For a change of pace I'm going to write something today that might piss off Leica aficionados; well, at least those who photograph with the SL series of cameras and lenses. But, it's based on some very in-depth work by my friend, James who is an accomplished photographer, videographer and brilliant post production expert. And he has NO dog in the hunt, no reason for dissembling or putting a thumb on the scales of one camera system or the other. His views about three of the better cameras in the universal camera-scape come from an exhaustive, one month long assignment to do post production on over 600 raw images from three photographers all shooting for the same client; albeit in slightly different locations but of almost identical subjects and in almost identical lighting conditions. Take it all with the necessary grain of salt...
Way back on August 9th, in the blistering heat of the Summer, three different photographers were commissioned to make advertising photos of one large, connected real estate development project. I was one of them. We were each given different shot lists but most of the images were lifestyle shots in and around neighborhoods as well as images of lots of the development's amenities (pools, a small lake, schools, community centers, etc.). We each had human models to work with. All three photographers were pros with lots of experience. One was using a Canon R5, one a Sony A7Rv and I was using a Leica SL2 camera. We each photographed in our cameras' raw modes and we each used the premium available standard zoom lenses for our respective systems. I was using the well regarded Leica 24-90mm zoom.
When we finished shooting we transferred our raw images over to a large ad agency which, during contract negotiations, said they wanted to do the post processing of the images in-house. For whatever reason the in-house idea fell through and a couple weeks after the shoot I got a call asking if I could submit a bid on doing post processing on images from all three photographers.
I was already committed to retiring, didn't feel like working on someone else's photos and declined the job --- but I like everyone at the agency, they are good people to work with, and my friend, James, is a much better post processor/retoucher/color grader than I will ever be so I recommended him for the project. He bid on it and won the bid. He spent 30 days taking out fire hydrants from front yards, retouching out dead patches of grass, straightening up the perspective on houses, adding humans to some shots via A.I., getting all the color between three different originating cameras and lenses to match up for consistency and much more. He worked on some of the files at 200 or 300% because he is beyond detail oriented and meticulous. He wrapped up and delivered his part of the project on the first few days of October and the client was happy. James was happy. And I was happy that they were happy.
James and I met up for coffee last week. We were sitting in the shade on a nice café patio enjoying a coolish breeze and watching the local talent hard at work on laptops at the surrounding tables. We chatted about all kinds of stuff and then James kind of hemmed and hawed and started out like this:
"Now, before I say this I want you to know that I'm not trying to rile you up or insult you. Really. I just wanted to tell you what I saw during my month long, daily dive into the files from the three cameras and three photographers on that last project."
I nodded, wondering where he was going with this --- that it required such a long/strong disclaimer. After all we've been having these friendly discussions for ... decades. And I'd never been disclaimered before.
he continued:
"I have to tell you, I've spent nearly 100 hours doing pretty high end post processing on the files from the BLANK project and I was kinda surprised at what I saw. When I zeroed out the color differences between the files from the different cameras and matched up the general contrasts I have to tell you that I really didn't see any difference in overall image quality between any of the three cameras. They are all sharp everywhere in the frames when you guys shot above f5.6. When y'all shot wide open every one of the lenses had some artifacts in the corners and a bit of chromatic aberration around the edges as well. If I take away the exif information from the files I'd have a hard time sorting between them. I mean, eventually I could see difference in composing styles and a preference to shoot slightly darker or slightly light but there's really no discernible difference between any of the three cameras or their lenses. There just isn't."
Since James had no reason other than transmitting information about the cameras to bring this all up I had to believe his findings. There are a couple of caveats which, actually might accrue more advantages to the Sony or Canon than to the SL2. Both of those cameras have newer sensors and might do a better job in lower light but we were all shooting in bright light. Both of the non-Leica cameras were used with 24-70mm f2.8 lenses and it may be that the difference in focal range makes a slight difference. And finally, none of us were using tripods which means that operator glitches could make differences in the results. An example might be that being at least 35 years old than either of my photographer compatriots my ability to handhold my rig might not be quite as perfect. Finally, the SL2 is a contrast detect AF system while both the Canon and Sony are at the very top of the PD-AF game and so, with moving subjects (human models, dogs, etc.) there might be a discernible difference there. But clearly I am reaching for some sort of excuse.
What this basically boils down to is that all cameras are really good now. And I think we've all known that for a while. Leica doesn't have a technical advantage if we are doing a competition that's basically all about lens performance and sensor performance. There are other parameters to consider but we've been over them and over them. After the point of technical equivalence is reached everything else is subjective.
So, if you want to elevate Leica SL cameras and lenses I guess the takeaway is that you'd better be more interested in the some of the "soft" features of those cameras instead of believing that they'll deliver a higher quality product. A better experience while shooting? Maybe. A nicer menu? Sure. But a good pro should be able to pick up any of these cameras (and by extension, a Nikon Z camera and lens) and do a great job satisfying a client.
Just thought I'd pass this along as a "thought exercise" for both Leica users and non-Leica users. But please note, this "study" only applied to the SL series. We'll have to go shoot a competitive project with the M series and Q series cameras until we've exhausted our fan boy adherence to our favorite systems.
James squashing my dreams.... of camera perfection.
Ready for a little robotic surgery?
B. In ancient times. On slide film. Scanned. Obviously.
The perfect child. Early digital times. Kodak SLR/n camera with adapted
Hasselblad 150mm f2.8 F Zeiss Lens.
