Leica M240 vs Sony A7 vs Sony A7r

[soultheworld]

i returned my M240 and stuck with my M9P and got an A7R from the leftover cash. I do prefer simplicity and the color rendition of the M9P by far, and i enjoy using the Sony, both cams are usually always in my bag.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

M240, despite some geographical areas still being undersupplied apparently, eg Australia, are in stock and stopping the dust settling pretty well in most places. £400 off a lens purchase with one is on open offer and I'm told if you talk nicely and promise not to say it actually happened a discount is available.
I'm sure Leica has noticed.
The 240 reminds me of the M8, a first, flawed, attempt at new technology (CMOS and an "old" electronic finder in this case) they will learn, quickly I'm sure as with the M8to9 expect a new model sooner rather than later, perhaps two, one all bells and whistles and one an ME replacement stripped to basics with the same sensor at a "volume" price (In Leica land pricing) . Note Nikon's retro has no video it isn't mandatory and if you can't do it well why do it at all?

I wonder if Sony had a Christmas Card from Leica?

 

[Keith]

Difference is that the Nikon retro camera sits in the shelfs right from the start. Talked to a guy in a big camera store here and he said that interest was there in the first two weeks but now they don't sell any of the Nikon Df.

That's interesting ... !

 

[flyalf]

It's interesting that the M240 has offered little over the M9 aside from video (who cares) and better high ISO performance. As said above Leica will need to lift their game if they want to maintain station against the tide of new full frame compacts that can mount their lenses.

... and weather sealing, and LV, and EVF, and improved tripod mount, and improved dynamics, and more quiet shutter, and adapter for legacy lenses. Oh yes, and still maintaining M lens compatibility (not only in center of image).

Reminds me a bit of the dialogue in "Life of Brian"; what has the Roman ever done for us 😛 🙂?

 

[Keith]

... and weather sealing, and LV, and EVF, and improved tripod mount, and improved dynamics, and more quiet shutter, and adapter for legacy lenses. Oh yes, and still maintaining M lens compatibility (not only in center of image).

Reminds me a bit of the dialogue in "Life of Brian"; what has the Roman ever done for us 😛 🙂?

LOL ... yes sort of like that! 😀

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Difference is that the Nikon retro camera sits in the shelfs right from the start. Talked to a guy in a big camera store here and he said that interest was there in the first two weeks but now they don't sell any of the Nikon Df.

The error there is offering it in many markets ONLY as a lens bundle. Amongst the potential buyer group who wants ANOTHER 50mm :bang: Especially one that brings nothing new to the table.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

... and weather sealing, and LV, and EVF, and improved tripod mount, and improved dynamics, and more quiet shutter, and adapter for legacy lenses. Oh yes, and still maintaining M lens compatibility (not only in center of image).

Tried to buy that legacy adapter?
Sealing? shower resistant !!
Tripod mounting, yes everyone shoots their Ms on a Tripod
etc etc

Not rubbishing it, well not completely, with the native lenses it is the by far he best choice across the range of glass.

 

[gdi]

I've got a whole series of R lenses. Anyone know how they perform on the A7r. One would think that the added space between the rear of the lenses and the sensor would eliminate any poor edge effects.

They will likely be leagues ahead of M lenses on the A7r. I have used only the 50 Summicron-R and 35 Elmarit-R, but they work just fine. I don't have any Rs wider than 35, but used an OM 28 and 24 with no problems other than some vignetting and slight color shift in the corners with the 24. Even my 90 pre-asph Summicron-M has purple fringing and a little softness in the extreme corners on the A7r.

The Sonys are not a substitute for a Leica when it comes to most M lenses, IMO.

 

[jsrockit]

Oh.. totally understand that point then.

Shooting with a Leica (or a rangefinder for that matter) is completely different than the Sony. You can't compare them from a "shooting experience" perspective.

That said, the end result is still "a photo" 😀

And that's the thing that gets me sometimes because I too fall into that "trap" - we like our gear but at the end of the day the photo is what we're left with as a result of using said gear. The photo isn't necessarily "better" or "worse" because of the equipment used per se (as long as the user is proficient in using said equipment) but the photo "just is".

Maybe we need to get away from gear altogether.. but that's a topic for another thread 🙂

Cheers,
Dave

Oh I agree. Gear only matters to some extent. However, it is important to feel comfortable with what you are using to accomplish your photography... that is why there are so many different takes on camera design... and why we are so drawn to a certain design.

