NicoM
Well-known
They're not increasing the price because they can, their prices are high because it is part of what defines them now. If they decide to sell the M and lenses for less than $2000-3000, a large part of the appeal (to the non rangefinder enthusiast) disappears. Part of the business plan is that not everyone is supposed to own one. That's Leica.
I'm not singling out Leica. Hasselblad is doing the same with their outrageously overpriced rebranded Sonys. I was just responding to the A7 vs M9 debate.
I have my own film Leicas and I'm not hating. I'm saying it how it is.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
A photographer is the person operating a camera, an artist is someone who creates art, and as And Warhol said, art is whatever you can get away with.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Well, my Leica M8 is one of the few digital cameras that doesn't befuddle me. 
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The question phrased by the OP wasn't very articulate. The main parameter was price, followed by vague and nebulous mention of features. The question didn't indicate anything about what kind of shooting style the OP prefers, what kind of system is needed, what kind of relations and compromises are valued.
Look, these are two cameras that have very different operating systems and therefore have to be used in different ways, and that difference has to have some correlation to what kind of images the person behind the camera can/is likely to produce with them.
But somehow everything has been reduced to a numerical value.
The advent of the digital sensor has burdened everybody with an apparently unassailable numeric measure of "image quality"--a forever changing goal post that very few people (except those with very specific needs) actually need to take heed of. By most measures, the A7r has superior IQ to the M9. Yet the A7r is priced new way below the M9/M-E.
The scandal isn't the price of the M9/M-E, the scandal is the addiction to upgrades in that ever-elusive goal of "IQ".
I suspect that there is even some kind of subtle, unconscious word-association going on here, in which people subconsciously association Image Quality (IQ) with Intelligence Quotient (IQ), as if images, like intelligence, could be reduced to quantitative values and then ranked hierarchically.
The OP's question, at least the way it was phrased here, was all about nothing but status symbols.
Look, these are two cameras that have very different operating systems and therefore have to be used in different ways, and that difference has to have some correlation to what kind of images the person behind the camera can/is likely to produce with them.
But somehow everything has been reduced to a numerical value.
The advent of the digital sensor has burdened everybody with an apparently unassailable numeric measure of "image quality"--a forever changing goal post that very few people (except those with very specific needs) actually need to take heed of. By most measures, the A7r has superior IQ to the M9. Yet the A7r is priced new way below the M9/M-E.
The scandal isn't the price of the M9/M-E, the scandal is the addiction to upgrades in that ever-elusive goal of "IQ".
I suspect that there is even some kind of subtle, unconscious word-association going on here, in which people subconsciously association Image Quality (IQ) with Intelligence Quotient (IQ), as if images, like intelligence, could be reduced to quantitative values and then ranked hierarchically.
The OP's question, at least the way it was phrased here, was all about nothing but status symbols.
Fraser
Well-known
As much as I like Leica and maybe its just the digital Leicas that I've owned I think they are not very reliable and are over priced especially when you compare them with all the small full frame cameras that are coming out now, I've not really looked that closely at the A7 but the reviews I've seen all seem to like it and it seems a very capable camera.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Gosh, such an outwelling of Leica love here. On the Rangefinder Forum no less.
I have an M9. It's a delightful camera. I'm sure the A7 is a nice camera too. They are totally different kinds of cameras.
The two aren't remotely comparable, and anyone saying that you should buy an A7 to use your Leica M lenses on is not seeing that these lenses are not the best match to the A7/A7r sensor. Sony's challenge is to flesh out A7 lens line with lenses of appropriate quality for their lovely sensor. If you buy an A7 purely to use your Leica lenses because it's cheaper or whatever compared to an M9 or M(240) or M-E or M Monochrom, you're just wasting your investment in Leica lenses AND the Sony A7, IMO.
Considering the camera type, I'm happier with the Olympus E-M1 I bought instead of a Sony A7 because the lens line that works best with the Olympus is larger, far more mature, and it produces results that are outstandingly good. but that's neither here nor there. I'd be happy with an A7 or A7r if the E-M1 didn't exist, but it would not replace my M9 until I could get a comparable set of lenses for it.
G
I have an M9. It's a delightful camera. I'm sure the A7 is a nice camera too. They are totally different kinds of cameras.
The two aren't remotely comparable, and anyone saying that you should buy an A7 to use your Leica M lenses on is not seeing that these lenses are not the best match to the A7/A7r sensor. Sony's challenge is to flesh out A7 lens line with lenses of appropriate quality for their lovely sensor. If you buy an A7 purely to use your Leica lenses because it's cheaper or whatever compared to an M9 or M(240) or M-E or M Monochrom, you're just wasting your investment in Leica lenses AND the Sony A7, IMO.
Considering the camera type, I'm happier with the Olympus E-M1 I bought instead of a Sony A7 because the lens line that works best with the Olympus is larger, far more mature, and it produces results that are outstandingly good. but that's neither here nor there. I'd be happy with an A7 or A7r if the E-M1 didn't exist, but it would not replace my M9 until I could get a comparable set of lenses for it.
