Jump to content

The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

dmclalla

By dmclalla
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

x
  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
sisoje

sisoje

Posted
Posted
.... the Sony is simply another camera with good output - if you like another type of camera than the M go for it and save some money. Personally I have no interest. I would not have sunk a fortune in the M system over the decades if it were not my preferred type of camera.

 

Thanks. Clear and simple!:D

How many more of these kind of post we will have until X-mas? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul J

Paul J

Posted
Posted
:eek: Think I just weed myself a little bit...

 

Ha! You know what struck me about this was when I looked at the bird, with my naked eye, I could not see, or did not notice the ridging around the eye. Also the actual feathers are completely different to what I'd imagined them to be by looking at. It was an angry bird so I certainly wasn't going to go near it! (the handler left with blood running down her arm btw!)

 

So that to me, really is incredible. It reveals things you just don't get to witness in real life. You can inspect things like this in close detail from a normal viewpoint seeing things you wouldn't normally see. It really is adding more. That holds a great interest to me - A picture can become as much about what a photograph can give you in a conventional sense, as well as a deeper discovery of something else.

 

Also you can take an image, crop it 100% and still get a good print from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AdamSinger

AdamSinger

Posted
Posted

Thighslapper asks rethorically will the Sony A7 make me a better photographer? No it won't, I am taking pills for that. And I defer to few in Leica passion, as my first "domestic" back in the 70s was the Mrs wanting a new avocado green bathroom suite, and I wanted a pre owned M3. Which I still have, as who would keep an avaocado bath tub for 40 years. I either have or have had every M Leica, (even an M1) nearly all secondhand, and new Leica stuff is a recent thing in my life. I love rangefinder Leicas, but there are times when I wish to use my Nikon, or Linhof, or 6x9 Alpa, they all have thier roles, and thier speed of use all dictate a differnt relationship with the subject, but my current default platform is the Monochrome and then the M9. The improvement of the M rangefinder over the M9 is a valid reason to get a 240, and may be why I go for it in the end. Yes the new Zeiss Distagon will be huge on an A7, but that much bigger than a zoom? Or a Nocitlux? The Noctilux is a muscle builders dream but I love it, and the results make it worth looking like Quasimodo as one staggers beneath it The sub text here is for the first time since the demise of Nikon Rangefinders there are real full frame non SLR alternatives to the Leica. Its Contax versus Leica all over again. Its easy to forget that the Contax was the 1930s acme of rangefinders, more expensive with better lenses. Robert Capa though a Leica user had a Contax on the beaches of Normandy and died with a Contax and Nikon S round his neck. We will all stick to Leica for our own reasons but the new people coming to higher end non SLR photography will find the Sony seductive. In this game Sony gets to play Leica of yore while Leica takes the Contax role, and where are they now? My hope is that it causes some refelection at Solms or Wetzlar. If you have used an M3 whose rangefinder is arguably more accurate than the M240s one marvels at how slim it is , how it fits the hand in comparison to the lardy Leica M, and Sony are showing it does not need to be so, that slim is possible. Here lies debate, as its not about the pictures I take but about the survival of a camera make I have loved for 45 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
marcusperkins

marcusperkins

Posted
Posted

I think the Sony with the new Summicron Asph may potentially give similar results to the Leica S2 and at a fraction of the cost.

 

As a 25 year Leica user from film all the way through to the M8/M9MP, the Sony really appeals to me as potentially the perfect body for my Leica lenses. I loved my old film M6/MP and still use them, but I didn't feel the digital Ms served me particularly well and got rid of them - I have zero interest in buying the M240.

 

I don't imagine the A7R will hit Leica too much as they currently sell everything they make - rather, it may boost the demand for 'perfect' Leica lenses if they work well on cameras like the Sony A7R.

Link to post
Share on other sites
algrove

algrove

Posted
Posted
We seem to be entering an era where we will be spoilt for choice.......and with digital output that far exceeds the needs of anyone but the most demanding pernickety photographer.

