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

[uhoh7]

canon LTM 35/2 on A7:

Canon ltm 35mm f2-00240 by Sushicam, on Flickr

OK leica buffs:

α7R+Summicron 35mm F2 ASPH by sgbk, on Flickr

your m240 is better?

 

[swoop]

It's a really simple choice. If you want to use your rangefinder lenses on a rangefinder camera that takes digital images get an M240/M9. If you want to use your rangefinder lenses like a small DSLR with an EVF get an A7.

Putting aside the price difference as well as the fact that you can add an EVF to the M240, it's two entirely different methods of picture taking. And if you're using an EVF with the M240, save yourself the cash and just get the A7.

 

[Lss]

There's really no decision to be made here. The question is: "how important is a coupled, coincident rangefinder for your shooting style?" If it fits your needs then the M-whatever is your camera.

That more or less sums it up for anyone looking to buy a single camera or a bag full of similar cameras. Others will like having more than one kind of camera, which doesn't really put these cameras directly against each other either. The price difference however is significant, which I feel is what these discussions are usually about. It is also why I consider adding the Sony as a secondary camera to my M8 - and not to my two Leica Ms and a Monochrom.

 

[disambiguated]

Why don't you just get an adaptor and use your M lenses on your X-Pro 1?

 

[rivercityrocker]

I held off on buying a cow I'm getting a chicken instead.


That's what I think of when I keep hearing these comparisons between the A7 and the M. They are two different animals. Sure, a chicken and a cow will both supply you with meat if you decide to eat them. They will both also supply you with a constant food source, milk or eggs. But that's where the similarity ends.

The A7 and M both have full-frame sensors. They both take photos. But they aren't the same species.

Some idiot at the the camera shop told me I was stupid for buying an M9-P when I could have gotten an XE-2 and a bunch of lenses instead. I don't WANT an XE-2. It's not a rangefinder. Similarly I don't want an A7. It's not a rangefinder.

I don't understand why it's such a hard decision to make. Do you want a chicken or a cow? Do you want a rangefinder or a mirrorless?

I can understand the decision being a little more difficult with an XPro because the line is blurred, but the A7 is nothing like an M. Except they both take photos.

 

[uhoh7]

alot of us are not so complicated or focus style picky.

We have some RF lenses, yes. Looking for a digital body we start out with basics like price and image quality.

We hate crop.

BTW Sony A7 not R with cv 28/2
http://forum.xitek.com/thread-1234960-1-1-1.html

The plain A7 is 1700 bucks.

 

[Lss]

alot of us are not so complicated or focus style picky.

You almost make it sound like preference is a bad thing. It's neither bad nor good, but it personal and often very real.

 

[uhoh7]

You almost make it sound like preference is a bad thing. It's neither bad nor good, but it personal and often very real.

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.

 

[thegman]

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.

I'd qualify that with 'digital cameras are perishable goods', as of course, they will not last anywhere near as long as a film camera. I'm not talking about a certain number of megapixels being deemed 'obsolete', merely that electronic parts have a lifespan. Once that lifespan comes to end an end, the component will be out of production, and repair becomes uneconomical.

However, that's not necessarily a terrible thing, you pay for an item, get a lot of use out of it until it wears out, then get something else. Digital cameras don't last long compared to film, but of course you save money by not paying for film or processing.

I exclusively shoot film, but although digital cameras will not last so long, and devalue quickly, you gain value elsewhere.

 

[Keith]

I'm not about to buy either camera but in my world the Sony would become outdated a lot sooner than the M240.

I'm no Sony fan since they told me my twelve month old DVD player was irrepairable back in 1999 when it just stopped working!

 

[cidereye]

Problem is, as already stated on this thread, it is like comparing apples to oranges. 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.

I have just spent most of this year enjoying the Fuji X system, the X-Pro1 truly is a fantastic camera. But it is not an RF and never will be no matter what lens you mount on it or how you choose to focus it. The same applies to this new Sony A7, I'm sure it produces great images but you cannot use it like an RF end of.

When looking through my photographs I would say 90% + of my best/favourite work has been taken with a simple RF camera (film & digital) that I am in control of and don't have to think about, it's second nature to me. Yes RF cameras have their downsides, no they are not the answer to every photographic situation but they are very rewarding if you persevere with and learn with.

