Opinions on Sony cameras with Leica M lenses

[easy_action]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, convexferret said:

5. Fire (You image is anchored on the focus point and so you won't have wandered)

Thanks for your suggestion  - in practice I find that while zoomed in and focussing I often seem to move the camera little, or my subject moves and their position in the frame changes slightly.

This is where my M10's viewfinder has an advantage as I can focus while simultaneously keeping an eye on the overall composition.

Of course the issue I outlined in post #12 only really relates of people photos.  Anything static is much easier.

One definite point in favour of the Sony is the flip out screen.  I have photos taken with this that I would never have managed with the M.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tgray]

So what M lenses do you have that you want to use?

[mdemeyer]

The Nikon Z6 and Z7 seem most compatible stock.  The Kolari mod Sony’s are excellent.  The cost of a used A7 plus the mod is a bargain. 

[JTLeica]

1 hour ago, mdemeyer said:

The Nikon Z6 and Z7 seem most compatible stock.  The Kolari mod Sony’s are excellent.  The cost of a used A7 plus the mod is a bargain. 

Exactly this. Either a Z camera, or buy Kolari modded A7. Which if you are outside the US, is a bit harder / costly / time consuming, but still can be done.

[Casey Jefferson]

M lenses are manual focus. RF is better than focus peaking for manual focus, IMHO. Been there done that, a well calibrated RF is much much easier to shoot than focus peaking. Arguably composition through the lens is slightly easier, but when you incorporate the focus peaking and punch in to check focus, RF will end up a better choice.

[lct]

2 hours ago, Casey Jefferson said:

M lenses are manual focus. RF is better than focus peaking for manual focus, IMHO. Been there done that, a well calibrated RF is much much easier to shoot than focus peaking. Arguably composition through the lens is slightly easier, but when you incorporate the focus peaking and punch in to check focus, RF will end up a better choice.

Done that too and still doing it as i mainly use my M lenses on mirrorless cameras. I find the rangefinder easier for good enough focusing but almost useless for nailing focus, let alone for macro and telephoto. I never use focus peaking alone but there are things it can do that the RF cannot. No need to recompose with focus peaking and flare and focus shift are not a problem either. I would not use mirrorless cameras w/o focus magnification anyway. YMMV.

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, lct said:

Done that too and still doing it as i mainly use my M lenses on mirrorless cameras. I find the rangefinder easier for good enough focusing but almost useless for nailing focus, let alone for macro and telephoto. I never use focus peaking alone but there are things it can do that the RF cannot. No need to recompose with focus peaking and flare and focus shift are not a problem either. I would not use mirrorless cameras w/o focus magnification anyway. YMMV.

Yes I think you are spot on. Range finder is definitely better for slower or shorter FL lenses, where good enough is fine. But there is nothing quite like focus Magnification to really focus accurately. It is far better than Peaking which I no longer use. But I have not tried it since my A7Rii a few years back.

[Casey Jefferson]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

Done that too and still doing it as i mainly use my M lenses on mirrorless cameras. I find the rangefinder easier for good enough focusing but almost useless for nailing focus, let alone for macro and telephoto. I never use focus peaking alone but there are things it can do that the RF cannot. No need to recompose with focus peaking and flare and focus shift are not a problem either. I would not use mirrorless cameras w/o focus magnification anyway. YMMV.

I've had worse luck, and I did magnify to focus as well as experimenting with and without peaking.

You're right for long fast lenses though I've never shoot longer lenses on RF. But as a personal opinions for long lens subject there's much less stuff to choose focus anyway so I would choose AF bodies for those works. Again that's my opinions and experiences.

[Ko.Fe.]

I guess with absence of single posted OP we are having here merely discussion without knowing why OP wants only M10 or only Sony.

Why can't it be SL2? It is less expensive than M10.

To me Sony came to the game only with A7 III.  It has better third party AF support including AF adapter for M lenses. Better battery capacity. More focusing points.

Also with absence of OP with one and only post we don't know which Leica lenses are in OP's possession. Perhaps it is one 35 and one 50 mm lens.

I have two 35 m-mount and bunch of 50 LTMs. They are working just fine on under 1K USD EOS RP.  

 

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, lct said:

Done that too and still doing it as i mainly use my M lenses on mirrorless cameras. I find the rangefinder easier for good enough focusing but almost useless for nailing focus, let alone for macro and telephoto. I never use focus peaking alone but there are things it can do that the RF cannot. No need to recompose with focus peaking and flare and focus shift are not a problem either. I would not use mirrorless cameras w/o focus magnification anyway. YMMV.

My experience is that whilst I can use my M lenses on my mirrorless cameras, I rarely do (I can't remember the last time I did actually - many months ago). The experience is just so different and compromised it doesn't work for me. I can see it has advantages but I just don't find I like working this way.

[Ko.Fe.]

15 minutes ago, lct said:

Done that too and still doing it as i mainly use my M lenses on mirrorless cameras. I find the rangefinder easier for good enough focusing but almost useless for nailing focus, let alone for macro and telephoto. I never use focus peaking alone but there are things it can do that the RF cannot. No need to recompose with focus peaking and flare and focus shift are not a problem either. I would not use mirrorless cameras w/o focus magnification anyway. YMMV.

My little EOS RP has very neat manual focus peaking. It is basically showing DOF in real time. I don't even know where magnification on EOS RP is. Well, maybe used it once. Useless feature to me. With RP's focus peaking  I could finally do what I can't do with RF focusing. Which is focusing, tracking of moving objects. While, IMO, magnification is slowest focus method, well after ground glass :). 

