jett
Well-known
I'm considering an A7.
1. How is the legacy lens user experience? I want to use my existing Leica LTM/M lenses so that I don't have to reinvest in another mount.
2. I'd prefer to use legacy lenses for the reasons stated above, but sometimes native lenses are just easier to deal with. If I go this route, then is there a good inexpensive 50mm AF prime? I looked at BH the only AF 50mm, is the Sony Sonnar ($$$)?
1. How is the legacy lens user experience? I want to use my existing Leica LTM/M lenses so that I don't have to reinvest in another mount.
2. I'd prefer to use legacy lenses for the reasons stated above, but sometimes native lenses are just easier to deal with. If I go this route, then is there a good inexpensive 50mm AF prime? I looked at BH the only AF 50mm, is the Sony Sonnar ($$$)?
KingMixer
Member
If you don't need more resolution, I'd consider the a7s. I read somewhere it performs better with leica glass than the a7 or a7r. And of course, that Iso performance can sure come in handy.
YYV_146
Well-known
1. Check my (not well-updated) 500px page for pictures with the A7/A7s and legacy lenses. Overall I would say the A7s performs slightly better, but for practical purposes both cameras are similar. Lenses that don't do well on the A7 usually won't do well on the A7S either.
What M/LTM lenses do you have? I find that these things are best discussed on a case-by-case basis. Lenses longer than 35mm are typically okay, but there are exceptions to the rule.
2. Yes. The sonnar 55mm is a stellar lens, though. I personally think that it's the best AF 50mm lens in any mount. For $700 used it's not a bad deal at all.
What M/LTM lenses do you have? I find that these things are best discussed on a case-by-case basis. Lenses longer than 35mm are typically okay, but there are exceptions to the rule.
2. Yes. The sonnar 55mm is a stellar lens, though. I personally think that it's the best AF 50mm lens in any mount. For $700 used it's not a bad deal at all.
Addy101
Well-known
1. Maybe this link or this link (both the same guy) will make you considering the A7 mark ii if money allows. It has the advantage of having image stabilization built in the camera. Also it is reported to have better ergonomics then the first version. Else, a lot of people went before you and they got any one of the A7 series and as long you don't go wider then 35mm they seem to be happy.
2. The Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 is expensive but very good, if you want to go cheaper, the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 is cheaper, slower and wider
2. The Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 is expensive but very good, if you want to go cheaper, the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 is cheaper, slower and wider
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I'll reinforce Victor's query about specifying which ltm/m lenses you have/want to use. You'll get experienced, specific advice then.
I bought the A7 for the same legacy lens reason, aware that using >35 was disappointing to early adopters wanting sharp corner-to-corner on demand at any aperture. I use mine happily with a 35 2.8 Biogon, ZM Sonnar/Planar, CV 40 1.4, NK 35 2.5 and 135 3.5. I also get nice results in strong light with a modern Avenon 28 3.5. The 28 1.9 Ultron and old CV 21/4 are, well, more cataracted, smeary, etc. If you want those effects, great.
If you have legacy SLR lenses, you might specify those as well. I'm happy that my OM 50 and 85/2 adapt well, and got really delightful results with a recently acquired OM 21 3.5. The 28/2, not so much wide open.
Seach other threads about the Kolari modification for improving >35mm performance.
I bought the A7 for the same legacy lens reason, aware that using >35 was disappointing to early adopters wanting sharp corner-to-corner on demand at any aperture. I use mine happily with a 35 2.8 Biogon, ZM Sonnar/Planar, CV 40 1.4, NK 35 2.5 and 135 3.5. I also get nice results in strong light with a modern Avenon 28 3.5. The 28 1.9 Ultron and old CV 21/4 are, well, more cataracted, smeary, etc. If you want those effects, great.
If you have legacy SLR lenses, you might specify those as well. I'm happy that my OM 50 and 85/2 adapt well, and got really delightful results with a recently acquired OM 21 3.5. The 28/2, not so much wide open.
Seach other threads about the Kolari modification for improving >35mm performance.
Vics
Veteran
Have you looked here? http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forums.html
YYV_146
Well-known
The best predictor should be the distance from the real optical nodal point of a lens to the sensor. Lenses with a protruding rear element usually have a close nodal point, but some rear elements serve a partially protective function. The aperture of a lens also plays a role, since the higher per area luminance contributes to unevenness of exposure and the smearing effect.
After the Kolari vision mod, my 15mm Distagon ZM still gives some problems at f2.8 but clears up at F4. I consider that the worst case scenario since no other M lens is quite as wide or fast...The 21mm Summilux is sharp from F1.4 after the mod and used to need f2.8-3.5 to clean the frame. I never shoot that lens outside f1.4 of and f8-16, though, so it hasn't been a problem before the modification.
:: Mark
Well-known
How do people find the focusing with the A7 and a Leica lens? Is the focus peaking accurate enough to (say) focus a 50mm f1.4, or do you need to use magnification?
I am also interested in this, as it is hard not to wonder if an A7II/A7rII could both replace my Canon body and also double as a budget Leica digital. As someone who mostly shoots 24+50mm, an A7 with 25mm and 55mm native lenses plus the ability to use existing Leica, Minolta (MD) and Zeiss (ZM) glass looks mighty attractive...
I am also interested in this, as it is hard not to wonder if an A7II/A7rII could both replace my Canon body and also double as a budget Leica digital. As someone who mostly shoots 24+50mm, an A7 with 25mm and 55mm native lenses plus the ability to use existing Leica, Minolta (MD) and Zeiss (ZM) glass looks mighty attractive...
GarageBoy
Well-known
Don't use peaking wide open upclose- my c2 button is set to zoom
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had the A7 for a year and some, using Leica RF, Leica R, and Nikkor lenses on it.
I found it quite compromised for use with Leica RF lenses. Many simple do not work particularly well, require special processing or modifications to the camera to make them work acceptably, etc.
With Leica R and Nikkor SLR lenses, most work pretty well but then you're carrying about a medium sized DSLR camera between the body and lens package.
Beyond that, the Sony EVF is good but not outstanding, the sensor is good but not extraordinarily that much better than others, and the controls and menus are clunky at best.
Over time, I found myself going back to the M9 more and more. When the M9 sensor needed replacement, I took the upgrade to the M-P typ 240. Within a week, I knew that this was the right thing for me: I prefer using it, and I get better photos from it. Yes, I know it's an expensive body; remember, the Sony and its dedicated lenses isn't cheap either.
I've since sold off the A7 and all my Sony specific gear. I'm selling off the Leica R lenses and bodies too, put some of that money into a couple of new Leica M lenses and into a couple of new or used Nikon lenses. The rest will go into the bank for other uses.
Some folks love and prefer the Sony A7 cameras, just like others love and prefer the Fuji X cameras. They're all good systems, in the end. YMMV ...
G
I found it quite compromised for use with Leica RF lenses. Many simple do not work particularly well, require special processing or modifications to the camera to make them work acceptably, etc.
With Leica R and Nikkor SLR lenses, most work pretty well but then you're carrying about a medium sized DSLR camera between the body and lens package.
Beyond that, the Sony EVF is good but not outstanding, the sensor is good but not extraordinarily that much better than others, and the controls and menus are clunky at best.
Over time, I found myself going back to the M9 more and more. When the M9 sensor needed replacement, I took the upgrade to the M-P typ 240. Within a week, I knew that this was the right thing for me: I prefer using it, and I get better photos from it. Yes, I know it's an expensive body; remember, the Sony and its dedicated lenses isn't cheap either.
I've since sold off the A7 and all my Sony specific gear. I'm selling off the Leica R lenses and bodies too, put some of that money into a couple of new Leica M lenses and into a couple of new or used Nikon lenses. The rest will go into the bank for other uses.
Some folks love and prefer the Sony A7 cameras, just like others love and prefer the Fuji X cameras. They're all good systems, in the end. YMMV ...
G
taemo
eat sleep shoot
out of curiosity for those that have shot A7 and A7S, what makes the A7S even better?
i've shot with the A7 for a little over 1 year and found it great, especially with the shoten close focusing adapter that i bought (same type as the Voigtlander VM-E adapter)
i didn't mind focusing on the A7 with peaking and zoom button, however im not a big fan of EVF shooting, especially the half second blackout screen whenever you take a shot so like G, I went back to Leica
i've shot with the A7 for a little over 1 year and found it great, especially with the shoten close focusing adapter that i bought (same type as the Voigtlander VM-E adapter)
i didn't mind focusing on the A7 with peaking and zoom button, however im not a big fan of EVF shooting, especially the half second blackout screen whenever you take a shot so like G, I went back to Leica
goo0h
Well-known
I've read some reviews that the CV 35/1.2 v2 works well with the a7, but not the a7R. So I'm wondering how it'll do with the a7Rm2.
jett
Well-known
I have the CV 35/1.2 (v1), CV 50/1.1, Leica 50/2.0 DR Summicron and Contax Sonnar 50/1.5 with amedeo adapter. I also have interest in adding a 40mm (Nokton, Summicron, or Rokkor) and maybe another 50mm (Planar, more modern Summicron, Hexanon, or Nokton VM).
Any comments on these lenses? Is using this camera, as a body for rangefinder lenses practical?
Any comments on these lenses? Is using this camera, as a body for rangefinder lenses practical?
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
For me it is practical and versatile. Someone else will have to comment on how the 35 1.2 will play, but I was shooting the 40 1.4 earlier today, mostly wide open, with pleasure, and the ZM 35 2.8 can do no wrong on the A7.
I do prefer to shoot the X-Pro/XE for the haptics--knobs, dials, left side VF--especially if I'm switching off to a film RF (M5, Hexar) in the same bag. The A7 is more about the menus and wheels with legacy lenses, and it feels more SLR-like. Plus my nose mashes the LCD, unless I use it for framing. But I'm also long used to (and like) the GR and GXR+EVF, and older M43, and in terms of assignable wheels and buttons, this ain't much of a change.
Getting to use rf lenses FF for $2K less than an aging M9--that may not be priceless, but makes sense for my budget. That's my bottom line rationale.
I do prefer to shoot the X-Pro/XE for the haptics--knobs, dials, left side VF--especially if I'm switching off to a film RF (M5, Hexar) in the same bag. The A7 is more about the menus and wheels with legacy lenses, and it feels more SLR-like. Plus my nose mashes the LCD, unless I use it for framing. But I'm also long used to (and like) the GR and GXR+EVF, and older M43, and in terms of assignable wheels and buttons, this ain't much of a change.
Getting to use rf lenses FF for $2K less than an aging M9--that may not be priceless, but makes sense for my budget. That's my bottom line rationale.
jarski
Veteran
still remember your threads back then, thinking wish I could try that system
did you try any of newer A7 bodies before giving up?
YYV_146
Well-known
FYI you can reduce the blackout time by using a faster SD card.
The A7S's greatest strength is its high ISO performance and strong ISO invariance. You can conceivably set the camera at a fixed ISO 100 and push every single photo in post, and retain all the highlights while still getting reasonably clean shots up to a 12,800 equivalent. On RAW only the A7S also has a close to infinite buffer size because of the small files - somewhere around 70-80 shots on 5fps I think.
IMO it's perfectly designed for reportage-style work, since few other cameras (and none at this size) can match the A7S in terms of shooting in silence, using extraordinarily long bursts to capture important moments, and letting the ISO float so all that the photographer needs to be concerned about is aperture and minimum shutter speed.
YYV_146
Well-known
CV 35mm F1.2. V1 and V2 performs well on all Sony cameras including A7r.
CV 50mm F1.1. Not an issue. Corners will show very slight resolution loss wide open if you compare to the M240, but these super-fast 50mm's come with a fair share of field curvature from the beginning.
DR cron. The collapsible cron is fine...not sure about the DR.
Never used Contax lenses on the A7 series so someone else would have to comment on that...
The CV 40mm F1.4 works great. I have the 50mm planar ZM and it's a fine lens to use on the A7.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
still remember your threads back then, thinking wish I could try that system
did you try any of newer A7 bodies before giving up?
No. Once I had the Leica M-P in hand, I became uninterested in spending time and energy investigating the other A7 bodies. I have been convinced that the M/M-P type 240 and MM typ 246 are the best cameras to work with using M-mount lenses for my photography.
G
jett
Well-known
is there a preferred adapter?
i'm interested in manual focus lenses, so I don't need any fancy
AF features.
Leica M in particular, but maybe Nikon F or Leica R in the future.
i'm interested in manual focus lenses, so I don't need any fancy
AF features.
Leica M in particular, but maybe Nikon F or Leica R in the future.
uhoh7
Veteran
400USD Kolari makes vast improvement for RF lens use with original A7. It's like a whole new camera, really.