Is Sony the new Leica?

The article says, "Actually, if you want the ultimate quality from that $7,500 Summicron APO… mount it on an A7r."

Actually, I've heard many folks disappointed precisely with the 35mm Summicron on the A7r due to corner smearing, etc
 
Sony can never be a new Leica.
Sony as a company manufacture a multitude of electronics many of them very good and they obviously can make good cameras too.
But, they have no history in camera and lens manufacture. Leica is full of history and will always be the ultimate camera to many, they may no longer make the most advanced rangefinder cameras but for those that have been using cameras for a few decades a camera made by an electronics company as Sony will not take the place of Leica even if Leica should fail to make it.
 
The current Leica is the new Leica. It sure as heck ain't the old Leica that was owned and operated by the Leitz family. :(
 
Actually.. Sony makes so many different digital bodies every year compared to the number of decent fixed focal length lenses that it is a good thing it is not the new Leica. Leica, Zeiss, sigma and others will continue to make money fom their lens sales until Sony gets on the ball the same way Fuji did w/ their lens roadmap.

Although I do like the new Sony's better then before, ie., rx100, RX1, and a7 family.. Right now Sony needs to prove to me that they have their act together in terms of their native lenses and not depend on Zeiss to bail them out.

Gary
 
Jan Pedersen said:
Sony can never be a new Leica.
Sony as a company manufacture a multitude of electronics many of them very good and they obviously can make good cameras too.
But, they have no history in camera and lens manufacture. Leica is full of history and will always be the ultimate camera to many, they may no longer make the most advanced rangefinder cameras but for those that have been using cameras for a few decades a camera made by an electronics company as Sony will not take the place of Leica even if Leica should fail to make it.
Click to expand...

They have inherited history via the employees they retained via the Minolta/Konica buyout. How much these employees have in terms of a say in the products that are current developed vs the Sony old guard (their p&s cameras) who knows.

Gary
 
IMO neither is the new Leica. A7/r doesn't work well in the corners with most 28-35mm M lenses, and M240 bands at high ISOs. Neither is very satisfactory, so the interesting question is what will happen next.
 
True, the company is different now and as my newest Leica is an M6 from 86 is am not fully up to date. I still live in the Leitz film era. :(
The new digital Leica's are much to expensive for my taste so I doubt that I will ever own one of those.
 
CameraQuest said:
NOT AT ALL!

Sony is not aiming to destroy its dealer network in order to promote its own Sony owned and operated Apple wannabe stores
Click to expand...

Actually there are Sony stores filled with only Sony products. And you really can't blame Apple for opening the Apple stores, Do you remember the 90's? You couldn't find an Apple for sale anywhere other than CompUSA, mail order and a few independent computer shops. And even then it took a lot of work for Apple to get some widespread retail space and when they did no one wanted to sell them because all the sales people were making more on commission from selling Dell's and Compaq's than they were selling Macintosh's. Anyone who walked into a sears to buy an iMac was gently guided over to the Windows section, told how there wasn't any software for Macs and then rung up with a brand new PC. Apple took the initiative and opened their own stores and Leica making a similar move will probably be their saving grace as most camera stores you walk into kinda blow you off if you want to check out a Leica.
 
At least it is not another stupid article about mobile phones.
But still stupid.
Leica is not only RFs, but very special optics.
Sony is no-name manufacturer in terms of camera design and they are not exist in the lens world.
Fuji fake RFs X-series are sexy, all Sony cameras not even close to Leica.
Once you hold Leica for first time in your hands, you'll never forget it. Including rebadged Panasonic gear. Sony, just nothing. Boxes with buttons on it...
 
Ko.Fe. said:
At least it is not another stupid article about mobile phones.
But still stupid.
Leica is not only RFs, but very special optics.
Sony is no-name manufacturer in terms of camera design and they are not exist in the lens world.
Fuji fake RFs X-series are sexy, all Sony cameras not even close to Leica.
Once you hold Leica for first time in your hands, you'll never forget it. Including rebadged Panasonic gear. Sony, just nothing. Boxes with buttons on it...
Click to expand...

Yep I agree.
 
Comparing Leica and Sony is ridiculous. The A7s have no commonalities with Leicas at all except being full frame and mirror-less. EVF, SLR-like prism-shaped bulge on top, loud shutter, AF, the list goes on... Totally different philosophies.

If I had to pick the closest company to Leica in spirit, that would be Fuji. I said closest, not that close.. They are of course still very different cameras. I agree with Ko.Fe, there is nothing like holding a Leica. I'll always use them for my film cameras. For digital however, I plan on going the Fuji route. I don't think digital Leicas will hold their value like film cameras. Some parts, as we've seen on the M8 will not remain available. Mechanical parts can always be made by a small scale enterprise, not electronics. Imagine the future.. Something breaks in your M4.. You could always hire a precision machine shop to make you a part. Expensive yes, but not impossible. Now imagine asking a company to make an M8 sensor for you? Unless you're willing to spend hundreds of thousands or more, it wouldn't happen.

There is nothing like Leica on the market today, that's why they can charge a premium, even though they still haven't made the transition from mechanics to electronics very well. Remember the R? Sony of course comes from electronics, so they have a huge advantage. Leica relies on external sources and that can be a big problem. Until they make their own electronics, I wouldn't spend $7K for a digital Leica. I'd get an X-PRO1 or X100S, certainly not a Sony. Not to say anything bad about Sonys, but their cameras are lower on the rangefinder experience ladder that Fujis. Almost nobody looking at my photos would be able to tell the difference anyway.

Gil.
 
"But Sony took on the challenge to a new level… to develop a camera with most of the modern conveniences and features that photographers want, a full 35mm format sensor (arguably the best ever made), and crammed it into a small and light form factor. In this regard, Sony’s focus with this system is very much like Oskar Barnack and Leica’s original concept… make the best possible image quality in a smaller size."

Let's examine this...Sony has done some nice stuff, people have enjoyed their R1, later NEX line, also DSLR's. Is full-frame A7 so big step-up from either DSLR sized full-frame camera or from mirrorless sized APS-C sensor camera to call this a new level?
 
A little like saying that Lexus is the new BMW or Mercedes ... it depends on the length of your arms and the depth of your pockets!
 
It's really strange, to me, how little information content is present in this article. The picture captioned "High quality 35mm… A7 style or DSLR style" shows the Sony camera and a Canon dSLR at different scales and, to confuse the issue further, the camera shown is the 60D, with an APS-C sensor.

Seeing an error like that makes me think that the chap writing it knows next to nothing about his subject and should be ignored.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
It's really strange, to me, how little information content is present in this article. The picture captioned "High quality 35mm… A7 style or DSLR style" shows the Sony camera and a Canon dSLR at different scales and, to confuse the issue further, the camera shown is the 60D, with an APS-C sensor.

Seeing an error like that makes me think that the chap writing it knows next to nothing about his subject and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

Agree. I'm a bit surprised why the article was even considered interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top