Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: sharperstill on October 14, 2014, 01:15:18 am
-
Hi,
This is a kind of pre-research post.
I've reached a point where such is my hatred of scanning film that I cannot bring myself to shoot 35mm film any longer.
As such I'm looking to divest from my remaining 35mm film gear. I'd like to re-invest, or partially re-invest, in a high quality carry-around as I likewise rarely find myself wanting to carry my DSLR around much.
I have to sell a Leica M6, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.4 (older pre-asph) in the M-system as well as a 35mm f2 in the R system left over from a kit sold quite some time ago.
The cameras that I am considering are the usual suspects:
A7/A7r - really nice in theory though I find the ergonomics rather awful. As a friend said they take nice pictures but don't make you want to shoot much with them. Perhaps I'd get a bit used to it.
X-Pro 1: A friend has one and swears by it. Despite being older seems to be kept viable via firmware upgrades. Good ergonomics.
XT-1: 'only' 16Mp but looks good in most other respects. Haven't played with one yet.
So in the process of listing my Leica gear for sale today it dawned on me the glass might be worth hanging on to for use on the new camera. From what I've read the A7/A7r is picky with 3rd party glass.
So I'm inviting input from those with experience about which lenses might be worth keeping to use adapted on a mirror less. Feel free to point me in the direction of reviews/reading on the subject.
I want to keep the form factor small, so I'm not really interested in adapting my Canon lenses. The R35 f2 and the 35 Summicron both quite compact in design, as is the 50 f1.5
Jon
-
Hi,
To keep in mind:
A7 is full frame and Fuji is APS-C. So your 35 mm lenses are still wide angle on the A7 and but work as a 52.5 mm lens on Fuji. Leica M-lenses may suffer on DSLRs as the cover glass over the sensor is not taken into account. This effect would be worst for on wide angles. Needs to be tested.
Leica R-lenses are not problematic as beam angle is narrower.
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik,
Of course, thanks for the reminder. It's a shame that in order to test I'd have to commit to buying an adapter.
I'm interested in views of 'usability' of manual lenses on cameras such as these - ease of focus, metering/viewfinder issues etc. The idea of a carry-around, to me, is to have something that doesn't deter from using it often and quick.
The sale of the M lenses and keeping the R is attractive from an economic point of view also.
Jon
-
The Sony a7r is very capable. It has replaced my Leica M9 as my main camera. The only M glass that I find work well are the 75mm (and up) and the Tri-Elmar 16-21. As noted above, the 35mm R would work well, but the Zeiss/Sony 35mm f/2.8 is so good and light, you might find you'd prefer it to the R. The operations of the a7r are not exactly what I'd like, but it's quite capable of being set up such that it works quite well.
As to adapters for M lenses, the Novoflex has the best reputation, but I vastly prefer the Voigtlander vm-e because I can set the infinity focus point. In fact, I can set it anywhere I want and have a very convenient platform for dual-focus stacking.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Thanks Paul.
Shame they didn't make the native lens a little faster. It sure looks like they've got room in the barrel for fatter glass.
It occurred to me to ask whether the adaptors incur a speed penalty. Would my R 35 f2 still be f2 via an adapter?
Jon
-
Thanks Paul.
Shame they didn't make the native lens a little faster. It sure looks like they've got room in the barrel for fatter glass.
It occurred to me to ask whether the adaptors incur a speed penalty. Would my R 35 f2 still be f2 via an adapter?
Jon
Normal adapters have no optical parts, they just adjust the lens to sensor distance to the correct amount. So the optical specs stay the same and the quality does not suffer.
There are also adapters which do have optics in them, Metabone being the leader in the field. The idea is the reverse of a tele extender, making the lenses mode wide angle and faster. There, of course, is some slight penalty from the added optical parts.
-
As to fast glass, that new 35mm f/1.4 Distagon is probably going to be a super lens for the Sony, but I'd wait for some one else to review it on that platform. It's also, in my view, a bit on the heavy side for the a7. Zeiss has released versions of the f/2 35mm Biogon and 50mm Planar for the Sony, but, frankly, they look like marketing to the traditional people who will react to the name more than the actual edge performance, where the real issues are. Unless Zeiss has some inside info that there will soon be a new model with less sensitivity to ray angle, that f/2 Biogon does not look like the solution. I can't believe Sony will not have a 35mm f/2, compact lens solution. So, I'm just going to hang with the 2.8 until I see a real and compact, optically modern and appropriate solution.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Paul,....Nice website,...I looked at every page which was time well spent.
