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

P

perudo

Established
Local time
7:36 AM
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
90
Well, I started this thread, because I am decided to buy a digital camera ( I don't have any yet!)

I can see a lot of M9 on the used market for under 3000 €, so it falls in a price range that seems very appealing to me.
On the other hand, a brand new A7 with video functions , better iso, etc, for less money seems a no brainer. I'm not afraid of lacking a rangefinder, but overall holding a leica feels somehow more romantic....
 
Actually it's a damn good question.

I'm seeing M9s going for 3500 now. Nice ones.

I'll get the sony A7r because it's more versatile and 1200 cheaper, but a 3500 M9 is so tempting, I may have to sell some glass.

Then I can flame and taunt myself :)

uhoh7, your M9 is made out of lead. No, uhoh7, your soulless A7r is so ugly the chicks run away.
 
Ideally, an M9---as focus peaking has taught me, I can't live without an OVF and RF. Video isn't really a necessity for me at all.
 
perudo said:
Well, I started this thread, because I am decided to buy a digital camera ( I don't have any yet!)

I can see a lot of M9 on the used market for under 3000 €, so it falls in a price range that seems very appealing to me.
On the other hand, a brand new A7 with video functions , better iso, etc, for less money seems a no brainer. I'm not afraid of lacking a rangefinder, but overall holding a leica feels somehow more romantic....
Click to expand...

What are YOU looking for?

If the RF/OVF isn't important to you, then the romance of the Leica probably lies in a certain image conjured up by the form, or the red dot, or the history or something like that. Fair enough, and don't let anybody convince you otherwise. But be clear about it.

Frankly, if it's romance you're after, ditch digital and embrace film. It is much much more romantic.

My intuition tells me that what might really satisfy you is to pair a used M8.2 with a 28 or 35 CV or Zeiss lens with an A7.

Me? I'd go for the M9.
 
I bought and sold an M9. I'll probably rent one of the new Sonys. So I guess my answer will be "the sony" or "neither." :)
 
uhoh7 said:
Actually it's a damn good question.

I'm seeing M9s going for 3500 now. Nice ones.

I'll get the sony A7r because it's more versatile and 1200 cheaper, but a 3500 M9 is so tempting, I may have to sell some glass.
Click to expand...

and hopefully will be useable over iso 640...
 
I'm still waiting for the $1000 CV digital camera with a full-frame Merrill sensor, which takes M-mount lenses. Until then, if I want the "Leica Experience" I'll play with my M4. If I want digital convenience, my micro 4/3 camera will do nicely.

Cheers,
Dez
 
no comparison really.
if you want a digital FF RF then the M9.
if you want a small size FF then the A7.

I went with the M9 because I wanted a digital RF
 
A7/r all the way. No comparison. The Sony does everything better. Except for, of course, having a rangefinder.
 
Well, if you don't have any lenses and you don't prefer focusing with an rf, then...

Cameras and romance... whatever keeps you going, I guess.;)
 
PatrickT said:
A7/r all the way. No comparison. The Sony does everything better. Except for, of course, having a rangefinder.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a bit premature.

M9 image quality still seems to stand above everything, including 240.

You won't hurt my feelings if you prove me wrong :)
 
I already have the M9 and have absolutely no desire to own the Sony. I am happy with my choice but you need to be comfortable with your own.
 
uhoh7 said:
Well, that's a bit premature.

M9 image quality still seems to stand above everything, including 240.

You won't hurt my feelings if you prove me wrong :)
Click to expand...

image quality at what iso? i dont know, maybe its me, but theres no 'romance' or 'magic' when i get a piss poor image at 1600 with a $5000 camera. burns me up every time...
 
Never held or used an M9 but if it's anything like an M8, I won't be taking it.
Likely won't be taking the Sony either though, I have a Ricoh GXR-M for B&W and a Nikon D600 for color and although they are a bulky lot with all their appropriate lenses included, they get my job done and I have no money to burn on new kit.

Now if I had free choice and the Sony would outperform the M9 in high ISO, I'd go for the Sony straight away since it would get me out the door with smaller kit and save me some cash to travel with.

Still, it's all theory...
 
^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
 
rbelyell said:
image quality at what iso? i dont know, maybe its me, but theres no 'romance' or 'magic' when i get a piss poor image at 1600 with a $5000 camera. burns me up every time...
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what M4/3 etc is for:)

otoh, I have an M9 and wouldn't swap for the Sony as I don't really want to use my M glass on a different camera system, plus it fits all my 35mm rf bodies. When I've shot m4/3 for a while I always feel I'm coming home if I pick up any of Zeiss Ikon, Leica MP, M9 or Bessa. The size and viewfinder fit me. YMMV

To the OP - if you've a collection of M lenses then that would be a swaying factor for me. If not, then it's really whether you want to use a rangefinder or not. If you do then Leica is the only digital game in town. If not, then you could find yourself paying high price for romance (some might say that those of us who continue to use rf's persist in paying a high price for romance as it is)

Good luck,

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom