Decisions Decisions

[GrahamWelland]

My end of day bottom line is I won't buy anything under 24mpx. Just not worth shooting under it. I know sounds snobbish but it's not more about if I'm going to take the time I want horsepower.

Just remember though Guy that you are a professional who needs to be able to make money from anything you shoot. For amateurs the merciless pixel race isn't so necessary. Desirable, yes. Necessary, not so much.

$0.02 ...

 

[Godfrey]

The M stays . . . . but 2 of the others must go . . . .

Hi Jono,

This is an easy decision for me.

- I have zero interest in the Fujis.
- I have a complete and excellent E-M1 kit that works brilliantly when I want a fast, responsive camera with auto capabilities.
- I have better lenses for the A7 (Leica R lenses from 19mm to 180mm, a few select Nikkors too) than I do for the M9 (mostly Voigtländers), and the A7 body has a better sensor IMO.

So I'll keep the E-M1 and the A7.

Much as I like the M9, I've found it much harder to be comfortable with compared to the M4-2 or CL. I'll keep either of the CL or M4-2, and I'm leaning towards the CL at the moment.

G

 

[Chuck Jones]

Shoot a neutral field with a non-retrofocus wide and take a look at the corners.
The wage is a retro as are R lenses. The Leica digital bodies are compensated for non-retro wides by the placement of their micro-lenses. The Sony was not specifically designed for that. 35 is not wide enough to demonstrate this realistically, but the 21 does. This has been widely reported.
Of course this can be dealt with in post, but it is another thing to do.
-bob

Bob, I've been dealing with that color cast problem for over ten years, as have all of us that used a digital back on a view camera. Some back/lens combinations were more difficult than others, but If I used one extra post processing step as a reason to reject using a particular camera and lens, I would soon be out of anything to shoot with! As you point out, this kind of problem is well documented and easily dealt with in post when it occurs.

I can understand where a JPG shooter mite be seriously impacted by this, and I can't blame them for choosing something else. Or a different wide lens. But for anyone that shoots RAW files? Not really that serious an issue, is it?

I can also understand that video is not in the main stream workflow of most still photographers. That is a need for me. My camera selection criteria, decent video is a MUST now, not just an option. That sure cuts the field down quickly and considerably.

For you Jono, Marc is absolutely correct. if you con't feel it shooting it, dump it dude. Life is too short for us old guys to bother trying to compensate for a camera system we don't feel good using. At our age, with our experience, we already know in our hearts what feels good within a few mins of picking it up. We should also probably know by now to go with that feeling and trust our hunches, but who am I to talk? Like you Jono, I have four systems headed to just one if I can do it. :ROTFL:

 

[GrahamWelland]

For you Jono, Marc is absolutely correct. if you con't feel it shooting it, dump it dude. Life is too short for us old guys to bother trying to compensate for a camera system we don't feel good using. At our age, with our experience, we already know in our hearts what feels good within a few mins of picking it up. We should also probably know by now to go with that feeling and trust our hunches, but who am I to talk? Like you Jono, I have four systems headed to just one if I can do it. :ROTFL:

:thumbs: My thoughts entirely. Gut feel really matters and what others think matters not a jot as you get older. (Oh, and I wish I only had four systems! :ROTFL: )

 

[iiiNelson]

It's your money and I don't want to tell you how you should spend it but I agree with those who said to shoot whatever you like. That is something that never needs to be justified to anyone. For me that means some variant of a Leica M and the Sony A7 series for now but I went through my Micro 4/3 phase as well prior to owning a M. I've made the A7 and A7r my main cameras now and the M9-P is probably going to get sent in to get a complete CLA and look over before I sell it for a Monochrom.

They're all great cameras (they can all do what we ask of them even if some are better suited for certain jobs than others) but for me the question I had to ask myself is what's going to put out the best looking print on my or someone else's wall? That made my decision easier for me.

 

[jonoslack]

Hah - lots of great responses - I'm obviously alone in my dilemma!
Gut response is all very well, but these are all fine cameras, so that each one provokes a gut response!

 

[iiiNelson]

Hah - lots of great responses - I'm obviously alone in my dilemma!
Gut response is all very well, but these are all fine cameras, so that each one provokes a gut response!

