Held off on M240 and may buy A7r. Anyone else in this boat?

That's awesome eleskin. I would hope you'll share your experience with the camera here when you get it and look forward to seeing the photographs you make.
 
Duane Pandorf said:
The Sony A7 & r are going to be great cameras for what Sony has designed them to do. Having said that, one who is serious about his photography wants a system that will be supported into the future.

Leica is the only company, for example, that has maintained the same lens mount for 60 years. (M Mount) Last I checked they haven't hinted that is going to change. However, the R Leica owners got left out when that line was discontinued. I guess Leica could have turned the R into a manual digital camera too but at the time Leica was not doing well financially.

Earlier this year you had Sony experimenting with the RX1. That's my opinion. To me the RX1 is an experiment or say public prototype to see how well the masses would take to it. It has been very successful and they've sold a lot of them.

I sure would not want to be an RX1 owner now if I were going to try and sell it on the open market to fund the 7 or 7r for more flexibility. Both the new cameras sell for way less that the RX1 does right now. Talk about pulling the rug out from under you.

Then to all the NEX owners. Sony has said that line is dead, capice, done.

So when YYV_146 says this:



I think I'd like to make a counter bet.

If in 5 years the Sony A7r is selling for at half of its price now or more I will buy the camera from you. If not, you pay me $1,200.

I don't think the A7 or whatever Sony might call it will be around in 5 years.

But the real reason I wouldn't buy the Sony A7, Fuji, Olympus cameras is the lack of direct access to the 3 primary light controls: aperture, shutter and ISO. Plus none of the lenses in these modern cameras give you depth of focus guides. I don't even see a button on the back that would give me direct access to ISO. (Ok so someone is going to say its got such great ISO I just set it to Auto ISO to 12800, right) Sure I can whip out my smart phone and it up in some app or have it memorized. But if you're just a point and shoot photographer you need not worry about this.

I see the Sony A7 has the dials on the front and rear. I'm sure these are used to control the aperture and shutter if you're not using the "P" mode, which most will probably select anyway.

So can someone tell me if those dials "click" in a detent when adjusted to help prevent from accidentally moving them when holding the camera? If so the decisive moment is gone if while looking through the EVF have to concentrate on the aperture setting or shutter speed vice what's going on in front of the camera.

I don't know how many times using a camera like this with similar controls those dials get turned and you have a few shots that you can't retake.

These are just my opinions. The camera is just a tool but these differences in how they operate is a really big deal to me having come from a camera like the above to shooting with a Leica. If you need auto focus, the Leica is not for you. If spending $7000 would make you feel guilty that you're just buying to show off, then the Leica is not for you.
Click to expand...

The RX1 is expensive in the way the X100S is expensive. You do get an extra lens in the equation. And if I remember correctly, used M8 prices tanked pretty quickly when Leica announced the M9, 2010 was the year M8 prices really came down to today's sub-$2000 levels.

E-mount has been around for as long as the M8. If you have an 18-55 or 16mm f2.8 from the early NEX-3 days, you can still use it on the A7 or A7r. Sony has also continue to support the minolta mount, and that mount has full AF ability on the A7r via the LA-EA4 adapter. Bottom line is I know a few guys who have dozens of Minolta lenses from the 80s and 90s, and all of them work perfectly on the Alpha A99 and the A7. Isn't that enough long-term support?

FYI all of the dials are customizable. There isn't an iso button because it can be directly programmed to one of the dials.
 
Grip a must fir Noctilux

Grip a must fir Noctilux

When I tested the A7r at the Photo Plus Expo with my Noctilux f1.0, I attached the battery grip on the bottom. Great feel with that on. A must have. I would even consider adding a metal plate for increased stability. By the way, the A7r will give me my first opportunity to use my Noctilux full frame. I bought it for my M8 in 09 and this will be a whole new world for me. My lens investments were more important to me than a newer M. I could only afford to spend on one thing so I chose Used M lenses on Ebay. I am glad I made that choice! I am glad I did that from 2007 to 2009 when the M8 suffered bad press from the IR problems! My values have tripled in many cases, and the A7 will probably add pressure for more increased value. If I had bought an M9 I would not be in this position being i would not have had the cash for lenses. The A7r is a Godsend for people like me who had to make similar choices,
 
Last edited:
Mcary said:
I think most people go into purchasing an M9/ME or M240 with their eyes wide open knowing that it will only be worth 50/60% of it original value after four to five years or so. So the question to ask someone that purchased a new M9 in 2009. If they had to sell their M9 today for $3500-$4000 do they feel/thinking shooting with the M9 for these past four-fives years was worth $3000 to $3500?

Also just because something is perishable doesn't mean its not worth what it cost. The perfect example of this a trip/vacation. I mean if you look at it from a simple cost benefit point of view is spending $2000 to go some place for a week or two really worth it? When all you're going to end up with in the long term is some pictures you can put on your walls or share on the internet and few memories.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the real question should be, had they bought a lens and a cheaper body, say the M8 or RD-1 and sold the combination for $5000 today, would they be happier?

Same question with the Sony. I would be very happy if I had an M type 240 for 5 years, and I would be slightly less happy with the A7r and a cheap film RF (R3m as of now). But does that difference make me want to contemplate the cost of the M type 240? Not for me. I do paid work occasionally, and it is much more gratifying if I could just fire away without worrying about the 3-month repair turnovers and shutter depreciation...

Your analogy to traveling is a good one, but again, if I went to another great-looking place and only spent $1,000, then used the rest for a second vacation, that could also be better. The Leica is indeed a five-star business-class experience, but I'm not sure the destination is that better from that of the A7/A7r.
 
I don't see much information here that is based on using the cameras. In the end, a Leica or a SONY is just a camera. How to best use such cameras is another story. My take on it is to let people choose whichever camera and lenses they want to use or whatever they are willing to spend on such equipment.

I bought the M8 and the M9 used to off-set the price drop after buying such cameras new. I really like using Leica cameras and Leica lenses. This happens to be my choice. Someone else may prefer to use Zeiss lenses on a SONY camera. Great.
 
raid said:
I don't see much information here that is based on using the cameras. In the end, a Leica or a SONY is just a camera. How to best use such cameras is another story. My take on it is to let people choose whichever camera and lenses they want to use or whatever they are willing to spend on such equipment.

I bought the M8 and the M9 used to off-set the price drop after buying such cameras new. I really like using Leica cameras and Leica lenses. This happens to be my choice. Someone else may prefer to use Zeiss lenses on a SONY camera. Great.
Click to expand...

Best post of the thread!!!!
 
eleskin said:
Duane,
I welcome the A7 series as the first truly universal camera at a decent price, and forcing me to think more about my lenses as paint brushes and opening up the possibility for more lenses from many sources since the beginning of 35mm photography. How exciting!
Click to expand...

It's universal in that pretty much any lens from a 35mm or larger system can physically fit and be used on it. Whether or not the image quality for a given lens will match your expectations is another matter that is currently being explored by many early users of these cameras.

This is similar to what happened with the Fuji X mount cameras when announced. It was going to be the next great alternative to buying an M camera. Fuji even made an official adapter, which many interpreted as meaning M lenses would work without problem. Rather, the reality was it just allowed lenses to be mounted. There was no guarantee at all of acceptable image quality and we quickly learned that many RF lenses returned less than desirable results.

You might be lucky and your current RF lenses will match your expectations on one of these Sonys. I'm still waiting to see more. After having tested the a7 with about a dozen various RF lenses a few weeks ago, it left me sitting on the fence. If I never shot anything at infinity or at wider apertures, and where i would want no evidence of image smearing at the edges, then the decision would be easier. But to know that, as only one example, my 21 SEM is sharp from wide open across the frame on the M9, yet is smeared on the a7 until stopped down somewhat is a turn off.

Like you, I've 'invested' in many M-mount lenses. I would like to get the full performance from them, as designed by Leica. By that I mean, not having to deal with smeared image edges. As of now, it still looks like an M9 or M240 is the only FF camera that will ensure the best possible results with the widest range of RF glass (my own testing has shown that lenses that smeared on the a7 are fine on the M9).

