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

toddbee

Member
I really didnt know which forum to post this in. I sold most of my camera gear a few months back and am ready to jump back in. My eye has been on the a900 for a bit. As a matter of fact I believe this is the camera I am going to purchase. Now My eye has been on the Leica M8 ever since it came out. I love rangefinders and now that the used prices have been getting better there comes the problem. Well I have never shot either of these cameras until I was loaned an m8.2 35 f2.5 and 75 f2.5 for the last few days. I have to say coming from canon and nikon pro cameras, the raw files out of the M8 and amazing. The clarity, crispness and contrast from the raws converted in C1 are about as good as I have seen. There seems to be more resolution then the 12mp nikons, even with zeiss primes. Now to my question. I really dont have access to shoot the a900 prior to purchase. So how do the a900 Raw files compare to the M8? Are they able to be manipulated as much? Is the color as good? I assume the resolution is much better, but honestly the M8's really shocked me. Sorry for the run on.
thanks,
todd
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Todd
Depends what you want I guess.
probably the best answer is to get both :)

The A900 files are lovely, but, as you say, so are the M8 files.
I've got both.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hey Todd
I thought you bought an A900 back in April?
still dithering?
you said you were bored of manual focus then, in which case the A900 is obviously the way to go.
 

carstenw

Active member
Is there some other way of making the choice, like what you need the camera for, or how much resolution you need to get the results you need? The A900 has an anti-aliasing filter, so the pixels aren't as sharp, but they really aren't bad, better than my old Canon 5D, and there are just so many pixels on the A900, so the M8 can only lose there. It also has no way of doing telephoto shots (if you ignore the quirky Visoflex III), macro shots (the 90 Macro only get 1:2.5 or so), and so on. The M8 is much more compact though, and there are many very good lenses for it, some very cheap, like Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses, and the new Summarits (okay, not *that* cheap).
 

toddbee

Member
I got really busy in april and never got around to making the purchase. No im getting ready. i really didnt mind the MF of the m8. It seems very easy to focus. I also did not go any higher then base ISO on the m8. I am really excited about the zeiss lenses for the a900 too, maybe i should not have tasted the leica mystique this weekend.
thanks,
todd
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Todd,

as an "old" M8 user (and almost all the lenses) and now also a A900 user I can give my advise:

Currently I would NOT buy an M8 (or M8.2) if I do not own any lenses yet. While the M8 produces exceptional files, it is at least 1 or 2 generations behind the current sensor technology - shall translate if Leica would use the latest sensor technology in this camera it would rock much more. I would wait for an M9 to jump into the M system, as this could be the real great step forward and then a FF M9 sensor combined with Leica lenses would without doubt outperform all the other stuff available in 35mm.

If you are not a sports photographer or a photo journalist needing very often ISO above 3200 then the best 35mm FF DSLR currently is in my opinion the A900. Well built, relatively small and the sensor in combination with the Zeiss lenses delivers wonderful and very detailed results. BTW also some G lenses seem to be extraordinary good, as my 70-200 just knocks me of the socks, if I compare it to the same lenses from Nikon and Canon. But maybe it is also a combination of lens and sensor and maybe also IS in the camera (so no disturbing glass in lens). And I know what I am talking about, as I still own a Nikon outfit with latest lenses and I just sold a Canon outfit to buy the A900 stuff. Now please understand me right, I do not say Nikon or Canon are bad, they are great for certain photography and certain photographers, but if you are looking for highest image quality in that segment then in my opinion the A900 wins.

Still not able to decide? I know how that feels :D
 

toddbee

Member
Thanks for all the great feedback. I actually dont shoot sports or anything fast paced and i very rarely go above base ISO. I like travel photography and some decisive moment. I love the feel of the sony, but have not actually had a chance to put it through its paces. I've had the 5d, d700. 14n, most canon crop frame slr's, blah, blah ,blah. The canon cameras were not for me. i felt the images had a mush feel to them. The 14n put out great pics, but my sensor went bad. D700 was great with the zeiss lenses, but i feel there is better. m8 images kind of have a snap to them. looking at them it seems a combination of the sensor and the great lenses. does the a900 lean closer to the m8 in IQ or closer to the canons/Nikons?
todd
 

Terry

New member
To me closer to M8 than Nikon but I haven't used as many systems to be able to know all the different characteristics (Ive only had M8, D700, A900). .
 

jonoslack

Active member
I agree with Terry
with an effectively lighter AA filter and apparently less 'processing' of the RAW files, I'd say the Sony files are much more like those of the M8 than Canikon (of course, that also translates to more visible noise at higher iso).
 

edwardkaraa

New member
As Peter said, why would you buy an old technology? In my opinion, RF and DSLR are completely different philosophies, so chosing one over the other has much less to do with IQ than with individual preferences. I personally don't like RF, don't like crop sensors, but if you're into RF, again better wait for a FF sensor body.
 

carstenw

Active member
As Edward says, the two systems are extremely different in their capabilities and strengths. And as Peter says, the M8 is no longer new, and who knows when it will be replaced.

However, if you don't need any of those things that the A900 does and the M8 not, including resolution, then the M8 is a definite contender. The Leica M system is really hard to beat within its area. I own an M8, and am wavering between adding an MFDB and an A900. I have tested an A900, and used to own a 5D.

I would say that the A900 images are about halfway between the 5D and the M8, w.r.t. mushy-looking files. The A900 clearly still has an AA filter, but with a touch of sharpening the files look very good. I still think that the M8 files look more natural, with great colours and real snap, as long as you use coded lenses with IR filters.

