Alternative for Leica M9/M? Sony A7/A7r?

Roger Hicks said:
Nicely put!

To be cynical, I'd substitute "facile solutions"

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

That's a tough call Roger. Hard for me not to hear French inflections in the word facile, which could mean just "easy", but I think in English it may sometimes have a derogatory connotation. But I certainly agree with the spirit of your subsitution. And let's face it, money (which I take it is at the heart of the OP's "alternative" motivation) is both easy and hard, and regularly invites all kinds of connotations ;)

I might be interested in used A7s or similar a couple years down the road as a high ISO complement for a fast 35 or 50 to the M9 depending on the usual caveats. I expect the used price will go down quickly as Sony churns out new iterations. I mean, the A7s really do look like planned obsolescence to me. By contrast, I don't see any replacements for the M9, especially not the M240* (*given my usage and the fact that the M240 just isn't enough of an improvement in the high ISO department that may actually have some real impact for me). Hard to say though, I might rather be tempted in several years by an MM.
 
Godfrey said:
Several folks with pre-release A7 and A7r sample units have done extensive research in this direction already, so there are plenty of testing experiences available even now to draw some conclusions from.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of what's been done so far as I'm following developments very closely; the results are far from comprehensive.

The earliest suite of tests were done weeks ago on a pre-production A7 by Ron Scheffler, a Canadian professional photographer who with the M9 for personal work. He laments that, so far, he's not been able to perform any testing on the A7r. His testing on the A7 at least got the discussion rolling.

There do exist a number of other sample series but no one yet has managed to corral both a large number of different types of M lenses and both the A7 and A7r. There's anecdotal evidence galore but it is often imprecise. For example one published photographer who had extensive early access to the A7 cameras says the edges are sharp for the ZM18/4 on the A7r, but we don't know if that's working close in, distant towards infinity, or at what apertures. Those that haven't shot the ZM18/4 on a M9 or M240 likewise won't know what to expect from it.

It'd be helpful to set expectations, or set some baseline for performance, by shooing a series of tests on the M9 and M240 at the same time as testing on the A7 and A7r to avoid looking at lenses unrealistically. It's clear from some discussions that moaning about edge performance sometimes is misplaced; not all lenses deliver to the edges even on a film "sensor" they were originally designed for much less digital sensors.

No doubt all this testing and expectation resetting will happen, but not soon enough for some that might wish to choose one or the other body, tomorrow, as a vehicle for their M glass. ;)
 
uhoh7 said:
Right on the money.
In fact there are very few usable tests with RF glass---and I pay close attention.

I really only care about the A7r- cause that's what I have on order, LOL
Click to expand...

Yeah, you and me both!

It'll be nice to move lenses from the hearsay (or only partial details known) column to the "confirmed", perhaps better known as the "understood" column.
 
I'm looking to get one, mainly for macro and tele, but it has no rangefinder, and therein lies the whole point of the M.

It'll take good photos, but it's an apples to oranges comparison for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom