That makes perfect sense.
raid
Dad Photographer
It gets easier after a while to not chase after more systems when you have an excellent set of lenses (1 or 2 or 3 or ...) in one system. I like my Leica lenses and also the few Zeiss Sonnar lenses in ltm mount. I just don't see (anymore) a thrill or a usefulness in getting into new systems to use other lens mount lenses anymore. It was fad for me for a while. It may have to do with your age. I am too busy in life and work to chase after new systems. I am glad that I manage to squeeze in a few hours per week for snapshot taking here and there. Maybe, when I am retired, then I will return to chasing new systems?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Not necessarily.
There are a number of reasons to not go to Leica for digital - I'm classifying this as such because the M240 is just that: digital - yes it has a rangefinder but it is a digital camera.
1) Cost / Price -
A new M240 is approx $8000 CDN after taxes. The new Sony A7 is approx $1900 CDN after taxes
2) Digital vs Digital -
The M240 sensor is 24MP maxing out at ISO6400 (CMOS)
The Sony A7 sensor is 24MP maxing out at ISO25600 (CMOS)
The Sony A7r sensor is 36MP maxing out at the same (CMOS) but without the AA filter
3) Viewfinders -
The M240 has the classic rangefinder - you can easily see what is entering the frame.
The Sony cameras have a very good electronic viewfinder but you can't see what's entering the frame
4) Built-In WiFi
None in the M240
Sony has built in WiFi and NFC
5) Versatility
The M240 accepts M mount lenses and LTM mount lenses with an LTM-M mount adapter
The Sony has a myriad of choices in terns of lenses due to a multitude of adapters along with very very very good (currently) 55mm and 35mm Zeiss designed prime lenses (Sonnar design)
6) Corner Sharpness
Apparently the M240 and lenses designed for it offer corner to corner sharpness
The Sony cameras may have difficulty with corner sharpness on wides or colour shift problems
For me, at the end of the day I am willing to live with, for what I shoot and how I shoot, the "issues" that may cause many to NOT choose the Sony cameras. The biggest item in my list above is item #1 and to a lesser extent #2,#4 and #5. It's not that I never cared about rangefinders; I still have the M7 I have owned for the past 5+ years - and have been using rangefinders since 2005 when I 'got back into' film photography. This is more about, to me, ergonomics and versatility than it is about the type of viewfinder on a digital camera.
It doesn't hurt that Sony's sensors are very good and can handle the high ISO's, should I require them, as well.
Cheers,
Dave
Dave, I didn't mean for those who have thought long and hard about the pluses and minuses. 
I guess I just felt that the Sony A7 is so far away from the M philosophy that the die hard Leica folks would never bother. I understand value for the money (I don;t use digital Leicas anymore either), but I always used Leicas for their bodies and not the lenses.
I guess I just felt that the Sony A7 is so far away from the M philosophy that the die hard Leica folks would never bother. I understand value for the money (I don;t use digital Leicas anymore either), but I always used Leicas for their bodies and not the lenses.jpfisher
Well-known
Dave,
Good points for the most part (especially #1--the cost difference, for most of us, is huge).
#4 is mostly solved by a $50 Eye-Fi Mobi card; I set the camera to shoot Raw+small JPG and the JPGs automatically move to my phone for tweeting or the like.
#5, well, I use Pentax K and Nikon F adapters with the M, and while the add-on EVF isn't in the same class as the A7/A7R OLED EVF, it's easy enough to connect lenses from other mounts to the the 240 and use them just as you would with the A7/A7R.
From my perspective, one point to add is that focusing RF glass with an RF is faster than working with the EVF. I'm regularly able to nail focus with an M with decent speed, but when working with the EVF I really need to magnify that frame to get the image as crisp as I want it to be.
Jim
Good points for the most part (especially #1--the cost difference, for most of us, is huge).
#4 is mostly solved by a $50 Eye-Fi Mobi card; I set the camera to shoot Raw+small JPG and the JPGs automatically move to my phone for tweeting or the like.
#5, well, I use Pentax K and Nikon F adapters with the M, and while the add-on EVF isn't in the same class as the A7/A7R OLED EVF, it's easy enough to connect lenses from other mounts to the the 240 and use them just as you would with the A7/A7R.
