Can you tell the difference? Sony A7ii v Leica M-240.

What do you do if you have a small stable of thoroughbred Leica lenses? Obviously you put them onto a Sony A7ii to see if there is any difference in how the images look compared to a Leica M-240. Both are full frame 24 megapixel cameras so they make good bedfellows for this comparison. The A7ii is a couple of years younger than the Leica, which looks like it will be replaced/upgraded with an M-10 shortly.Weve got a 24mm Summilux, 50mm Summilux and 90mm Summicron to play with. These are ridiculously good lenses. As far as possible, all pictures were taken at the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The cameras were set to auto white balance. All pics in RAW/DNG and imported into Lightroom. No sharpening or noise reduction. For a couple I evened out the white balance but otherwise unchanged, and exported at 100% non-resized.I really wanted to see if my 24mm Summilux would look just as good on the Sony as on the Leica, and seeing as I had the other lenses with me I thought I might as well try them out as well. I borrowed the Sony from a good (and trusting) friend, and used a Sony to M mount adapter.You can click any of the images to get the full size version.The two images above are remarkably similar, though the Sony version is geometrically uncorrected while the Leica is corrected with the relevant lens profile. The Leica seemed to consistently expose a bit under the Sony for the same aperture/shutter/ISO settings which is quite interesting. The auto white balance on the two cameras was consistently pretty well matched and obviously quite easy to tweak in Lightroom afterwards if required. The Leica tended to the warmer end of the spectrum.The ISO test above is pretty interesting. I didn't bother going above ISO3200 (the Sony would win) but I don't usually go higher than 3200 anyway on my M-240. So this is a realistic comparison for my normal shooting parameters. The Sony edges this comparison as you'd expect, but the Leica is still very nice indeed, with many fine details retained as pixel-peeping resolutions.Above there are two bokeh examples with the 50 Summilux. This time the Sony has gone warmer than the Leica. Both subjects are crispy sharp. With the 24mm and 50mm, focusing with the Leica is a breeze.With the Sony it's a bit of a faff to manual focus. Focus peaking is not accurate enough to use on its own at such wider apertures with so little depth of field, so I set the centre button in the rear dial to be the focus magnifier. Some times I had to press it 3 times, once didn't seem to do anything, twice brings up the overlay of where the focus will be magnified, and the third press actually magnifies so you can focus accurately. A bit of a pain. So a win for the Leica here.With the 90mm it's a bit of a different story. Consistent focus at f/2 is easier to achieve with the Sony and focus magnification. With the Leica the depth of field is so shallow that using the rangefinder alone is a bit hit and miss (or miss and miss). I could use live view and magnification as well and be spot on, or use the external viewfinder. But I didn't. Below are a couple of 90mm examples:So I just missed perfect focus with the Leica in this example, focusing slightly behind the red/yellow stripes I was aiming for. This illustrates the beauty of a WYSIWYG electronic viewfinder which is integrated with the camera body. I do have an external EVF for the Leica but it's a bit on the clumsy side to be honest.Again, very little difference in the actual image quality itself.The Leica has slightly finer detail resolution in the images above, but very marginal indeed.Back to the 24mm. When I got my Sony A7R a while ago (now sold), it was very hard to get a decent wide angle lens that didn't smear the corners. I can happily report that the 24 Summilux is very good on the A7ii in the corners. It does vignette slightly even at f/8. The Leica is correcting the RAW image, especially as you can see when you compare the angle of the windows at the edges of the frame. The 24 Summilux has distinct weirdness in this respect. Doing a manual lens correction in Lightroom sorts things out nicely.So I think you are probably getting the picture now. If you aren't zooming into every image at 100%, there is very little to differentiate the technical quality of the images from these cameras (up to ISO3200). It's not really surprising, as it's the lenses that are doing the magic, and the sensor is "just" recording the photons that the lenses deliver.There are colour differences, which will be down to the white balance and processing in the camera. It would be possible to make images from both cameras look exactly the same from a colour perspective.The main difference between the two cameras is down to usability and the user experience. The Leica is obviously geared towards manual focus, so it excels in that area compared to the Sony, which is fiddly to say the least. Focus peaking is all very well but it's simply not effective for very wide apertures, so you simply have to zoom in. It would be better if you could have a 1-button-press zoom feature, rather than having to press the zoom button multiple times. That would be a simple change which should be easy enough to implement in firmware and make things much easier with manual focus lenses.Additionally, the Sony is just fiddly to use in general. Too many options, too many buttons, too many menus. The Leica is a delight by comparison. Also, simply looking at the camera to see the shutter speed and aperture settings is much easier than having to turn the camera on and look at the screen. Hopefully the M-10 will have a visible ISO dial on the top plate as the spy shots seem to imply.However, however, the Sony is 1/3rd of the price. WYSIWG in the viewfinder is very nice to get exposure spot on, and it is nice to see the camera settings in the viewfinder rather than finding you've ended up at an overly low shutter speed without realising in order to get the right exposure (frequent on the Leica).Additionally, the focus zoom in the viewfinder, once you have pressed the button enough times, does let you precisely nail the focus even with longer lenses.In conclusion therefore, if you are lucky enough to have some M lenses, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between images the Leica and the Sony (obviously until you get to v.high ISO). So it comes down to your personal preference about how you use your camera. Personally, the analogue-like involving nature of the Leica M is far superior (for me) to the overly complex Sony. I just don't like using the Sony, but I love using the Leica.The Sony annoys me. The Leica delights me. This delight means that I can forgive some its foibles. I now know I can get essentially identical images from the Sony, but I simply wouldn't want to use it as much. What is inarguable is the quality of the Leica lenses which are just lovely.