The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Decisions Decisions

jonoslack

Active member
Yep, Jon got it...
and yet the a6000 is coming along soon and will also take Sony and Leica glass :)
indeed Mike. but I've learned the lesson with M glass: if you don't have an M there are lots of interesting options, but if you do have an M, then they're better on that M.
 

nostatic

New member
Only on this forum would someone suggest that idea of keeping the lot and the gear w***es all start nodding sagely and saying 'yeah, good idea'... :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
Well, I couldn't pass up the $300 of an A7 body (plus $50 gift card, yada yada) so I guess I'm doubling up.

I hate this place...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Only on this forum would someone suggest that idea of keeping the lot and the gear w***es all start nodding sagely and saying 'yeah, good idea'... :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
We have them well trained. Lol

I'm glad we are not deciding on parts for rocket engines here or we may never get off the ground.:D
 

mbroomfield

New member
indeed Mike. but I've learned the lesson with M glass: if you don't have an M there are lots of interesting options, but if you do have an M, then they're better on that M.
For now ... technology marches on (although of course some (many?) will say that it's Leica themselves that bring the magic, and that is an impossible arguement)
 

GrahamB

New member
Hey Jono,

I'd sell all, including the M lenses that don't work, and buy an a7r. Cull the M lenses to what works with the a7r, and purchase substitutes to fill in the blanks. The Leica digital body has been supplanted by better, cheaper choices (the a7r). The only reason to own a Leica is to impress one's impressionable friends (said in all seriousness by one who's never used a Leica digital body).

The OMD. I've never seen the attraction. A nice body with a small sensor. The only way to take advantage of the system, is to buy system lenses. 2x equivalency. Really? Why bother (unless one is interested in video, and there's better mft bodies for video)?

Fuji XTi: Again, why invest in Fuji lenses. It's not a complete system, without a full frame body. I don't buy crop sensor lenses. Never used the camera, but there's many user comments that raw conversion isn't up to Bayer conversion RAW's. There's too many aps-c cameras more appealing. The new Sony a6000 comes to mind for an autofocus body to use with FE lenses.

Of course, I wouldn't have asked. I know what works for me, as I'm sure you do for you. You've been around the block, why play these dramatic games? The day I start asking strangers what equipment I should use, is the day I sell it all and retire to the farm. ;-)

Graham
 

nostatic

New member
Of course, I wouldn't have asked. I know what works for me, as I'm sure you do for you. You've been around the block, why play these dramatic games? The day I start asking strangers what equipment I should use, is the day I sell it all and retire to the farm. ;-)

Graham
I don't think Jono considers us strangers. We're more of a dysfunctional family that comes home to roost every once in awhile.

Can I borrow some money? :D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hey Jono,

I'd sell all, including the M lenses that don't work, and buy an a7r. Cull the M lenses to what works with the a7r, and purchase substitutes to fill in the blanks. The Leica digital body has been supplanted by better, cheaper choices (the a7r). The only reason to own a Leica is to impress one's impressionable friends (said in all seriousness by one who's never used a Leica digital body).

The OMD. I've never seen the attraction. A nice body with a small sensor. The only way to take advantage of the system, is to buy system lenses. 2x equivalency. Really? Why bother (unless one is interested in video, and there's better mft bodies for video)?

Fuji XTi: Again, why invest in Fuji lenses. It's not a complete system, without a full frame body. I don't buy crop sensor lenses. Never used the camera, but there's many user comments that raw conversion isn't up to Bayer conversion RAW's. There's too many aps-c cameras more appealing. The new Sony a6000 comes to mind for an autofocus body to use with FE lenses.

Of course, I wouldn't have asked. I know what works for me, as I'm sure you do for you. You've been around the block, why play these dramatic games? The day I start asking strangers what equipment I should use, is the day I sell it all and retire to the farm. ;-)

Graham
What is a crop sensor? Smaller than 8 x 10? Smaller than 4 x 5? Smaller than 6 x 7? 6 x 6? 645? 35mm? And what is a complete system? 3 lenses like the A7, or do they have 4 now? Or 14 that are available in X-mount for the Fuji?

Oh, and those Fuji files... for many, those files is an important reason to buy a Fuji camera. It would have been for me :)
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
The only reason to own a Leica is to impress one's impressionable friends (said in all seriousness by one who's never used a Leica digital body).