I have been assuming that A7r is a fad and just a flash in the pan compared to 'real' cameras like the M9. I don't own either camera but have my pennies scraped together for when a decent full-frame appears at a price I can manage......Hopefully it will replace my Rolleiflexes.
.....What made you replace M9 with the A7r?
-
Hi,
The Zeiss lenses have been recalculated for the handling the cover glass. A test was published on 3d-kraft indicating a pretty extreme difference between the 35/2.8 zm and the Loxia 35/2.8.
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168:zeiss-loxia-2-35-short-comparison-review&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Best regards
Erik
As to fast glass, that new 35mm f/1.4 Distagon is probably going to be a super lens for the Sony, but I'd wait for some one else to review it on that platform. It's also, in my view, a bit on the heavy side for the a7. Zeiss has released versions of the f/2 35mm Biogon and 50mm Planar for the Sony, but, frankly, they look like marketing to the traditional people who will react to the name more than the actual edge performance, where the real issues are. Unless Zeiss has some inside info that there will soon be a new model with less sensitivity to ray angle, that f/2 Biogon does not look like the solution. I can't believe Sony will not have a 35mm f/2, compact lens solution. So, I'm just going to hang with the 2.8 until I see a real and compact, optically modern and appropriate solution.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
On my X-Pro1 I find adapted lenses to be generally less usable than native lenses. Native lenses are simply more convenient--and fully up to snuff in terms of image quality. Any gains you might find from your Leica glass will be quickly overshadowed by the PITA it is to use them... I found this on my Nex-7 as well.
If you are working from a tripod, always shooting wide-open, or have a lens with particular character (I have an 85mm f1.5 LTM Canon for instance) then it may be worth exploring adapting lenses. I wouldn't expect to work only with adapted lenses--native lenses are just better from a working tool standpoint. Others, I'm looking at you, Kirk Tuck, might disagree.
The X-Pro1, while it has some quirks and flaws, is one of my favorite digital cameras to date.
-
+1 on the Voigtländer vm-e adapter. Besides letting you set an accurate infinity you can use it to focus closer than M/LTM lenses otherwise allow.
I use my A7r with a motley collection of mostly older lenses. It's not my main camera so I don't mind that manual focusing, stopping down, etc. slow me down somewhat. I get a huge kick out of taking photos with 1930s-era uncoated lenses previously orphaned by electronic cameras. They provide a unique look.
-Dave-
-
Regarding my switch from the M9 to the a7r, it was about 36 MP, modern electronics, and through the lens viewing. If I were a street shooter who was expert in rangefinder focusing, I'd stay with the M9. However, for landscapes the electronics of the a7r do make a difference. While I was (am) disappointed with the Sony's inability to handle the M wides, the Zony 35mm f/2.8 is a very good lens; it fairly blows away my 35mm Biogon on the M9.
As to the electronics, the Sony meter is the best I've ever used; the M9 is crude by comparison. I also really like the electronic level, as well as the viewfinder histogram.
On the other side of the ledger, the light weight of the Sony is a dual edged sword. One must be very careful about holding it steady. The M9 mass and smoothness makes for much more forgiving fast and awkward shooting. Also, focusing the a7r manually is very slow compared to that M rangefinder.
Overall, however, I just think the Sony can and does capture a better image at least in my type of shooting.
As to the Zeiss Biogon remake for the Sony, I'm sure that they did enough in the re-design to make it work fine, but I also think the edge performance is not up to what modern designs can bring. The published MTF for the new Biogon (Loxia) is not impressive. I expect to see an f/2 AF Zony that will blow away the old Biogon design, particularly at the edges. Now whether I'd want the AF is another issue. I'm not thrilled by the MF by wire these lenses offer. My wish list is for a Sony that matches the Leica's ability to capture edge detail/obtuse ray angles. Being able to use my more compact, more symmetrical wide angle M lenses on top notch electronics is still something I hope for, whether brought to me by Leica or Sony.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Thanks for the responses so far. I'm glad I asked and I think I'm just going to go native lenses at the moment. Fast usability is going to be key, and when I don't need fast I have a bunch of Canon glass I can use via adapters.
I still wish there was a way to try before you buy. I'd love to spend a weekend with each of the contenders rather than a few minutes in a shop.
-
You could always rent each from Lensrentals for a few days.
-
Ironically my best performing rangefinder 35mm lens on the A7r is a pre-WWII Zeiss Jena f/4.5 Orthometar. Zeiss dropped this lens after developing the f/2.8 Biogon. The Orthometar suffers very little from corner smearing/blurring artifacts. I typically use it at ~f/9.5 but for flat-field subjects it's already fine in the corners at f/5.6.
The attached photo was taken with the A7r/Orthometar combo last winter.
-Dave-
-
You could always rent each from Lensrentals for a few days.
Nope - no such Australian equivalent that I can find.
-
Personally I would hang on to the R and M Leica glass. It's worth more to keep than you can achieve by selling, and it's expensive to buy back.
I bought my M series lenses before 1990. I've been using them constantly since. First on an M6, then on a Panny GH1, then a Sony Nex7.
The M glass produced superb results on the Nex7. Better than the standard Sony lenses IMHO.
For me at least, end result trumps convenience. You can always buy a native (auto) zoom or something if you want convenience.
I own a few m4/3rds lenses and they haven't quite come up to the IQ of my legacy lenses in my opinion. I even use an old Alpa Kern Switar that is amazing (using a Metabones adapter).
The best modern lens I own is a Sigma 18-35mm, which is also superb.
In any case, I would at least keep your Leica glass until you've at least experimented with native Fuji/Sony lenses. If they do the job, you can always sell the Leica lenses later down the road.
-
Thicker filter stacks interact with lenses in such a way that the closer the lens' exit pupil is to the stack the more likely you'll get astigmatism-like blurring & smearing at the image corners. This is why Leica opts for a thin stack. Rangefinder lenses, in particular older wide-angles, tend to have deep exit pupils. SLRs and newer mirrorless systems don't suffer nearly as much from this: SLRs due to physical necessity (the lens has to avoid getting hit by the mirror) and Fuji, Olympus/Panasonic, Sony, etc. due to design choice. The thicker stack likely affords some flexibility in filter design, whereas Leica needs to be very careful. My guess is the M8's IR issue was an unintentional by-product of a thin stack.
Note that the Zeiss 35/4.5 Orthometar (example image above) is an RF wide angle outlier. It's one of the first 35mm lenses designed for a 36x24mm imaging area and, unlike the later Biogon, uses an optical design with a relatively shallow exit pupil. Maybe Zeiss & Leitz should've further developed this & similar designs rather than going the Biogon/Super Angulon route. ;)
-Dave-
-
It's worth more to keep than you can achieve by selling
This is a nonsensical statement. Notwithstanding that I have no interest in adding to my camera gear for the sake of it. The Leica isn't getting used, isn't likely to be used and is worth considerable money.
For me at least, end result trumps convenience. You can always buy a native (auto) zoom or something if you want convenience.
As I stated, for this rig I want convenience and portability. I have almost a full suite of Canon primes to adapt if I want.
-
Huh????
You invited thoughts on what to keep:
So in the process of listing my Leica gear for sale today it dawned on me the glass might be worth hanging on to for use on the new camera. From what I've read the A7/A7r is picky with 3rd party glass.
So I'm inviting input from those with experience about which lenses might be worth keeping to use adapted on a mirror less.
I gave you my thoughts based on actual experience and you say I'm being nonsensical. ???
Yes, I found my Leica glass yielded excellent results on mirrorless systems, and really wasn't awkward to use. The results I got were worth more to me than the couple of grand I'd get selling them. Once I'd sold my Leica glass, if I ever wanted it again, I doubt I could afford to buy it back. Native lenses lose value over time. Quality Leica glass doesn't. Hence my statement that's it's worth more to me keeping it, than selling it and replacing it with native glass.
Better to buy a couple of native lenses and see how you go before letting the R and M lenses go.
In my humble opinion.
Sorry the opinion you invited seemed to irk you. I was trying to help based on having used both Nex and m4/3rds lenses as well as Leica.
-
Native lenses lose value over time. Quality Leica glass doesn't. Hence my statement that's it's worth more to me keeping it, than selling it and replacing it with native glass. Better to buy a couple of native lenses and see how you go before letting the R and M lenses go.
That's good pragmatic advice.
@OP: Leica M wides are below par on the A7 series, but at 75mm and up perform well on the A7. Your post was not confined to the Sony, but also the Fuji X series. Leica glass on the Fuji X is excellent. Period.
