Ecaton Posted January 30, 2014 Share #21 Posted January 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have used both cameras and the "apples and oranges" pictures confirmed my preference for the Leica color rendering. It is not even close to me. Of course, if we are considering price, the Sony is one hell of a camera. I have my M9 now for more than 4 years and it probably lost 50% of value during this period, say about USD 3500. In the same period I bought, tried and sold a number of other makes on the never anding search and lost a ton of money by doing so. Of course I had to jump on the Sony A bandwagon as well and am an A7r user since early December. The Sony has a few strengths, but also a number of shortcomings and quirks and in a nutshell, does not feel as ready and well rounded a product as it should be. I`m confident that the A7 successor is already in the making at Sony and the annual upgrading cycles will make the FF Sonys an expensive exercise for its followers. Whilst the cash out for a M system is considerable, in the end, it turned out not to be more expensive than other makes for me. And the increase of values of the m-lenses accumulated over the last 10 years are not even taken into consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Hi Ecaton, Take a look here Sean Reid's M240 versus a7R-same lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest JonathanP Posted January 30, 2014 Share #22 Posted January 30, 2014 Its interesting the Sean says that many of the small differences between the files may actually be due to differences in Lightroom rendering. +1. I've been using an A7R since November, and soon found that the default Adobe profile in Lightroom for the A7R is very poor, particularly in the reds. The alternative "camera standard" is better but I ended up having to create a custom profile to sort it out. Capture 1 and Aperture both got the colour much closer by default. Sony have done great things with the A7 cameras, but I found that I was enjoying using manual focusing lenses much more than the native ones, and I agree with all your comments. In the end the ergonomics and the lens range tipped me - I'm going to collect my M tomorrow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intermediatic Posted February 5, 2014 Share #23 Posted February 5, 2014 I found this a deceptive article and I'm not sure why he posted it. The A7R is unusable with a vast number of lenses currently being sold. With the M240 I can pick up a whole bunch of lenses and use them right out of the box. Not so with the A7R. Here's another way to look at it, the M 240 may be pricey, but so are lenses. CV makes some superlative lenses that produce great shots at a bargain price. If I have to use larger, more expensive Leica lenses to get half-decent performance out of the A7R, then I'm not doing necessarily doing better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted February 5, 2014 Share #24 Posted February 5, 2014 If I have to use larger, more expensive Leica lenses to get half-decent performance out of the A7R, then I'm not doing necessarily doing better. I use lighter, cheaper Sony FE lenses to get superior performance out of my A7R. That's the way I look at it. I gave up comparing M performance on the Sony once it was clear the Sony system (incl native lenses) outperforms the Leica M system in all aspects except having a RF. Everything else since has appeared to me like dressing your wife up in your clothes to make you feel better about how you look in them. I would recommend anyone who's priority is having a Range Finder to get a back up M, either an M9 or an M8. They're available very low prices now (just sold two of them). No need to look off piste to other brands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted February 5, 2014 Share #25 Posted February 5, 2014 I gave up comparing M performance on the Sony once it was clear the Sony system (incl native lenses) outperforms the Leica M system in all aspects except having a RF. I'd be interested to know what lightweight and compact lenses in the range 18mm to 24mm you are using on the A7R that are outperforming the M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted February 5, 2014 Share #26 Posted February 5, 2014 I'd be interested to know what lightweight and compact lenses in the range 18mm to 24mm you are using on the A7R that are outperforming the M? None, I don't shoot lower than 35 other than T/S. At the current quality at which the FE line is coming out with though, I wouldn't be very surprised at all if there was an exceptional 24 or something coming soon. However for now this is why the Sony is a better choice for me. I don't need RF either, another reason. Each to their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 5, 2014 Share #27 Posted February 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use lighter, cheaper Sony FE lenses to get superior performance out of my A7R. That's the way I look at it. I gave up comparing M performance on the Sony once it was clear the Sony system (incl native lenses) outperforms the Leica M system in all aspects except having a RF. Everything else since has appeared to me like dressing your wife up in your clothes to make you feel better about how you look in them. I would recommend anyone who's priority is having a Range Finder to get a back up M, either an M9 or an M8. They're available very low prices now (just sold two of them). No need to look off piste to other brands. This is an old argument Leica sensors have never led the market, albeit the current one is in the top half of leading edge sensors (3200 looks pretty much the same as 3200 on my A7) You buy the camera for workflow, build, lenses, feel, etc. The performance of the top FF cameas is so good that differentiating on technical grounds is rather pointless IMHO except that lenses are important