is a totally honest question. I do not know so asking: All those of you who have had a chance to shoot with Leica cameras, is the IQ of Leica better than Canon? This question is purely IQ related. I strongly suspect Canon shoots more 'easy'. Thank you.
Leica vs Canon
- Thread starter sanj
- Start date
When the M9 was announced a decade ago (gosh), it really had amazing image quality thanks to the CCD sensor coupled with those fantastic M lenses, which were arguably superior to EF lenses at that time (less distortion, better sharpness and contrast).
Now others, (especially the new mirrorless systems) have caught up with producing top-tier optics (with AF, but also with a bigger footprint), so it is more subjective. Leica IQ was, and still is excellent - but so is Canon, Nikon, etc. each with a slightly different look, but if that tells anything, I do very much like the look of certain Leica lenses adapted to the R.
Now others, (especially the new mirrorless systems) have caught up with producing top-tier optics (with AF, but also with a bigger footprint), so it is more subjective. Leica IQ was, and still is excellent - but so is Canon, Nikon, etc. each with a slightly different look, but if that tells anything, I do very much like the look of certain Leica lenses adapted to the R.
Upvote
0
I think that Leica has long ago moved from being 'the best and the sharpest' to having 'a look' that its aficionados like. Having said that, its 'monochrome' bodies are remarkable because all pixels are dedicated to resolution and tone rather than having to account for colour.
Upvote
0
Some of it, yes, but most of it, no (especially for video)
Just linking this video to show some of the differences that can be observed as being part of the 'look' between various lenses
Most of the M lenses are more like the Cooke, but with the Leica color.
The Summicron-SL lenses are also world-beaters in terms of MTF charts.
But others are so so close as well with the practical advantages (f/1.2 with fast Eye-Tracking AF), that is probably doesn't matter anymore.
Especially, when these new RF lenses, which look cheap in comparison to Leica are already called way too expensive by many - or one could also just move to medium format for less money as well.
So in the end, most of the buyers will be the aficionados anyway.
Just linking this video to show some of the differences that can be observed as being part of the 'look' between various lenses
Most of the M lenses are more like the Cooke, but with the Leica color.
I would disagree with this, I've yet to see a FF lens like the Apo-Summicron-M 50mm f/2, giving the same impression of sharpness and micro-contrast.
The Summicron-SL lenses are also world-beaters in terms of MTF charts.
But others are so so close as well with the practical advantages (f/1.2 with fast Eye-Tracking AF), that is probably doesn't matter anymore.
Especially, when these new RF lenses, which look cheap in comparison to Leica are already called way too expensive by many - or one could also just move to medium format for less money as well.
So in the end, most of the buyers will be the aficionados anyway.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My brother has shot Leica for a long time an d has had every lens and body in any version. And it’s REALLY good stuff. The whole reason I don’t shoot Leica is that they’re terrible to hold, for me, my fingers are gone after an hour. MF only and insanely expensive. I don’t think they’re worth the price, but I have nothing but praise for the IQ those lenses deliver (for the most part).
Colors, 3D pop, smoothness in transitions from sharp to blur etc are exceptional .
Colors, 3D pop, smoothness in transitions from sharp to blur etc are exceptional .
Upvote
0
Your question may be totally honest, but do you expect totally honest replies?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