Yeah but any decision is subjective. Case in point the lack of EFC and the sound of shutter of the A7r is a deal breaker for you but isn't for many. The files of the M240 were a deal breaker for me (technically superior to the M9 or not) but many love and welcome them above the M9 files. Buy what you like and what works for you. Sell what doesn't towards something you will actually use.

 

[fotografz]

I'll add one more, sure to be unpopular, opinion. It's always safer and easier offering opinions and making decisions for others than for yourself.

I'd still keep the M240 (despite our disagreements on color rendering) and jettison all the rest.

I have a nagging perception that all these other "modern" cameras have a digital look and feel to them. Not that digital is bad, but when it is too obvious it becomes unsettling for me. Hard to describe, but easy to spot when it is there. :thumbdown:

Many times it is the lack of realistic depth or initial impact even though the file is technically hard to fault. Oddly, this perception is what has kept me from loving the A99 over the A900 even though the A99 is the better over-all camera with more useable features and a so called improved sensor. It gets the paying jobs done which is the primary reason for it sticking around, but I ain't lovin' it … and after a couple of years now I probably never will. It's a work horse for work courses, nothing more.

BTW, I ain't lovin' the A7R files either … yet. Other than the high ISO A7R stuff I shot while in Miami, I wish I had shot all the rest with the M9P I so foolishly (intellectually/rationally) sold. :banghead:

The A7R has a few redeeming aspects … it is small to promote take with but still FF; it makes a huge file which is easier to work on, correct, manipulate; it can do AF with a bunch of lenses I already have and manually focus a few loved M lenses; and (revealingly) I don't shoot all that much serious color work other than with the S2.

It's a small investment comparatively speaking … yet, after a reasonable amount of time if it doesn't ring my bell with the files I'll come to shun it … the first step toward offing it despite all the intellectual/rational arguments in its' favor.

Live is too short to make pictures that don't ring that internal bell of satisfaction, especially when you get older like I'm getting.

My $2 worth.

- Marc

 

[Braeside]

Jono, as others have said, go with your heart.

I am sticking with my love, the Fujifilm system. I dabbled with the Olympus EM5, but I never clicked with it despite good results. I left Sony after the A900. So for me personally it is the Ricoh GXR Mount for my RF lenses, and the XP1 and XT1 for Fujifilm X lenses. I don't feel I need more than 16M pixels for my needs, in fact 12 is just fine from the GXR without the AA filter.

Will be interested in your eventual decision.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Question, why do you need more than one system? I think the answer to that will answer your dilemma as well.

 

[Paratom]

Lets say you prefer rangefinder focusing and therefore would use your m-lenses ond the M. I still dont see for which applications would you use the A7, except maybe for your R-lenses. But then you say you want something small and fast.
I dont see how R lenses are that small or manual focusing with the A7 to be that fast.
You could just use the M for that.

If I would use the A7 I would at least use it mainly with the original Sony AF lenses to have the advantage of AF.

By the way my alternative to the M is a Canon 5DIII. The 24-70/2.8II is an excellent midrange zoom, the 70-200/4.0IS is very good, the Sigma 35/1.4 ART is very very good and there are many many other great lenses.

Yes, its bigger than the A7, XT1,EM1 but OVF just work much better for me, I get the fast AF for S-AF but also excellent C-AF, the balance between body and lenses is quite good (why smallish bodies if you put big lenses on the small body). Maybe A7 Sensor is better than that of the 5dIII and M, but in the end the sensor is seldom the bottle neck when I take photographs.

By the way if I could not afford the M I would get either the X-Pro1/ XT-1 or A7 for sure. I just dont see the benefit of those if you allready have the M and if you like OVF/rangefinder.

 

[Viramati]

Hi David
Interesting, I think you already got where I'm going. I do like a mid range zoom as well.
Where in Norfolk? ( we are in Diss )

Have sent you a PM

 

[iiiNelson]

By the way if I could not afford the M I would get either the X-Pro1/ XT-1 or A7 for sure. I just dont see the benefit of those if you allready have the M and if you like OVF/rangefinder.

Color, great results with high ISO without the potential for banding, and IQ... Well as far as the A7 series is concerned. Say what you will but the A7 has the most CCD like color reproduction I've seen out of a CMOS sensor and it's why I'm selling my M9 towards a MM. To my eyes the color and rendering of the M240 (at least at launch before the last FW update) looked very close to images coming from a Canon 5D mk II. That't not to say they are bad - they aren't. Just lost something moving to a CMOS to me and many other M9 owners but I digress this is the Sony forum.