As wonderful as the Fuji X system is I sold it all along with almost everything else I owned gear wise and went back to a digital M with a nice used M9. I realised that I enjoy using a controllable camera as opposed to a hybrid computer which most modern cameras are. Now I am back in control. Now *I* have to work for that shot.

IMHO I feel it is utterly pointless people drooling all over the latest about to be released gear and all they claim to deliver. Far better to get back to basics, go through your entire portfolio and be honest with yourself about the tool that works for you and produces the best images for you.

All photographers have to figure out one simple thing:- Do you forever want to be chasing a non existent pot of gold at the end of a rainbow constantly looking at the latest new gear. Or do you want to produce the best possible photographs and satisfy the inner artist? i.e. Become an artist or a serial purchaser.

 

[L Collins]

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?

Stop kidding yourself. I'm not interested in shelling out an extra $5000 so I can impress the bourgeoisie with the make of my camera.

 

[gdi]

Stop kidding yourself. I'm not interested in shelling out an extra $5000 so I can impress the bourgeoisie with the make of my camera.

But the M9 is beyond compare.

"Look how the light glows. A moment; a light-filled moment passing for a fraction of a second through the finest glass to be captured forever on a wisp of silicon and a true CCD sensor. No focus peaking, gentlemen. No viewfinder hump. And no damn EFV."

---with apologies to Headley Madrigal

 

[Mcary]

I
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.

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.

 

[AlexanderR]

The weekend before the A7R announcement, I was in the SOHO Leica store to look at a 35 lux and M240. Any rationalization on why I needed or should afford the M240 vanished when the A7R was announced. I preordered the Sony the day of the announcement.

My M glass is great to use on my Nex 6 and I anticipate the A7R will hit the spot very well at 1/3 the price.

 

[gdi]

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.

Why would we need to know how to do it when leaving it to the camera manufacturers is the sensible thing? People can't really think that Leica is the only company with the design and technical resources to produce a full frame camera able to use most RF lenses if they put their mind to it. Surely there is no doubt that Sony could produce such a camera and do it at a comparatively "cheap" price point.

The real question is why would they choose to do so? The market for such a camera would be quite small, and characterized largely by luddism and an intractable brand loyalty. They are focusing on a new system and want to sell lenses too, of course. They, like Fuji, have simply left an opening for the hope of using your "legacy" lenses as well.

In the end, I think the A7R will work for a small number of current Leica users - just as the X-Pro1 did, only now with full frame.

 

[MCTuomey]

In the end, I think the A7R will work for a small number of current Leica users - just as the X-Pro1 did, only now with full frame.

And on websites far and wide, the ratio of hyper-proclamations of the success/failure of this outcome to the number of people actually having made the decision carefully and happily will be ridiculously large. 😉

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Stop kidding yourself. I'm not interested in shelling out an extra $5000 so I can impress the bourgeoisie with the make of my camera.

Sounds like you have a problem if that's all you can say about the price difference.

Do you say the same about those that drive "nice" cars too?

 

[Duane Pandorf]

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:

By comparison, I can buy a $2,200 A7r today and fire sell it for $1,200 in five years (approximating from the A900).

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.

 

[eleskin]

Duane, thanks for comments, but:

Duane, thanks for comments, but:

Duane,

I understand your arguements, and they are well taken. However, from my experience, I feel the A7 camerss will be just fine for somone who is used to system camera continuity.
Remember that adapters preserve virtually any mount ever made for 35mm. Yes, I know there are not conventional controls on the camera, but they can be customized. I too do not like lenses that have no depth of feild scales, f stop clicks, etc, but who cares! I already have a Nex adapter for both Leica M, m39, and Minolta MD. Sonys lack of lens selections and design do not affect me at all. Lets talk support. Lets say in a few years or so we cannot get the A7 fixed. At $1600 or so, and after many thousands of photos, it would not matter at all. How much would an M240 cost to repair down the road? Ill bet more than what will replace the A7 or what will be coming from Fuji, etc,,,. All I am thinking about now are the images I will be creating and how the A7 and A7r will give me even greater capability to achieve my goal which is the absolute best exhibitiom print possible. Have you been reading what this camera is doing for the Noctilux? I tested the A7r and with peaking and full frame, a dream come true. NO FOCUS SHIFT NONSENSE,!
DEAD ON FOCUS. My M8 and Fuji X can only dream to be that accurate. 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!