-
Hi Jon,
Why not also consider a used Leica M9?
A Sony with adapter will set you back almost as much as a used Leica M9.
Best, Joris.
-
Let me chime in and say I was really tickled with the prices I received when I sold my M-glass after I sold my M8.2
And then I kicked myself in the butt when I decided on an M240
Let your children sell your M-glass if they don't want it. No lens appreciates... but an M does!
he doesn't want an M9 JV, he wants MPxls....
-
he doesn't want an M9 JV, he wants MPxls....
I guess the M9 has slightly more than the Fuji's being considered...although if you are looking for MPxls the A7R is the obvious choice...
From what I have read the A7R is not so good though with Leica glass... I own the A7s and first tests (also) with the Voigtlander VM-E Close Focus Adapter have been satisfactory I must say.
As far as X-Pro1 versus X-T1 goes I prefer the handling of the X-pro1 and its X-Trans I files over the X-Trans II files.
An potentially interesting (although quite biased IMO) read comparing the Sony A7 with the Fuji X-T1 is the following:
http://jliesche.wordpress.com/x-t1vsa7/
I don't agree with quite a few things in the article, e.g. IMO the Fuji beats the Sony easily as far as looks and handling is concerned...
The article does touch upon the main pain points of the A7 family: lack of native lens support and really bad battery life.
-
my experience with the X-Pro IQ was very positive. On that and color balance it bests any Sony sensor I've seen. Including N-files. Cant stand the red cast, but I realize that's just my taste.
I shoot my family mainly and an early X-Pro was not nearly the camera I needed however.
-
Huh????
You invited thoughts on what to keep:
I gave you my thoughts based on actual experience and you say I'm being nonsensical. ???
Yes, I found my Leica glass yielded excellent results on mirrorless systems, and really wasn't awkward to use. The results I got were worth more to me than the couple of grand I'd get selling them. Once I'd sold my Leica glass, if I ever wanted it again, I doubt I could afford to buy it back. Native lenses lose value over time. Quality Leica glass doesn't. Hence my statement that's it's worth more to me keeping it, than selling it and replacing it with native glass.
Better to buy a couple of native lenses and see how you go before letting the R and M lenses go.
In my humble opinion.
Sorry the opinion you invited seemed to irk you. I was trying to help based on having used both Nex and m4/3rds lenses as well as Leica.
Point taken. Sorry, I must have been grumpy and thinking in purely $ terms.
It's a bit of an either/or situation for me though. I won't get enough for the M6 body to buy an A7,
If the use of non-native lenses "really wasn't awkward to use" would you care to share your shooting 'workflow'?
-
I mostly shoot in 'manual' anyway. Or aperture priority. I set the aperture on the lens itself to suit the image I'm hoping to capture.
The only thing I really have to think about then is manual focussing. The M lenses are pretty quick and easy to focus in my experience, especially with focus peaking and focus zoom on modern compact cameras.
I guess it's subjective, but I've found I prefer the IQ of my M lenses on the Panny GH1 and Nex7 to the native offerings (I haven't tried Olympus or Zeiss lenses).
The major thing you are missing with legacy lenses is a wide option on cropped sensor cameras. I think the widest M lens is 21mm? The widest I own is 28mm and it's not wide at all on my Nex or m4/3rds bodies.
I'm using M glass on a Blackmagic m4/3rds video camera too. The Leica 35mm, f2 is as sharp as the Sigma 18-35mm which is deemed to be one of the sharpest lenses you can use on the Blackmagic cameras. So I can't see me selling my M glass any time soon as they've been continuously useful since I bought them in 1988..
-
If the use of non-native lenses "really wasn't awkward to use" would you care to share your shooting 'workflow'?
I can give you mine (A7r):
- Set aperture on lens
- Choose composition via EVF
- Do rough focus via peaking
- Tweak aperture if necessary
- Fine tune exposure via zebras
- Place focus rectangle at the "correct" spot (optional)
- Magnify focus rectangle & fine tune focusing (optional)
- Press shutter button
The two optional items aren't necessary when zone focusing or when taking pics quickly with the lens stopped well down.