It really depends on his uses. If he just wants a do it all travel camera I'd say stick with the OM-D. The IQ is going to be better than a RX10 more than likely and it's infinitely more flexible while remaining a similar size. If he's looking for max IQ and a great platform to adapt any/ all FF lenses then keep the A7. I really don't see where the XT-1 fits in. The sensor isn't as large as the A7 and the lens lineup isn't as complete as the OM-D.

You're right though none of his other choices have OVF but I think they've matured enough for most people that the argument between OVF/EVF is not as big of an issue as it was say 5 years ago in most circumstances.

 

[jonoslack]

I'll add one more, sure to be unpopular, opinion. It's always safer and easier offering opinions and making decisions for others than for yourself.

I'd still keep the M240 (despite our disagreements on color rendering) and jettison all the rest.

I have a nagging perception that all these other "modern" cameras have a digital look and feel to them. Not that digital is bad, but when it is too obvious it becomes unsettling for me. Hard to describe, but easy to spot when it is there. :thumbdown:

Many times it is the lack of realistic depth or initial impact even though the file is technically hard to fault. Oddly, this perception is what has kept me from loving the A99 over the A900 even though the A99 is the better over-all camera with more useable features and a so called improved sensor. It gets the paying jobs done which is the primary reason for it sticking around, but I ain't lovin' it … and after a couple of years now I probably never will. It's a work horse for work courses, nothing more.

BTW, I ain't lovin' the A7R files either … yet. Other than the high ISO A7R stuff I shot while in Miami, I wish I had shot all the rest with the M9P I so foolishly (intellectually/rationally) sold. :banghead:

The A7R has a few redeeming aspects … it is small to promote take with but still FF; it makes a huge file which is easier to work on, correct, manipulate; it can do AF with a bunch of lenses I already have and manually focus a few loved M lenses; and (revealingly) I don't shoot all that much serious color work other than with the S2.

It's a small investment comparatively speaking … yet, after a reasonable amount of time if it doesn't ring my bell with the files I'll come to shun it … the first step toward offing it despite all the intellectual/rational arguments in its' favor.

Live is too short to make pictures that don't ring that internal bell of satisfaction, especially when you get older like I'm getting.

My $2 worth.

- Marc

HI Marc
Well, I agree with pretty much all of that - and although we disagree about the colour rendering in the M - we really do agree about the A900 (I still miss mine).

In this instance it's just the desire for occasional AF and a mid range zoom (and also occasional telephoto).

All the best

 

[jonoslack]

Question, why do you need more than one system? I think the answer to that will answer your dilemma as well.

Lets say you prefer rangefinder focusing and therefore would use your m-lenses ond the M. I still dont see for which applications would you use the A7, except maybe for your R-lenses. But then you say you want something small and fast.
I dont see how R lenses are that small or manual focusing with the A7 to be that fast.
You could just use the M for that.

If I would use the A7 I would at least use it mainly with the original Sony AF lenses to have the advantage of AF.

HI Ben, Tom
Sometimes - usually if I'm out somewhere interesting with a group of people - I like to have a mid range zoom and AF - But I'd rather not make too many compromises beyond that, especially because my best photos are usually both opportunistic and 'instinctive'.

I also like to do close up photography (not really macro) quite often, and the M isn't good at it without an EVF or live view . . . . . . and I find using that compromised as well.

So - if I kept the A7 I'd use it most of the time with the 24-70 zoom - occasionally with the 60 macro elmarit R, and perhaps even the 80-200 f4 R which I like. But I've quite given up the idea of using anything except the M with M lenses (also compromised IMHO).

The picture at the head of the thread shows all the cameras with a zoom attached - which is not a coincidence. Whichever camera I choose will mostly be used with a mid range zoom.

 

[MikalWGrass]

Jono, I still have and use the a900 if you are interested.:ROTFL:

 

[ptomsu]

While I am sure I contradict many in this thread (forum) I still come more and more to the conclusion that best is using a camera with native lenses - like M with M lenses, Fuji with Fuji glass etc. Fortunately I have not the issue of needing to intermix camera brands and lenses.

