rbelyell
Well-known
johann, we all have free choice! i'm in process of trading in a whole bunch of gear in anticipation of A7r. if it stinks, i,ll have a bunch o' dollars and my x100!
rbelyell
Well-known
wait, let me get this straight. its not enough to spend 5 grand on a camera, but then we need a 'backup' system to take shots the other 12 hours of the day? wow, thats one demanding system!
so, OP, take that to heart. if you choose the m9 you need a 12 hour back up system. ):
look, in all seriousness, the m9 is obviously a great tool for what it does, but it comes with a bunch of limitations that, if youre not 'romanced' by the rangefinder, is probably not worth it to you or you wouldnt be asking the question.
if you have M lenses and dont fawn at rangefinders, my advice is twofold: one WAIT and SEE what the A7r will do with them. thats what i'm doing. if it stinks, the more reasonable choice is the gxr as johann stated, is optimized for Ms and costs under $1000 and is no worse than the m9 at iso8-3200.
so, OP, take that to heart. if you choose the m9 you need a 12 hour back up system. ):
look, in all seriousness, the m9 is obviously a great tool for what it does, but it comes with a bunch of limitations that, if youre not 'romanced' by the rangefinder, is probably not worth it to you or you wouldnt be asking the question.
if you have M lenses and dont fawn at rangefinders, my advice is twofold: one WAIT and SEE what the A7r will do with them. thats what i'm doing. if it stinks, the more reasonable choice is the gxr as johann stated, is optimized for Ms and costs under $1000 and is no worse than the m9 at iso8-3200.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I was being mildy ironic - sorry, should have included the smiley. I think that I accept the M9 because before using some full frame canon dslr's I had years of film, which is worse still than the M9. My expectations are low biased
Actually this is clear, because I'm pleased as Punch with expsoing at iso 5000 on the Mono, but there is a picture at 6400 in colour in the gallery that looks absolutely fine at websize. It may well look fine in print too! The world is a changin'
rbelyell
Well-known
I was being mildy ironic - sorry, should have included the smiley. I think that I accept the M9 because before using some full frame canon dslr's I had years of film, which is worse still than the M9. My expectations are low biased
Actually this is clear, because I'm pleased as Punch with expsoing at iso 5000 on the Mono, but there is a picture at 6400 in colour in the gallery that looks absolutely fine at websize. It may well look fine in print too! The world is a changin'
i was just taking what you said to the logical extreme, intended in a good natured kinda joking way. we both made poor use of the smiley thingy. ):
AlexanderR
Established
I was in the SOHO Leica store looking at a new M three days before Sony announced the A7R. I pre-ordered the A7R the day it was announced. My NEX6 has been great and for $2300 a new A7R with 36MP full frame is a no brainer. Leica will have to produce a digital M body for $3K or under for me to even consider it now.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have a used M9, so philosophically, your question could go through my mind too. Should I sell my M9 and get an A7 or A7R and still have $1500+ for a lens?
In my case, the answer is No. I like the M9 way too much to sell it. It is as dear to me as my M3 and M6. In the end, it is about photography and not about owning cameras. The M9 works very well for what I use it for. The M8 sits there with the M9 as its sister camera. They make a great pair.
In my case, the answer is No. I like the M9 way too much to sell it. It is as dear to me as my M3 and M6. In the end, it is about photography and not about owning cameras. The M9 works very well for what I use it for. The M8 sits there with the M9 as its sister camera. They make a great pair.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Alex,
Consider the phrase "no brainer". Does this mean that anyone who orders an A7R has no brain? I'd be very surprised indeed if you meant this. I've been considering an A7R too but I flatter myself that I have a brain and that I have used it in arriving at the conclusion that it may do some things that I want.
Cheers,
R.
redisburning
Well-known
at the same price I'd have the Leica.
do I get a 50 Lux ASPH for the same price as the Zeiss 50 Sonnar though?
do I get a 50 Lux ASPH for the same price as the Zeiss 50 Sonnar though?
rbelyell
Well-known
hey alex, good luck to you. i really hope it works out. the announcement shook up my gear notions as well. itd be great if sonys announcement that the A7r is optimized for legacy glass turns out true and to apply to M lenses. if so, i'm right there with ya' on the 'no brainer' front.
uhoh7
Veteran
haha you got fast glass?
