would you rather buy a used m9 or a new A7?

LAWRIE said:
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)
Click to expand...


Fair comment but perhaps not applicable here, still relevant as far as some poseurs are concerned.
 
LAWRIE said:
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)
Click to expand...

Don't you know? You can capture images with any old camera. You need a Leica to take pictures. :) (No offense to the Silly Brigade...just saying)
 
Neither.

Will keep shooting with my M8 until I can afford a M240 or until Fuji or someone else comes up with a FF mirror less system camera that has an optical viewfinder.
 
Mcary said:
or until Fuji or someone else comes up with a FF mirror less system camera that has an optical viewfinder.
Click to expand...

And that has me put into gearlock. I have been running multiple scenarios through my head, from bolstering my old kit with some long wanted lenses, to trying some different older kit out for the first time, to getting something currently on the market, to not doing anything at all and waiting for what is ramping up to be a very exciting time to be in the new camera market.
 
LAWRIE said:
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?"
Click to expand...

I would say, I want a camera to be used for capturing images. Here, the M9 is best for me. No non-Leica digital RF camera accepting M lenses and with a FF sensor comes even close to it. :D
 
Some random thoughts:

- I already have an M9.
- the Sony is a great small FF AF camera that should be used with it's own native lenses.
- the Sony is the reincarnation of the Contax G, let's call it Contax GD.
- using M glass on the Sony will be an exercise in frustration.
- the M9 has a nice CCD that produces beautiful colors.
- the M240 also has EVF and LV, but it's already 3 years old technology and has banding at iso 3200, and not even available yet.

So in my opinion, if you want to use M lenses, the M9 is a no brainer. If you want to use fantastic Zeiss AF glass just freshly designed for 36mp ++ sensors, the A7R is a no brainer. As for me, I already have the M9 and will buy the Sony with the two available Zeiss primes. Sometime later, one of them has to go and the one that gets used most often will stay. One thing for sure, I will not get the hybrid outdated M240.
 
EdwardKaraa said:
- the Sony is a great small FF AF camera that should be used with it's own native lenses.
Click to expand...

Since the Sony is one of the few cameras on earth which can shoot any 35mm lens ever made, why on earth would you restrict yourself to only native glass?

otherwise, very nice post :)
 
uhoh7 said:
Since the Sony is one of the few cameras on earth which can shoot any 35mm lens ever made, why on earth would you restrict yourself to only native glass?

otherwise, very nice post :)
Click to expand...

I think because I'm very impressed by the samples I've seen from the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8.

Of course there's nothing wrong in adapting whatever lens you fancy, and I have high expectations that the A7R sensor will work reasonably well even with RF wides.
 
A7R for sure. I can use all my legacy lenses on it, incl. my Leica-M. And the sensor looks pretty spectacular. Throw in the price difference, and it's no contest, to me.
 
Jerevan said:
Since when does this relate to "Leica M film cameras"? (posting in the correct category, someone?) ;)
Click to expand...

haha----but not a bad spot:- prolly lots of regulars here who have not yet gone FF digi with their RF glass, partly cause of price.

I was shooting tonite with M6 + cv 50 1.1 :)
 
Getting a Sony over an M9 is a no brainer. I had the M9, made some good images with it, but after a while sold it for the same reason I sold many other cameras, too heavy, too bulky, too much money for what it does and not reliable. Sony A7 seems to me, is more in line with the original leica film camera philosophy, light weight but well made, small, easy to carry everywhere, the only negative is the shutter noise, but I can live with that. The fact that you can adapt any lens ever made is just spectacular. I already bought a whole set of contax G lenses, with a metabones adaper on the way.
 
I have an M8 and will probably add the A7R as a secondary camera. The A7R is technically a better camera than the M9, but photography is not about having technically better equipment (in every case, anyway).
 
uhoh7 said:
Since the Sony is one of the few cameras on earth which can shoot any 35mm lens ever made, why on earth would you restrict yourself to only native glass?

otherwise, very nice post :)
Click to expand...

Because the native lenses are generally better suited for the camera.
 
I'm struggling over whether to sell my M9s that I have to admit I've hardly used, in favour of the Sony......but then I get some scanned C41 back and think, why don't I just dump digital again.
Pete
 
It would nice to be able to use some of the really good SLR lenses again, such as the 70-210 Angeneuix or Canon 50/1.2L 85/1.2L or Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon and 50/1.4 Planar and 85/1.4 Planar.

There may be some usefulness to such a camera as a complement to a RF digital M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom