Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IkarusJohn

The A7 went this morning and I'm taking the plunge

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No camera is worth getting into financial difficulties over, but reading your post it sounds like nothing less than an M (or ME) will make you happy. Have you considered a used M9 or even M8 with Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people tell me they don't do street photography because the shutter of their camera is too loud I always ask them why. It's not always about being a sneaky voyeur and even if someone would want to scare the **** out of you! you already took the photo. Just run!

 

If you really want the M(-e) go for it. I lost too much money in the run, trying to get myself a cost effective camera. Don't want to think about the money I lost on depreciation alone. Enjoying my M every day now. It was well worth the short financial difficulties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...... do I stick with the Sony, use it according to its strengths and learn to live with its other shortcomings and perhaps get my Leica 'fix' from a T with a couple of T zooms as a carry around for street/spontaneous/travel photography, or do I trade in the Sony + lenses, offer the bank manager my house, my car and my body

, take a deep breath and go buy a Leica M?

 

I'm with Jaap

Take a deep breath and go with an M - personally I wouldn't go for an M8 . . . . an M(240) is definitely the right answer, but if you can't manage that then a good secondhand M9 is a grand substitute.

 

all the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Jaap

Take a deep breath and go with an M - personally I wouldn't go for an M8 . . . . an M(240) is definitely the right answer, but if you can't manage that then a good secondhand M9 is a grand substitute.

 

all the best

 

with a single camera solution, be sure you don't AF for everything

 

I agree. Better to stretch to a M240 now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find myself in a quandary.

 

Years ago, though apparently a logical step at the time but in what turned out to be an aberrant fit of madness, I sold my Leica M6 and the whole slew of Leica glass I'd built up over the years.

 

More recently with a grown up family and hence more time on my hands, I found myself wanting to get back into my old hobby. My heart told me to go out and buy a Leica, but given I'd have to start from scratch, body, lenses and all, my head told me that getting the then new Sony A7R would be a more sensible, offer a similar RF experience with a far lower financial commitment. So I bought one along with the three dedicated FF Zeiss lenses.

 

It has to be said that imo the Sony is a fine camera capable of producing superb IQ when used according to it's strengths, but it does have issues and quite apart from that it's certainly NO Leica. My main gripes are it's slow and often inaccurate AF (not that I wedded to AF at all but it's supposed to be designed for that) especially in anything less than good light coupled with a less than forgiving 36mp FF sensor all making focusing more than a bit hit and miss especially if you're in a hurry, and it's very noisy shutter all of which imo renders it pretty much useless for street photography. That being said as a landscape/architectural camera, assuming Zeiss pull their figure out and get some dedicated fast UWA glass on the market, I think it would be hard to better.

 

So...... do I stick with the Sony, use it according to its strengths and learn to live with its other shortcomings and perhaps get my Leica 'fix' from a T with a couple of T zooms as a carry around for street/spontaneous/travel photography, or do I trade in the Sony + lenses, offer the bank manager my house, my car and my body

, take a deep breath and go buy a Leica M?

 

Why the A7r? I find the A7 to be more than enough pixel wise with it's 24mp sensor (same size as the M). I have no problem with the AF (OK not DSLR quality} the A7 has on sensor phase detection which works well in decent light and it cost nearly 1/5th of the of a new M. I do have the M and love it but if money is an issue I would definitely consider trading the A7r for the A7

Edited by viramati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find myself in a quandary.

 

Years ago, though apparently a logical step at the time but in what turned out to be an aberrant fit of madness, I sold my Leica M6 and the whole slew of Leica glass I'd built up over the years.

 

More recently with a grown up family and hence more time on my hands, I found myself wanting to get back into my old hobby. My heart told me to go out and buy a Leica, but given I'd have to start from scratch, body, lenses and all, my head told me that getting the then new Sony A7R would be a more sensible, offer a similar RF experience with a far lower financial commitment. So I bought one along with the three dedicated FF Zeiss lenses.

 

It has to be said that imo the Sony is a fine camera capable of producing superb IQ when used according to it's strengths, but it does have issues and quite apart from that it's certainly NO Leica. My main gripes are it's slow and often inaccurate AF (not that I wedded to AF at all but it's supposed to be designed for that) especially in anything less than good light coupled with a less than forgiving 36mp FF sensor all making focusing more than a bit hit and miss especially if you're in a hurry, and it's very noisy shutter all of which imo renders it pretty much useless for street photography. That being said as a landscape/architectural camera, assuming Zeiss pull their figure out and get some dedicated fast UWA glass on the market, I think it would be hard to better.

 

So...... do I stick with the Sony, use it according to its strengths and learn to live with its other shortcomings and perhaps get my Leica 'fix' from a T with a couple of T zooms as a carry around for street/spontaneous/travel photography, or do I trade in the Sony + lenses, offer the bank manager my house, my car and my body

, take a deep breath and go buy a Leica M?

 

 

the big difference is Optical Rangefinder. Manual focusing with M-lenses.

