The Visual Science Lab : According to James... There is no profound difference in image quality between competing brands. Included Leica SL, Sony and Canon. Here's how he came to this conclusion...

Monday, October 06, 2025

According to James... There is no profound difference in image quality between competing brands. Included Leica SL, Sony and Canon. Here's how he came to this conclusion...

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.