sig
Well-known
Maybe I did not get it, but the point in the blog was that Sony is driving innovation now in the same way that Leica once did? However that is a loooooong time ago, in that way Leica has not been Leica since the sixties
Scrambler
Well-known
Sony came off the back of the Konica-Minolta buy-out. The Minolta SLRs were quality and innovative. Even Leica used Minolta as a supplier.
Despite their leg-up, Sony have struggled with brand recognition in the space (should have stuck with Minolta IMHO) and the dominance of Canon and Nikon.
They have sought to differentiate with the SLT range. This hasn't worked as well as it should have: most people just seem to tolerate appalling autofocus with video.
So now they are turning to mirrorless. They are an established player in the field with the NEX line. The SLT advantages are available with an adapter, the A-mount legacy lenses likewise. The capacity to build a full-frame mirrorless capable of using the SLT/ A-mount full-frame lenses is now demonstrated. There is no reason to make SLT bodies any more: stick with mirrorless and use SLT-equipped adapters if you want. It's another reason the A7r doesn't have phase-detection autofocus - you can add it if you need it.
The A7 and A7r aren't intended as bodies for Leica lenses. They are bodies for E-mount and A-mount lenses which happen to also be usable via adapter for other mounts.
The suggestion that a FF mirrorless is in some way more Leica-ish than an APS-C mirrorless like the NEX-6 is laughable.
Sony is not, in any way, the new Leica.
If "Leica" is defined as "small camera big pictures" then the m4/3 cameras fit the bill better than Sony. If "retro-with-optical-VF", then Fujifilm. If "best lens quality" is the definition then the new Leica is ... Leica.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Comparing anything to Leica is blasphemy to some.
Sony is Sony.
Leica is Leica.
I will gladly trust Sony (with the Zeiss lenses) for a compact full frame mirrorless (as is the A7) - for 1/4 the cost of a new M240.
I will gladly continue to trust and use my Leica M7 for 35mm film.
To me, they are two different beasts (the companies and the types of cameras - even if comparing to the M240).
For those that want a digital rangefinder, Leica is the only game in town.
Cheers,
Dave
Sony is Sony.
Leica is Leica.
I will gladly trust Sony (with the Zeiss lenses) for a compact full frame mirrorless (as is the A7) - for 1/4 the cost of a new M240.
I will gladly continue to trust and use my Leica M7 for 35mm film.
To me, they are two different beasts (the companies and the types of cameras - even if comparing to the M240).
For those that want a digital rangefinder, Leica is the only game in town.
Cheers,
Dave
goamules
Well-known
Canon, Nicca, and other Japanese companies of the late 1950s were "the new Leica", with their innovations such as metal shutter curtains, automatic parallax adjusting external finders, rear film doors, etc. Japanese companies continued to innovate, dropping the rangefinder in favor of SLRs, and quickly decimated the German camera market. Leica has hung on for 50 years since by making the same type of camera bodies, out of heavy metal, and let's people pay 10 times as much because "nothing feels like a Leica."
On the Sony, sorry, an electrics black box from a company that makes everything from crock pots to stereos is not the same thing.
On the Sony, sorry, an electrics black box from a company that makes everything from crock pots to stereos is not the same thing.