 

Nothing else can be compared to it even if you own Sony stuffs for one millon $.

 

If you like experience of rangefinder and simplicity, Leica M is way to go. An used M9 is reasonably priced, about much as a new T with zoom lens.

Edited by tomasis7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why the A7r? I find the A7 to be more than enough pixel wise with it's 24mp sensor (same size as the M). I have no problem with the AF (OK not DSLR quality} the A7 has on sensor phase detection which works well in decent light and it cost nearly 1/5th of the of a new M. I do have the M and love it but if money is an issue I would definitely consider trading the A7r for the A7

 

Hmmm, I went to the camera shop minded to buy the A7 and somehow got persuaded that the A7R was what I needed (suggestible, am I not?). With hindsight probably a mistake, I know, but that being said I don't think I'd trade in the A7R now to get an A7 and risk some months later wishing I gone the extra mile/ten miles and bought the Leica. As people here have said, I probably won't be content until I satisfy that itch to own one again and continue the family tradition. My grandfather had a Leica in the early 1930's, my father went on to buy his first in 1938 and it was playing with his M4 as a teenager in the 60's which first got me hooked.

 

As regards the price, notwithstanding what I said in my earlier post I can afford one without resort to selling my body .... at least, not often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find myself in a quandary.

So...... do I stick with the Sony, use it according to its strengths and learn to live with its other shortcomings and perhaps get my Leica 'fix' from a T with a couple of T zooms as a carry around for street/spontaneous/travel photography, or do I trade in the Sony + lenses, offer the bank manager my house, my car and my body

, take a deep breath and go buy a Leica M?

 

I would go for the T for three reasons:

1) You've already experienced the M, so why not try the T, given all the good buzz?

2) The T has AF (as well as a good manual focus system).

3) The T fits M lenses (with an adapter), so you can re-build your "M library" while enjoying the T

Bonus Reason) You can always finance the purchase of an M later on with the proceeds of the T

 

Of course you run the risk wanting to keep the T...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, I went to the camera shop minded to buy the A7 and somehow got persuaded that the A7R was what I needed (suggestible, am I not?). With hindsight probably a mistake, I know, but that being said I don't think I'd trade in the A7R now to get an A7 and risk some months later wishing I gone the extra mile/ten miles and bought the Leica. As people here have said, I probably won't be content until I satisfy that itch to own one again and continue the family tradition. My grandfather had a Leica in the early 1930's, my father went on to buy his first in 1938 and it was playing with his M4 as a teenager in the 60's which first got me hooked.

 

As regards the price, notwithstanding what I said in my earlier post I can afford one without resort to selling my body .... at least, not often.

 

The shame is that seldom are we ever content with what we have and this goes leica M as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The shame is that seldom are we ever content with what we have and this goes leica M as well.

 

Well David

I've bought several cameras in the last year

Sony A7r

Sony A7

Fuji X-T1

Olympus E-M1

 

The only one I still own is the Olympus E-M1, and that's going to eBay soon

 

two years ago I bought 2 M bodies........ They still get used every day, and the prototype M9 I've had for 5 years is still used everyday by my son.

 

".....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jono and in a way your answer is just my point. In their way all these cameras that you have owned over the last year are excellent but still they haven't met your needs or expectations, the same can also be true for certain people with the leica M's (though not in your case).

I too use my M almost every day but luckily it is not the only camera that I am 'content' with. Neither the Leica or the Sony are perfect but they both meet my needs for what I do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this the point?

 

The M cameras are great for primes between 21mm & 90mm, where the optical view finder and manual focusing suit. If you want a camera for wildlife (particularly birds), sports or macro, then another system would be better (the D800E for me).

 

That leaves a gap for me of a small(ish) camera that is convenient, but better than my iPhone - that assumes AF zoom (in my case). The A7r wasn't it (much as I wanted it to be). The T might be, but it does lack (1) in body image stabilisation, (2) weather proofing, and (3) I need to fully understand the limitations of the user interface (movable focusing point etc), and APS-C sensor size.

 

I find the rash of comments that the M camera is a better buy than the T to be unhelpful, and banging on about the specs and performance of other (cheaper) systems perverse. If I wanted a NEX, I'd buy one; I'm sure the RX1 is a great camera, but I don't want one; and the A7r didn't do it for me.

 

I'm interested in the T ...

 

Cheers

John

Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weird.

 

A good 20% of the shots I took were always mis-focused, the camera would grab the background instead of the subject. (Not user-error I can assure you

)

 

Nice camera otherwise...

 

Same for me - I get about 1/3 of the photos focusing on the background instead of the subject with the RX-1, and fiddling with the manual focus is just an exercise in frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same for me - I get about 1/3 of the photos focusing on the background instead of the subject with the RX-1, and fiddling with the manual focus is just an exercise in frustration.

 

I have the problem with focus in the background with various mirrorless AF cameras.

With the M I am slightly slower but I am sure that I focus on the right subject.

