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!

Sony a900/Leica M8

Eoin

Member
Having owned Canon before the M8 and now the Sony a900, perhaps I'll give my thoughts also.

The M8 was (and still is) a superb image taker. The Leica optics are just sublime and on the cropped M8 sensor were so sharp edge to edge. The M8 it's self was very good with the upper limit around ISO 640 in colour. However converting ISO 640 and above to monochrome gave a nice grain effect very like traditional B&W films.

It's easy to pick out the Leica look in my image library as it is to pick the Canon 85L. My eye is starting to become accustomed to the look of the Sony Zeiss 85 and I have no problem spotting the 135.

The Zeiss zooms, I've yet to warm to, excellent optics in their own right but still fall short of the quality I came to admire in the Leica primes.

With regard to the M8 it's self, I'd be very cautious buying 2nd hand, value may be good but there are many legacy problems which may come back to haunt you and I'm sure the cost of repair will far outweigh the savings made.

Take for example the line problem, a vertical line caused by a stuck pixel. I had this twice on my M8 one at about 18 months and the next 3 months later. It required a sensor replacement.

There have been quite a few shutter failures / fractures reported, my concern would be the long term reliability if this unit.

Don't pick me up wrong, if it were not for my inability to focus the rangefinder accurately due to my eyesight, I would still be using it as my main system, I loved it. But with the young kids becoming more mobile and faster on their feet I decided a return to dSLR with AF was needed. The choice of Sony was quite simply a value for money one, I'd read good reports, Zeiss optics to compensate for the loss of Leica and AF to boot. For sure a step into the unknown, but I'm glad I did.

The only item I need (lust) is a fast wide prime, in the meantime I'm quite happy shooting ISO 1000 with the f:/2.8 zooms.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Everyone has said it all really. Having like others here used a LeicaDMR on an R9 for many years, the A900 AF and Steadyshot systems are a revelation. The only R lens I really miss is the 100F2.8 macro. Many of the current Sony and older Minolta lenses are old friends as Minolta designed and manufactured quite a few of the Leica reflex lenses anyway!

As always this sort of decision making comes down to asking yourself "what sort of photography do I really want to do?" If you are brutally honest the answer usually stares you in the face given the advice on this thread.

For me it was about using A/F full frame with the lenses designed for full frame and damned good Zeiss and Minolta designed lenses at that.

After using cropped sensors, coming to FF is not always easy. The shallower depth of field tends to catch you out at first..........but it's creative possibilities are soon mastered and the freedom to crop as you wish or print large are a revelation IMHO.

Good luck whichever way you decide to go.
 

peterv

New member
I sold my M8 a few months ago, and frankly, I'm reliefed. Everyday I used to take a look over at LUF, and quite often there'd be M8 users reporting all kinds of problems. I got scared that my camera with only 12.000 actuations would be next. Now I know there are quite a lot M8's out there working perfectly without any problem. And indeed the files coming out of the M8 are quite good for a 10 MP camera that has been on the market for 2,5 years. But fear of some kind of failure, like the ones mentioned above, really spoiled my enjoyment while using the M8. I don't make money on photography (yet) and I'm on a very small budget so the M8 with lenses was quite an investment for me. Being afraid all the time that the only serious digital camera I owned would break down, wasn't doing my work any good.

After this experience I'm very happy with the a900 with Zeiss glas. I don't know what Sony is offering where you are living, but in some (or all?) European countries Sony offers free 'extended pro service' which means two years full guaranty and your camera will be repaired within 24 hours, or you'll be offered a loaner. Sony HQ is only 20 km away from where I live, and in case of any trouble I can just drive up there instead of having to send my M8 to Solms for I don't know how long.
Even if a full frame M9 would come out today, and even if I had the money, I would be very reluctant to buy it the first half year.

I agree with most of what has been said about IQ and the differences in size, weight, rangefinder vs SLR, etc.
Personally, after having worked with the M8 files for 2,5 years I think the a900, with roughly 2,5x more MP's, the right lenses and with the right RAW converter, can be at least as good as the M8. Perhaps (not sure yet) a littlle less 'sharp', but also less 'clean'. I can't explain what it is I see yet, but it's as if the a900 files somehow look more 'natural'.
All this is of course just my personal opinion. I hope you'll enjoy your future camera as much as I enjoy my a900.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Great Posts everyone.
Particularly Eoin and PeterV.
Todd, resistance is useless, you'll just have to buy both!
Me? I'm keeping both.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Some comments on all the posts:

1) I feel the Zeiss zooms not to be big! Not bigger and heavier than the Nikon and Canon counterparts. But much more solid quality in my view. And not to mention the superb IQ.

2) The M8 has 10MP and even if they are as good as they can be, they are not better than the 24MP from the Sony. The Sony just gives the essential more in resolution which at least I want and need and this at the similar sharpness, contrast and definitely DR as the M8 files.