Blue sky and puffy clouds.
we effectively survived the first weekend of the Austin City Limits
Music Festival where a couple of hundred thousand people each
pay a fortune to sit in the dirt and listen to four different
bands in the same space at the same time....
More next week....
Last week I swam six days in a row. I'm tired.
We start again tomorrow. But, on the upside, I'll be in
great shape for the Christmas Holiday
swim suit season.... :-)
9 comments:
How funny, all cameras are pretty good now. No wonder sales from the major companies have dropped in the last few years.
I'd say the same was true for film cameras by the early 1980s. Most lenses were decent/ excellent. You could barely distinguish the output of camera x from y.
Kirk just my two cents...the special sauce each company has is in their imaging pipeline (LUT/denoise program/etc) and this becomes the results of the default jpegs or other imaging format. All modern lenses rely heavily on digital corrections inherited from firmware deployed with them. I saw it years ago when I compared how each company tried to create their "signature" look with jpegs. In early days it was how each manufacturer also tried to negate some "flaw" from their imaging pipeline. Canon made soft colors, Nikon was more saturated and at the time (2008) Pentax the most "natural."
Your friend showed the power of modern software to process RAW. His RAW processor by default is set to rip out those manufacturers specific functions and replace them with the color science of the processor and his mind's eye. All the lenses got "fixed" not by internal algorithms but by the processor's. The LUT he applied replaced the camera's defaults.
This all is very good for a company wanting a consistent end product of course to support an ad campaign seamlessly.
In no way does it remove your conclusion to find the tool which unleashes your creatively and reaches your personal creativity vision in the fastest and most efficient manner. Handling, menus, weight, subject matter we chase all factor into personal choice of tools. But the faster and more efficient we are the more time we have to swim, walk, camp, be with those we love.
Cheers...nice work and thanks for the great discussions.
E
If this kind of thinking spreads it could crush the economy. This is very subversive, be careful.
As a long time Nikon shooter and now an SL/SL2/SL2-S shooter I can't disagree with the conclusion. The "soft" advantages of the Leicas are what prompted me to make the change. The only time I pick up the Z8 is in the rare event when I need state of the art autofocus, otherwise it is one of the SL bodies. When I shot semi-professionally it was the Nikons. They were the best tool (and I looked on them as tools) for the job. Now I shoot for enjoyment and my Leicas are the most pleasurable. And when I really want fun it is my M bodies. :)
I find cameras boring these days. None of them have any significant personality or character in my experience. Once you hit the FF pro or semi pro models it's all the same for the most part. Finding one that suits you is mainly about reducing friction.
However, and this is a big however, the camera has finally become transparent. A true artist as opposed to a documentary photographer can now really apply his or her's artistic bent to the image soul in post. The camera has been reduced to a lowly painters palette. Cameras use to have a bit of a signature they imparted to the images created with them. Maybe most of that was lens optics. Now we have mirror less cameras that will allow almost any lens made to be used with little friction.
The photographer only needs to create an arresting composition which can then me massaged in post to realize the image the artist had in mind.
Documentary photography is another beast all together. I agree that 99.9% of the documentary and street photography is not "artistic". It can be thought provoking at it's best and mildly pleasing on occasion. Sometimes fun/funny.
Since many photographers come from a science and/or engineering background it only stands to reason specs became a BIG THING. Always driving for the ultimate in perfection.
I too fell into this trap u til I used the best of the best and came away thinking, is that all there is.
Due to a recent injury I can't use my gee wiz FF do everything camera. Just to heavy. I wrote this comment at 40,000 feet on my way to a vacation.
The camera I am taking is an favourite, the Lumix LX-5. I think it would be B approved.
I've realized it's all I really need to do my own "arty" work.
Eric
You seem to be confirming what I have felt for decades — that the UI and ergonomics of cameras and lenses are as important as performance. All of the camera makers create cameras and lenses that produce comparable results. My advice to those wanting to purchase a camera has been go to a store and get the one that feels best the the hand and is the most intuitive to use. We all will have our opinions on that. It’s one reason I hope the camera makers all stay in business — I t’s important for buyers to have choice.
Sigh. You are correct here. When you hand a file from a top of the line camera with a great lens over to a man as skilled as James, it should be no surprise when the results are a tie.
That said, I finally gave in to taking a trip to Veblenville and bought a used SL2 and SL2-S. They came from the Leica store in San Francisco and were seemingly unused with the latest firmware. I already had L-mount lenses for my LUMIX bodies. I love them. As you say, the menu is the best I have ever seen and the colors are lovely. The real selling point to me is how it fits my hand, it handles so nicely. It weighs about the same as the lumix SR1 but feels lighter. The prices, when I bought them were fabulous and have since gone up a lot.
If I ever get to Austin you owe me a coffee:-}
The lesson I took away from your early posts while trying different cameras and formats was that good lighting makes almost any camera and lens look good.
For no logical reason (bored, wanting a new toy), I purchased a Nikon Zfc + Nikkor Z DX 16-50 kit zoom lens recently.
Thanks to Expeed 6 in-camera processing wizardly which cannot be switched off when this particular lens is in use, the combo delivers results which have minimal distortion, aberrations or vignetting: It's really pretty remarkable to see in something so compact and inexpensive. What's lacking? Mostly bokeh: What it does have seems pleasing enough, but with an f/3.5-6.3 maximum aperture, there isn't a whole lot of it. But weighing in at <550 grams, and selling for <1200 USD, IMO, it's a lot of camera for not a lot of money.
Jeff in Colorado
Post a Comment