raid
Dad Photographer
I take breaks from some cameras, and I return to use them 2-3 months later. It is fortunate for me that I can afford having several camera systems to choose from each week. The RF experience continued for me with the M8 and the M9 after waiting for couple of years to see what users of these two cameras had to say about them here at RFF. For AF and for using SLR lenses once in a while, I use my Olympus EP-2 and EPL-1. In the end, it is not about the specific cameras. I would be also taking photos with my Spotmatic F and the Canon F1.
There is nothing that special about a new FF camera, if you think about it.
There is nothing that special about a new FF camera, if you think about it.
There is if you no longer use film guys. People are excited about the size and it's price point brand new. Prior to the Sony, you had Leica and DSLRs. Now you have a new player. Not my thing, but I can see why people are excited.
mastaliu
Member
Heart says M9, mind says Sony.
I've never moved on from the Epson RD-1 and the original 5D (yes, I'm stuck in 2004 digital technology, more for financial reasons than anything else). So that means I have some L glass, and an odd assortment of Canon LTM and Voigtlander lenses. With the Sony, I could have a full frame, modern digital camera with high ISO performance (the Epson and 5D are definitively NOT performers in most situations above 800) and use my whole lens family, albeit with some expensive adapters. However, I would prefer having a real RF viewfinder and not the electronic one on the Sony, so Leica it is!
I've never moved on from the Epson RD-1 and the original 5D (yes, I'm stuck in 2004 digital technology, more for financial reasons than anything else). So that means I have some L glass, and an odd assortment of Canon LTM and Voigtlander lenses. With the Sony, I could have a full frame, modern digital camera with high ISO performance (the Epson and 5D are definitively NOT performers in most situations above 800) and use my whole lens family, albeit with some expensive adapters. However, I would prefer having a real RF viewfinder and not the electronic one on the Sony, so Leica it is!
raid
Dad Photographer
Not really, if you are a 50mm user most of the time. Get a M4/3 camera and use a high quality lens with it. I can see advantages for users of WA lenses who want a huge image film for some reason. Here, the SONY is still being "questioned", though.
m4/3 is you answer? jeez, no thanks.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Due to the constant barrage of threads about the latest and greatest new cameras appearing on the horizon via rumours or otherwise ... I'd be leaning towards an M9.
The camera babble around here at the moment is doing my head in!
The camera babble around here at the moment is doing my head in!
raid
Dad Photographer
It was not my suggested "answer". I use it in addition to other systems. It is one possible answer for some users.
raid
Dad Photographer
Due to the constant barrage of threads about the latest and greatest new cameras appearing on the horizon via rumours or otherwise ... I'd be leaning towards an M9.
The camera babble around here at the moment is doing my head in!
True. Just go out and take photos, Keith.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Funny, I have the opposite view. I wanted 'full frame' as much for consistency with 35mm film as for its size.
When I bought the 5D the general view was also that it offered an important advantage of smaller sensors.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yep, a compact system camera, used with its own lens system is an alternative. I've stuck with the M9 etc because I like the reverse gallilean viewfinder with integrated mechanical rangefinder focus system
Plus it makes nice pictures and is one of my 'just take a picture' cameras - well they all are really.
jubbaa
Established
M9 for me
I am not afraid to admit that for me a camera is not merely a tool. I want it to be something I get satisfaction from the shooting experience, the haptics, admire the piece of engineering ...I want to want to pick it up and take it out to shoot. The M9 ticks these boxes for me , computers with lenses don't.
James.
I am not afraid to admit that for me a camera is not merely a tool. I want it to be something I get satisfaction from the shooting experience, the haptics, admire the piece of engineering ...I want to want to pick it up and take it out to shoot. The M9 ticks these boxes for me , computers with lenses don't.
James.
Not sure how that was the opposite of (or even related to) what I said.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Sorry, I read that you thought that sensor size was important for people who no longer use film. For me a key point for the drf was that I had consistent field of view between my film and digital rfs. Subject to adequate performance, I am not otherwise stuck with a particular size sensor.
No offense or antagonism intended.
Actually, I agree with you that m4/3 is not an alternative to the M9, and every time I return to an rf from a GX1, even with clip on OVF, I am happy again.
Edited to add:
Just thinking on, it hadn't occurred to me that the size might be important in and of itself. Of course, that is a possiblity too.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Agree, for someone like me who 1) isn't rich (exit digital Leica) 2) DSLR been there done that, it is interesting indeed.
My only problem with Sony is that they make gadgets and electronic "toys", I tried my friend's NEX 7 and while I salute the technical advances, it's not something I want to use everyday. I also don't want to buy a new camera every couple years
This said, we're far far now from when I left digital, back then it was either DSLR or well, DSLR. We might be getting soon to a point where I'm interested enough to take out my wallet
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't have to choose between them because I already own an M9. The question that I have to decide is whether to keep my M9 and buy an A7r, or sell my M9 and buy an M(240) or MM instead, or just keep what I have and let the A7r pass by.
My main "system" camera are the Olympus E-M1 and E-1. Full frame RF cameras are more limited in scope but are complementary.
The Sony A7r competes with the E-M1 on camera type, but I expect it will perform best with the lenses designed for it (just as the Olympus does) so implies both waiting for and then buying a whole new set of somewhat bulky lenses. I'm not sure yet that I want to buy into a whole 'nother system like that, and the E-M1/E-1 do really well.
No need, no rush, but I'll keep watching the Sony system develop. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy making photographs.
G
My main "system" camera are the Olympus E-M1 and E-1. Full frame RF cameras are more limited in scope but are complementary.
The Sony A7r competes with the E-M1 on camera type, but I expect it will perform best with the lenses designed for it (just as the Olympus does) so implies both waiting for and then buying a whole new set of somewhat bulky lenses. I'm not sure yet that I want to buy into a whole 'nother system like that, and the E-M1/E-1 do really well.
No need, no rush, but I'll keep watching the Sony system develop. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy making photographs.
G
uhoh7
Veteran
By the end of next week we should know much, much more about A7r performance with RF glass
Then things will really heat up.
Then things will really heat up.
LAWRIE
Member
If it was me I would ask the question "Do I want a camera as a status symbol or do I want to capture images?"
Question answered? (No offence to the Leica brigade - just saying)
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Indeed, status is clearly obtained from having the latest greatest new device before any one else. No offense taken.
i.e. if you buy an expensive camera I don't like, it must be only because you wanted a status symbol.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Rather beneath contempt.