[lct]

10 minutes ago, pgk said:

My experience is that whilst I can use my M lenses on my mirrorless cameras, I rarely do (I can't remember the last time I did actually - many months ago). The experience is just so different and compromised it doesn't work for me. I can see it has advantages but I just don't find I like working this way.

After 30+ years with M cameras that's what i expected too but i found a lot of fun with those modern cameras. Using my M lenses on SLRs is something i could not dream about but mirrorless cameras rejuvenate those old lenses and the photographer as well . 

[sutlore]

Personally, I’d prefer the colour rendering on the M10p more than my A7R3.

[Ravenclau]

On 7/26/2020 at 2:06 AM, Ravenclau said:

Hello everyone,,

I've seen some of the older posts on this topic, but does anyone have personal experience comparing a digital Leica with one of the Sony bodies? I have a few M lenses for my M6, but can't justify the cost of a new Leica. Do the Sonys compare or will I end up lusting for an M10 mobdro bluehost kodi?

Thank you.

[pgk]

15 hours ago, lct said:

After 30+ years with M cameras that's what i expected too but i found a lot of fun with those modern cameras. Using my M lenses on SLRs is something i could not dream about but mirrorless cameras rejuvenate those old lenses and the photographer as well . 

Don't get me wrong - I use the Sony with lenses from the 1850s and its a great solution (working on my MkII system for these), but for general use an M lens on an M body has far more going for it IMO anyway. I can/have used M lenses on the Sonys but don't because I prefer the on an M - vastly better for me, but then we are all different.

[lct]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

Don't get me wrong - I use the Sony with lenses from the 1850s and its a great solution (working on my MkII system for these), but for general use an M lens on an M body has far more going for it IMO anyway. I can/have used M lenses on the Sonys but don't because I prefer the on an M - vastly better for me, but then we are all different.

Don't recall what happened in 1850  but i like both cameras personally. I've always used RFs and TTL cameras though. 

[sinjun]

Well I must admit I use my M9 more than my Sony/Kolari. But there are some things I really appreciate the Sony for such as being able to spot and control flare and achieving precise focus, which I find nothing like as complicated as some here have made out. I find focus peaking very effective in most cirumstances though less so with some of my older, softer lenses which wide open do not always provide enough micro contrast.

Not only is edge performance very good on my wides, but they have no colour shift, something which can't be eliminated other than in post with my CV 15mm mark 1. This last lens is also more pleasant to use given built in spirit level and EVF view. The 1/8000 shutter speed comes in handy with fast lenses and it's nice to have the good high ISO performance to call on, even though 90% of the time I don't find the M9's much of a limitation. I also like the option to focus closer with the helicoid M mount adapter. The small size and low weight give a light, very compact combination with certain lenses - favourites of mine being the CV 25mm and 40mm summicron-C. I even like the fact it is only 12 MP (A7s).

In the final analysis, if I were on a tight budget and was looking for a camera for M mount lenses, I'd get a second hand A7 of some description and have the Kolari mod done - as mdemeyer said, it's a bargain.

[carbon_dragon]

When I was a little disillusioned with my M8, I bought a Sony Nex-7 and used my 35/2 asph and 50/2 (non APO) on that body using an adaptor. My 35 was essentially a 50 on the Nex. It seemed to work very well, and with the Nex set correctly, I'd focus normally (manually) with peaking in the Nex. I got very good results. Eventually I wanted the 35 and 50 to give me the viewpoint I had bought the lens for and bought an M9. But while I was doing it, I was very satisfied.

Another thing I really enjoyed about the experience is using all kinds of other lenses on the Nex such as Contax rangefinder, Minolta MD/MC, Contax SLR, and lots of others too. It was pretty fun to try some of these wacky combinations. Note that only the 50 and higher contax rangefinder lenses could be used because the wider ones extended too deeply into the body and the 50 required it's own unique adaptor. So if you're prepared to experiment you can get some entertainment out of stuff you might still have around in your collection.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter Zapp]

For many years I was reluctant to buy a digital M body with initial quirks and with high depreciation. But it's a waste to use iconic Leica M lenses with great haptics on a flimsy digital body. Vice versa it's a waste to use vintage manual lenses on a state-of-the-art mirrorless AF camera body. With the M10 many quirks are gone, but the M10's price and depreciation remain high.

The cost of transition from M6 to M10 buys a lot of film and lab service. The choice of prime lenses for digital mirrorless and of second-hand digital mirrorless greatly improved. A body with 2 or 3 lenses costs much less than the transition from M6 to M10. 

[LraStn]

I have an M10 and a Sony A7RII. I use my M lenses on both given the scenario. I don't personally like the Sony sensor very much in most lighting conditions, it lacks richness and the colors are not accurate or rosy as compared to Leica, but for me it's been a necessity (since I don't have an SL2 and I'm not sure I want to drop $25k+ to get one plus a set of AF lenses with the reach I need) if I must have IBIS for a low light scene at a wedding reception or if I need to autofocus. I use the Fotodiox autofocus M to E adapter and I can shoot first dance/walking up the aisle and get many focused shots in just a few seconds from my M lenses on the Sony body. It's by no means a perfect adapter, but it mostly does what it's designed to do. 

In short I would say, Sony is not Leica and don't expect it to be. If not for the autofocus adapter I wouldn't have the Sony or ever want to use it. However, with the adapter it allows me to use M lenses on a sensor that does excel in low light, and get a look I vastly prefer to if I had tried to do the same with non-Leica AF lenses, for only $1200 USD counting the price of the used Sony and the adapter. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!