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

[Lss]

Because the native lenses are generally better suited for the camera.

We don't actually know that, even though we are fairly safe to assume there will be problems specifically with some rangefinder lenses. Anyway, one can look at what is better suited for the camera and what is better suited for the user of the camera. The two need not be the same.

 

[jsrockit]

Anyway, one can look at what is better suited for the camera and what is better suited for the user of the camera. The two need not be the same.

Completely true.

 

[Justus C.]

Funny how i was thinking about this same thing, a used M9 vs A7, and saw this thread. I guess i will wait to see the how the new kid on the block is going to behave with different lenses before i do anything. At the same time, I am hoping to see more cheaper pre-loved M9s on the market 😛 I currently own a X-pro1 and a Zeiss ikon.

 

[sc_rufctr]

Funny how i was thinking about this same thing, a used M9 vs A7, and saw this thread. I guess i will wait to see the how the new kid on the block is going to behave with different lenses before i do anything. At the same time, I am hoping to see more cheaper pre-loved M9s on the market 😛 I currently own a X-pro1 and a Zeiss ikon.

Actually I never thought about the flood of second hand M9s that may happen...

Thanks Sony 😀

 

[raid]

Actually, I am looking forward to the many sale listings of pre-loved/pre-hated SONY A7R and A7 cameras in one year. 😎

 

[unixrevolution]

^realistically though, how many people shoot at high iso for general photography? I can see wildlife and sport needing 3200+ to avoid motion blur but general/still photography?

I tend to shoot around 200-400 most of the time. 1250 or 1600 if it's dark.

If I can these kind of shots at 1250 and f1.5 on the M9, I don't really need a high ISO monster
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itaemo/10389418114

I regularly shoot ISO3200 on my Sony NEX5. With a speed booster and f/2 or f/1.4 glass wide open. I like to take pictures indoors, and one of the more challenging places for me is the basement of the Church where our game group meets.

 

[sc_rufctr]

Actually, I am looking forward to the many sale listings of pre-loved/pre-hated SONY A7R and A7 cameras in one year. 😎

There seems to be a flood of used Rikoh GXR M mounts right now 😉

 

[raid]

Everybody will benefit from this.

 

[Pete B]

Everyone should read this post now:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...685-sony-a7-thread-merged-78.html#post2539016

Pete

 

[raid]

There is nothing new there, Pete. It is a good read.
It is discussed at several sites that there may exist problems when using RF WA lenses on the new SONY.

 

[semilog]

New A7. No contest.

 

[perudo]

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.

if think you made a point. Actually, I'm waiting to see how the sony will rate in the next months. But if I invest in a Sony, I might as well sell my M lenses! This possibility truly crossed my mind...

 

[Pete B]

There is nothing new there, Pete. It is a good read.
It is discussed at several sites that there may exist problems when using RF WA lenses on the new SONY.

I found it surprising that it Richard from Zeiss was saying that the existing Zeiss lenses were not going to perform well, and that, only in the last few days, they'd decided to proceed with the project and hadn't decided what WA RF lenses they are going to develop.
Pete

 

[jsrockit]

I found it surprising that it Richard from Zeiss was saying that the existing Zeiss lenses were not going to perform well

Some of those back elements on Zeiss lenses go into the camera body so far... I couldn't look at the thread, but they were an issue on the M9 as well.

 

[noimmunity]

Actually I never thought about the flood of second hand M9s that may happen...

While it would be awesome to see the price of FF dRFs come to down a level that makes them finally available to people with a passionate preference and a modest budget, I think the post-euphoria reality may be quite different than what some people here and there are predicting. The value of the M9, for those that really appreciate the whole experience of the RF, may well be consolidated by what the Sony can't do.

 

[noimmunity]

I found it surprising that it Richard from Zeiss was saying that the existing Zeiss lenses were not going to perform well, and that, only in the last few days, they'd decided to proceed with the project and hadn't decided what WA RF lenses they are going to develop.
Pete

There is definitely new information in there. We have responses from the manufacturers, Sony, Zeiss and Leica.

I just wonder why so many people thought Sony could easily do what even Leica has trouble with (WA RF lenses on FF digital sensor)? Talk about Shadenfreude!

 

[Michael Markey]

I`ve never had any real enthusiasm for the digital M.
However nor I`ve never been fully convinced with the various focus and screen solutions on the alternatives.

If I were to buy a digital solution to my M lenses it would ,therefore ,have to be a Leica of some description.

 

[bwcolor]

Lack of interest has prevented me from buying a digital 'M'. The M240 seems to be a major step up, but now there are other choices. I think that I'll work on my rather substantial C-41, E-6 stock and cancel my A7r order. It looks like the next round of higher end Sony cameras will be of more interest to me. My fingers are crossed that Fujifilm will produce a well thought out FF.

 

[uhoh7]

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.

I think I hear the sound of ice cracking. 🙂

 

[uhoh7]

I found it surprising that it Richard from Zeiss was saying that the existing Zeiss lenses were not going to perform well, and that, only in the last few days, they'd decided to proceed with the project and hadn't decided what WA RF lenses they are going to develop.
Pete

Actually: (from FM)

naturephoto1 wrote: I forgot to include in my review Justin also made it a point that things were going to depend upon the exit pupil of the design of the WA RF lenses.

That, sir, is the bone I am looking for 🙂

UWA in M I have just; zm18 (which I expect to usable, at least at f/8) and the sweet little cv 21/4, which I expect will have all sorts of issues. I go to church every day and pray the 28 cron is good.