What I don't want to do is another bout of lens acquisition for yet another system. Say I end up buying a few primes for the Sony... combined with the cost of the camera, it will probably be in the $5000+ range, just to duplicate what I already can do with the M system. I think I'll sit tight and use what I have and put that money into a future Leica, since it will allow me to fully realized the intentions of my current lens kit: rangefinder focusing (which I do often find advantageous) and optimum across-frame performance.

YMMV
 
YYV_146 said:
.....
E-mount has been around for as long as the M8. If you have an 18-55 or 16mm f2.8 from the early NEX-3 days, you can still use it on the A7 or A7r. Sony has also continue to support the minolta mount, and that mount has full AF ability on the A7r via the LA-EA4 adapter. Bottom line is I know a few guys who have dozens of Minolta lenses from the 80s and 90s, and all of them work perfectly on the Alpha A99 and the A7. Isn't that enough long-term support?

FYI all of the dials are customizable. There isn't an iso button because it can be directly programmed to one of the dials.
Click to expand...

If you want to call using a lens made for a cropped sensor "support" more power to ya. And the use of the third party adapters or even if they are made by Sony just tells me they need third party "support" for their system to be successful.
 
Was the VW / Ferrari comparison in reference to repair costs / length of time it takes to service? ;-)

I was told it can take 3 months for a warranty repair. That would be a big chunk of the warranty period (what is that, just 2 years?) where depreciation is fastest.

I would really like to know how many M8s are now expensive paperweights due to the repairs being uneconomic / parts availability. I don't mind buying quality (I have a lovely M6ttl BP LHSA) but it's got to last.
 
cidereye said:
An RF camera has no equal, that's not to say it is better but simply there is no other camera it can be compared to.
Click to expand...

Every photojournalist who stopped shooting Leica and started shooting Nikon in the 60s/70s/80s made that comparison.

In the end they're all pretty much the same: a little box with a lens, a door, and some light-sensitive stuff in back.

http://www.burnmagazine.org/road-trips/2013/11/band-on-the-run/

That's no rangefinder on DAH's neck. Watch that you don't fetishize the camera at the expense of the pictures.
 
Duane Pandorf said:
I think I'd like to make a counter bet.

If in 5 years the Sony A7r is selling for at half of its price now or more I will buy the camera from you. If not, you pay me $1,200.
Click to expand...

Would you make the same bet on an M? i.e., presuming you do have an M in your possession, 5 years after purchase you will give someone $3,500 if it's value is less than that or if it's actually worth more you'd sell if for $3,500?
 
uhoh7 said:
not my intention. what I'm saying is priorities vary. i totally empathize folks who must have RF---and who love the feel of the Ms. Those priorities however may be trumped by money issues with many users here. 1700 for a good full frame RFlens body, new, compared to 3500 for used m9 or 7k for M240. If the A7 can't do the job, which by the way is pretty fundamental, that's one thing. However as RF lenses are being shot all over the place right now with it, it's becoming increasingly clear the plain A7 is shooting excellent with many RF lenses full frame.
Click to expand...

Once again, there really aren't choices here. All the cameras will "do the job." If your shooting style fits well with a digital rangefinder body, then buy one unless, of course, you don't have the cash to buy one new, and aren't willing to do your due diligence in buying used. If those factors over-ride your desire to shoot with a true RF/VF, then buy whatever else you think will work for your style.

Folks' priorities really HAVE gotten misplaced in the digital age. Photography isn't about the cost of equipment, depreciation, image quality or sharpness, it's about making quality images with the gear you have. Good business sense is valuable when making purchasing decisions, but it doesn't really have anything to do with making images.


Lastly, the Leica M bodies could be produced in the same price range as other high-end mirrorless cameras were it not for the rangefinder/viewfinder assembly. That is the MOST expensive part of an M Leica, and has been since the introduction of the M3. In fact they produced the M2 as a price-point camera by finding a way to make the VF/RF less expensively. That was the same place they chose to cut costs in the M4-P et. al. That is also what makes the Leica M bodies very different from every other offering on the market.

