rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Hmm, I wish an M9 could be had for your budget. I would think the A7 is going to be your best bet if you want to use your M-mount lenses to their best potential. Use Cornerfix on your wide images for now, and get the thin cover glass conversion (Kolari?) when your budget rebounds a bit. Then you'll be set. I see pre-owned A7's at your budget quite often.
I personally wouldn't consider any of the smaller format cameras. For me, I've found that I just need full frame for the familiarity of focal length behavior, DOF, and the image quality tends to be quite nice as well. I own some m4/3 gear, and I use it, but its sufficiently different than what I've used for so many decades that it affects how I feel while shooting, and ultimately how the photos turn out.
Now having said that, I wonder if you really want to take your "nice glass" and "new camera" on a trip that has such hazards to their well-being. I know, why have stuff if you don't use it. I also subscribe to that philosophy, but I also believe one should use the appropriate tool for the job at hand. That would steer me toward a ruggedized camera. Everyone needs one in their gear inventory anyway, so might as well get it now and be done with it. I heard the Olympus version lives up to its marketing hype...
I personally wouldn't consider any of the smaller format cameras. For me, I've found that I just need full frame for the familiarity of focal length behavior, DOF, and the image quality tends to be quite nice as well. I own some m4/3 gear, and I use it, but its sufficiently different than what I've used for so many decades that it affects how I feel while shooting, and ultimately how the photos turn out.
Now having said that, I wonder if you really want to take your "nice glass" and "new camera" on a trip that has such hazards to their well-being. I know, why have stuff if you don't use it. I also subscribe to that philosophy, but I also believe one should use the appropriate tool for the job at hand. That would steer me toward a ruggedized camera. Everyone needs one in their gear inventory anyway, so might as well get it now and be done with it. I heard the Olympus version lives up to its marketing hype...
GaryLH
Mentor
Plus one on the Fuji x100 suggestion
Used Fuji x100s or x100t w/ wcl and tcl adapters.. U get 35f2 fov base focal length and the adapters provide 28f2 and 50f2 fov.
Ricoh GR is another good suggestion.. Or gxr w/ a28 module and the optional evf.
I would leave your m glass at home myself and keep it simple.
Have a good trip
Gary
Used Fuji x100s or x100t w/ wcl and tcl adapters.. U get 35f2 fov base focal length and the adapters provide 28f2 and 50f2 fov.
Ricoh GR is another good suggestion.. Or gxr w/ a28 module and the optional evf.
I would leave your m glass at home myself and keep it simple.
Have a good trip
Gary
Bille
Well-known
Seriously? A Sony NEX costs nothing these days. Get the cheapest NEX 3 or 5 available and see if digital and the crop factor are working for you. Given your research speed, I will come back to this thread in two years and then we can discuss your upgrade path.
plummerl
Well-known
Crop factor will only affect the DOF, not low light capability. The aperture (light gathering ability) does not change. From an exposure point of view, f1.4 is f1.4.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I don't think there is much to research. It it mount Leica M lenses it is either a mirrorless or a Leica, if it costs around 1,000 US$ it is not a Leica. If lenses must have the same angle of view as in a Film M camera it must be FF, which nails it only to a few carefully selected second hand Sony cameras. They have problems with wide angle lenses which have already been mentioned, so you will probably not like the result. If you are ok with crop you can pick more or less any mirrorless camera. You will not really alter dof, just the angle of view. Your 28mm f2.0 lens will still have the same dof it has always had, but now the image will cover an angle similar to that of a 42mm lens on a film camera if your crop body has, say, a 1.5x factor, that of a 56mm lens on a 4/3 sensor. Whether the combination is good or not it's up to debate, but if you needed the angle of view of a 28mm lens of course you no longer have it. To end the suggestions, I have seen a lot of people trying to get sort of sub-par digital cameras on the base they like film. In my opinion they are two different beasts. Digital cameras are nice because they are fast, you can shoot a lot, you can set lights quickly, use them as Polaroid substitutes in this, put in an underwater housing and take 500 pictures in one dive etc. Film is nice because...it is film. I think you should either buy a Leica if you can afford it or buy a good digital system which was designed from the ground up as a digital system you probably will save money and be more satisfied. Ah, the Ricoh GXR module is a kind of a odd thing because it was designed for M lenses with a crop factor. I have it and it is nice but you will be buying into a dead system with sensor technology which is already several years old (think maybe a Nikon D300 sort of sensor) and it is not really very cheap if compared, say, top a Canon EOS M.
GLF
GLF
plummerl
Well-known
Actually depth of field is related to the crop factor. For a fairly detailed explanation of this, check out:
http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/
Usually the arguments are always about exposure, which does not change.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
Wow! Thanks everyone for the great feedback. Based on what is said and some more research, I'm leaning towards something like the Sony RX100 or similar. I guess I overestimated the m-mount capabilities of some of the digital cameras over a year old in my budget range. I knew my options would be limited, but it's good to hear first hand accounts of this. My research has been off and on for some time, comparing reviews, images, etc. and never really settled. It looks like if I want to get very serious about Leica lenses on digital bodies, I'll have to save up more than I have allotted for.
Still willing to hear about other options available, probably similar to the rx100 or maybe this is the wrong thread/forum now? I apologize if it is. Pretty ignorant towards digital and my Leica film cameras will still be my primary, but I guess in certain situations, I have to get with the times. *sigh*. Steep learning curve, but thanks for everyone's input. It's given me more to learn and look at to educate myself. I appreciate all your time to make my trip that much better. Muito obrigado amigos!
Still willing to hear about other options available, probably similar to the rx100 or maybe this is the wrong thread/forum now? I apologize if it is. Pretty ignorant towards digital and my Leica film cameras will still be my primary, but I guess in certain situations, I have to get with the times. *sigh*. Steep learning curve, but thanks for everyone's input. It's given me more to learn and look at to educate myself. I appreciate all your time to make my trip that much better. Muito obrigado amigos!
tbhv55
Well-known
I have had the RX100 Mk1 for nearly three years, and I rate it very highly. It took a while - several weeks! - to get comfortable with it (menus are confusing), but once you have set it to your liking, you don't need to mess with the menus too much. It is superb; very small, light, and well-made, and the IQ is amazing for something so small. I would presume that the later models are at least as good - or better.
It goes without saying that you should try to handle one, before purchasing. The camera is a slippery little fella in the raw. I would recommend getting the case and using the lower half of it... alternatively, get one of the available grips. The half-case really improves the handling, IMO - with very little penalty in size (it still fits easily into a trouser pocket).
YYV_146
Well-known
Practically speaking the A7 (even unmodified) is a fine camera for M lenses. Few people I know ever shoot fast lenses at wide apertures and infinity. In most cases you can stop down to achieve better corner performance, and corner resolution loss is a non-issue for portraits and most street work. And lenses above 35mm will perform perfectly fine on the sensor (with a few exceptions, though). Very few M lenses show visible resolution loss at F7.1-F8 on the unmodified A7, which for work at infinity barely reaches good in-focus zone coverage.
I've shot the A7 exclusively with M lenses for a year before the kolarivision mod. I still work with two unmodified A7 family cameras, but I try to keep the longer lenses on them. The system is now on par with Fuji/Canikon APS-C in terms of price - not much more expensive than an RX100 III and cheaper than an RX100 IV.
I would borrow or rent a body to see if you like the experience and how well your lenses perform on the sensor and, if things go well, perhaps think about potentially getting a filter stack mod.
And on a personal note, I've never found the RX100 cameras to be quite good enough for critical work and printing. The lens limits the output resolution of the sensor and color noise is fairly significant at moderate ISO levels. It's certainly no substitute for a proper APS-C or FF ILC.
tbhv55
Well-known
I'd say that this depends on the intended print size, and also, one's personal preferences. I'm not trying to be contradictory here, and this certainly isn't an anti-A7 stance - as it happens, I've been considering getting one, myself. That said, I find the noise from the RX100 to be (mostly) quite acceptable, and often (when suitably processed through Rawtherapee) rather pleasingly grain-like. I also don't chase sharpness - in fact, I find absolute sharpness rather tiresome. However, I do realise that this might be seen as heresy on a camera forum.
Of course, ultimately, you're quite right... the maximum print size from the RX100 isn't going to get too close to that from the A7, but one also has to keep in mind the portability factor - especially for the OP's planned motorcycle trip. An A7 with lens(es) isn't going to fit in a jeans pocket...
Great choices to have available, though... it's ALL good!
YYV_146
Well-known
I'd say that this depends on the intended print size, and also, one's personal preferences. I'm not trying to be contradictory here, and this certainly isn't an anti-A7 stance - as it happens, I've been considering getting one, myself. That said, I find the noise from the RX100 to be (mostly) quite acceptable, and often (when suitably processed through Rawtherapee) rather pleasingly grain-like. I also don't chase sharpness - in fact, I find absolute sharpness rather tiresome. However, I do realise that this might be seen as heresy on a camera forum.
Of course, ultimately, you're quite right... the maximum print size from the RX100 isn't going to get too close to that from the A7, but one also has to keep in mind the portability factor - especially for the OP's planned motorcycle trip. An A7 with lens(es) isn't going to fit in a jeans pocket...
Great choices to have available, though... it's ALL good!
I agree. IMO the RX100 could be better served by a slightly lower-resolution sensor. 16 or 12MP should help boost high iso by 1-1.5 stops without losing much print resolution. But you can actually get a lot out of the 24MP sensor if you are tedious and careful about the process...
squirrel$$$bandit
Mentor
+1 on the X100/s/t and two converters. If you can't afford an M9, this is the most affordable rangefinder-like experience, and it's lightweight and well made, and the image quality is excellent. I've really been pleasantly surprised by those converters.
willie_901
Mentor
Why would anyone risk buying a M9 until details about the technical solution for sensor cover-glass defect is formally announced?
uhoh7
Mentor
Ricoh mentioned above is very good option, or M8, which would also be good. A Sony A7 is about 700 and for 400 you can get a mod which makes it shoot M glass, well, but not the CV21/4. I think Kolari may even have these available to buy ready to go.
But the A7 is a very fragile camera compared to M9 or M8, with lots of exposed bits, and not much tolerance for water. Battery life is abysmal.
Rx100 is quite good and popular with climbers etc, but images will not compare to an M8 with RF glass.
But the A7 is a very fragile camera compared to M9 or M8, with lots of exposed bits, and not much tolerance for water. Battery life is abysmal.
Rx100 is quite good and popular with climbers etc, but images will not compare to an M8 with RF glass.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Ok, I knew this was going to happen... Since DOF involves a concept of "acceptably sharp" if you blow up a small portion of the image it can be that things which looked "sufficiently sharp" start to be not quite so. What I meant is that if you take a picture and you blow up a small portion of it, which is what you are doing anyway, since lenses project circular images and few of us take the whole picture (some home-made LF camera being the exception), this does not change the picture itself. When I wrote that "whether the result is ok or not it's up to discussion" I meant more or less what is in the article: it is possible that if you blow up the image produces in a 1mmx2mm square of the sensor to a 1'x2' print you get nothing which is actually sufficiently sharp, but you have not changed what is in that square.
GLF
kuuan
loves old lenses
if it really will be for your Leica M lenses, that is 'not' a fixed lens camera, and for travel I'd take a Sony NEX 5n/r/t or NEX6, alpha 6000 for being cheap, small and lightweight, or a Ricoh GXR M. These all have APC-C sized sensor that make you lenses longer by x1.5. If you think you want fullframe a Sony A7. Some of these are only available used.
I would not be all that concerned about the reported shortcomings of corner performance of RF wide angles. On the APS-C cameras they aren't all that obvious to non existing as on the GXR M. On the A7 one could, in those instances where corner performance is important, plan on cropping in post already when taking photos
I would not be all that concerned about the reported shortcomings of corner performance of RF wide angles. On the APS-C cameras they aren't all that obvious to non existing as on the GXR M. On the A7 one could, in those instances where corner performance is important, plan on cropping in post already when taking photos
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is relatively fragile, but hardly compared to Leicas, even less so to the digital ones. The M8/M9 aren't exactly kings of waterproofing either, and the Leica rangefinder is less knock resistant than the entire A7. If it must be waterproof and ruggedized, get a corresponding camera, or live with the risk and limit the budget to something you can write off if it breaks.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
Hey everyone. I went with an RX100 mii and decided against the leica glass option until I can pony up for an M9 or something full frame with the wide angle issue resolved. I found one used for like $300US and it works like a charm, so now I have more money for film and the trips.
I appreciate all the advice and warnings. I probably would have went a little over my head and would have to deal with a lot of unnecessary last minute frustrations.
Cheers!
I appreciate all the advice and warnings. I probably would have went a little over my head and would have to deal with a lot of unnecessary last minute frustrations.
Cheers!