The OMD. I've never seen the attraction. A nice body with a small sensor. (the sentence I've never owned one was just deleted)

Fuji XTi: Again, why invest in Fuji lenses. It's not a complete system, without a full frame body. I don't buy crop sensor lenses. Never used the camera, but there's many user comments that raw conversion isn't up to Bayer conversion RAW's.
There are people who like to get attention by giving strong comments on equipments they've never used. I've never bothered listening to them. Life is too short.
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Hey Jono,

I'd sell all, including the M lenses that don't work, and buy an a7r. Cull the M lenses to what works with the a7r, and purchase substitutes to fill in the blanks. The Leica digital body has been supplanted by better, cheaper choices (the a7r). The only reason to own a Leica is to impress one's impressionable friends (said in all seriousness by one who's never used a Leica digital body).

The OMD. I've never seen the attraction. A nice body with a small sensor. The only way to take advantage of the system, is to buy system lenses. 2x equivalency. Really? Why bother (unless one is interested in video, and there's better mft bodies for video)?

Fuji XTi: Again, why invest in Fuji lenses. It's not a complete system, without a full frame body. I don't buy crop sensor lenses. Never used the camera, but there's many user comments that raw conversion isn't up to Bayer conversion RAW's. There's too many aps-c cameras more appealing. The new Sony a6000 comes to mind for an autofocus body to use with FE lenses.

Of course, I wouldn't have asked. I know what works for me, as I'm sure you do for you. You've been around the block, why play these dramatic games? The day I start asking strangers what equipment I should use, is the day I sell it all and retire to the farm. ;-)

Graham
Don't get me wrong I've used my M9 a lot less since buying my A7 and A7r but MOST don't buy M's to impress their friends. In fact most people have no idea what a Leica is or think you're shooting film. That's a horrible argument that many people who don't even use/ own Leica's seem to love to repeat - much like the rumor that people who drive luxury cars only want to impress everyone else. Sometimes people just use and buy what they like. Simple as that.

As for the A7 as a system - it's great provided you don't mind adapting lenses. There are 5 lenses announced so far plus the Rokinon/ Samyang lenses that are available now. Not a lot of depth but what is out for the FE system is really good.

As for your other argument I agree that there is a large difference in IQ between FF and cropped sensors (APS-C, Micro 4/3, 4/3, compact cameras, etc.) with the caveat that it isn't always realized at web size resolution. If you're not printing 16" x 24" or larger then you may not realize it. That being said I've taken some of my better pictures (content wise) with Micro 4/3, cell phones, and compact digital cameras. All of the cameras he owns are great so there's really no wrong answer. The bigger issue is to stick with two FF systems or one FF plus one cropped. Again between the two cropped I'd go OM-D for the wider variety of optics personally.
 
I reckon it'll be a cold day in hell before Jono sells his M-gear :)

But alongside that the A7 or A7r (probably the A7 in Jono's case) and then some native glass.. say 24-70, 55 and 70-200/4 + his collection of R-lenses with good adapater(s).

That would still sound like a package to me because:

1) for serious slow work either M or A7 + R-glass
2) for pure enjoyment see above
3) for need to AF, two great (assuming 70-200 works out) zooms and the 55, which is exceptional
4) family walkabouts, 24-70
5) I don't think Jono has need for seriously fast AF most of the time..
6) great low light with A7

So, with those I'm seeing a nice pattern of reasonably light weight, impressive quality and excellent availability for great lenses. Especially since both M and A7 can be adapted to pretty much anything.

//Juha
 

fotografz

Well-known member
No use snarling at Graham, he's just stating what he believes same as the rest of us.

I'm in the camp that says a rangefinder is not replaceable by anything other than another rangefinder, and in the case of Leica there is no other. File quality aside, the shooting experience with an optical rangefinder is, and always has been … unique.

I'm also in the camp that has no interest in crop frame solutions … meaning a sensor smaller than 35mm, since that's the category we are discussing here. For one thing, I'm not interested in yet another set of lenses that won't work on a full frame (35mm) camera. Never saw the sense of it.

IMO, the notion that a bigger sensor and more meg count is only necessary for making large prints is at best, overly simplistic. There are many other inherent qualities one discovers when working between smaller and lesser sensors … and if you just don't see it (or don't care), doesn't mean that others can't see the difference as meaningful to them.



- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hey Jono,

I'd sell all, including the M lenses that don't work, and buy an a7r. Cull the M lenses to what works with the a7r, and purchase substitutes to fill in the blanks. The Leica digital body has been supplanted by better, cheaper choices (the a7r). The only reason to own a Leica is to impress one's impressionable friends (said in all seriousness by one who's never used a Leica digital body).
Oh no Graham - the principle reason to use a Leica is because of the rangefinder - it's a completely different way of shooting - identical field of view for all lenses, framelines - seeing around the subject. The other reason is to use those lovely wide angle lenses which don't work on the A7r.

Take your point on the OMD and the Fuji -


Hey Jono,

Of course, I wouldn't have asked. I know what works for me, as I'm sure you do for you. You've been around the block, why play these dramatic games? The day I start asking strangers what equipment I should use, is the day I sell it all and retire to the farm. ;-)

Graham
I don't think I asked either - just thought it was an interesting topic for conversation - and a perfect opportunity for Todd to crack jokes :)
 

lambert

New member
Oh no Graham - the principle reason to use a Leica is because of the rangefinder - it's a completely different way of shooting - identical field of view for all lenses, framelines - seeing around the subject. The other reason is to use those lovely wide angle lenses which don't work on the A7r.
Leica M wide angle lenses are truly lovely but the benefits of the rangefinder don't come into play when shooting with wides. Wider than 28mm, you need to choose between the lesser of 2 evils - a cludgy live-view/EVF or external finders.

In my experience, the magic of the rangefinder really only comes into play for 35mm and 50mm lenses.
 

JMaher

New member
WOW - what a fun discussion.

I have borrowed an M but even though I see the appeal it wasn't for me.

I have owned an X-100, and an X-E1. Both were excellent cameras but I didn't find the files any better than my EM-5 at the time and they had their own issues. Even today I have trouble at base ISO justifying any real advantage of those files (or even my Canon 5D3 files) for any reasonably sized print.

E-M1 - I currently own this camera and love it for a variety of reasons. It has a certain undefinable appeal based simply on its feel in my hand along with a fantastic stabilization system. It's weather proofing seems to be among the best and it certainly has an electronic viewfinder that rivals many an optical system. In fact upon first picking up a A7 I was surprised at how small and dim that viewfinder seemed in comparison to the E-M1. Is it the perfect camera - well obviously not (file size, lack of native world class long lenses, etc). However, I believe that more of photos come out looking better on my E-M1 than they have any right to as the great viewfinder and 5 axis stabilization make some things easier to achieve.

If I could have two it would be something that has superlative glass and a large sensor and an EM-1.

Jim
 
Last edited:

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
WOW - what a fun discussion.

E-M1...... Is it the perfect camera - well obviously not (file size, lack of native world class long lenses, etc). However, I believe that more of photos come out looking better on my EM-1 than they have any right to as the great viewfinder and 5 axis stabilization make some things easier to achieve.
Didn't intend to troll over here in Sony country, as I don't have an A7, A7r or much interest in obtaining either... But I can't help but point out that the E-M1 offers access to 4/3 (not yet m43) telephotos from the old Olympus E1,3,5 series that are world class: the 50-200, the 150, the 300, etc. Their costs are in line with the now rare Leicaflex contenders, and they autofocus quite nicely on an E-M1.

And I agree with you completely on the magic of the VF4 series of Oly viewfinders and the image stabilization. Handheld macro shots at 1/10 sec are just amazing.

scott
 

JMaher

New member
Scott,

I agree about the 50-200, etc. However since they require an adapter and are probably larger than a lens designed for m4/3 I ruled them out as a native lens. However I do occasionally think about buying a 50-200 or one of its more expensive brethren.

I also occasionally think about buying an A7 or A7r but as a supplement to the EM-1.

-Jim
 

mbroomfield

New member
My EM5 stays full time in a Boda Bag behind the seat in my truck with the 4/3 12-60 Oly welded to it. Great combo, weatherproof and the lens has a big rubber hood on it for lousy weather. The other camera in that bag is my IR converted GF-1 with the 12-50 Oly I got with the EM5. I never really think about them but they are always there if I'm on route and see a photo op. It was this that made me suggest Jon keep the EM1 with a single lens and concentrate on 2 other systems.
 
Top