Hi, I wonder if you can help. I am a professional studio photographer and I am lucky enough to use an M11 on my trips abroad for street photography. I have a trip coming up which isn’t for work where I would love the convenience of the best AF with the quality of my M11. I  also want something smallish…. Does anybody have any thoughts or comparisons with the Sony A7RV or the IV with the M11 in pure quality terms. It isn’t to replace the M11 but rather add another string to my bow when I just want an ultimate point and shoot! thanks I’m advance….Howard

basically same sensor, different colorscience, different lensrendering if you mean by quality: dynamic range and shadowrecovery it's a tossup. Megapixels same.Subjectively though: I very much like Leica glass and Leica colorscience (the combination even more) over Sony and Zeiss/gmaster. if you have m lenses, why not try an lm-ea9 by techart and use m glass with autofocus on the Sony for a change?

mmeerdam wrote:basically same sensor, different colorscience, different lensrendering if you mean by quality: dynamic range and shadowrecovery it's a tossup. Megapixels same.Photonstophotos doesn't have the A7RV yet, but compared to the IV, the processing near base ISO is rather different:Photographic dynamic rangeI don't think the V has changed this.- Chris

Anything you are considering from Sony will hold up to your M11. I have most of the Leicas and several of the newer Sonys and photo IQ is no better anywhere than Sony.  Personally, if I were switching between my M11 and an AF mirrorless body it would be my Leica CL or Sony A7c.  I prefer to carry around smaller and lighter.  If you're already shooting an M11 and have to pick up another body, grab a new CL and you can use your M11 glass on it whenever you want.

Thanks for your very useful repliesbest wishesHoward

It depends what you want to shoot but, for travels, I have long only used Leica Ms. The tiny lenses are a joy to use and weigh next to nothing. I often have the camera on a strap, a spare lens in a pocket and no photobag when travelling. The Sonys stay at home as I typically use them only for sports and events where AF, zooms and/or longer lenses are welcome.In terms of IQ, I love the bite that AA filter-less Leicas offer, however that’s probably more visible with 24 Mp than 61 Mp files (I shoot an M10 and an A9).

Howard Shooter wrote:Hi, I wonder if you can help. I am a professional studio photographer and I am lucky enough to use an M11 on my trips abroad for street photography. I have a trip coming up which isn’t for work where I would love the convenience of the best AF with the quality of my M11. I also want something smallish…. Does anybody have any thoughts or comparisons with the Sony A7RV or the IV with the M11 in pure quality terms. It isn’t to replace the M11 but rather add another string to my bow when I just want an ultimate point and shoot! thanks I’m advance….HowardI'm not sure if this would quite measure up or not, but have you considered a Q2? I find it is always my travel companion now, and any other camera or lens decisions are in addition to the Q2. In fact, the 24, 35 and 50mm lenses (and a 24-70) have seen very little use since I acquired the Q2......but while I don't have the M11, my understanding is that it is a significant upgrade, thus my initial qualifier. I'm curious if the rumors are correct and that a Q3 will come in the new year using the M11 sensor.

I have the M11 and had the a7riv. I sold it. Didn't like the menu ergonomics and above all the color science. In fact, I hated it. I had to work so much in PP on pictures to make them look less digital. If I had to choose a good AF option to go along my M11 then I'd say the Z7ii, if you want a great AF option to go with the M11 then the R5.

Well, the A7RV is not smallish at all. Even less if you add some fast G primes. Sony colors are far from the best, so I would go with a Leica Q for the ultimate point and shoot.

A bit late, but what the heck. I have both cameras. The M11 is a joy to use, but the A7RV is incredibly effective at taking shots. Don't get the A7RIV, the difference in IBIS is tremendous. You'll find yourself taking shots that just shouldn't be possible hand-held.

Howard Shooter wrote:Hi, I wonder if you can help. I am a professional studio photographer and I am lucky enough to use an M11 on my trips abroad for street photography. I have a trip coming up which isn’t for work where I would love the convenience of the best AF with the quality of my M11. I also want something smallish…. Does anybody have any thoughts or comparisons with the Sony A7RV or the IV with the M11 in pure quality terms. It isn’t to replace the M11 but rather add another string to my bow when I just want an ultimate point and shoot! thanks I’m advance….HowardYes. Would you like a Link to a folder full of A7RV and Leica M11 raw files? They’re almost identical.

the lenses is what will make the difference in look.you can process files to look very similar in post, you get quicker results in Capture one since they have better camera profiles for both in compare of LrCthere is no much difference in image quality between the sony's 4 and 5, they worked better noise reductions in 5 with the new processor, but both are fine.I like to walk and capture with the RF leica, my lenses are not all light, but there are different options out there.

mmeerdam wrote:basically same sensor, different colorscience, different lensrendering if you mean by quality: dynamic range and shadowrecovery it's a tossup. Megapixels same.Subjectively though: I very much like Leica glass and Leica colorscience (the combination even more) over Sony and Zeiss/gmaster. if you have m lenses, why not try an lm-ea9 by techart and use m glass with autofocus on the Sony for a change?Very good advice

The file I’m referring to both cameras were shooting the same 50 Summilux.The raw files from a Sony A7RV and an M11 are basically identical. Save for a little bit of white balance variation in some shots.

smoglab wrote:A bit late, but what the heck. I have both cameras. The M11 is a joy to use, but the A7RV is incredibly effective at taking shots. Don't get the A7RIV, the difference in IBIS is tremendous. You'll find yourself taking shots that just shouldn't be possible hand-held.What shots aren’t possible hand holding a camera?I’m curious since, well if I look at the history of photography, probably everything you could imagine was taken by about the 1940’s and everything else since it sort or derivative work. Just saying since IBIS was nowhere to be found back then.I understand taking a photo at 120mm 1/10th second and not have any shake. But why would I ever take a photo like that? Not sure.

T_T wrote:smoglab wrote:A bit late, but what the heck. I have both cameras. The M11 is a joy to use, but the A7RV is incredibly effective at taking shots. Don't get the A7RIV, the difference in IBIS is tremendous. You'll find yourself taking shots that just shouldn't be possible hand-held.What shots aren’t possible hand holding a camera?I’m curious since, well if I look at the history of photography, probably everything you could imagine was taken by about the 1940’s and everything else since it sort or derivative work. Just saying since IBIS was nowhere to be found back then.I understand taking a photo at 120mm 1/10th second and not have any shake. But why would I ever take a photo like that? Not sure.I guess your use case varies from a lot of other folks, who are taking photos using IBIS that were not possible in years past. The success of the M series cameras show that there is a place for MF and no stabilization, but the popularity of other systems with best in class AF and stabilization shows how many people consider these items important.To answer your question; some modern cameras are capable of taking even long exposure shots without a tripod. For those users wanting to hike to remote areas this could be very important. Or, for those doing fast action sports or BIF, it is possible to get good results hand held that would have been difficult or impossible in the past.As to what is derivative? Perhaps discussions in the 1940s suggested that everything important had already been photographed decades before that. Isn't it always about individual and generational perspective? ...the example I think of is the common saying "this new generation of kids doesn't know how to work and it will ruin this country!" A study found that the saying started in the late 1880's and has been popular in every generation since

T_T wrote:smoglab wrote:A bit late, but what the heck. I have both cameras. The M11 is a joy to use, but the A7RV is incredibly effective at taking shots. Don't get the A7RIV, the difference in IBIS is tremendous. You'll find yourself taking shots that just shouldn't be possible hand-held.What shots aren’t possible hand holding a camera?I’m curious since, well if I look at the history of photography, probably everything you could imagine was taken by about the 1940’s and everything else since it sort or derivative work. Just saying since IBIS was nowhere to be found back then.I understand taking a photo at 120mm 1/10th second and not have any shake. But why would I ever take a photo like that? Not sure.Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at what's going on in galleries and museums these days: prints are getting  bigger and bigger. I'm printing up to 36 x 54 these days and could go bigger. Sure there were Ansel Adams types in the 1940s, but I'd much rather carry around an M11 or A7RV than haul a wooden view camera around with me.

T_T wrote:smoglab wrote:A bit late, but what the heck. I have both cameras. The M11 is a joy to use, but the A7RV is incredibly effective at taking shots. Don't get the A7RIV, the difference in IBIS is tremendous. You'll find yourself taking shots that just shouldn't be possible hand-held.What shots aren’t possible hand holding a camera?I’m curious since, well if I look at the history of photography, probably everything you could imagine was taken by about the 1940’s and everything else since it sort or derivative work. Just saying since IBIS was nowhere to be found back then.I understand taking a photo at 120mm 1/10th second and not have any shake. But why would I ever take a photo like that? Not sure.Did you look at the film speeds available back then, only the '90 gave us ISO 1600 color film