-Dave-
-
I can give you mine (A7r):
- Set aperture on lens
- Choose composition via EVF
- Do rough focus via peaking
- Tweak aperture if necessary
Yes, that's what i do. The first three only most of the time. I only shoot raw, so WB is optional and I can adjust any slight mistake with exposure. My only concern is composing the shot and focus. I find focus with zoom and peaking very accurate I must say. And the beauty of being in 'manual' is I can recompose the image after focussing without having to press any further buttons.[/list]
-
I can give you mine (A7r):
- Set aperture on lens
- Choose composition via EVF
- Do rough focus via peaking
- Tweak aperture if necessary
- Fine tune exposure via zebras
- Place focus rectangle at the "correct" spot (optional)
- Magnify focus rectangle & fine tune focusing (optional)
- Press shutter button
The two optional items aren't necessary when zone focusing or when taking pics quickly with the lens stopped well down.
-Dave-
I don't use peaking but go straight to magnification and I skip the zebras as well.
I haven't used it a lot yet but as above-mentioned (at least on the A7s) it seems to work pretty well.
-
The major thing you are missing with legacy lenses is a wide option on cropped sensor cameras. I think the widest M lens is 21mm? The widest I own is 28mm and it's not wide at all on my Nex or m4/3rds bodies.
The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, aka the WATE, works well on the NEX sensors I've tried, and also on FF. Because (shhh, don't let Leica hear you say this) it's a zoom, there aren't any ray angle problems to speak of. Tres cher, though.
I have a 24mm Elmar-M ASPH f/3.8 that works great on my a7S. The 18mm Super-Elmar is a nice lens, too. Neither is anywhere near as expensive as Leica's fast wides, and, with the a7S I find I don't need the lens speed.
Jim
-
With my Sony a7r, the WATE is excellent, the 24mm Elmar-M ASPH f/3.8 edges are mediocre and corners bad, in my view.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
The article does touch upon the main pain points of the A7 family: lack of native lens support and really bad battery life.
I find the battery life to be adequate. I did buy a spare but so far I've not needed to use it but maybe only using the EVF and turning the camera off when I'm not going to shoot for a few minutes helps. Also, note that the camera drains the battery even when it's turned off so I always take the battery out when putting the camera to bed for the night.
The lens situation is to be expected as it's such a new system however new ones do seem to be coming through now, both AF and MF, and most seem to be aimed at the higher end of the market. Which is nice.
Personally as a complete amateur I don't need lenses aiming to be amongst the very best new mass market lenses and I seem to be happy using my old Rokkor, Zuiko and FD's. I'll probably be tempted to get 28, 55 and 85mm AF lenses once they're out, and possibly a macro too.
-
I find the battery life to be adequate. I did buy a spare but so far I've not needed to use it but maybe only using the EVF and turning the camera off when I'm not going to shoot for a few minutes helps. Also, note that the camera drains the battery even when it's turned off so I always take the battery out when putting the camera to bed for the night.
The lens situation is to be expected as it's such a new system however new ones do seem to be coming through now, both AF and MF, and most seem to be aimed at the higher end of the market. Which is nice.
Personally as a complete amateur I don't need lenses aiming to be amongst the very best new mass market lenses and I seem to be happy using my old Rokkor, Zuiko and FD's. I'll probably be tempted to get 28, 55 and 85mm AF lenses once they're out, and possibly a macro too.
No personal experience with the A7R and A7 but Michael also seems to have noticed the same in his review for the A7s:
I did notice that the A7s goes though batteries faster than the A7r, but with only a few days to shoot and do tests I am unable to quantify this. Video on the A7s seems to be particularly battery intensive.
I personally find it pretty bad but I also have only shot with it a few days. Based upon my experiences so far though I wouldn't leave the house without at least 3-4 batteries.
Regarding the lenses, it is obviously a new system but if you look at the amount of quality lenses that Fuji has managed to put out in also a short period of time...
If however Sony does deliver on quality lenses next year they have a great future ahead of them IMO.
-
With my Sony a7r, the WATE is excellent, the 24mm Elmar-M ASPH f/3.8 edges are mediocre and corners bad, in my view.
I tend to agree, although at f/11, things aren't bad. (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3976) On the M240, the lens does better (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3911).
Jim
-
I find the battery life to be adequate. I did buy a spare but so far I've not needed to use it but maybe only using the EVF and turning the camera off when I'm not going to shoot for a few minutes helps. .
I have a project that requires that I use the a7R almost continuously using the big screen for about an hour and half and 200-300 exposures per session. I've always brought spare batteries. I've never needed one.
