M or A7r

[craigrudlin]

With respect to the focus stacked S2 vs. the M shot--

I have the S2. I agree with the statements regarding the tonal range,
what some call micro-contrast. The three dimensionality of the image
and objects within the image, is remarkable.

Sharpness should not be the only criteria and we are often led astray by
our focus on this single attribute. Sharpness alone does not make an
image speak, touchable, have impact, especially in a print.

Daily, I have both pros and non-pros, comment on the prints I make from
the S2 (and not as much from those rare ones from the D800E).

I use focus stacking often (Zenfolio) to enhance the depth of field, or
to allow focus on only some objects within the image. I suspect that it
does impact "sharpness" as well perhaps as the very characteristics I
mention above. But, when needed, there is no other way. So it may well
be "unfair" to compare a composite focus stacked image to a single
image (any more so to compare a HDR with a single image). This
would be an interesting study if anyone has the time!

 

[asiafish]

All of the talk about the A7r has convinced me to add an M9/ME to comiment my M Monochrom. Justove the CCD color I'm seeing on this and other fora.

 

[fotografz]

I passed on the Leica M240 before the Sony A7/A7R was even a rumor.

When I got the MM it filled the rangefinder niche perfectly for me. For me, rangefinder and B&W are synonymous. I literally stopped using my M9P, so I sold it.

However, I do shoot other stuff in color ... but prefer a more complete system for that type of work. A larger focal length pool for one thing. Better lighting options and functionality for another.

Those duties are shared between a S2 and a Sony 35mm DSLR kit.

RE: Durability: When I swapped out Nikon for Sony, I waited a year to complete the move as I used the D3X next to the Sony A900 while shooting weddings/events/portraits. The main consideration was how robust the Sony would be (the Nikon was not in question). After a year, I sold the Nikon system, and used a pair of Sony A900s for 3 years, then sold one to get a A99.

In case anyone wonders how robust a Sony can be, I've had zero issues with any of them. Weddings can be an acid test for any camera system ... 8 hours of flat out shooting almost non-stop, weekend after weekend after weekend ... with other stuff in-between. I have to spend more time with the A99, but so far it seems similar in build quality and reliability.

I have an A7R on order. Not as a replacement for a M9 or M240. IMHO, if one prefers color rangefinder work, Leica M9/M is the only FF game in town.

Longevity is less of an issue with the A7R for me. Even if it depreciates rapidly, who cares? Hell, I still use my antique A900 to good effect. Besides, at $2,300 I can afford to chuck it, get the A8R, chuck that and get the A9R after that ... and still not have spent $7,000.

In the end, it is the "Mighty Mouse" allure of the A7R ... 36 meg in the palm of my hand. A few select lenses and higher res to compliment my A99 on certain shoots (like group shots at weddings), or as a companion to the Leica MM when I travel and want a few color shots with the M50/0.95 or a color portrait with the M75AA.

BTW, the whole Sony interface menu aspect is overblown IMO. I rarely have to enter the LCD menu on the A99, and the A7R's interface is supposed to be more like the A99 than the NEX cameras (which I didn't particularly like). Once you use these cameras you find they are pretty simple to set to your liking and just leave it.

IMO, the S2 is in a totally different league. Totally different IQ, totally different functionality when used to its' full potential. Horses for courses. Try to use it like a Pro Nikon and you'll be disappointed ... try to use the Nikon like the S2 and you'll be profoundly disappointed.

- Marc

 

[mmbma]

If the question is Can A7/A7R replace a Leica M/M9, to use your Leica glasses. Then no. I just looked at the Ron Schiller comparison files closely and there is a big difference in terms of IQ of the Leica Glasses on A7 vs. M9.

If you have a M9/M already and a bunch of Leica glasses, you shouldn't switch. Because you were paying for quality when buying into the M system. No point in compromising IQ through a cheaper body.

If you are like many of us who already have a MM and a M9, then this might be attractive because we are probably all going to keep our MMs, and don't shoot enough color. I am having trouble justifying a M9P alongside my MM.

If you don't have Leica lenses, then A7r is the clearly choice to go. Buy the two primes, they are bound to be killer lenses. Add 1-2 legacy leica glasses for fun.

 

[lambert]

If the question is Can A7/A7R replace a Leica M/M9, to use your Leica glasses. Then no. I just looked at the Ron Schiller comparison files closely and there is a big difference in terms of IQ of the Leica Glasses on A7 vs. M9.

First up, the A7R was not tested. Only the A7 was tested. The M9 was shot at base ISO, the A7 was shot at ISO 400. The M9 was shot in bright, clear conditions while the A7 was shot in very overcast, hazy conditions. Finally, the M9 was shot in raw and the A7 in JPG. How can you possibly draw a meaningful conclusion?

 

[mmbma]

First up, the A7R was not tested. Only the A7 was tested. The M9 was shot at base ISO, the A7 was shot at ISO 400. The M9 was shot in bright, clear conditions while the A7 was shot in very overcast, hazy conditions. Finally, the M9 was shot in raw and the A7 in JPG. How can you possibly draw a meaningful conclusion?

If you read my post I precisely did not draw any conclusions. From evidence so far I'm not convince that Sony can completely replace the M9 in terms of IQ when using Leica Glasses. that's was my point. I am waiting for more conclusive evidence from users.