hyper67 Posted September 9, 2013 Share #1 Posted September 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just sold my M9 after testing the new M. I believe that despite some of its shortcomings it is by far a more superior machine in all respects and greatly increase the experience - at least for the photography I do. However after reading a lot about the RX 1 I'm starting to seriously consider it as an alternative....My main concern in the Rx 1 (I can live with a lot of its shortcomings too) is the manual focus speed and ease of manual focusing....please can anyone who has used or owns both systems shed some light on this particular issue. I do documentary work and I work usually with a fast reaction to a scene so AF maybe a tad slow for my work. I usuually pre focus and then fine tune at the point of release. I just need to know with people who have used both how the two systems compare in their manual focusing, speed, feel, ease of use, confidence...Thx so much for any help... Alexandros Demetriades - Photographer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Hi hyper67, Take a look here M240 vs Rx1 manual focusing. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted September 9, 2013 Share #2 Posted September 9, 2013 I can't answer your question but I just wanted to say I really like your website and your photography. There's an energy there that I admire greatly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 9, 2013 Share #3 Posted September 9, 2013 I dont know much about the Sony RX1, but one thing I know is, that a Leica M is designed with manual focus as the only available option and the synergy of the camera is built around that. Therefore it is easy to assume that MF of the Leica is a superior experience to that of the RX1. Judging from your work, why would you really want to switch the cameras? AF is not for you, you do need MF so stick with Leica I would say. Also, great photos there... nice work! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2013 Share #4 Posted September 9, 2013 I don't have the camera, but there is this quote from LL about manual focussing which is telling imo: Just set your expectations to meet reality. This camera is what it is, and because of its specialized nature the sophisticated user will make allowances for the way it operates. Stick with the M I would say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albireo_double Posted September 9, 2013 Share #5 Posted September 9, 2013 I have the RX-1r and the M9. The Sony camera is really designed to be used with AF, but you can select a flexible spot and use the "focus and recompose routine", which works all right. But I would also advise you to stick with the M, for the photography you do (nice portfolio, by the way). Also don't forget that the user experience is not just about the ease of using the focusing, it is also about factors such as how quickly the camera is ready to shoot when you half press the shutter button (i.e. wake up from standby). I assume the M is better in this regard than the M9 but even the M9 is a lot faster than the RX-1, in my experience so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted September 9, 2013 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2013 Lloyd diglloyd blog - Hit Rate and Image Quality and Reliability and Price, the Camera World Upended seems to be comparing the shooting experience of the two cameras. He has something on unstable manual fous here diglloyd blog - Sony RX1R: Unstable Manual Focus (I have not read the articles as I don't have a subscription for them.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted September 9, 2013 Share #7 Posted September 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the M is faster and more enjoyable in manual focussing with live-view than the RX1. The only drawback is that you can only use the center of the frame in magnified mode on the M. The RX1 can be set to anywhere within the frame. But the Leica lenses is much more responsive and accurate than the construction of the Zeiss lens on the RX1. Also not crazy about the long viewfinder blackout on the M during live view. But I can live with it. And to ad. If you use 28-90mm lenses the rangefinder works as on the M9 and it is way much faster than any live-view option on any camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper67 Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share #8 Posted September 9, 2013 Thanx guys...I think I'm leaning back to Leica....it seems from other Sony forums too that I'm talking too that the consensus is that Leica is more suited for me and that Sony may have to wait for gen II before I can add at as a serious camera...but for sure its closing in for me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted September 9, 2013 Share #9 Posted September 9, 2013 As long as MF is coupled electronically instead of mechanically it will be inferior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2013 Share #10 Posted September 9, 2013 It seems the XVario isn't half bad in this respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted September 9, 2013 Share #11 Posted September 9, 2013 I have both M9P and RX1. The RX1, whilst being a great camera is much slower than the M9 for focusing manually. The autofocus isn't particularly fast either but is adequate for my needs. Regards, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted September 9, 2013 Share #12 Posted September 9, 2013 Alexandros, what do you think the Sony would do better for your type of work? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper67 Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share #13 Posted September 9, 2013 I have been using digital Leicas since the very beginning and have been enjoying using them since. For my work I only use a 35mm and occasionally do I pull out a 28mm if I'm in closed space. On many occasions I have travelled with just my 35. Despite the fact the M9 has been with me in many places and has served me well there have been more than a few occasions that I have struggled with assignments due to its low light capabilities and speed. Testing the M240 I am convinced that the new Leica excels in these areas and others vis the M9. It is for sure in my pinion a better recording machine on all fronts. I shoot Leica M for three main reasons: the smallness factor, the simplicity factor and of course the quality factor. Together these three things make me forget that I have a camera in my hands and that makes me feel liberated. To me a great camera is one that makes you feel more "naked" and "vulnerable", a camera that allows you to connect with your subject matter and not one that puts you down by either its weight or even its "prestige". Leica M was and still is to me a camera that forces u to connect. This all stems from the 'purity' of the machine that you hold - the perfection in its mission. When the camera looses this purity then this connection you have with it dissolves. Let me paraphrase by what I mean by purity - because a lot of people may think that I am referring to the new features in the camera. I am not. I embrace technology and I think this is the only way Leica can maintain a foothold in the marketplace. The purity that I'm talking about is in the beauty that is derived from the knowledge that the features on the camera work in their outmost. This to me is what the definition of Leica is and why the red dot is worth so much. So when they present cameras that are half baked - in my opinion - I am obliged to search elsewhere to find this purity. I dread to hold an M 240 and be told to take movie with my $10,000 kit knowing that something at a third of the price can do a better job. (I have tried the video and despite it not being bad the image is very jittery and I have seen other problems as like moire etc) If Leica was not able to reach the level of its competitors that is understandable since they have been at it for many more years. But why then dilute the product and include it in?, why not wait until it has reached that level? Same with other functions that seem more marketing gimmicks rather than real world features. When the purity of the mission is dissolved because of compromises so is everything else. The RX 1 has struck me as a camera - that despite its shortcomings - has found a purity in its existence. It is in a way what Leica M was when it started years ago. The RX 1 should have been Leica's mini M. The M still retains its glow but for how long? To cut along story short and to answer to your question: I am searching for that purity again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted September 9, 2013 Share #14 Posted September 9, 2013 (SNIP).. make me forget that I have a camera in my hands and that makes me feel liberated. (SNIP) I am searching for that purity again. Sorry, the RX1 wont give you just that. I would say that the image quality in low light is a tad bit better in the Sony. But to be bound by an EVF at all times, unless you want to stare at a screen, and to have a lot of buttons and menu options in the way, and to have to rely at a not so accurate AF, is not the way to gain purity... The M i genious. Rangefinder, optional EFV, very good image quality and to be able to choose freely amongst the best lenses. That is perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 9, 2013 Share #15 Posted September 9, 2013 I own both. I bought the M for RF and R lens use with EVF. I bought the RX-1 for its AF and faster spontaneous shots. It works well for me. If I am in an area where I do believe something good will happen for image taking I snap off a shot to "pre-focus" the RX-1 so to speak on that distance. Then when something comes along it hardly takes a second to get new, accurate focus with the RX-1 AF and I take the shot. Quite simple really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2013 Share #16 Posted September 9, 2013 Purity? Extensive menus, AF, fly-by-wire manual focus, considerable digital lens corrections, electronic viewfinder, etc. An excellent camera no doubt, but an electronic marvel for all that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper67 Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share #17 Posted September 10, 2013 As I had said I don't think Sony is there yet - purity wise - but I also feel Leica is loosing its way.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 10, 2013 Share #18 Posted September 10, 2013 Why? Because they added a button to take movies? What I see is Leica evolving, I don't see the Japanese to ever come close to simple designs and purity. Why? Because this is how they sell. They are not fools to destroy their sales in an attempt to catch a niche market as Leica's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted September 10, 2013 Share #19 Posted September 10, 2013 Fuji seems to design human-machine interface well, and they're quick to implement changes demanded by their customer base. Sure they've got some kinks to hammer out, but keep in mind that most of the Fuji pro/serious amateur cameras are first generation. I wouldn't generalize the entirely of Japanese offerings based on the strategies of one or two manufactures. Also, why doesn't Leica allow for a remap of the M button? Why? Because they added a button to take movies? What I see is Leica evolving, I don't see the Japanese to ever come close to simple designs and purity. Why? Because this is how they sell. They are not fools to destroy their sales in an attempt to catch a niche market as Leica's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted September 10, 2013 Share #20 Posted September 10, 2013 I have experience with both the M9 and RX-1. My opinion is: RX-1 is a fantastic camera and has many advantages over the M9. HOWEVER, it has two big weaknesses for me compared with the M9: -looking through the EVF is nowhere near as nice as looking through a glass viewfinder (my opinion) -auto focusing is less reliable and slower than with the Leica (for me), and manual focusing, while it works, is a really tedious thing. So from what you state in your question, I'd stick with a rangefinder. But by all means go and try out an RX-1 first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.