Jim
-
No personal experience with the A7R and A7 but Michael also seems to have noticed the same in his review for the A7s:
I did notice that the A7s goes though batteries faster than the A7r, but with only a few days to shoot and do tests I am unable to quantify this. Video on the A7s seems to be particularly battery intensive.
I personally find it pretty bad but I also have only shot with it a few days. Based upon my experiences so far though I wouldn't leave the house without at least 3-4 batteries.
Regarding the lenses, it is obviously a new system but if you look at the amount of quality lenses that Fuji has managed to put out in also a short period of time...
If however Sony does deliver on quality lenses next year they have a great future ahead of them IMO.
It would be interesting to try and quantify what's going on with batteries as some seem happy and some not. Personally I only use the EVF and I have the back screen turned off in the menu as toggling options with the display button doesn't turn the back screen completely off and you can see that there's some sort of backlight - or something - still on. I also have flight mode on and I have anything I don't want (or don't understand) turned off. It'd also be interesting to know if reviewers reporting poor battery life leave the batteries in the camera overnight.
I don't think that battery life can compete with a conventional DSLR, but I don't find it terrible and I'm also happy with the battery life of my Panasonic GX7 and G1.
-
As said I can't speak for the A7 or A7R but the A7S is really bad. I quickly googled it as well:
http://reframe.gizmodo.com/sony-a7s-review-the-new-king-of-full-frame-video-1601398366
...battery life is atrocious (but at least the A7s comes with two batteries)...
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/a-fun-comparison-between-the-sony-a7s-the-panasonic-gh4-and-the-canon-1dc-4k-dslr-cameras/
Sony A7s – poor battery life. Now we know why Sony includes two batteries.
etc.
I noticed that I had Airplane Mode off. I just turned it on since I don't use WiFi anyway. Hopefully that makes a difference.
I really don't want to go through the hassle of taking the batteries out overnight.
-
I really don't want to go through the hassle of taking the batteries out overnight.
Go on... It'll take just seconds :D
-
FWIW, I have no problems with the a7r battery life. I manual focus, have the WiFi off, and do not take out the battery at night. I see no evidence that the camera is draining the battery when off. I'm not a "motor" shooter and am selective in my shots, but I often take a half dozen or more of the same subject. I'm at a point where I don't even carry my extra battery when I'm out for just a day with a fully-charge battery. Yes, the battery is not as long lasting as the M9's or even Canon 5d2, but it has not been a problem for at least my style of landscape shooting.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Given that the experiences are so far apart it must be a combination of the model (a7/a7r/a7s), the camera settings and the camera functions used.
I was going to order some additional Sony batteries but perhaps I should first further try to narrow the issue down and find the root cause.
-
GPS systems can be tricky too.
I don't know about Sony, but I think on some cameras if it is selected, it's always on, or at least on whether or not you are using it
-
I find the third party batteries are good enough and represent a significant saving over the Sony branded ones. I have one spare 3rd party battery and I rotate use between it and the Sony. They seem to last about the same or at least the 3rd party battery doesn't seem to be noticeably worse.
-
I see no evidence that the camera is draining the battery when off.
Maybe the drain, if there is one and I'm convinced that there is, isn't quite noticeable over one night but I'm pretty sure that if you leave the battery in the camera for a few days or more you'll see the level has dropped when you return to it, that's been my experience. My other CSC's don't seem to drain batteries so I just leave them in but I always take the Sony's out.
-
Maybe the drain, if there is one and I'm convinced that there is, isn't quite noticeable over one night but I'm pretty sure that if you leave the battery in the camera for a few days or more you'll see the level has dropped when you return to it, that's been my experience.
Yep, my experience too. Furthermore I've found that spare (Sony) batteries lose juice fairly quickly just sitting in the A7r's bag doing nothing. Last week I put a battery, one that hadn't seen use in almost a year, in another camera. It reported >90% charged. I've had A7r batteries drop into the low 80s within a month. In actual use it's not a problem, though…I just start off my pic-taking with one charged-up battery in the camera and a second in my pocket.
-Dave-
-
he doesn't want an M9 JV, he wants MPxls....
Am I correct in thinking that this comment implies that I'm seeking the most megapixels (MPxls)?
If so, not true.
As I said I'm strongly considering the X-Pro 1 which is 16MP, and I'd probably opt for an A7 over the A7r (but likewise not particularly interested in the A7s.
