Which Sony for frustrated M9 User?

For testing the waters, I think a used A7RII would give a very good sense of what Sony can do and could be resold for about what you paid should it turn out not to be for you. If I were sure about moving to Sony and didn't need 42 mp, the A7III would be the obvious choice.

The experience of using a Sony mirrorless with manual lenses will not compare with what you are used to with the M9. I think it is least painful to just move directly to native AF lenses if going the Sony route.

When you get your freshly-repaired M9 back from Leica, you could sell it and have most of the cost of a used M240, or even be well on the way to a used M262. These have older sensor technology than even the A7II, but are much more satisfying platforms for shooting M glass. The M262 weighs the same an M9 and offers a much-improved shooting experience.
 
Over 10K shots on original A7 and no sensor reflections. The e-mount is easily replaced with a metal Tough E-mount but I never saw the need, no play on mine.

I did however experience weird glare in the viewfinder with Minolta MC 58mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.7 MD Rokkor lenses, might be the specific coating producing sort of a digital noise in the EVF?

I had picked those lenses up cheap and meant to keep them while the Canon 50mm 1.2L was away for repair, to be sold after. But due to this glare I sold the Rokkors and got a used 85mm 1.2L instead.
I never had the issue with the Canon FD lenses.

But it might be different with the series ii and iii cameras
 
I have had an A7 and an A7R, now I only have an A7RII. I'm sure I will be tempted to upgrade to the RIII at some point.

The Sony produces very high quality files, and while most M wides may have some problems in the corners, if you choose the right M lenses, and supplement them with some R lenses, you are likely to be satisfied. I found I get great results with most 50's and up, the Elmarit-Rs for 28mm and 35mm, and for really - wide the Wate.

With the right lenses you will notice the advantages that the Sony sensors offer over the Leica's offerings. This is just my opinion, I am sure there are pixel-peeping complaints about every lens I use on any Sony...
 
nightfly said:
I'm guess I'm not all the clear on the distinctions between the A7 series and the A7R (or S for that matter). More than just number of pixels?
Click to expand...

roughly speaking, please anyone correct me if not entirely true: the 7 series is the "middle, ballanced" model, those with "S" are the high ISO beasts, have less MP but improved high ISO, possibly Dynamic range, those with the "R" the MP beasts, have more MP, but a bit less good high ISO performance.

The original A7 does not have in body image stabilization, the A7II series has the image stabilization, a slight bigger body and deeper grip, the A7III bigger battery. Sensors, number of AF points and speed also improved with higher numbers.

I believe the "S" have less, the "R" models possibly more pronounced issues with the RF wide angles, and the later models less than the early.

a detailed comparison of A7II and A7III ( and A9 ):
http://briansmith.com/sony-fullframe-comparison-sony-a7-iii-vs-a7-ii-vs-a7r-iii-vs-a9/

comparison googel results:
https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+Sony+A7%2C+A7+II%2C+A7+III&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
 
I am another one with a A7s for using my RF lenses, leica, russian, the silent shutter in the A7s and the high iso make it a good fit as a M replacement and it does ok with my wide angle lenses.
wbill
 
I suppose there's compromise built into your question.
How much weight and bulk do you want to deal with when traveling ?
I get excellent results from the 7s with adapted Zeiss Contax SLR lenses - only 12mp but with a more film-like smoothness and higher iso allowing high shutter speeds - but it's too much bulk for carting around as a traveller.
I also use a Nex 5100 ( same 24mp sensor as the 6000 ) for going light - 15mmVC, 25mm VC, 40mm summicron, 90mm leitz. A very small bag.
Perhaps the end-use of the images will dictate how much inconvenience needs to be tolerated.
Philip
 
Honestly... a used one. Sonys depreciate quickly. The original A7 is one of the cheapest, modern FF cameras on the market... like $700. Used, an A7II is a steal for what you get. A7R II is almost 50% of new price now used since the A7RIII came out. That said, they really are the antithesis of Leica when it comes to simplicity and ergonomics. Be careful ... I think the safe bet is a used A7II. Not crazy money and mature tech.
 
FWIW, I'm still very happy with my A7RII. Tons of resolution for cropping, sharp, and generally better results with RF lenses than the non-R models (at least as compared with my original A7).

Sonys are super customizable, so there are many options you can tweak. It'll probably take a little experimentation to settle in with defaults you like, but after that point you can pretty much ignore the deep menus and just enjoy taking pictures.
 
I recently purchased an A7II and a Loxia 50mm lens. It's the boost in image quality that I needed compared to my Fuji XT2 and Xpro2. But, I can't really use it. I just can't deal with the change in operation from my Fuji system to Sony. I'm thinking to sell or trade for more Fuji gear. Again, the A7II is great, especially for these Loxia lenses, but I've decide to stick with 100% Fuji.
 
twopointeight said:
I recently purchased an A7II and a Loxia 50mm lens. It's the boost in image quality that I needed compared to my Fuji XT2 and Xpro2. But, I can't really use it. I just can't deal with the change in operation from my Fuji system to Sony. I'm thinking to sell or trade for more Fuji gear. Again, the A7II is great, especially for these Loxia lenses, but I've decide to stick with 100% Fuji.
Click to expand...

