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!

comparing the A7 to the M9 ...

D&A

Well-known member
Well, at least I am consistent with my opinion since I selected the M9 eight out of ten times … and changed #1 at the last minute by second guessing myself and the IQ … (I marked #2 a draw because it had little content to evaluate) … so I really got eight out of nine in favor of the M9.

While I like the A7R and the versatility it provides, I prefer shooting with a rangefinder over most anything else because of the elimination of distractions in favor of content. What makes the Sony fun, is the opposite of that … it's all about the camera and all that it can do.

They both have their place.

- Marc
Well said Mark. This is often the case with two very versatile and very capable but quite different systems.

I too did well with blind guesses and it might confirm my biases towards a certain "look". With that said though, I'm sure if a head to head comparison wasn't available, I'd find images from both cameras quite pleasing and acceptable. As for which system I enjoy shooting with on a personal level, that's where the Sony and Leica diverge for me personally.

Thanks ever so much for taking the time to do this Godfrey. A lot of fun and at least when examining at web sized viewing, quite informative.

Dave (D&A)
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
The A7 has a better look IMO. It's AF and size make the M9 seem rather obsolete. Using any M lens on the A7 solidifies it's place in the mirror less camera market. CCD does have a unique, edgy look that I can't discern from these photos. Perhaps portraits or more contrasty pics, with backlighting would demonstrate the sensors character and dynamic range, which I think is more useful. While comparing these two cameras might seem obvious because of size and they're both mirror less, the sensors are quite different, so other than portability and ergonomics, there's really no comparison.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I guess the point is you can't go wrong with either and theA7 and A7r is the closest output to the M9 that I've seen from a CMOS sensor... especially with the extra saturated colors that seem to come from Zeiss lenses.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I preferred the warmer color/WB of some of the A7 images in those comparisons.
I guess choosing one of the cams depends if someone prefers optical viewfinder/rangefinder or EVF. (I still prefer optical viewfinders; I am very irritated by the muted colors I see in EVF, and I can't judge the real light if I look through an EVF)
I must say I wish there were more native lenses for the Sony to benefit from AF and the sensor. Being able to use a good AF would make it much easier for me to accept the EVF.
My feeling is Sony is making optical compromises to allow lenses which are not too big. For example distortion in the 24-70, or speed in case of the 35mm.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I preferred the warmer color/WB of some of the A7 images in those comparisons.
I guess choosing one of the cams depends if someone prefers optical viewfinder/rangefinder or EVF. (I still prefer optical viewfinders; I am very irritated by the muted colors I see in EVF, and I can't judge the real light if I look through an EVF)
I must say I wish there were more native lenses for the Sony to benefit from AF and the sensor. Being able to use a good AF would make it much easier for me to accept the EVF.
My feeling is Sony is making optical compromises to allow lenses which are not too big. For example distortion in the 24-70, or speed in case of the 35mm.
IMO, this is a good overview of the differences, along with some subjective preferences thrown in.

As a long time Rangefinder user, I tend to NOT compare any non-rangefinder to my Ms. It isn't just optical verses EVF, it is RF verses other OVF or EVF cameras. The whole gestalt of shooting is different with each viewing system and type of camera.

Personally, my main comparison to the A7/A7R are other 35mm DSLRs, SLTs, and EVF cameras. In this comparison area, the size/FF resolution/AF weighs heavy in the mix.

I'm not a one-size fits all shooter, and tend to adhere to the maxim "horses for courses." This Sony A7/A7R kit is just another "Horse".

At one point I'll need to trim the stable as I phase out paying work, with the most likely candidate for pasture being all the 35mm DSLR/SLT stuff. I just sold my A900 and replaced it with the A7R … and the A99 and A mount lenses are next … depending on what FE lenses come out and what FE camera is next … by the end of this year, after shooting my last wedding, I'll be out of the 35mm DSLR/SLT system.

- Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
IMO, this is a good overview of the differences, along with some subjective preferences thrown in.

As a long time Rangefinder user, I tend to NOT compare any non-rangefinder to my Ms. It isn't just optical verses EVF, it is RF verses other OVF or EVF cameras. The whole gestalt of shooting is different with each viewing system and type of camera.