3) The M8 is a totally different beast, small, quick and quiet to use, I love my high speed lenses, especially the Nocti etc, etc. The A900 will never be the same, but it is a perfect image taking (making) tool and much more supportive than the M8. Although if you are a real M photographer you will not need this support, you even find it disturbing. Same for me as well, but sometimes I like and need the one way and sometimes the other ;)

I think finally one needs both :D
 

toddbee

Member
Just might have to get both it seems. Sounds like possible the sony first. thanks for all the great information everyone. i appreciate it.
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Marc - if you have the time and are so inclined could you comment on the following.

How would you characterize the differences/similarities between the a900 and M8 files?

We know the a900 is 24mp and the M8 10mp - what does the 24mp file yield for you (if anything) that you cannot get from the 10mp M8 file? And related - how much difference (if any) do you see in prints from the two cameras (of different sizes if applicable) and what do you feel are the print size limitations for the two cameras, assuming you are starting with optimal files?

How much work and effort is involved in processing the files from the two different cameras? Do the files look good "right out of the can" as they say for both cameras with little or no processing? Does one camera require more "work" to get it to look fine. Have you been able to standardize your processing routine somewhat for the files from each camera?

Much appreciated.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I've been reading this thread with great interest and I respect all the views expressed - but I'm a mite puzzled!

The M8 and the Sony are totally different tools and I see them as having only a very narrow stretch of common ground in their uses. What point is there in choosing one or the other based on such things as IQ?

The M8 would be a terrible tool for most nature photography, for example, because long tele and macro lenses just don't figure in its arsenal. On the other hand, rapid and discreet street photography isn't the best use of the a900, which is heavy, bulky and rather noisy too.

To me the decision on which to buy would depend almost solely on the intended use - not the lenses, not the pixel count, not even the user interface, just the work for which the tool is needed.

For the record, I love the tactile quality of the M8 (just like the M6 I used to own) and have used a borrowed one on a few occasions. I don't own one because I don't do the sort of photography at which it excels, although the gear-head in me would like to have one to play with occasionally!

Of course, I'm really a medium format guy and have been since my first Ilford Craftsman about 55 years ago! So what do I know?

Warm regards to all - this is a great forum.

Bill
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Some comments on all the posts:

1) I feel the Zeiss zooms not to be big! Not bigger and heavier than the Nikon and Canon counterparts. But much more solid quality in my view. And not to mention the superb IQ.

2) The M8 has 10MP and even if they are as good as they can be, they are not better than the 24MP from the Sony. The Sony just gives the essential more in resolution which at least I want and need and this at the similar sharpness, contrast and definitely DR as the M8 files.

3) The M8 is a totally different beast, small, quick and quiet to use, I love my high speed lenses, especially the Nocti etc, etc. The A900 will never be the same, but it is a perfect image taking (making) tool and much more supportive than the M8. Although if you are a real M photographer you will not need this support, you even find it disturbing. Same for me as well, but sometimes I like and need the one way and sometimes the other ;)

I think finally one needs both :D
The comment about the Zeiss Zooms being big was in comparison to kit weight/size compared to the M8 ... which is what the OP was asking about ... not Canon or Nikon.
With Canon or Nikon you can opt for smaller Zeiss primes on a small body like a 5D-II or D700, which isn't an option with the A900 ... yet.

While I like the industrial design of the Zeiss AZ lenses, no one knows the real endurance factor of any of this A900 stuff yet. I would guess it to be good, but with Canon L or Nikon equivalents I KNOW it is good.
 

douglasf13

New member
I know that there are a lot of people new to the Sony system here, but remember that many have owned the ZA primes for nearly 3 years without issue, which is a pretty good indication of durability, IMO, but I guess we'll see how they last over decades.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I know that there are a lot of people new to the Sony system here, but remember that many have owned the ZA primes for nearly 3 years without issue, which is a pretty good indication of durability, IMO, but I guess we'll see how they last over decades.
How do you know that? How many people? Doing what with them? How many Pros using them every day? Where are the Sony service records on public display for review?

I'll believe it when I actually have them for a span of time, and know others who actually depend on their gear that have used them for some time.

It's also why I still have my Nikon gear. I'm skeptical about any claims from enthusastic buyers of anything. The proof is in the pudding rather than purchase justification.

That said, my hopes are high :thumbs:
 

douglasf13

New member
How do you know that? How many people? Doing what with them? How many Pros using them every day? Where are the Sony service records on public display for review?

I'll believe it when I actually have them for a span of time, and know others who actually depend on their gear that have used them for some time.

It's also why I still have my Nikon gear. I'm skeptical about any claims from enthusastic buyers of anything. The proof is in the pudding rather than purchase justification.

That said, my hopes are high :thumbs:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is outstanding statistical proof that the ZA primes will hold up, as I'm basing my opinions on talking to users (from amateur to pro) about them for the last three years. I've put the ZA 85** and 24-70 through quite a bit over the last year and a half with no issues myself....actually, I've had one issue. When I bought the 24-70 in Feb. of 2008, I received it with a small problem in the zoom ring, and had to send it back. Also, I've heard of front elements falling out of the 135 ZA, but these issues seem to be related to bad initial QC, and not long term use issues.

