iforum Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1081 Posted October 19, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) and? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Hi iforum, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1082 Posted October 19, 2013 That 'test in the woods' without reference to another camera for a benchmark is meaningless. Steve Huff confirmed that the shutter in the A7R is no louder than the shutter in the M240. If you must have a silent camera, buy one with a leaf shutter. I have one with a leaf shutter. That is how I can make the RX-1 comment. For what it's worth, this guy seems to handle and know more about many brands of camera than all of us combined. I seem to recall he said the a7R is quite a bit louder than the M240. See for yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1083 Posted October 19, 2013 IF I had a M9 like the OP, I'll probably go for "stand by and wait" or, better to say, "think well what do I NEED depending on my photo habits and consequent lens set" : I mean, where are the SURE pluses that can give me a M (or a A/7) over a M9 ? The rather stable opinions I have in my mind, at this point, are : 1) If one likes takings in which wides to normal focals ar the base, in low light scenes and searching for fine bokeh effects, few doubts that M is the choice : better high ISO than M9, better RF, no advantage from a EVF even if good as A7's one probably is 2) If one does suffer the limitations of M9 on the long focal side, M is a step-up... but probably not yet so definitive... A7 can be an alternative to consider seriously. 3) If one is on the "street photo" mood, and has a longtime attitude to use Leica Ms, again M is to be preferred by sure... unless one decides to switch to AF which is a radical choice... the alternatives are many, even considering the capability to use also M lenses as a plus. 4) If one likes Macro on tripod... I think that both M and A7 do give a step up over M9... personally, I'd consider a plus the capability to use the old Visoflex as an alternative to LiveView in some situations (but, honestly, on the Liveview side, the tiltable LCD of A7 can also be a plus) Personally, having still my M8, I admit to be also on the "wait and see" mood... even if in case of GAS attack... no doubt I'll go for M... , should I decide ANYWAY to test the EVF experience, I think I'd go for a cheaper than A7 camera... just to play waiting for the next M : M8 still satisfies me a lot, and with 6 years of age, is still the Leica that I have used for less years than my previous ones... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1084 Posted October 19, 2013 I'm a bit puzzled by the opinion that the rf is king if you're shooting planar objects stopped down. Seems very few 'true' Leica users do that, so the advantage, other than familiarity! seems slim? It's late. I'm in bed. Read Tim's article, then my response, and if I can understand your point in the morning, I'll respond. At the moment, I can't. Sorry. John Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1085 Posted October 19, 2013 Would be interesting to know why Leica didn't make their version of the A7r. There are lots of potential reasons. Not sure if they will come with one down the line but it is the body a lot of Leica customers have been waiting for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1086 Posted October 19, 2013 They didn't make one because their strategy is not to compete directly with giants like Sony but, instead to stay in their niche market. —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephoto1 Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1087 Posted October 19, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) When using R lenses on the A7/A7r, what adapter would one use? This one -- Novoflex Adapter for Leica R Lens to Sony NEX Camera NEX/LER B&H Thanks! Bob, That is the adapter that I have and will be using with the NEX cameras. I have pre-ordered the A7r and I also believe that it will be a better R solution than the Leica M240. I also intend to use some M mount lenses with the camera as well. R wide angle lenses should not cause issues with the A7 or A7r cameras. But, the R wide angle lenses may not be sharp across the field especially for the 36PM A7r. I am waiting for more results from others with M lenses with the camera to decide if I purchase any WA Leica M lenses. In the meantime I have tiny Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 Rokkor-M lens (the latest incarnation of the Leica C 40mm f2 Summicron) to use with the camera. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1088 Posted October 19, 2013 It's not a question of Sony is going to make one lets make it, the customer base wants one. The demand from Leica lens owners is undeniable. If they were only interested in their niche, why make the X series or the C, or even rebranding the panasonics? p.s. don't answer the last question, they are interested in making money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1089 Posted October 19, 2013 Just look at how their flagship M240 handles the evf, video, high iso and live view. Basically all their R&D went into this, their pride and glory. This is the best Leica can do with all the fancy things that became possible by switching to CMOS. What makes you think Leica could come up with a properly working Full Frame evf mirrorless camera that could even compete with the A7? Sure maybe in another year or maybe in the next M camera, but right now Leica just doesn't have to resources or the digital know how to make a camera like the A7. Their pride and joy still uses an old olympus vf-2 and they can't even make it zoom in any other place than the center. Their video is just an after thought and is hardly worth the effort compared to most other dslr's. And their highest iso is a push 6400 which bands too much to be useable after dark. Imagine the M240 without the rangefinder for 4000 euro. It would be a pretty bad camera in any other way than base iso image quality, and it would compete with the A7? Don't get me wrong, the M240 is a magnificent camera, but if you don't buy it for the rangefinder experience, you're getting a lousy deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1090 Posted October 19, 2013 I'll stick with the DMR until I hear about the qualities of the A7® I'm afraid I can't stand the big lens small body combination... and the menu's of a non Leica camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1091 Posted October 19, 2013 I'm not sure if the Sony or any other EVF camera would be suitable to manually focus the M lenses. Of course it is doable with focus peaking and image zoom, but the RF is much faster and in most cases more precise when it's well calibrated. There is no doubt in my mind that the Sony will be the superior imaging device, as Leica is still 3 years behind the current technology. But let's not forget this is an AF camera with native FF AF glass designed by Zeiss, so in order to take full advantage of its capabilities, we have to use its native lenses. Using adapted M glass on the Sony may work well, but it is needlessly slow in the case image zoom, and quite inaccurate in case of focus peaking. Any Leica FF EVF camera will suffer from the same symptoms, on the top of Leica being well behind in technology, as eloquently expressed by Pieter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1092 Posted October 19, 2013 It's late. I'm in bed. Read Tim's article, then my response, and if I can understand your point in the morning, I'll respond. At the moment, I can't. Sorry. John Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD No worries John. I read Tim's article, (whole blog actually for a while now, he's good) and your response. Actually my response is relative to the article, not so much to your take which I agree with. Tim seems to imply that RF is THE focussing method when you are shooting planar (and I assume parallel to the sensor plane) objects at small apertures. If I understand him right? This seems contrary to 'street', 'decisive moment' (bleh), documentary, precious Noctilux lenses etc. The implication (mine) is that EVF and peaking would be more suitable for everything except planar high DoF shots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1093 Posted October 19, 2013 and? I'm just wondering if you mean to be so offensive and arrogant sounding. Or if you have a genuine, intellectual point that's lost somehow in translation. I'd hate to jump to a sweeping conclusion about you when it's a language barrier thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hey You Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1094 Posted October 19, 2013 "Thighslapper asks rethorically will the Sony A7 make me a better photographer? No it won't, I am taking pills for that." Can you give me their prescription, please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1095 Posted October 19, 2013 [quote name=jonoslack;2533792. . . A simple test with a long dinner table and two bored wives' date=' suggested that the M is actually quieter than the M6 for the subject. [/quote] I had trouble with one wife and had to get rid if her....... Hats off to you, Jono, if you can manage two.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1096 Posted October 19, 2013 Seems to me that the importance, or lack of importance, of photographic technology is simply need based, not the philosophical debate it seems to always trigger. "It's the person behind the camera, not the camera." type counter-points are fundamentally true of any camera from a smart phone to a 80 meg MFD camera. So, I've never understood such "creative" comments in relation to the "science" of photography ... which has continuously evolved from day one, and shows no sign of abating. This Sony a7/a7R is yet another milestone in the technical trek. How important it may be to different individuals depends on needs/desires and their use of tools to make photos. I'm a long time full frame Sony DSLR/SLT user for my professional work. I understand the pros and cons of Sony's approach ... and basically ignore that which serves no purpose in my work. I also use a S2 system and a Leica M Monochrome ... was a very long time M and R user prior to my current gear. I've ordered an a7R, because it uses technology to solve a few needs/desires I have. This solution is ... A small camera that's easy to take with, and easier to carry for extended periods of time, BUT packs industry leading FF 36 meg resolution not found in any camera of this size. In this instance, "The person behind the camera" is getting tired of carrying a DSLR brick for 7 or 8+ hours. A camera that I can mount some state of the art M optics I already have for the times I want to do color work with those lenses. I never did much color work with a rangefinder camera for 30+ years anyway, so the MM was another piece of technological assistance that better fit my creative bent. "The person behind the camera" artistically prefers a dedicated B&W rangefinder camera. A camera that is $4,700 less investment than a M240. So, "The person behind the camera" has the money to travel with the camera. A camera that can back-up my other Sony A mount cameras if necessary while on the job. So, I'll have one camera that can back-up two completely different systems. "The person behind the camera" prefers simplicity to complexity so he can concentrate on taking the images rather than preparing to take the images. And so on ... - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1097 Posted October 19, 2013 It's not a question of Sony is going to make one lets make it, the customer base wants one. The demand from Leica lens owners is undeniable. If they were only interested in their niche, why make the X series or the C, or even rebranding the panasonics? p.s. don't answer the last question, they are interested in making money. Blackstone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1098 Posted October 19, 2013 I wonder if Sony has put an R after A7 to indicate that this camera actually is excellent for R lenses. It's the R solution that Leica were unable to offer. I'm saving my pennies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1099 Posted October 19, 2013 Well, I can say that the widest R lens I use is the 15/2.8 and it performs miraculously on the M. See some images under Jaap's thread R lenses on M. The large throat size of the R glass sure must help in some way as I imagine that the actual optical far corners of the R lenses project beyond the M sensor's far corners. Just a guess on my part. Would love to have some confirmation of this. Keep in mind MR of LuLa said that the a7R vignetted somewhat with his M glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1100 Posted October 19, 2013 Exactly my point. If the amplitude and frequency of the shake is of the same order then its effect when viewing images at 100% will be proportional to the size of those pixels on the imaging plane (magnification) and has nothing whatsoever in any kind of logic to do with how many pixels there are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.