 

[jsrockit]

It's interesting that the M240 has offered little over the M9 aside from video (who cares) and better high ISO performance. As said above Leica will need to lift their game if they want to maintain station against the tide of new full frame compacts that can mount their lenses.

What would you have suggested they add?

 

[taemo]

Oh I agree. Gear only matters to some extent. However, it is important to feel comfortable with what you are using to accomplish your photography... that is why there are so many different takes on camera design... and why we are so drawn to a certain design.

This, I know a buddy who was looking for an M9, he bought an A7r mid-December because it was a cheaper FF camera that takes M-mount.
Eventually he returned it and just 2 days ago he bought an M9 and he's happy with it.
Really, we can take photos with any type of cameras, hell, I even considered using P&S for street shooting but I wanted more control and comfortable gears to shoot with.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

M240 on offer at £4750 at UK dealer, what waiting list ?🙄

 

[Keith]

What would you have suggested they add?

Nothing seriously John ... but higher ISO capabilities. That personally is all I'd want in a digital M ... as the M9 currently stands it has everything a photographer needs.

 

[Wobba]

For me the big issue is the color rendition of the M240: from everything that I've seen, including DNG files that I've processed, I much prefer the color rendition of the M9. Recenlty "fotografz" (Marc), whose concern has been skin tones and whose color judgment I trust, has tried the M240 as well as the A7R. Someone sent me fotografz's conclusion which is a follows (I don't know where he posted this):The experience of "Prosopos" (Peter), written up on his blog, is similar: because of its unsatisfactory color rendition he sold his M240 and went back to the M9. In the light of this I am surprised that no one in this thread has discussed the issue of color rendition, which, according to fotografz, seems to be outstanding from the A7R, although I have not looked into this myself.

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

I agree, the colour rendition of the M240 leaves a lot to be desired. The A7R, on the other hand, is outstanding and can come very close to the colour rendition of the M9.

Prosophos/Peter, by the way, also came very close to ditching his M9's. He posted this on his blog a few days ago:

"In frustration, I came close to selling all of my Leica equipment a few days ago.

After an ice storm that left this city without power (and some of our fellow citizens still have no heat!), the whole family became ill (and we still are…).

What does this have to do with Leica?

Well, the one day where everything was “normal”, thankfully, was Christmas Day — our power had been restored and we hadn’t yet gotten sick. Naturally, I was looking forward to photographing.

After shooting some frames and reviewing the images, I realized the focus was off! A few key moments were lost (or at least, rendered blurry). I took a few test shots and realized my M9 was back-focusing by about an inch. Enough to mess things up when photographing at f/1.4.

This is one of the charms of rangefinder ownership. The rangefinder focusing mechanism, over time, can spontaneously (or with little provocation) deviate from spec.

No problem, I thought. That’s why I have a back-up M9(P).

So I started photographing with it. But I realized why this camera has been relegated to back-up status. Its buffer chokes up after a few frames and it takes several seconds before I can start photographing again. The outcome: I missed a few more key moments.

A specific charm of Leica ownership is that one M9 can behave in a much different way from another — identical — M9 (with the same SD card and the same firmware!). Leica still hasn’t mastered the whole electronics thing… which may be perceived by some as somewhat of a shortcoming in the digital age.

Back to the story…

Maybe it was because I had spent the weekend and some of the week re-enacting scenes from Pioneer Village, or maybe it was because I was getting sick, but I had had enough!

(I know, I know, these are “First World” problems, and — believe me — I know how fortunate I am. I’m just venting).

I started packing away the M9s.

But what other camera(s) would I now use?

Out of everything currently out there, the only non-Leica camera that will accept my M lenses and give me a full frame sensor is the Sony A7(R). And its CMOS sensor comes the closest to achieving my coveted M9 CCD sensor rendering (the Sony colour signature is another story). But… Leica lenses (especially wide angle ones) don’t necessarily shine on other manufacturers’ platforms. So my pricey Leica Summilux lenses would be worth little on the Sony.

No problem, I thought once more. I’ll just sell my lenses too and start from scratch.

But, but… I used the Sony RX1R earlier this year and the computer-as-camera user interface left me cold. That, and having to rely on the EVF: through it, it didn’t feel like I was watching the world… it felt like I was watching TV.

So I turned my attention to DSLR cameras.

The only contender for me would be the Nikon Df. Small for a DSLR, plenty of external controls for manual shooting, etc. And I was close to purchasing it, despite the downgrade in base ISO image quality it would represent (high ISO functionality is another story).

But I prefer to manually focus. And I’d been-there-done-that with the D3 and D3s, both coupled to a Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 AIS lens. When photographing action wide open, the hit rate with this system is low (even when using the “green dot” focus aid).

Plus, I’ve grown accustomed to the “see the world outside of the frame” view of the rangefinder window. With it, I can see elements outside of what the lens sees, and I can therefore better anticipate how a given moment may unfold.

Finally — believe it or not — I was once more tempted to switch to a new Leica M240. Oh, but the image quality would be… (well, you know). And don’t forget those electronic gremlins, which continue to plague Leica, even with their latest bodies…

In the end, I decided to keep my current gear. Yes, I know… I’ve become predictable.

Which places my photography situation in a precarious position, with respect to any future “upgrade” path.

Hopefully, by the time my current M9 cameras die (or their sensors spontaneously crack — but that’s another story!), there will be other viable options out there for me).

I’m holding out hope for Sony to sort out its user interface, and I’m also closely watching for advances in EVF technology.

Or maybe Leica will finally produce a non-beta version of a camera.

Yes, it’s a love-hate thing.

—Peter."

 

[raid]

Happy New Year. Thanks for the detailed comment above.

 

[__--]

Nothing seriously John ... but higher ISO capabilities. That personally is all I'd want in a digital M ... as the M9 currently stands it has everything a photographer needs.

Actually, the M9 is an excellent camera for high-ISO if you use the technique of Shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in Lightroom 4 or 5, which is discussed and illustatred in this thread. Anyone interested in this technique may want to look at the suggested steps in shooting and processing listed in this post.

In my view, considering its unique color rendition, the idea that the M9 is not a good camera for high-ISO night photography is more of an urban myth than a reality. However, this is understandable because "pushing" using this technique is quite different from in concept and practice from "pushing film." Also, unlike the days of film, so many people change cameras so frequently as new digital cameras come on the market that they never truly master one camera before moving on to another one.

Here is an example of an M9 night shot that has been pushed 4 stops from ISO 640 to an effective ISO 5,000:



M9 | Summicron-28 | ISO 640 pushed 4 stops | f/4.0 | 1/60 sec

Hua Hin



—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[willie_901]

Mitch's advice about never exceeding ISO 640 and pushing DNG in post is important.

Much more important is the photo in Mitch's post is a wonderful example of how to leave well enough alone and let shadows just be what they are... shadows.

Just because shadows might not have a poor signal-to-noise ratio at ISO 3200 doesn't meant one should automatically push them too far. I think people (myself included) are tempted to lift shadow regions just because they can.

 

[uhoh7]

no question M9 is superb camera. I want one. 🙂

 

[Keith]

Mitch's advice about never exceeding ISO 640 and pushing DNG in post is important.

Much more important is the photo in Mitch's post is a wonderful example of how to leave well enough alone and let shadows just be what they are... shadows.

Just because shadows might not have a poor signal-to-noise ratio at ISO 3200 doesn't meant one should automatically push them too far. I think people (myself included) are tempted to lift shadow regions just because they can.

That is such an issue for me these days. I see so many images that have had shadows lifted well beyond the way the human eye perceives them ... it ruins a lot of good photographs IMO.

I also think that this thread is highlighting what a good camera the M9 actually is when used to it's potential!

 

[aeturnum]

I had an M9, which produced the highest quality output of any digital camera I've used. Very crisp, files could be pushed for ages, nice color. I sold it because I couldn't justify a ~$4k camera that didn't have an ISO above 1600. If I'm shooting digital, it's because it's dark. If I can use ISO 400, I'll go with my film rangefinders.

The M240 and MM look wonderful and are extremely expensive. $7k (or so) on a digital that 'only' goes to 6400 / 10,000 is a bitter pill to swallow. Subjectively, I absolutely prefer the form factor and find my keeper right much higher on a RF system.

My personal experience with the A7 is that its color gets very dodgy at ISO 6400+ and it's a little temperamental in general. However, ISO 12,800 can look great. No matter its faults, I can use my RF lenses (X-Pan as well as M!) at their listed focal lengths, and I can buy ~4 A7s for the price of one M240.

So, in a real sense, it's all about image quality. I cannot afford to make images with the M240, I can afford to with the A7.