All of this being said, I would be more concerned about the durability of the Zeiss zooms, seeing as how they are SSM and have more plastic in them. The primes, with their all metal bodies and simple screw drive AF, seem pretty bullet proof.

note** I should mention that my only issue with the 85 hasn't been the lens, but rather the hood. The plastic, threaded insert is prone to popping off of the lens and breaking if you store it attached to the lens in a bag. I was able to pop mine back in, but it has a hairline fracture now. I don't recommend storing any of the Zeiss hoods attached to the lens in a bag, and Sony doesn't sell a replacement part for this, so you have to buy an all new hood if you can't fix it yourself. :thumbdown:
 

woodyspedden

New member
Just might have to get both it seems. Sounds like possible the sony first. thanks for all the great information everyone. i appreciate it.
Todd

No one has yet mentioned that the economy of the M system is excellent if considered on a long term basis. You can buy many mint condition M lenses on various site, including this one, for about half the price of new. Since Leica lenses list prices continue to increase the liklihood is that you will be able to sell these lenses, if desired, for about what you paid for them! And there are many deals from reputable dealers like Tamarkin who are selling demo M8's with warranty, for very reasonable prices. Most reputable dealers will also inform you as to the number of actuations on the shutter so you can rest easy on that score.

So ultimately it comes down to whether you want and need a super high resolution sensor for doing large prints. The M8 files, for their size, are still as good as most on the market except at high ISO. And if you are looking for high ISO, the Nikon D700 or D3 is the machine to own IMHO

Woody
 

Paratom

Well-known member
If we talk resolution, and if we assume one does frame the image mostly as one wants it (I mean not much cropping afterwards) I just made the following calculation:
On my Epson 240dpi works pretty good. That means I can get a good print from the 10MP up to 10,9x16,3 inch without any upsampling.

22 MP - if we assume the same per pixel quality, would print up to 16,8x25,2 inch if I calculated correctly.

So here I say if one doesnt print bigger than 16inch wide the resolution of the M8 should work fine IMO.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Todd

No one has yet mentioned that the economy of the M system is excellent if considered on a long term basis. You can buy many mint condition M lenses on various site, including this one, for about half the price of new. Since Leica lenses list prices continue to increase the liklihood is that you will be able to sell these lenses, if desired, for about what you paid for them! And there are many deals from reputable dealers like Tamarkin who are selling demo M8's with warranty, for very reasonable prices. Most reputable dealers will also inform you as to the number of actuations on the shutter so you can rest easy on that score.

So ultimately it comes down to whether you want and need a super high resolution sensor for doing large prints. The M8 files, for their size, are still as good as most on the market except at high ISO. And if you are looking for high ISO, the Nikon D700 or D3 is the machine to own IMHO

Woody
Well said Woody. Good information based on experience.

How one uses a camera, and what the end goal may be is the key.

Personally, if I were a landscape shooter, and the goal was large display prints of 24" X 36" or larger, then high resolution IQ would be the goal.

For me, I require both the speed and security of a Pro DSLR ... security of shooting to 2 CF cards at once when doing weddings. Since wedding shooters must have at least 2 cameras with them at a wedding, then the option of a high ISO body like the Nikon D3, and a high resolution body like the D3X provides maxium versatility, speed, and security. Print size is less of an issue with weddings, but the ability to crop, sometimes severely, is a reality ... so one body that provides higher resolution is desirable.

The M8 shows it's versatility due to size even with wedding work. The camera with a couple of lenses is easy to add to the over-all roller bag.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
I (with many others I am sure) can remember part exchanging my rangefinder and lenses for a brand new SLR way back in the early sixties. It was a revelation to be able to see what the lens could see, the flexibility of use and the range of applications after using RF.

It is a personal thing I know, but I could never return to a RF camera.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I (with many others I am sure) can remember part exchanging my rangefinder and lenses for a brand new SLR way back in the early sixties. It was a revelation to be able to see what the lens could see, the flexibility of use and the range of applications after using RF.

It is a personal thing I know, but I could never return to a RF camera.
HI Dave
It's a funny old world. I never touched a rangefinder until I bought a Leica M6 in 2006, and I was immediately entranced.
The fact that you always see the same fov, the fact that you can focus on whatever you see in the image, the fact that you can see what is NOT going to be in your shot as well as what IS. To me it's like an eye extension whereas an SLR is definitely a bolt on.
Mind you, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be without an SLR as well, by I love using my M8, and I haven't even mentioned those lenses :bugeyes:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I must say I love rangefinders, as I love to have a DSLR in other situations.

For certain tasks I find a RF just the perfect tool. And I cannot wait till Leica brings the FF M9 :cool:
 
Top