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

[Roger Hicks]

On the internet? Now that's a fantasy.

Dear Mike,

Ah... fair enough.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mcary]

Quite so. After all, why SHOULD Leica create one? And, indeed, is it feasible? Unless you or I (or anyone else on RFF) actually knows enough to create a cheap, top-notch full-frame body for Leica M lenses, and has the money to put their genius into physical form, maybe people should stop whining, snivelling and fantasizing.

Cheers,

R.

+1000
One would think that if it was easy and cheap to make a FF digital rangefinder someone like Sony would have just bought Zeis/CV and built an Ikon D for $2500.

 

[uhoh7]

On the A7 the ZM18 has minor red corners, no smearing. The 12mm f5.6 has a little bit of smearing - but I guess it could be cropped down to about 15mm and still be plenty wide. The Leica 21/24mm Summilux, CV 21 1.8, Zeiss 15mm Distagon are all more or less okay, but with exaggerated falloff (this is what my friend in HK reported)

The 16-18-21 is perfect on both the A7 and A7r. I might be buying one myself - Leica apparently went with such a retrofocus design that the rear element is further away than some SLR lenses.

Love to see some samples, as I own a zm18 🙂 I did just see some good 21lux samples as you describe:

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjMyGC9U

 

[kxl]

I plan to purchase a full frame digital body in 2014. Why? Because I want one.

Which one?

1) M240 - RF experience, but $$$$$

2) A7R - allows use of M lenses

3) D800 - logical upgrade for my D700

The price of the M240 may put it beyond my reach, so my decision might be between the A7R v. D800.

 

[Pioneer]

I finally had the chance to handle the Sony. The Sony is no substitute. I'll keep my M9.

I can adapt M lenses to my Pentax Q, and I have. But I certainly do not expect the results to be the same as my M9. If that's what I want, I use my M9. If you want to use M lenses on the Sony, go ahead. But it won't feel the same nor will it look same.

Enjoy your light.

 

[kxl]

The Sony is no substitute.

If you want to use M lenses on the Sony, go ahead. But it won't feel the same nor will it look same.

I'm under no such delusion.

 

[hepcat]

+1000
One would think that if it was easy and cheap to make a FF digital rangefinder someone like Sony would have just bought Zeis/CV and built an Ikon D for $2500.

And you can bet that Mr. K over at Cosina-Voigtlander certainly would have continued the Epson RD-1 in the Bessa line, and Canon and Nikon with their prodigious capabilities would have new full-frame digi-models of the 7s and S3 respectively.

 

[thegman]

+1000
One would think that if it was easy and cheap to make a FF digital rangefinder someone like Sony would have just bought Zeis/CV and built an Ikon D for $2500.

I don't think it's a matter of easy and cheap. Voigtländer/Cosina can make a film RF pretty cheap, and Sony can make a FF digital pretty cheap, I would imagine either company have the know-how to make it work together.

I think the problem is similar to TLRs, hardly anybody actually wants to use them.

Digital range finders are a tiny niche, probably a smaller niche *film* range finders, and one requiring vastly more investment in production and design.

 

[L Collins]

Not in the same boat and I won't be buying anything Sony.

But I'd thought I'd at least show some comparisons of what you'd have if you buy into the Sony compared to a Leica.

You forgot the $5000 stack of $20s next to the Sony.

 

[Spicy]

You forgot the $5000 stack of $20s next to the Sony.

hahaha, awesome.

 

[eleskin]

$5000 stack of $20 bills funny!

$5000 stack of $20 bills funny!

L Collins, that was really funny your stack of $20's! I appreciate your good humor! But there is a point: Not everyone has the same budget. When I bought my lenses in the 1990's and my M6 for $1,700 I thought that was alot of cash and it still is looking at all the bills I pay. I just want to use the lenses I already own and get the best possible image quality with them and watch my budget. Cheaper alternatives to the M240 are very welcome to people like myself. By the way, I need that stack of $20's for my taxes right now!

 

[uhoh7]

If you want to use M lenses on the Sony, go ahead. But it won't feel the same nor will it look same.

Of course it won't because it's a different camera. LOL

Bottom line is the image.

In fact some M lenses love the Sony. The Noctilux loves it. The CV 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 love it. There are many others 50+

Others are unusable without a crop. Trouble starts at 35mm.

It's case by case, the wider you go, the more lenses are not working well on the margins. But the 21 lux looks good. as does the CV 21/1.8

the zm18 may be quite good.

But one thing that is standing out as I look at many images of M lenses on the A7r: the centers are unbelievable. Detail in the image centers seems way beyond the M9 or M240 or plain A7 with M lenses. It translates down into the smaller sizes remarkably.

Within a few weeks we'll see lots of shots and everyone can judge for themselves.

The most misleading aspect is the 100% crops. The proper comparison is not M9 100% vs A7r 100%, it's to take the same portion of the image and compare.

The sony is currently uncorrected for colorshift and vignetting, but it will have both an in camera app and there are LR plugins to address the issue.

I predict we will see superb images--award winning images---taken with the A7r and selected M lenses.

And many will prefer the handling of the Sony---but I doubt many here would, LOL

 

[cosmonaut]

Everybody is still trying to figure a way to make their VW Rabbit be a Ferrari.

The Sony a7R with three high end Zeiss lenses with modern optics and coatings. I think Sony is well passed the VW Rabbit stage.
I wouldn't mind owning a 240 but by the time it gets to the end users it will be a grandfather. Plus Sony plans 15 new lenses next year for the new full frame E mount system.

 

[hausen]

My A7r is supposed to be in store this Friday coming and can't wait. Is it a substitute for a M240 for me no. If I wanted a M240 I would buy one. Would rather the A7r and that stack of $20s, happy that others want the M and that is great because if we all wanted the same then the wait would be longer.

 

[uhoh7]

20131115-DSC00232 by cityusam01, on Flickr

Canon .95 adapted to M on A7 (not r)

 

[Duane Pandorf]

You forgot the $5000 stack of $20s next to the Sony.

I guess that's the entry fee if you want the real deal.

So do you have the Sony A7r ordered? And which Leica lenses do you have to put on the camera?

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Canon .95 adapted to M on A7 (not r)

Is that photo taken with auto white balance?

 

[YYV_146]

I guess that's the entry fee if you want the real deal.

So do you have the Sony A7r ordered? And which Leica lenses do you have to put on the camera?

It is the real deal, but in no way should the fee be so high.

Cameras are very perishable goods - I will expect my 21mm Summilux to be worth nearly as much as it does today 5 years down the road, the amount I pay is only the inflation premium. A M type 240? I'd be lucky to get $3,500 out of it in 5 years. It's been less than that long since the M9, and now I see great conditioned M9s go for less than $4,000 all the time.

By comparison, I can buy a $2,200 A7r today and fire sell it for $1,200 in five years (approximating from the A900). That's why I buy run-down crop bodies and voigtlander RFs instead of Leica 😀

And that is why economists are thrifty photographers...

 

[Pablito]

Why the angst?

Because angst is the fodder of forums!

 

[uhoh7]

Here is some very interesting stuff:
http://cityusam01.blogspot.com/2013/11/sony-a7_14.html

a bunch of unusual RF glass

That's the plain A7 not R