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!

M or A7r

baudolino

Active member
I bought the Sony RX-1r while I was waiting for the new M. Having finally got the M and having used it for a month or so, I am not even considering the Sony A7 now - even though image quality (judging by the RX-1r) will probably be comparable or higher than the M (and very likely better than the M at higher ISOs), I am just no so keen on the ergonomics of these small cameras, the little buttons, menus, electronic finders. I am in fact selling the RX-1r right now and plan to be happily using the M (and the S2) for quite some time.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
The only problem with the A7r, IMO, is the durability of the shutter. A M240 (I hope) have a far better shutter, long-life mechanic.

The A7r is a wonderful camera for sure. I just hope it is a solid camera. Using the A7r with R glass ... will be awesome for sure. (I do not speak about video with R glass too).

So for the price, the ease of use and the photographic possibility, the A7r is a far better choice than the M240.

I would not underestimate the new Emount lenses such as the 35mmf2.8 and the 55f1.8... They are superb lenses. The future will probably bring some new awesome glass like a 85 f1.4 or something in this range.

So, fingers crossed about the durability of the A7r curtain. Because of his ease of use, ppl might shoot a lot more with the A7r than a M, this is why I worry.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Well, you think so, but I've always thought it regrettable that Leica split it's resources and put its best designer on the S project rather than develop a modernised M platform [for marketing as an alternative to the 'traditional' M line]. Had they done so, maybe this thread would have supplied different answers, and those of us not sworn in as Leica advocates might be thinking not of the Sony A7r, but of a viable, available, Leica alternative.

However, we are where we are, so I for one am looking closely at the A7r, with a view to keeping my M fit lenses, and dumping my Leica. I'm running out of years, and Leica is too slow to change for me, and too damned expensive. And time will tell whether the S line is a dead-end or not, and a strategy which Leica later regrets. When that time comes I suspect I'll be long gone from Leica.

…………… Chris
I had my reservations about the S and the need for it when they had a line of people wanting to natively place their R lenses on a Leica made dSLR but again that's a crowded market they will never be more than a niche in. Look at the M. It's their popular 35mm camera and it still has niche status. The MF market is "owned" by Phase One/Mamiya/Leaf and Hasselblad but I can easily see Leica cutting into that in time.
 

algrove

Well-known member
The S line is pro only due to its pricing and many, many pros tell me that for equal entry money for the S (round $30-35k with one good lens) they would rather have anything else. In the back of their minds they suspect that Leica might abandon the S like they did the R and they would be stuck with a dead and very expensive series.

Also 37.5MP is not much for $25k body when 800e's and now a7r's are now knocking on the door for less than the cost of the S extended warranty. I used one for an afternoon in a studio and frankly my 5D3 hits focus easier and faster than the S.

I find it interesting that we all say we buy Leica because of the glass, but pros seem to get fantastic results without using Leica glass.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The output from the S is 16bit. It makes a huge difference in the image quality. Like Tre, I would not hesitate to buy the S system if I win a lottery. :)
 

NB23

New member
The market is flooding with junk at alarming pace! It's also good to note that all the wannab HCBs choose oter brands. Seems that the silly leica "magicalness" is fading.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The market is flooding with junk at alarming pace! It's also good to note that all the wannab HCBs choose oter brands. Seems that the silly leica "magicalness" is fading.
Do you know which camera HCB liked in his last days? It was not a Leica. :)
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
The market is flooding with junk at alarming pace! It's also good to note that all the wannab HCBs choose oter brands. Seems that the silly leica "magicalness" is fading.
Yeah but junk would imply that the camera was incapable of taking a good picture. I think there are very few "junk" cameras these days but some are clearly tools that could possibly enhance the picture taking ability.
 

algrove

Well-known member
The output from the S is 16bit. It makes a huge difference in the image quality. Like Tre, I would not hesitate to buy the S system if I win a lottery. :)
Ok, but for landscape an SWC +P45+, 39MP CCD costs maybe half the price of an S body alone. I have been side by side with S2 cameras using the venerable APO 120 while shooting 7 focus stacked images with me using the M+APO50 and many told me my single shot looked better than the S2 shots.
 

AreBee

Member
Vivek,

The output from the S is 16bit. It makes a huge difference in the image quality.
I thought this was disproved long ago? :confused: Digital Backs also record files in 16-bit, but my understanding is that at least one, and offtimes two of the bits are redundant.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Ok, but for landscape an SWC +P45+, 39MP CCD costs maybe half the price of an S body alone. I have been side by side with S2 cameras using the venerable APO 120 while shooting 7 focus stacked images with me using the M+APO50 and many told me my single shot looked better than the S2 shots.
Something must have been wrong in this comparison. he S2/S is clearly ahead of the M in regards of IQ even at pixel level (at least at lower ISOs), even without taking into consideration of 36 vs 24MP.
By the way I just saw a S2+70mm on ebay for under 10k…thats less than a used M+50 APO ;)
of course both are very different cameras for different purpose
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Even being a pixel peeper myself I believe USER INTERFACE is the key question in this discussion.
If you need to focus fast and have this kind of subjects a EM1 might deliver better IQ than a D800 with a Leica lens because the first hits focus and the second not.
If you like 35 and 50mm FOV the rangefinder of the M works great,
if you like to use 135mm or longer focal length the rangefinder is not so great.
If you like zooms the A7 might make more sense, if you like fast primes the M might make more sense.
If you like many buttons and menus - Sony, if you like a more simple and classical approach - Leica.
and so on.
Sometimes using a system for a couple of months might be the only way to find out if it works for someone or not.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Maybe I could clear up a few misperceptions about the Leica S system ? I am in a pretty good position to evaluate the differences in the systems as my kit includes :

1. The Leica S2 and most of the prime lenses . (owned three years ).

2. The new Leica M ...just finished my 2nd trip ..so I have maybe 3-4000 images .

3. The D800E and 6 Leica R lenses converted to Nikon mount . about 10K to 15K images .

It was my intention that the files from these systems would be sorted in collections by subject ...say Paris for example ..so I spent plenty of time on developing profiles and presets for LR . This of course required that I actually inspect at a detail level hundreds of files from each system under all types of lighting conditions . (as an aside I hated that Leica went to a CMOS sensor with the M ..my m8/m9 files were almost a perfect color match to the S files ).

Each system is superb and substantially better than anything I ve had previously . I select the system based on my shooting requirements and yes..there is some heavy overlap . Yet nothing I have used beats the M for street and travel shooting .....so if I am packing a bag ...I will usually be taking the M s . When I need speed,high ISO ,telephoto etc ..I taking the Nikon s ....but when I want the very best image quality ...its always the S system.

There is not even a small chance that comparing a file from an S to either an M or the D800E ..side by side ..where I would prefer the M or D800E file to the S file . The differences are apparent in the subtle tone separation . This is what adds life to the image and differentiates it from those produced by smaller sensors .
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Even being a pixel peeper myself I believe USER INTERFACE is the key question in this discussion.
If you need to focus fast and have this kind of subjects a EM1 might deliver better IQ than a D800 with a Leica lens because the first hits focus and the second not.
If you like 35 and 50mm FOV the rangefinder of the M works great,
if you like to use 135mm or longer focal length the rangefinder is not so great.
If you like zooms the A7 might make more sense, if you like fast primes the M might make more sense.
If you like many buttons and menus - Sony, if you like a more simple and classical approach - Leica.
and so on.
Sometimes using a system for a couple of months might be the only way to find out if it works for someone or not.
Agree 100% with these observations . Speed and responsiveness is very important in "capturing the moment ". The number one complaint about the M9 from my PJ friends ....its too slow ...we miss captures because the buffer fills and the camera doesn t fire . (pretty much corrected with the new M...but rarely discussed when evaluating equipment ).

AF precision and responsiveness (tracking?) is quite important ..when I shoot a wedding or an important event ...I use the Nikon AF primes or the 24-70/2.8AF zoom ...image quality means nothing if you can t capture the moment and get sharp in focus captures .

