k-hawinkler Posted October 18, 2013 Share #941 Posted October 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah, that all started with post #229 when I had a few minutes at lunch to unload a couple thoughts to stir it up a little. It was so long I'm surprised anyone bothered to wade through it. And, I agree, it is kind nice around here like this (civil, I mean). The sick part about this for me is that I'll probably keep the RX1 and the A7R and... the M240. Hey, off topic, sort of, but wait till I post a picture if the A7R and my 280/2.8 APO stacked with a couple APO extenders. Imagine that modular Tele R system with the little A7R on it. Who'd have thunk this would be the look of future photography? That's a real sweet setup. I am looking forward to your images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted October 18, 2013 Share #942 Posted October 18, 2013 When talking about the tolerances of adapters and suitability for M lenses. Let's not forget many of us needed to get our lenses matche to our M bodies in Solms. Sometimes more than once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted October 18, 2013 Share #943 Posted October 18, 2013 Funny to read that a TTL camera is a step forward for RF users. Apples and oranges as usual. I read the same sort of praise right here about the m240! "So accurate" people were saying.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted October 18, 2013 Share #944 Posted October 18, 2013 No tripod. He said so in dpreview. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 18, 2013 Share #945 Posted October 18, 2013 Not everything, just part of my photography. Just want to know if those little cams are just good for standard to telephoto lenses, or not. I would not mind to use one with my Apo-Telyt 280/4 for instance, provided it can focus on moving subjects... Which i doubt as well... but again i may be wrong. I keep an open mind even if the shutter noise can be a deal breaker if it is significantly louder than that of my M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 18, 2013 Share #946 Posted October 18, 2013 Not sure the M(240) EVF experience is even remotely relevant to the A7 - different sensor, different processor, different EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 18, 2013 Share #947 Posted October 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pics with 12mm to 28mm M lenses will be the judge. I don't hold my breath but i may be wrong. Retrofocus designs should be acceptable. Really hope my SEM21 will be ok with minimal corrections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 18, 2013 Share #948 Posted October 18, 2013 Leica's M9 and M aren't flawless either for WA. So, shouldn't the measuring stick for WA be wether the A7/R can match or exceed the M9 or M? Or how much worse they are? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 18, 2013 Share #949 Posted October 18, 2013 Cant wait to see it in the metal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 18, 2013 Share #950 Posted October 18, 2013 Leica's M9 and M aren't flawless either for WA.So, shouldn't the measuring stick for WA be wether the A7/R can match or exceed the M9 or M?... +1. Will be the only measuring stick, at least for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixalis Posted October 18, 2013 Share #951 Posted October 18, 2013 When talking about the tolerances of adapters and suitability for M lenses. Let's not forget many of us needed to get our lenses matche to our M bodies in Solms. Sometimes more than once. The biggest problem, as I understand it, is rangefinder adjustment relating to accurate focus. With live view the adjustments should be less critical. At least I hope so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 18, 2013 Share #952 Posted October 18, 2013 When talking about the tolerances of adapters and suitability for M lenses. Let's not forget many of us needed to get our lenses matche to our M bodies in Solms. Sometimes more than once. With live view and focus peaking all the adapter has to do is hold the lens in plane with the sensor. Whether or not the flange distance is off matters not when using live view and focus peaking. Leica does not match lenses to M bodies...each are calibrated independently to a spec. There are instances where a body/lens combo are at opposite extremes of the spec (usually with fast lenses like the Noctilux), and in these instances Leica has in the past worked to bring the two closer to the middle of the tolerance band, but matching has not happened since the 1930s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted October 18, 2013 Share #953 Posted October 18, 2013 I am not sure how to compare that with anything else. I'm probably showing my age here, but it brought up an immediate comparison for me. It sounds just like a Nikon MD12 on an FM2 - the same sort of speed and tone but hopefully with less kick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 18, 2013 Share #954 Posted October 18, 2013 With live view and focus peaking all the adapter has to do is hold the lens in plane with the sensor. Whether or not the flange distance is off matters not when using