Unless you plan on ending up with both (buy the A900, wait for the M9), I would say that you really need to do more testing. Personally, and this is just an opinion here, I would sell an A900 before I would sell my M8. In fact, I would sell any other camera before my M8. But owning both could be great. If you do go in the direction of the M8, then I would strongly recommend finding a clean, second-hand M8, and investing more in the focal lengths you would enjoy on full-frame, with perhaps one lens specifically matching your favorite focal length on the M8, keeping the 1.33x crop factor in mind.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I cant comment about the A900 but the D3x (I guess the D3x-sensor shouldnt be that much different) and while I dont have Zeiss glass for my Nikon I do own some really nice lenses for it (including the Leica 100Macro with Nikon mount).
While the IQ of the D3x is great and has 22 MP, I often prefer what I get from the M8 (at least up to ISO 640). I dont know how much is from the sensor and how much from the lenses - but the M8 images show a clarity, tonality etc. which comes close to a medium format look.
The sensor isnt the latest but that only means: its not so great aboce ISO 640 (I think its not that different with the A900) and you are limited to less megapixel- which is only a problem if you print big.

If I dont need tele and if I dont need AF and if I dont have to go over ISO 640 than I prefer to carrythe M8. This is quite often.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thanks for all the great feedback. I actually dont shoot sports or anything fast paced and i very rarely go above base ISO. I like travel photography and some decisive moment. I love the feel of the sony, but have not actually had a chance to put it through its paces. I've had the 5d, d700. 14n, most canon crop frame slr's, blah, blah ,blah. The canon cameras were not for me. i felt the images had a mush feel to them. The 14n put out great pics, but my sensor went bad. D700 was great with the zeiss lenses, but i feel there is better. m8 images kind of have a snap to them. looking at them it seems a combination of the sensor and the great lenses. does the a900 lean closer to the m8 in IQ or closer to the canons/Nikons?
todd
For me much closer to the M8, but you get much more resolution and detail. Always assumed you are using Zeiss lenses.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Todd,

as an "old" M8 user (and almost all the lenses) and now also a A900 user I can give my advise:

Currently I would NOT buy an M8 (or M8.2)......but if you are looking for highest image quality in that segment then in my opinion the A900 wins....

Bollocks.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
In my opinion, RF and DSLR are completely different philosophies, so chosing one over the other has much less to do with IQ than with individual preferences...
I agree with this statement... the systems are very different approaches to image capture. I have a Nikon system and the M8 and was contemplating an a900 to replace the Nikon. After a lot of false starts, I realized that I love the M8 and use it 90% of the time. And in what turned out to be a fairly twisted logic path, ended up purchasing a MF film camera instead of the Sony (sort of a "now for something entirely different" move). I simply love the rangefinder approach and couldn't justify the spend on a camera that wouldn't yield enough change from other DSLRs (I'm over-simplifying here--no flames please). However, if it was the reverse and I really enjoyed the DSLR approach, then the Sony would likely be the one.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Well, I guess I'll weigh in here.

IMO, these comparisons are very difficult to sort out. Owners tend to hype their choices ... as well they should since they DID make a decision to get one camera over the other (AKA: purchase justification). I guess I can speak with a little bit less purchase justification, since I purchased ALL of them :ROTFL: 2 M8s & 7 lenses (mostly fast aperture ASPHs), 2 Sony A900s and all of the Zeiss optics + the 70/200/2.8G, 1 Nikon D3 and a .... D3X ... plus most of the modern AFS, nano-nano lenses including the 200/2VR. My primary purchase justification is that I make my living with this stuff, and do a lot of different types of photography. For me, "Horses for courses" simply means I have a stable of horses (the other barn is packed with the BIG MFD horses which ARE the IQ KINGS).

If the image quality of the M8 is to your liking, then a claim that it's "old sensor technology" is meaningless isn't it? IF an improved M digital rolls out in the next year or so, rest assured it will NOT be in the Sony price range like used M8s currently are. Plus, NO ONE knows if and when a M9 might be making its debut. "Bird in the hand," and all that.

While the Sony A900 body is a nice size, the Zeiss lenses are BIG and heavy ... there are no smaller Zeiss W/A primes yet, so for wide angle work it's the two Zooms ... which are not small. I can just about fit an A900 with the Zeiss 24-70 and a flash into a bag that holds my entire M system.

WHO IS KING of 35mm sized IQ? :wtf: Depends on what combination of what camera, what lenses, what ISO, what shooting conditions. The A900 with the 135/1.8 is great. The Nikon D3X with the 200/2VR is greater IMO. A900 with Zeiss 16-36/2.8 is fab, the Leica M8 with 24/1.4 and 28/2 is faster and more fab ... and the Nikon D3 with 14-24 is Fab in its own right because it shoots circles around the Sony and Leica at ISOs above 1000.

My opinion based on your criteria? If you don't have any Leica M lenses, just get the Sony and a couple of lenses. In general most people are more comfortable with the diversity offered by a DSLR that allows you to expand your horizons. If you have a M8/9 or whatever, one thing isn't going to change ... the focal length spread is 16mm to 90mm, no true macro, no long lenses, no possibility of T/S.

On the other hand, IF you are a rangefinder person, and love the way you think with one, then there is no substitute. Do get wrapped up in the logo on the Leica, think about the way you ... think creatively.

-Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Just to weigh in. Bottom line get what is most comfortable to use and fits your style of working. DSLR are certainly more versatile with most shooting. The M8 is a harder camera to master in many ways and you need to be able to focus well and think for yourself, there is no love on any automation here. The results are stellar though but the price is not with a budget in mind either. Depends on needs and wants. I loved my M8's but end of the day as a Pro and my only system it just would not do it all. That became a issue and sold the system for MF which i still try and do it all with. I'm cheating but it is working to my advantage, certainly I have some limitations here as well but end of day it still is a more versatile system than a M8 system. Pick your poison that fits you the best. There really is no right or wrong just a matter of preference versus needs.
 
Top