I can relate.

Briefly I had the Sony A7 and a Fuji X-T1 but got confused with their ergonomics and button layout etc.

The Sony suited my preferred image quality more (lower contrast, slightly more muted colors) and I let go of the X-T1.
 
Back in the film days, I never chose Fuji color slide film, and now in digital, despite my investment in Fuji gear, I still sometimes cringe at the colorfulness. The Sony produces a palette more to my liking.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Let me introduce you to the saturation slider!
Click to expand...

I know where to find it but it felt kind of ludicrous to edit hundreds of files to a saturation that the Sony gave all by itself. Photography is performed behind a camera, not in front of a computer screen, I always like to think ;) So I let the X-T1 go and also ended the menu and button confusion :cool:

Added bonus, my fast 1.2 and 2.0 lenses really shine on a FF sensor, the sense of shallow DOF is greater.


@Nightfly, good luck picking an M9 replacement, I'm out of pros to list in this thread concerning the Sonys :D
 
johannielscom said:
I know where to find it but it felt kind of ludicrous to edit hundreds of files to a saturation that the Sony gave all by itself.
Click to expand...
Well then, let me introduce you to the preset! Seriously, if you like the rendering of the Sony better than the Fuji, use the Sony.

For the kind of photography I do, each image gets individual treatment, so in the scheme of things, tweaking the saturation slider one way or the other is just a small part of a larger process.
 
My experience with a7 and original 28summicron wasn’t great, particularly at corners

Now got my a7s alongside my M9 to cover almost all lighting situation.

Smaller file size stresses less on my computer and hard disk too
 
I don't really care about adapting lenses. I might do it but not as my primary glass. Would rather go with one or two of the Zeiss lenses and take advantage of autofocus etc. I've always like the rendering of Zeiss glass for color which is what I shoot mostly.

Sounds like best bet would be a used or new A7II (there are some good deals on new ones or new ones with lens combos). If not that than a used a A7R2 to get my feet wet.

Thanks for the info.
 
nightfly said:
I don't really care about adapting lenses. I might do it but not as my primary glass. Would rather go with one or two of the Zeiss lenses and take advantage of autofocus etc. I've always like the rendering of Zeiss glass for color which is what I shoot mostly.

Sounds like best bet would be a used or new A7II (there are some good deals on new ones or new ones with lens combos). If not that than a used a A7R2 to get my feet wet.

Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

I think you'll be very pleased with the results of any of the Sonys if you are going to get AF FE lenses. Just take time to figure out the obtuse menus and set the custom buttons and shortcuts to what use use frequently. I do a mostly landscape/scenics and find one or two of the apps very useful. I took the following seacape at about 10AM, with no neutral density filters using a Sony app (and printed at 36 x 54). It makes things very convenient and flexible.


 
The A7ii and A6500 have in-body stabilization.

I like the 55 f/1.8, a superb lens. Normal on the A7 series and a great portrait lens on the A6500.

Most used combo for me is the 24 f/1.8 Zeiss on the A6500.

Adapted lenses I've tried work great on both bodies, e.g. modern Voigtlanders. Focus peaking works very well for manual focusing. Some old lenses e.g. 58mm f/2 Biotar show up with great character.

A couple years ago, I tried various mirrorless, decided to give the Sony a try, and have not looked back.
 
nightfly said:
I might end up adapting my Leica lenses a 35mm Summicron and 50mm Summicron and a 135, but I'd probably rather take advantage of the newer lenses in similar focal lengths.

Know the system isn't remotely M like in use but at this point, I'm really more concerned with image quality and not coming back from a trip to discover lines on all my photos.
Click to expand...
Hope you get the M9 fixed. If not, sell the 35 or put it on a shelf. There are more Sony-friendly 35-mm lenses in M mount, such as Voigtländer 35/1.4, but going SLR or native should pay off. The 50 and 135 should be fine on the Sony cameras.

There are significant differences between the Sony A7 series cameras.

Generation-to-generation the main practical differences for most users are perhaps the following: better feel and handling going from 1st gen to 2nd gen and better battery going from 2nd gen to 3rd gen. The handling of the 1st gen cameras (at least A7 and A7r) was quite weak (although many are happy). The batteries used before 3rd gen cameras are rather abysmal. They were a problem on the NEX cameras already, and full frame did not help. Many other features are improved as well, but those are some that I feel most users will notice in practice.

The difference between regular, s, and r model are the same in each generation. You get the r model for large files and s for video. The s model also excels in low light, but they are close. If you do not care about large files or video, you should be happy with the regular one.

Even the original A7 is a capable camera. And so is the M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top