G
Well, the Leica still offers something these cameras do not.
GaryLH
Veteran
Yes.. Sony's biggest weak spot has always been either lack of good native glass or slowness to get them out the door compared to cheaper consumer lenses and camera bodies.
Where the a7 has an advantage appears to be the Zeiss commitment to this camera line.
If u want the best results from a wide range of rf lenses outside of the Leica digital there is really only the gxr IMHO. But from what I have seen, there are enough Leica m lenses that look good enough on the a7. If however it is all about the rf then that is a completely different ball game.
Gary
Mcary
Well-known
I find most people including other photographers to be curious more then anything else in regards to my M8. Most are usually surprised that its digital and that it has interchangeable lens.
Ryan1938
Established
I own an A7... before that, I owned an M8 and X-Pro1 and I've used plenty of M9's...
The Sony is a computer. The Leica is a camera.
The being said, the Sony is such a better value that the above statement is outweighed... sadly...
To me, the A7 is just an avenue to use my Leica glass. And I would much rather spend thousands on glass than on a camera body. Example:
Leica M + used 35 Summicron = about $8000
Sony A7 + VC 21mm 1.8 + used 35 cron + used 90 elmarit = about $4800
To me, it's a no brainer.
The Sony is a computer. The Leica is a camera.
The being said, the Sony is such a better value that the above statement is outweighed... sadly...
To me, the A7 is just an avenue to use my Leica glass. And I would much rather spend thousands on glass than on a camera body. Example:
Leica M + used 35 Summicron = about $8000
Sony A7 + VC 21mm 1.8 + used 35 cron + used 90 elmarit = about $4800
To me, it's a no brainer.
Pete B
Well-known
Michael Markey
Veteran
Exactly ...this is what I can never understand about threads like this.
The Sony cameras aren`t rangefinders so why on earth would you compare them to an M9.
I could understand it if you think that isn`t important but it`s pretty fundamental to a number of people here on the .... Rangefinder Forum .
Regarding all this non sense about Leica being a status symbol ,thats just inverse snobbery which is equally as odious as snobbery itself.
Monochrom
Well-known
I agree...
rangefinderforum should deal with rfs....why to compare both so different cameras...sony even named sonnar the 35mm f2.8 wich is biogon in RF mount..and i guess is exactly the same lens.
I guess tons of people want something that looks like a RF but being totally automatic...i think they just want the arrivist/parvenue part of a leica...
rangefinderforum should deal with rfs....why to compare both so different cameras...sony even named sonnar the 35mm f2.8 wich is biogon in RF mount..and i guess is exactly the same lens.
I guess tons of people want something that looks like a RF but being totally automatic...i think they just want the arrivist/parvenue part of a leica...
GaryLH
Veteran
Lol.. These days most digital cameras are more than good enough for me.
Status symbol is a very relative idea though. Leica or Nikon or Canon or Linhof or u name it as a status symbol item in my mind is purely based on what your background is and what u admired or what your peers admired.
I have friends who really don't do much then to take pics of their kids at events. There are some that are into having a status symbol camera to show off to the other parents. To them it is that top of the line Nikon or Canon dslr not a Leica. They wouldn't know a Leica from a Panasonic gf1 unless they actually played w/ both. And even after that I doubt they would care much because it is not what their peers use.
Status symbols only mean something if u are trying to impress your peers.. If u are buying to use and not fondle, then it is a tool no matter how much u paid for it.
Gary
__--
Well-known
Blah-blah-blah...who cares? I confess to not having read through this thread — I just read the post above and my eyes glazed over.
In my view, the facts are (while the Leica digital cameras are expensive — and I would like them to be cheaper) there are some unique things that Leica offers apart from a superb and unequalled selection of lenses: first, the M9 offers a unique color rendition that, for those that are concerned or look for this, is more like color slide film while cameras with CMOS sensors are more like color negative film; and, second, the M-Monochrom offers N&W files that are unique in their robustness and how they can be processed.
—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You understand me perfectly. An M9 can be as much a toy as an A7: just a different kind of toy for a different kind of person.
Or it can be a different kind of camera for a different kind of photographer. But I dispute vehemently that people who buy ANY camera automatically classify themselves as "not photographers".
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No you're not. You're projecting a fantasy. HOW are Leicas going to cost $2000?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
progie
Member
I bought a used m9 about three months ago. I am using ltm glass from my 111f.
I'm sorry, but I,m going back to my x pro1 with 14-35 primes. It took me awhile to learn the Fuji, but it has a lot of advantages over the m9. JMO
I'm sorry, but I,m going back to my x pro1 with 14-35 primes. It took me awhile to learn the Fuji, but it has a lot of advantages over the m9. JMO
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Please low ball that useless M9 when you sell it here. Thanks.