and Leica has that argument sown up, even though the Sony 35mm and 55mm are rather good. rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 5, 2014 Share #28 Posted February 5, 2014 I use lighter, cheaper Sony FE lenses to get superior performance out of my A7R. That's the way I look at it. I gave up comparing M performance on the Sony once it was clear the Sony system (incl native lenses) outperforms the Leica M system in all aspects except having a RF. Everything else since has appeared to me like dressing your wife up in your clothes to make you feel better about how you look in them. I would recommend anyone who's priority is having a Range Finder to get a back up M, either an M9 or an M8. They're available very low prices now (just sold two of them). No need to look off piste to other brands. I would love to see your images that show how these vast differences in quality improve your photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tundraline Posted February 5, 2014 Share #29 Posted February 5, 2014 I have had a Sony A7R with Zeiss 35mm and 55mm lenses for a couple of months now. I also have an M240 and an assortment of Leica lenses. There is no doubt the Sony is a great camera, and is capable of producing outstanding images. For a number of reasons, however, I much prefer using my M240 and Leica lenses. Differences in how the two different systems must be employed by a user, and the fine Leica glass, lead me to the conclusion that I routinely obtain superior photos with my Leica system. That's my personal conclusion, and I am sure there are many who do not feel similarly. The Sony is nice to have as a backup, but I might just sell it and buy a second Leica digital body instead. If you can afford a Leica system and understand what the system is all about, IMHO it's well worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted February 5, 2014 Share #30 Posted February 5, 2014 At the current quality at which the FE line is coming out with though, I wouldn't be very surprised at all if there was an exceptional 24 or something coming soon. Unfortunately I can't live off puff, chitchat, rumour or dreams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted February 5, 2014 Share #31 Posted February 5, 2014 I would love to see your images that show how these vast differences in quality improve your photography. I would love to see where I said they improved my 'photography'? They can offer a higher quality and larger print, all else being equal. Is IQ not a concern for your imagery Jaap? I appreciate your interest in my work though. PM me your personal address and I'll invite you to my next exhibition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted February 5, 2014 Share #32 Posted February 5, 2014 Unfortunately I can't live off puff, chitchat, rumour or dreams. Valid point, of course, if a little dramatically put. I don't earn my living from photography and would never want to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 5, 2014 Share #33 Posted February 5, 2014 I'd be interested to know what lightweight and compact lenses in the range 18mm to 24mm you are using on the A7R that are outperforming the M? I am very happy with my WATE 16-18-21/4 on M9 and A7R! As I don/t have an M240 I can't compare. However, the WATE seems to produce rich detail and colors on the A7R. Here is an example from 3D-Kraft.com, http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2622199-post157.html in particular when viewed at a larger size. flame cut, Torres Del Paine, Patagonia, Chile - DSC00999 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted February 5, 2014 Share #34 Posted February 5, 2014 I am very happy with my WATE 16-18-21/4 on M9 and A7R! As I don/t have an M240 I can't compare. However, the WATE seems to produce rich detail and colors on the A7R. I took a good look at the WATE but concluded that the Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH is as good as it gets, at least for my applications. Unfortunately the image you linked to is both overworked and unsharp and certainly does the WATE no favour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 5, 2014 Share #35 Posted February 5, 2014 ok, here is an unscientific comparison of M240+35mm Summicron to A7+35mm Zeiss different days, different light levels, different contrast, different angles, blah blah blah Yes I have frigged around with LR sliders (because I like doing that !!!) but I have not changed specific colours My view is that the M240 view is more refined and the colours more accurate and its sharper and more detailed (weaker filters ?) and more 3D (slightly). The Sony colours are more saturated but also slightly more mickey mouse. Both are outstanding M240 first and A7 second: M240 A7 M240 A7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 5, 2014 Share #36 Posted February 5, 2014 M240 A7 M240 A7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 5, 2014 Share #37 Posted February 5, 2014 I took a good look at the WATE but concluded that the Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH is as good as it gets, at least for my applications. Unfortunately the image you linked to is both overworked and unsharp and certainly does the WATE no favour. Oh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tundraline Posted February 5, 2014 Share #38 Posted February 5, 2014 I am very happy with my WATE 16-18-21/4 on M9 and A7R! As I don/t have an M240 I can't compare. However, the WATE seems to produce rich detail and colors on the A7R. Here is an example from 3D-Kraft.com, http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2622199-post157.html in particular when viewed at a larger size. flame cut, Torres Del Paine, Patagonia, Chile - DSC00999 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Wow -- those are nice photos! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.