Personally, my main comparison to the A7/A7R are other 35mm DSLRs, SLTs, and EVF cameras. In this comparison area, the size/FF resolution/AF weighs heavy in the mix.

I'm not a one-size fits all shooter, and tend to adhere to the maxim "horses for courses." This Sony A7/A7R kit is just another "Horse".

At one point I'll need to trim the stable as I phase out paying work, with the most likely candidate for pasture being all the 35mm DSLR/SLT stuff. I just sold my A900 and replaced it with the A7R … and the A99 and A mount lenses are next … depending on what FE lenses come out and what FE camera is next … by the end of this year, after shooting my last wedding, I'll be out of the 35mm DSLR/SLT system.

- Marc
Hi Marc,
personally I am debating myself to either add a 6d and a 24-70/4-0IS to my Canon kit or to get an A7 with Zeiss Zoom.
Now I understand the A7 is the sensor with more dynamic range, I am not sure which one I prefer in regards to skin color, probably both do a good job.
The A7 has the advantage to be smaller body and slightly smaller lens.
The 6d has the advantage to have faster AF also in dim light, and also for continues AF, the 24-70/4.0IS should be clearly better than the Sony/Zeiss at least is one is interested in the whole range of focal lengths and whole frame.
I also get a nice display on top of the camera where I can see f-stop, ISO etc.
I can also use the excellent 70-200/4.0IS which cost 2/3 of the equivalent from Sony (which is announced).
And for those times where weight is not so important I can allways put a 24-70/2.8, or a sigma 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 on the camera and the weight balance between camera and body is still fine.

So for me I am leaning towards the small DSLR over the A7, but I have not yet decided.
Why do you prefer the A7 over the DSLR? Is there anything I have not recognized yet?
Maybe the difference is sensor IQ is bigger than I expect? (A7 being much better than Canon?...) How does it look if we judge combo of lens and sensor?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Marc,
personally I am debating myself to either add a 6d and a 24-70/4-0IS to my Canon kit or to get an A7 with Zeiss Zoom.
Now I understand the A7 is the sensor with more dynamic range, I am not sure which one I prefer in regards to skin color, probably both do a good job.
The A7 has the advantage to be smaller body and slightly smaller lens.
The 6d has the advantage to have faster AF also in dim light, and also for continues AF, the 24-70/4.0IS should be clearly better than the Sony/Zeiss at least is one is interested in the whole range of focal lengths and whole frame.
I also get a nice display on top of the camera where I can see f-stop, ISO etc.
I can also use the excellent 70-200/4.0IS which cost 2/3 of the equivalent from Sony (which is announced).
And for those times where weight is not so important I can allways put a 24-70/2.8, or a sigma 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 on the camera and the weight balance between camera and body is still fine.

So for me I am leaning towards the small DSLR over the A7, but I have not yet decided.
Why do you prefer the A7 over the DSLR? Is there anything I have not recognized yet?
Maybe the difference is sensor IQ is bigger than I expect? (A7 being much better than Canon?...) How does it look if we judge combo of lens and sensor?
That's a tough call Tom. It is so dependent on personal use and end objectives. My second shooters tend to use Canon equipment and L lenses, and I do see a difference when post processing them next to images I shoot with Zeiss and Leica optics. Whether that difference is bad or good is subjective. I just sold my A900 to one of them, so that will make it easier for what weddings I still have left for this year :)

Frankly, I only use my A99 SLT to shoot weddings. I rarely use it for any other sort of photography. I do take it with me as back-up to my Leica S2P, but only occasionally use it.

The reasons for keeping the FF 35mm A99 are all the features that lend themselves to working a fast paced wedding shoot: Already tried and true Hybrid AF. Dual card capture. IBIS. Highly articulated LCD. Full compliment of Zeiss ZA AF lenses from 16mm to an AF 500 mirror. It is a system suited to the task, and many others if they arise.

In addition, the reason I do not see the A7R as a replacement for the A99 (yet) is the use of TTL speed-lights … what is currently available are too big on the little Sonys.

Remove wedding photography from the criteria, and the A7/A7R then becomes a primary consideration due to small size/less bulk, easy use of my M lenses due to fast Focus Peaking/Focus Mag … and simple selection of the AF FE55/1.8 as a one lens walk about. Other than a Leica M camera with a M 50mm, not many 50s deliver that level of performance at that size. Interestingly, I didn't have any issues shooting the A7R's AF in very low available light.

I don't use long zoom lenses, and in fact would NEVER spend the money these companies are now asking.:loco: My sister-in-law has a mint Canon FD 70-210/4 Macro zoom I just tied on the A7R for a few test portrait shots, and was delighted with the results. Damned thing cost less that the adapter to put it on the camera.:ROTFL:

- Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thanks Marc,
one thing which you mention would be a strong argument for the A7.
I could use my M lenses on the M and on the A7, while for the Canon I have to have an extra set of lenses.
If I got an A7 I could just use my Leica M 21mm/3.4 (if it works well on the A7?) and could sell my Zeiss 21/2.8 with Canon mount.
I don't really need AF for ulra wide angle.
Anyways...I think I went off topic here, because the thread is about Zeiss 24-70/4.0.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Well, the thread was conceived as a small comparison of the A7 and M9 ... :)

I printed my first set of three 11x17 inch prints with the A7 on Sunday evening. The print quality at this size is gorgeous. Not that it's any less gorgeous with the M9 ...

There's just so much to like about both of these cameras. They are very different—technology, feel, working methodology, etc etc—but both are very fine tools for making photographs.

My preference is for the A7 overall because of the viewfinder and the lens kit I have that it is so compatible with. There are several things about the M9 (and its younger M240 sibling, or MM sibling) that I really like a lot, but the lenses are more important in the end analysis ... to me anyway.

Who knows? I might just keep the M9 anyway, cut down the lens kit I have for it to only a couple. That's what I always used to do in the film era: Nikon with 8-12 lenses, Leica with 2-3 lenses. It works... ;-)

G
 
Hi Godfrey,

I too will keep both because for me they're complementary: M9 and RF for adequate light, A7 with bright EVF and higher ISOs for lower light levels.

For street photography I've been carrying them simultaneously with one lens, usually 40 Summicron. Either body (without lens) fits in a jacket pocket while using the other one. Outdoors, M9 and RF; indoors I switch the lens to A7.

I prefer RF outdoors because A7 in bright light and smaller apertures doesn't give a good sense of contrast and color.

OK, one M240 body would do the same thing – but I'm still boycotting its color rendering, added 'features,' exalted price, and at this point its obsolescence.

For me, your test shots validated my acceptance of both, because my preferences within the pairs went back and forth (with predominance of 'Likes' for A7). My preferences were probably attributable to the difference in metering systems – I tended to prefer the file that was exposed for the brighter midrange. (I didn't pixel-peep the corners.)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
I too will keep both because for me they're complementary: M9 and RF for adequate light, A7 with bright EVF and higher ISOs for lower light levels.
...
The situation is made a little more complex for me by the fact that I have a complete Olympus E-M1 system as well, with a superb array of lenses. The E-M1's image stabilization, excellent sensor, and great responsiveness, as well as its almost unheard of customization options and high sensitivity, makes it an extremely versatile performer. Particularly with long focal length lenses ... there's no other camera I've used that I can reliably, consistently hand-hold a 500mm+ EFOV lens in a wide range of lighting and get such sharp, camera-movement free exposures.

As said before, there is such a wealth of superb cameras available nowadays!

For today's carry about, I've pulled out my Polaroid 350 Land Camera and fitted a pack of Fuji FP-3000B film. A spare film pack in my bag, and I'm off to the office. :)

G
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Godfrey, this is a great piece of work. Thanks SO much for taking the time to put it together and post it!
 

4season

Well-known member
...before I make a decision about whether to keep or sell the M9...
:shocked:

(Just kidding)

I am still in awe of how much camera $2K buys these days. But maybe I should hang onto a couple of older, rougher-edged models, because sometimes a little authentic sensor noise and lack of fine detail is called for.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
:shocked:

(Just kidding)

I am still in awe of how much camera $2K buys these days. But maybe I should hang onto a couple of older, rougher-edged models, because sometimes a little authentic sensor noise and lack of fine detail is called for.
That's one of the notions for why I still love the Olympus E-1 ... :)

G
 
Top