I never go over 800 with my little n5n, cause I hate them.
I've been hoarding all Raid's throw aways in case I ever get an M9:
28 cron
cv 50/1.1
cv 35/1.2
Canon ltm 85/1.5 (and 1.9 amd 1.8)
Canon ltm 100/2
They seem to shoot in very low light at 800 and below. And that's on APS-C
I would never expect you to own an A7r, and I don't mean that in bad way. It's just not you. You've been highly tolerant of our euphoria, unlike certain others......
AlexanderR
Established
cosmonaut
Well-known
Well since I do little street photography the a7.
uhoh7
Veteran
Real world you can have sony + 50 lux or M240 body.
or, Sony + 50 cron + 200 or M9 body.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
From what I can see in reviews, the GXR-M is about as close as anyone has yet come to the $1000 digital Leica. So why limit it to B&W??
Cheers,
Dez
raid
Dad Photographer
I have never owned a Summicron 28/2, so it does not count as my "throw away"! Same thing goes for the CV 35/1.2 and the 50/1.1.
I sold my Canon 100/2 and the 85/1.9.
I love my old lenses.
I sold my Canon 100/2 and the 85/1.9.
I love my old lenses.
2WK
Rangefinder User
I'd say, definitely M9. It would be nice to have an a7r for portraits, but I much prefer shooting with a rangefinder 95% of the time. Using an evf all the time, and focus peaking with RF lenses?....no thanks.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
M9.
It has the best viewfinder available.
Phil Forrest
It has the best viewfinder available.
Phil Forrest
Eric T
Well-known
I'd take the A7 over the M9 and the A7r over the M 240.
I prefer modern autofocus over 80 year old rangefinder focusing.
The Sony cameras were built for a mirror less digital format from the ground up.
The Leicas are hampered by the fact that the digital Leica must pay homage to the M3.
Don't get me wrong, the M3 and the digital Leicas are great. But the new Sonys are amazing.
I prefer modern autofocus over 80 year old rangefinder focusing.
The Sony cameras were built for a mirror less digital format from the ground up.
The Leicas are hampered by the fact that the digital Leica must pay homage to the M3.
Don't get me wrong, the M3 and the digital Leicas are great. But the new Sonys are amazing.
wogg
Established
One big elephant here is the wide and ultra wide performance on the Sony for M glass.
I'm interested in the A7 as a back up body to the M for low light and video, but I'm not in the mood for annoying cyan / magenta fix-ups (or unfixable smearing).
I'm not making any move on a Sony small FF until I see how it handles 35mm and wider M glass-- it wasn't designed for M glass, so I'm not expecting much.
Meanwhile, my Elmarit 21mm sang on the M9 I just sold, and looks great on the M too.
Meanwhile, I keep dreaming of a Foveon M mount solution, or a Pentax/Ricoh or Canon FF small body. Or even a GXR/M update
I'm interested in the A7 as a back up body to the M for low light and video, but I'm not in the mood for annoying cyan / magenta fix-ups (or unfixable smearing).
I'm not making any move on a Sony small FF until I see how it handles 35mm and wider M glass-- it wasn't designed for M glass, so I'm not expecting much.
Meanwhile, my Elmarit 21mm sang on the M9 I just sold, and looks great on the M too.
Meanwhile, I keep dreaming of a Foveon M mount solution, or a Pentax/Ricoh or Canon FF small body. Or even a GXR/M update
brusby
Well-known
Often cheaper things turn out to be more expensive in the long term.
But, money aside, the M9 is just a real pleasure to use, particularly considering its simple menu systems and direct manual controls. Those attributes are worth far more to me than the price differential.
But, money aside, the M9 is just a real pleasure to use, particularly considering its simple menu systems and direct manual controls. Those attributes are worth far more to me than the price differential.