And in my book, the Leica bodies are tools of my trade, not expensive bling. I bought them because a coupled coincident RF/VF fits my shooting style. The lens/sensor/sharpness/blah blah blah debates are essentially all about marketing hype. Programmable controls are interesting, but certainly not valuable in making images. I find that consistency of operation across several bodies is of much more value than anything built into all the whiz bang cameras today.

The bottom line again is that if you want to shoot a coupled coincident RF/VF digital body, then you have to pay the price of admission for a Leica 'cause right now they're the only game in town. If you don't care about that, then buy the body with the sensor in it that you want.
 
raid said:
"Collector's Item" and "Digital Camera" are mutually exclusive.
This is a fact.
Click to expand...


Accept for the Contax N-Digital ;)
pma_213_02.jpg
 
raid said:
"Collector's Item" and "Digital Camera" are mutually exclusive.
This is a fact.
Click to expand...
It has been up until now, Raid, but the continuing price increases on new equipment coupled with the radical slowing of really breakthrough advances will probably cause some of the better bodies to hold their value and potentially increase in value. Time will tell.
 
No shortage of strong opinion in here LOL

Bottomline is this: until two weeks ago there were two ways to shoot RF glass full frame digitally (with infinity) : M9 M240, OK and MM. 3 ways.

Now there are 5

If that's not news, and worthy of discussion, consideration, I don't know what is.

But for some reason the Sony is highly controversial and some seem offended it is even mentioned at all as a way of shooting some RF glass.

That's fine, but half the hype of the camera is coming from posts about it by people who have no interest in it.

That I find remarkable.

I'm not interested in Fujis. No offense. And you will never find a post by me in a Fuji thread.

So something is going on here.....;)
 
uhoh7 said:
No shortage of strong opinion in here LOL

Bottomline is this: until two weeks ago there were two ways to shoot RF glass full frame digitally (with infinity) : M9 M240, OK and MM. 3 ways.

Now there are 5

If that's not news, and worthy of discussion, consideration, I don't know what is.

But for some reason the Sony is highly controversial and some seem offended it is even mentioned at all as a way of shooting some RF glass.

That's fine, but half the hype of the camera is coming from posts about it by people who have no interest in it.

That I find remarkable.

I'm not interested in Fujis. No offense. And you will never find a post by me in a Fuji thread.

So something is going on here.....;)
Click to expand...

Last time I looked at the forum thread we're in here I don't see the word Sony anywhere. This is a Leica forum thread dealing with Leica digital Ms. In fact, I can't find a Sony RF forum thread or one exclusive to Sony anywhere on this website. Maybe we should ask for a new Sony RF thread started so we can talk about how great Leica lenses are on Sony cameras.
 
Duane Pandorf said:
Last time I looked at the forum thread we're in here I don't see the word Sony anywhere. This is a Leica forum thread dealing with Leica digital Ms. In fact, I can't find a Sony RF forum thread or one exclusive to Sony anywhere on this website. Maybe we should ask for a new Sony RF thread started so we can talk about how great Leica lenses are on Sony cameras.
Click to expand...

Ha! Sony has been mentioned numerous times in this thread!

FWIW, I have the A7R on pre-order, and haven't decided if I'll go through with it or not. Last year I sold my M9 after doing a number of comparisons with it and the X-Pro1, of course I use the systems lenses with the Fuji and rarely use M lenses on it, with the exception of a really fast 50 or 35, and my 90. (I have a couple of film M bodies and also picked up a cheap M8 for using the wider RF lenses.)

I don't really miss the M9 that much, though I always found it to produce much more pleasing images than the M8. I am not one who has to have an RF mechanism to enjoy a camera, and it is nice to have the option of AF lenses if I am shooting digital. I recently got an F1.0 RF lens and, of course the mirrorless Fuji is much more accurate in focusing it and I think the Sony's peaking may be a lot better than the Fuji.

Based on the above, I may indeed be a good candidate for an M240 - but I just can't bring myself to fork over that kind of cash on yet another digital body. So I may give one a shot....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom