Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/02/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I know this is not your typical usage but I expect the differences would be far more obvious at f2.8 or f4... john ________________________________________ This is a comparison of the Biogon 35mm f/2.8 on the Sony v. M9 v. FE on Sony: http://www.paulroark.com/Comparison-Sony-M9-Biogon35-FE-f8.jpg I don't have a Leica 35mm, but the Leica 28 f2.8, 24 f 3.4, ZM 18, and 21 all show the same relative performance. Paul On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu>wrote: > Sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone. I was just basing my comments on > the dpreview writeup. Some of the negatives they listed (slowness etc.) > would be a deal breaker for me. However, I should not have jumped to > judgement, having no personal experience with the camera. > > Cheers, > Nathan > > Nathan Wajsman > > On Feb 19, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > > > Well if it is a dog then it's a dog that can hunt, Nathan. > > > > I've been using either the A7 or A7r for the past few months. They seem > to work very well. The Zeiss 55mm is perfect. I haven't tried the Sony 35mm > but my Leica 35mm f2 asph works just fine. I don't see the corner > "smearing" either, but I don't shoot photos of newspapers. In the real > world it's fine. > > > > Where things get great is with longer lenses. The 100mm APO f2.8 R lens > does very well on this camera. I use a Novoflex adaptor for the R (and M) > lenses and they seem quite up to the job. > > > > But I'm not a pixel-peeper kind of shooter. I got very good results with > a Leica 50mm f2.0 on my NEX-7 as anyone who has looked at the enlargement > in my living room can attest. The A7r is substantially better in terms of > how it handles and the images it makes. > > > > I actually think it IS a breakthrough camera. EVF's wont' get worse. > They'll get a lot better. Sony will, I suspect, hear the critiques of the > current cameras and make better ones. I'll be able to buy those and STILL > not have spent what I would have to spend for an M. So, for me, for the way > I work, for the images I make, it's just fine. > > > > It's not a rangefinder. It's not (gasp) a Leica. But it's a very good > and very useful camera for me. > > > > Your mileage may vary. > > > > Adam > > > > On 2014 Feb 18, at 11:42 PM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> > wrote: > > > >> Sounds like a dog, when reading the cons. > >