-
I'm strongly considering the X-Pro 1 which is 16MP, and I'd probably opt for an A7 over the A7r ...
I'd strongly suggest that whichever way you decide to jump, do NOT sell any of your Leica lenses until you're 100% sure of which way you want to go.
The comments and the (in)compatibility of some Leica M glass on the Sony is well documented. Do a search on posts by Iluvmycam, on this site - he's written good first hand accounts of using Fuji compared to Leica in this post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92708.msg754319#msg754319) and others. Also this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92628.msg753718#msg753718). Another good source is Sean Reid (http://www.reidreviews.com/) - a subscription site but well worth the modest outlay if you're seriously considering anything close to rangefinder photography. He's also commented on the A7r.
Regarding RAW converters and the x-trans suggest you look at Iridient Developer and CaptureOne V8. Haven't done full testing on C1, but first impressions are that the results on the x-trans files (and the others) are exceptional. I was amazed at the difference. I think they've got a 60-day trial , so if you're not already using it, suggest you try both these converters before deciding.
As far as the Fuji goes, judging by the rebates they're offering on the existing cams, likelihood is that they're going to introduce new upgraded (24-?) mp models within the next 6 months. Why don't you either rent, borrow the discontinued X-E1, (or as a last resort 'buy' - it now costs about as much as a Fuji Leica M adapter), in the meantime. If you do go Fuji, factor in their adapter, it'll cost you double - but it's worth it for the in-cam adjustments and exif advantages it offers.
One minor point, you don't say what type of photography you're doing, landscape or people, nor your preferred style of working. But if the latter, Fuji has an excellent Auto-ISO implementation where you can set the minimum shutter speed as well as the min/max ISO values. On the Sony, you can do it, but it's a workaround.
Lest you think I'm biased, I'm not. I run both the A7r and the X-E's - they're complementary, each has it's strengths.
-
I'd strongly suggest that whichever way you decide to jump, do NOT sell any of your Leica lenses until you're 100% sure of which way you want to go.
this is Gospel...
-
Regarding the battery losing charge when the camera is off, I left my Sony a7r for three days off and the battery charge dropped from 61 to 60%. I then took the battery out and left it for 3 days. When it was put back in, the charge was at 59%. So, it looks like the battery is losing 1% every 3 days, whether it's in the camera or not.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
So, eight months later & I still haven't purchased. I have moved to a new office/studio, sold & bought a house and moved. I have also, however, sold the R35 and taken a deposit on my last M6 body.
I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on a a Fujifilm X-E2 when the balance of money arrives.
I was heart set on a X-Pro 1 due to image quality & ergonomics. Then I realised the X-T1 & X-E2 have the updated sensor & processor & EVF. It dawned on me that if I was converting M lenses I wouldn't be using the OVF, only the EVF. With the same innards I think the ergonomics of the X-E2 win out of the dearer X-T1.
I've read some good reviews of the two M lenses I've kept being used on this system.
-
I'd strongly suggest that whichever way you decide to jump, do NOT sell any of your Leica lenses until you're 100% sure of which way you want to go.
The comments and the (in)compatibility of some Leica M glass on the Sony is well documented.
I have not tested Leica M glass on X-Pro1, but I did try the splendid Voigtlander 15mm lens on it. I was badly disappointed, it was clearly worse than Fujinon 18mm, even though the 15mm is a 135 lens and Fujinon just APS-C. Rangefinder lenses which sit close to the sensor just do not work with regular sensors like the one in Fujifilm X-Pro1. Normal meaning a flat sensel arrangement, which does not like light rays hitting the corners at low angles.
-
Rangefinder lenses which sit close to the sensor just do not work with regular sensors like the one in Fujifilm X-Pro1. Normal meaning a flat sensel arrangement, which does not like light rays hitting the corners at low angles.
Yes. There's also the sensor filter stack issue. Thicker stacks don't play well with lenses having exit pupils that sit too close to the stack. This means most wider rangefinder lenses. My Voigt 15mm, for example, performs as you describe even on m43 cameras (small sensor, thick stack) but is a pleasure to use on a Leica M8.2 (larger sensor, thin stack).
-Dave-
-
Thanks Petrus & Telecaster,
The two Leica lenses I've retained are the 35 F2 asph M and an older version of the M 50 1.4
Both of which should perform well enough for the camera's intended purpose.
I'd expect to buy the native 23 1.4 when I sell my Rolleiflex.
J