I enjoy shooting professional tennis and each year I try to shoot at the US Open ....I ve worked with the M8,M9,D3x , new M and the S2 . This is as much about a terrific event as the tennis action but I shoot both . Its a great place to test equipment and improve my technique. If my focus is the crowd ..the best kit is the M ..if its the action ...the Nikon with AF zooms . The point being that you can shoot the same subject matter with many systems ....but you can get better results if your kit matches the requirements .
 

algrove

Well-known member
Maybe I could clear up a few misperceptions about the Leica S system ? I am in a pretty good position to evaluate the differences in the systems as my kit includes :

1. The Leica S2 and most of the prime lenses . (owned three years ).

2. The new Leica M ...just finished my 2nd trip ..so I have maybe 3-4000 images .

3. The D800E and 6 Leica R lenses converted to Nikon mount . about 10K to 15K images .

It was my intention that the files from these systems would be sorted in collections by subject ...say Paris for example ..so I spent plenty of time on developing profiles and presets for LR . This of course required that I actually inspect at a detail level hundreds of files from each system under all types of lighting conditions . (as an aside I hated that Leica went to a CMOS sensor with the M ..my m8/m9 files were almost a perfect color match to the S files ).

Each system is superb and substantially better than anything I ve had previously . I select the system based on my shooting requirements and yes..there is some heavy overlap . Yet nothing I have used beats the M for street and travel shooting .....so if I am packing a bag ...I will usually be taking the M s . When I need speed,high ISO ,telephoto etc ..I taking the Nikon s ....but when I want the very best image quality ...its always the S system.

There is not even a small chance that comparing a file from an S to either an M or the D800E ..side by side ..where I would prefer the M or D800E file to the S file . The differences are apparent in the subtle tone separation . This is what adds life to the image and differentiates it from those produced by smaller sensors .
Roger
Take a look at David's focus stacked arches at Ft Jefferson and then look at mine. We took our shots less than a minute apart. David used the S2 with APO 120 and I used the M with APO50 with a single shot. Check these images on Dale's site carefully and tell me your opinion which I value. Thanks.

Lou
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger
Take a look at David's focus stacked arches at Ft Jefferson and then look at mine. We took our shots less than a minute apart. David used the S2 with APO 120 and I used the M with APO50 with a single shot. Check these images on Dale's site carefully and tell me your opinion which I value. Thanks.

Lou
Lou

I am sure you are right ..but I have no idea how focus stacking impacts the image . I do know from looking at literally thousands of files (in my effort to organize my work and to develop a common aesthetic ) that the S2 files are much better .

I really have some directly comparable situations from Florida ...the Kite Boarders at Kite Beach for example ..you can see the difference in the sky and in the fabric of the kites . I ve used ever system I have owned there as well as seeing all David Kipper s work .

When I get down to Florida after the first of the year ....we can hit the Juno Beach Pier and settle the bet !

I do agree with the point that its hard to ignore a wonderful 36MP sensor for image quality ...but I am not sold on the A7R as having the professional attributes I want . The Rx1 had a level of build quality that was admirable ...but the expectations for the A7R are much higher ...I guess I will have to go back to another thread on the A7R to outline my reservations . But I expect the Sony tuning of the sensor to produce great color fidelity at lower ISO s compared to the D800E but fall behind as ISO goes over 400 . Neither of these will compare to the S2 for image quality below ISO800.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Lou

I viewed the photographs you mentioned over at RedDot forum and I agree that the M with the APO appears sharper . It has a much more limited DOF than the focus stacking and the S2 composite might make a better print .

I would tell you though that if David had focused on a piece of the wall ....you would see higher resolution than his composite shows . But in this example you are correct.
 

mmbma

Active member
Either way, I think everyone agrees that we ought to give the A7rs a try. It comes with 30 day return... what's the loss?
 

algrove

Well-known member
Either way, I think everyone agrees that we ought to give the A7rs a try. It comes with 30 day return... what's the loss?
I will give a try as many others have also expressed the same. I plan to start with R lenses and then M wide lenses graduating up the line.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Either way, I think everyone agrees that we ought to give the A7rs a try. It comes with 30 day return... what's the loss?
I won't give it a try because I have no need for this kind of camera.
I can understand though that it is a very interesting solution for some and if I would expect it to fulfill my needs I would give it a try for sure.
I also think it is good for us Leica users because it means some competition (since the M is not the only ff in a relatively small package any more) for Leica which is alloys a good thing.
 
Top