 

Will the Sony A7r make you a better photographer ?

 

I doubt it.

 

Once the novelty of a new toy wears off the ultimate choice will be down to mundane and often trivial things like familiarity, button placement, menu structure and how it looks ......:rolleyes:

 

Well put. This forum is often too much gear oriented and not enough results and photographic experience oriented, myself included.:o

Link to post
Share on other sites
luigi bertolotti

luigi bertolotti

Posted
Posted
Ugh, you are so right, it's a very boring argument and if Olaf shows up, i'm definitely out.

 

Even if you take an 8MP file and enlarge it to the same sized print you will still see the same blur. It's just that 36MP print of the same size will show more detail within that blur. Camera movement doesn't magically appear with higher megapixels, it's the magnification of an image that makes blur more apparent.

 

Correct... but just to give a bit of continuation to a really boring argument :p... with higher megapixel count (same sensor format) you have more blur, given a certain amount of shake... my idea (HIGHLY questionable, I am not Olaf) is that for a given ("not too big") magnification (on print) and a given shake, the theorical advantage of higher pixel count can be offset by the higher probability (*) of blur

 

P.S. : in the meantime, I see that my one is basically the same conclusion of quoted Ming Thein...

 

(*) I also think that is better to think of motion blur in probabilstic terms, given that its evidence is related to image content/structure

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Well I was trying to be respectful. Of course sensor size does play into it and results need to be compared. However I think if you are looking for a versatile relatively compact fixed zoom travel camera, the RX10 certainly fills the bill better than the X Vario does... at a much much lower price. And they both have the letter "X" in the name so they must be good. And speaking of the letter X, many have already compared the logic of the X Vario to various Nex plus lens combos (Zeiss 16-70 f4 anyone?) and other cameras. BTW, the Leica zoom is actually just 18-43 so the Zeiss 16-70 has a lot more range.

 

And if image quality is your main concern but you still want a zoom then the A7 or A7R and the Zeiss 24-70 F4 would do it. Consider the A7/Zeiss costs less than the X Vario with EVF and has so much more to offer. And if you bought the kit zoom instead of the Zeiss.... hmmmm.

 

But we all knew this didn't we?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul J

Paul J

Posted
Posted

Hey Luigi,

 

Yes that's one way of looking at it. I guess my point is, if you stick to the old rule of three times the focal length for a safe shutter speed then the probability is going to be low anyway. But I stick to that rule with my 18MP M9 as well where possible.

 

I don't use tripods, I don't like them at all. I've not had a problem with hand holding 60mp, any more than an 18mp camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted
Are you really comparing APS-C to small sensor cameras folks?

 

Both up, sideways, and down.

 

When I was in college, one professor would not let us use anything smaller than 4x5. He called 35mm "miniature" cameras.

 

I'd suspect that many would prefer to buy and use the RX10 than the X Vario for a variety of reasons.

 

If I were a salesman at a camera store and a customer was debating between the RX10, X Vario, Nex 6 with 16-70, and A7 with 24-70, I can't think of what he'd have to tell me about his interests and needs that would make me recommend the X Vario. But if a customer came in and said he wanted to buy a Leica and only had around $3000-$3500 to spend, I know what I would sell him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Jones

Mr_Jones

Posted
Posted

The ebay ad looks like a classic gumtree type. I wonder if these deals ever happen because I've never been able to risk it and find out.

 

I've ordered the A7r. It's the money I would have spent upgrading to the M from the M9p if Leica had got themselves sorted out and delivered them in higher volume. If it works out with Leica glass I'll see if the rangefinder means enough to me to keep the M9.

 

I'm not a lifelong rangefinder user but I think Leica are trading on their engineering superiority and the digital element is likely to let all of our digital M bodies down in the medium term which has always taken something away from the experience for me.

 

I'm hoping the A7r will cover all the improvements between M9 and M, increased DR, higher noise free iso, movie mode, live view. I also hope there are no nasty surprises for all of us early adopters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...