The only AF-cameras I have owned/own where I feel confident in regards of AF are my DSLRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I will add my vote for the A7 here. I sold my M9 and replaced it with the A7 - no regrets and the magnified live-view just cannot be beat for focus accuracy. Colors are amazing. DR is outrageous. Resolution incredible and high ISO lovely. Controls easy to use and very customizable. And that 55/1.8 continues to amaze me. No focus errors - I use the small center AF spot focus box and it never fails me.

 

My only "complaint" with the A7 is that my 21SE does not work properly with it. But then the WATE shines on it, so WA is covered. Like Louis, I found the Elmarit 90/2.8 a perfect match on the A7.

 

I also obtained Elmarit-R 100 APO and Summilux-R 80 for use with the A7 - I am blown away with what these lenses can do with the A7. Esp the Elmarit-R 100 on the A7 gives me visibly indistinguishable resolution compared to the S2 + Summarit-S 120 APO Macro. Having said that, S2's large CCD sensor has that "look" which is hard to replicate, but that is a different beast.

 

In any case, these camera bodies are just disposable tools and will fade away in a few years. The lenses will survive and I am not parting with my M & R lenses.

 

I am happy Leica introduced the T. If someone can confirm that it will work well with M wides (21SE, 28 Cron), then it may be a good 2nd digital back for the M lens owners.

 

I'm with David. I've been using the A7 with Sony lenses for several months. I don't understand the 'miss focus' thing. You either can use technology or not. You'll miss as much focus with any AF camera, otherwise. The 55/1.8 is the best 'normal' lens I have ever owned. The T is nice and I have ordered one but I'm still not 100% decided. The A7 has proved to be very good with my C-50 cron, Elmarit 90/2.8 and CV21/1.8 (the latter especially).

 

LouisB

Edited by ravinj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS - Colonel, for image quality, the A7r in real life is absolutely no match for the D800 or the M9 or the Monochrom.

 

Like Colonel, I agree to disagree as well. John, I think a Sony - how good it ever might be - will never have a chance with you. You obviously will always find somethink that is not perfect and will subjectively rate it 10 times stronger than any of the multiple shortcoming of the cameras with your preferred brands.

 

I whish you all the best with an expectation, that an overprized (but nice looking) camera like the T with an outdated sensor, that the A7R even outperforms in crop mode, and at most average performance in every other aspect will give you a better experience.

 

If someone can confirm that it will work well with M wides (21SE, 28 Cron), then it may be a good 2nd digital back for the M lens owners.

 

Those expecting better performance from a camera like the T with M wides should compare it to 16 MP crops from the A7R...

Edited by 3D-Kraft.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to love the A7r. In practice it was a royal pain in the ass - especially with M glass.

 

I'm no "Sony hater" BTW, I love the NEX 6...great little camera, even with M glass.

 

Just because people have experiences and opinions different from each other doesn't mean anybody is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like Colonel, I agree to disagree as well. John, I think a Sony - how good it ever might be - will never have a chance with you. You obviously will always find somethink that is not perfect and will subjectively rate it 10 times stronger than any of the multiple shortcoming of the cameras with your preferred brands.

 

I whish you all the best with an expectation, that an overprized (but nice looking) camera like the T with an outdated sensor, that the A7R even outperforms in crop mode, and at most average performance in every other aspect will give you a better experience.

 

 

 

Those expecting better performance from a camera like the T with M wides should compare it to 16 MP crops from the A7R...

 

Well, I do at least partly agree. I think the A7r is spiffing with it's native lenses from an IQ point of view. But although it's fine with some M wides (WATE) it's basically a crap shoot.

 

Worse than that, the shutter lag and vibration are a real problem. I can easily handhold an M at a shutter speed of half focal length, but with the A7r it really does need twice the shutter speed.

 

The A7r may outperform the T in crop mode (I don't dispute it) but I think you may need to use a tripod (very heavy) to overcome the shutter slam at slower shutter speeds with the A7r. The delightful and delicate shutter on the T isn't a universal panacea, but it's worthwhile, none the less.

 

Strokes For Folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Worse than that, the shutter lag and vibration are a real problem. I can easily handhold an M at a shutter speed of half focal length, but with the A7r it really does need twice the shutter speed.

 

Of course you can produce shutter blur with long tele photo lenses on the A7R (and many other cameras) but in real life it is far away from the drama, many - especially in this forum - try to construct and there are workarounds available. Motion blur free handhold shots at a speed of half focal length may happen even with a non stabilized system but are far away from typical experience as well.

Edited by 3D-Kraft.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I do at least partly agree. I think the A7r is spiffing with it's native lenses from an IQ point of view.

 

Exactly. I quite liked it with its native 35mm (but was annoyed at having to keep the shutter speed so high). Got some great pictures in the end but it didn't outweigh the fact I didn't like it with M glass.

 

Unlike jonoslack, I didn't like it with any M lenses - while the center would often be better than on the M, the edges/corners were worse, even on normal length lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy