A7(R) or Leica?

[Bruno Gracia]

Hi guys, after open a thread asking for help with film equipment (thanks to everyone, I've finally decided that You were all right and keep a M6) Could You give your thoughts about the A7R and 55?

As You know, I'm selling my whole leica and film equipment in praise of a new digital camera, affordable and with great IQ, the Sony sounds like what I'm looking for. What about the color? Near as good as the leica? I wish I could afford the S2 but maybe next year. I'm studding photography here in Spain and will realize a "master" in conceptual, artistic and documentary photography next September after my trip to India and Cuba (30yr present). I will keep my M6 and maybe the cron 35 IV, no need for more for my own pleasure but... Is the Sony really a pleasure camera? How pretty and big the images could be printed?

For sure when I can I will buy a S2 and maybe X2/RX1 or whatever as a street and travel camera.

So Sony A7R (or A7?) mainly for portraiture and street and some studio work. Better with the Zeiss ZA? or Maybe a good asph or APO design like the 90 (either M/R) or 75, or 50LA? I also have been considering the 60 macro elmarit, is just stunning, as the 50MP Zeiss is.

Well sorry, and many thanks again.

Bruno

 

[FrozenInTime]

Someone who has been through the process of elimination :http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/gas.html

 

[thegman]

Hi Bruno,
I've not used digital Leica or the Sony A7, but I'd imagine the colour rendition would be the same. Not OOC JPEGs (although still not different enough to matter), but after you've done your usual post processing, they'll be the same.

Is the Sony a pleasure camera? That's like asking if a Domino's pizza is a pleasure pizza, for some it will be, and some it won't.

For portraiture, most people would probably go with the 90mm, but I doubt if it's an APO design matters in the slightest.

Cheers

Garry

 

[YYV_146]

I won't use the A7r with any version of the 35 cron. The A7 is a better choice for any M lens below 50mm. If you do want to get one of the Leica 90mm's or the 75lux, the A7r is probably the best choice. You'll definitely need to recalibrate the M6 for use with a 75lux - chances are any copy now would be more or less out of whack and/or readjused to another M body. With the Sony you won't have to care about alignment at all.

The M240 produces nicer Jpegs than the Sonys, so does the M9. But the A7 and M9 put together is still about a grand cheaper than a new M240. I have not noticed any color or rendition differences with the RAW files of the M240 and A7, except that the A7's noise is marginally less pleasing at high ISO levels and the M240 shows visible starting from 3200. If you are keen on getting the most of files after processing and proofing, the A7r (and A7) is your best option.

As for the type of photography, I shoot everything with two Sony A7s and Leica lenses. Check out some of my works in the links below and see what using focus peaking and manual can do. That said, the M is attractive for street work with its larger-than capture size viewfinder...

 

[YYV_146]

For portraits (and a Sony body) the Sony 135mm F2.8 STF wins against any Leica lens ever made. I own the 90APO and pre-a E55, but if there is enough light to play with, I won't use any other long lens aside from the 135STF. It's sharper across most of the frame compared to the 90APO, and with much, much, much better Bokeh.

A7, 135mm F2.8 STF. Shot with the hood off for a bit of extra flare...

 

[Bruno Gracia]

Thanks Garry, clever answer.

Victor, I'm amazed with your pictures, great work! specially those with the 135mm, gorgeus lens I remember when I had the A900, I tried once and was pleased with the IQ and singular qualities.

So... no color differences in a final RAW file... nice!

How is the EVF on the sony?

 

[YYV_146]

Thanks Garry, clever answer.

Victor, I'm amazed with your pictures, great work! specially those with the 135mm, gorgeus lens I remember when I had the A900, I tried once and was pleased with the IQ and singular qualities.

So... no color differences in a final RAW file... nice!

How is the EVF on the sony?

Yes. IMO CMOS sensors are all more or less similar - some are obvious not as good as others, but the basic response curve is comparable. This is especially true with Sony cameras, since they own ~60% of the entire FF and APS-C sensor market. If you've ever used a Pentax or Nikon FF body (and the A900 of course counts), it should take little time to familiarize with the A7's files.

The EVF is excellent, the equivalent of the EM1(Olympus buys the entire EVF from Sony) and the standalone VF-4 finder. Colors are neutral, well represented, and you can actually tweak the brightness and WB of the EVF...I tend to leave it as-is since the camera meters to the yellow side anyways. A big step up from the NEX7/6 EVF, which tends to have blurry corners because of the compact optics.

 

[Godfrey]

I have leica M9, Sony A7, and Olympus E-M1. All very different cameras, each with strengths and weaknesses.

The A7 is delightful. I use Leica R lenses with it, and it sings. The viewfinder, responsiveness, and controls are not as good as the E-M1's, but they're good.

Buy and use one for what it is: a good viewfinder, an excellent sensor, and slightly clunky otherwise. Ver adaptable for SLR lenses, not so much so for RF lenses.

G

 

[xyz3450]

I was going to mention that Godfrey has been experimenting with the A7 and R lenses. But he just beat me to it. I have seen some nice pictures on Flickr of the A7s with OM Zuiko lesnes. I have some Zuiko lenses and am pondering one of the A7's as a digital back for these. Zuiko are (relatively) compact....

 

[funkydog]

I use a Sony A7 because it's currently the best full frame digicam (that i can afford) for hanging leica mount rf lenses on - until the next new and improved digicam is released.

Buy and use whatever camera that gives you more self confidence to take better photos, preferably one you can easily afford without selling a kidney. Photographers in the places you intend to visit make do with way less sophisticated equipment. I doubt anyone got a journalism award based solely on the brand or technical excellence of their equipment. There are TIPA awards but those aren't handed out to individual photographers.

p.s. Get yourself to a Sony store and try out the camera in person. You might love it.. or hate it. Bring a sdcard too.

 

[Bruno Gracia]

Thank You very much to all of You, seems to be that I really am amazed by the quality of the A7R and almost decided to get it with the two sony/zeiss primes.

 

[Archiver]

I'm in another one of those GAS moods where I'm contemplating the A7. The A7r won't be the go because it doesn't play well with RF lenses, and the A7s looks like it will be AUD$3200-3500 when it is released. Now, I know I've been all moon-eyed over the A7s since the test videos came out, but $3200 is way more than the A7 or A7r in Australia. I'd be able to claim it as a tax deduction for work, but it's still a chunk more money than the A7.

Is is pretty much a given that the A7 is the way to go if you want to use RF lenses? I would like to use the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8, Voigtlander 35/1.4, 35/1.2, Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 and the Summarit 75.

I don't have many manual focus SLR lenses at all, only three Minolta Rokkors (35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8) and two Pentax SMC(50/1.4 and 28/2.8). In theory, if those lenses work well, I'd be sitting pretty for a very long time!

 

[Bruno Gracia]

I've came back from a dealer and..z couldn't be more disappointed.

It's not a Leica and the color output files on A2 lack of life or... I don't know how to call.

Back to my Leica system, which is the most enjoyable I've ever used, and best lenses ever made.

 

[bwcolor]

Are you referencing the A7 raw, JPG, or both? Sony JPG isn't the best, but with raw, color is easy to adjust to taste in post. White balance adjustable in camera.

 

[YYV_146]

I've came back from a dealer and..z couldn't be more disappointed.

It's not a Leica and the color output files on A2 lack of life or... I don't know how to call.

Back to my Leica system, which is the most enjoyable I've ever used, and best lenses ever made.

Are you comparing the Jpegs or the RAW files? If you are pitting the A7 against the M9, the M9 will have a better natural tonal response at base iso, simply by virture of it being a CCD sensor. But what you give up at base you gain at higher iso levels.

 

[jsrockit]

I gotta say, I'm a huge fan of the A7r with native lenses...I absolutely love it. But if I wanted to use M lenses again, I would go for the Leica. It's just a perfect match IMO.

 

[xyz3450]

Bruno -- and how did you find the handling of the camera when you tried it out? Did you naturally take to it?

I've came back from a dealer and..z couldn't be more disappointed.

It's not a Leica and the color output files on A2 lack of life or... I don't know how to call.

Back to my Leica system, which is the most enjoyable I've ever used, and best lenses ever made.

 

[thompsonks]

Is is pretty much a given that the A7 is the way to go if you want to use RF lenses? I would like to use the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8, Voigtlander 35/1.4, 35/1.2, Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 and the Summarit 75.

I don't have many manual focus SLR lenses at all, only three Minolta Rokkors (35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8) and two Pentax SMC(50/1.4 ....

You'd better stem your enthusiasm a bit? Only few M lenses of 50mm and below will work on A7 without smearing and tinting the corners. Your CV 35 1.2 will work well, but your 50 Sonnar is one that won't. R and other retrofocus lenses work better than M in the mid-wide and normal focal lengths. This was the initial confusion: folks thought the A7/r was a new low cost, high ISO platform for M lenses, but they turned out instead to be the digital bodies that saved R glass.

 

[Godfrey]

Are you comparing the Jpegs or the RAW files? If you are pitting the A7 against the M9, the M9 will have a better natural tonal response at base iso, simply by virture of it being a CCD sensor. But what you give up at base you gain at higher iso levels.

Frankly, I find the opposite to be the case. My A7 JPEGs right out of the camera are far better than what I get in JPEGs out of the M9.

I see zero value to the whole "CCD vs CMOS" sensor riff. To me, that's internet myth at work. While the response curve of a CCD is different from the response curve of a CMOS sensor, the magic is in the image processing downstream from the chip. I get excellent results out of both when I work with the raw files, but the M9 raw files generally take more work to achieve what I'm after.

G

 

[Godfrey]

You'd better stem your enthusiasm a bit? Only few M lenses of 50mm and below will work on A7 without smearing and tinting the corners. Your CV 35 1.2 will work well, but your 50 Sonnar is one that won't. R and other retrofocus lenses work better than M in the mid-wide and normal focal lengths. This was the initial confusion: folks thought the A7/r was a new low cost, high ISO platform for M lenses, but they turned out instead to be the digital bodies that saved R glass.

Absolutely. If I didn't have the R lenses crying for a digital body to use them on, I'd not have even bothered buying the A7.

G