live view and focus peaking. Leica does not match lenses to M bodies...each are calibrated independently to a spec. There are instances where a body/lens combo are at opposite extremes of the spec (usually with fast lenses like the Noctilux), and in these instances Leica has in the past worked to bring the two closer to the middle of the tolerance band, but matching has not happened since the 1930s. Exactly that seems to be the problem with not correctly fitting adapters, they can tilt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted October 18, 2013 Share #955 Posted October 18, 2013 Exactly that seems to be the problem with not correctly fitting adapters, they can tilt. Well, then the market will fill that gap with a higher quality product. One would imagine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 18, 2013 Share #956 Posted October 18, 2013 Well, then the market will fill that gap with a higher quality product. One would imagine. Novoflex basically did that all along with their high quality products. Their adapters also seem to have the correct thickness. Why do I think that? Well I can focus my APO-R 280/4 with an NEX camera. Then switch to an M9 with a different adapter. And the lens is still correctly focused. None of my other cheap adapters can match that. In a way it's the same as with buying a tripod. If one doesn't initially get a great one, one eventually buys again. Here is an interesting paper: LensRentals.com - There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 18, 2013 Share #957 Posted October 18, 2013 The RX10 is another camera to compare to the X Vario. Considering that the RX10 has a Zeiss 24-200 f/2.8 constant aperture lens as opposed to the X Vario's 28-70 f/3.5-6.4 it's more of a smack down than a comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSun Posted October 18, 2013 Share #958 Posted October 18, 2013 I guess I don't understand your Rolex analogy. Isn't the Rolex an inferior time piece when strictly comparing performance to a ten dollar watch? At this point in time the M240 is one of the top five FF sensors available and paired with its own lenses it technically outperforms (image wise) any other system at most all focal lengths. And, if we can't agree on that at every focal length etc., I think you get my point. If, you want all of this performance in a small system with this depth of exceptional lens choices, unfortunately it is going to cost you more than a ten dollar watch. But, in the long run, I'm not sure that my foray down the Leica path has been any more expensive than changing formats (m4/3, 4/3, APS-c, FF 35, etc.) and systems and manufacturers and all the lenses and accessories that come along with that, every time something new and shinier comes along. Basically, what I meant, is reflected well in Ozkar's main arguments in the last posts. I see that you enjoy shooting with M240, so be it, there's no problem with that. In that case certainly a Sony A7r won't make much sense, unless you also want a backup camera. The thing is that there are people out there, who can't afford a Leica M240. But still enamored by M lenses and already have some. For them the new Sony cameras can be a compelling choice. And I have to agree with others that in many sense they may prove superior in technical performance (and slightly even better in terms of image quality, but at least comparable) to a Leica M240. We can definitely expect this in terms of electronics/firmware - think of EVF performance, for example, where Leica is quite substantially lagging behind. Again, if rangefinder mechanism is what you die for, then it's no way a substitute and I perfectly understand that. And also if the high price tag of Leica cameras is not of concern, I agree that the best thing is to stick to those as they form a complete, coherent system. However, in all other cases Sony will be tempting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 18, 2013 Share #959 Posted October 18, 2013 When I am allowed to share the images I surely will. Understood. But this strand of discussion has a bit of the vibe of a special court proceeding from a movie where the conclusions of evidence are showcased but the evidence itself can't be presented, because, after all, it's secret. Shhhh... It will be interesting to see how much CA and vignetting actually affect results in practice (you know, after profiles are applied and so on) with the A7/A7r vs M240, and Leica wides. The WATE and Leica 21/2.8 are certainly pretty fine on the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 18, 2013 Share #960 Posted October 18, 2013 Ya'know, it occurs to me that one potentially annoying issue is that the Sony will not have a way to know what lens is being used and put that in the exif. It probably won't even have an annoying manual lens selection menu that lets you tell it which Leica lens your using. That is, until some clever person makes an adapter smart enough to read the 6-bit code, and transform it to what the Sony E-mount needs to see. One look at the Sony autofocus adapter and you might conclude retailing the 6-bit info to the Sony is easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.