For the rest:

1) Leica - I still have many M lenses which I still cannot use, as the current incarnation of the M is not what I like an M to be. And the M9 is no option for me! So I need to wait here and see what Leica will bring up in the future.

2) Fuji - while I love the Fuji colors and also the big EVF and lot of cool design of the XT1, I still am not convinced with the AF, especially with C-AF when used in low light. Nothing comparable to my D800E. Plus I am still missing super telephoto zooms, which may change soon and then the XT1 could really become my go to camera for wildlife although with not optimally fast AF

3) Olympus - the EM1 currently seems to be the best all rounder for my casual photography, but it definitely is NOT there with super telephoto zooms - neither the Oly 73-300II nor the Pana 100-300, both just are not sharp and fast enough at the long end. If Oly would bring a Pro grade super telephoto zoom with say 4/100-300 which delivers the same IQ as the 12-40, this would become my future system for everything including wildlife.

4) Sony A7 / A7R - I cannot and do not want to comment on IQ of these cameras, but from what I have seen during some tests of both I am not convinced with either of them. This system may become mature - hopefully soon - but currently it is not and so I will sit and watch. First row - leg free as we say

Seems that currently I will continue with Nikon D800E for when I need high quality and fast operation and use either EM1 or XE2 when I am shooting more casual and for fun. Maybe I will still add the 80-400 VRII Nikkor for wildlife, as there seems to come no alternative from any mirror less system in near future - although I really would like to avoid that! And as Photokina 2014 is not far wait and see what will be introduced from Leica and the M system - maybe a new smaller M with just a faster processing and slightly improved sensor - hm I know I am dreaming

 

[Godfrey]

Question, why do you need more than one system? I think the answer to that will answer your dilemma as well.

For me the answer is simple:

I want to use these lovely Leica R lenses. They work best on the format that they were designed for, that's why I bought the A7. If I didn't have them, the Olympus E-M1 does a better job for me than anything else I've used in the past decade, and that includes the M9.

Because I had (and expanded) the collection of Leica R lenses, having two systems makes sense. And the two systems are different enough in format that they complement each other nicely. Small format for more automation, more DoF, more reach in a smaller package; larger format for more wide options, shallower DoF, the Leica Look™, etc.

Examining the files out of the A7 and the E-M1, the file quality on noise/DR/acutance etc is quite comparable right up to ISO 6400, so the output of both processes very similarly and looks consistent when presented together.

(This is why I have zero interest in the Fujis: their sensor technology produces a look and feel that is completely different, is far more niggly to process from raw. Aside from the fact that I have found several times that as nice as the Fujis seem when I pick them up in the store, I just don't like their haptics when I go out to shoot with them.)

Yes, go with your gut. These are all nice cameras. Pick what makes you want to use it the most.

G

 

[Godfrey]

While I am sure I contradict many in this thread (forum) I still come more and more to the conclusion that best is using a camera with native lenses...

I tend to agree, and particularly with RF lenses in mind or with cameras for which I want to use the automation systems. All of my lenses for the E-M1 are FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds.

Olympus - the EM1 currently seems to be the best all rounder for my casual photography, but it definitely is NOT there with super telephoto zooms ...

I use the Olympus ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 with and without the EC-14 teleconverter. This nets what is for me an excellent long range ... 100 to 560mm EFoV ... in a single lens with excellent quality. The AF is as responsive as I've needed, the image quality is excellent. The only downside is that it's a somewhat bulky/heavy lens.

Sony A7 / A7R ...

I don't know what your issues are with the Sony A7 image quality, but that's neither here nor there. As I've said previously, my ONLY reason for buying the Sony A7 was to find a digital capture body for the Leica R lenses. Conversion for an SLR without auto-diaphragm*and auto-aperture operation makes for a crappy viewfinder and workflow IMO. The Sony's sensor and EVF net the original format they were designed for, an excellent viewing experience, and more functionality than the Leicaflex SL they were designed for on with respect to metering automation and focusing aids.

To me, the A7 is simply the Leicaflex SL Digital that Leica will never produce. The fact that it's also a quarter the weight and more compact is a huge plus. These lenses focus so nicely and render so beautifully on the A7 (and I think on the A7r as well) that I'm just overjoyed about it.

G

 

[nostatic]

No to throw a wrench into things, but...

New Leica Mirrorless System Camera will be unveiled on April 24 in Berlin! | Mirrorless Rumors