From my perspective, one point to add is that focusing RF glass with an RF is faster than working with the EVF. I'm regularly able to nail focus with an M with decent speed, but when working with the EVF I really need to magnify that frame to get the image as crisp as I want it to be.
Jim
I guess this was what I was trying to get at... and the reason why I thought people would still be more into the M240 than the A7. However, as someone who could not keep up with leica digital cameras, I will digress.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Jim,
I was unaware of other adapters made for the M240 - go figure - makes sense though I guess.
Regarding the Eye-Fi card; yep, a buddy of mine says the same thing about his Nikon DSLR - but then again, I wouldn't need to buy a card with the Sony - however, if I had the M240 "first" (i.e. I had placed an order in April of 2013 and got a call in eary/mid December - 8 months later) then I would likely have gone that route.
I would disagree regarding your last point however. I personally have no issues focusing with the A7 and the EVF with focus peaking on the Sony. It's "as fast" for me as focusing with the M7. I do not need to zoom in like I did with the Fuji X-Pro1 when I owned it (this is before Fuji implemented focus peaking themselves) Yes, I can compensate with the Leica by stopping down but I can also do that with the Sony.
Cheers,
Dave
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Dave, I didn't mean for those who have thought long and hard about the pluses and minuses.
Oh.. totally understand that point then.
Shooting with a Leica (or a rangefinder for that matter) is completely different than the Sony. You can't compare them from a "shooting experience" perspective.
That said, the end result is still "a photo"
And that's the thing that gets me sometimes because I too fall into that "trap" - we like our gear but at the end of the day the photo is what we're left with as a result of using said gear. The photo isn't necessarily "better" or "worse" because of the equipment used per se (as long as the user is proficient in using said equipment) but the photo "just is".
Maybe we need to get away from gear altogether.. but that's a topic for another thread
Cheers,
Dave
zleica
Established
To the OP's question, I have not seen any direct comparison between M/M9 with Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH and A7r with Zeiss EF 55/1.8 lens. A7/7R certainly have the advantage of using many different mounts of lens makers. But for using rangefinder lenses, the results I have seen so far are not very promising at all. And for SLR lenses, A7/7R will not be a small and light-weight package any more. To fully utilize the IQ of A7/7R, one needs to invest into the Zeiss/Sony FE lenses, which are not inexpensive. So I don't see that much of price advantage if you take that into consideration.
jpfisher
Well-known
It's like this was written just for you.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4237If you're willing to part with a $4k (retail) 50 Lux ASPH, the $1000 Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 is quite the bargain.
And if you want to stick with $4k lenses, the Otus 55mm is a killer lens on the A7R : http://jimfisher.smugmug.com/keyword/zeiss otus distagon t 55mm f1.4/i-WVvsJWQ
(Pixel peep that Jack Daniels logo shot; I tried to get as parallel as I could and shot it at f/1.4 to see what the combo could do.)
Granted, the Otus is huge; reminds me of the old chrome 50mm Distagon for the Hasselblad in size, shape, and weight.
sparrow6224
Well-known
DXOmark overall sensor scores put the A7r at #2, the A7 at #9 and the M240 at #16. The have three individual categories that contribute to the overall score: Portrait (color depth), Landscape (dynamic range), and Sports (low light performance). Generally the Nikons and SONYs dominate the top 12 with SONY's RX1, RX1R and sometimes the Alpha 99 tending to score above the A7 but below the A7R. The Nikon D800E leads all other SLRs in every category except low light, where the nod goes to the Df. Ranking with the SONYs are the Nikon D800, D610, D600, D4, D3x, D3s, D5200, D7100 etc. The Leica M240 appears in most of the categories just below the Nikon and SONY full frames mentioned, but usually ahead of the ASP-C Nikons. These tests are done exclusively with native prime lenses. All of these cameras are far better than one might have hoped for even three years ago and in terms of image quality (though not always features) they are quite capable of producing non-studio professional work of the highest standard. If I absolutely HAD to have a digital camera for my Leica/RF lenses, it would be hard to argue against the A7 at 1700USD.
Just on price alone the sony wins. The leica is over priced for what it does. Not to mention really poor quality control.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Leica has a mistique and a touch of luxury. Both have little to do with photography, but to many users of Leica cameras, such factors do play a role.
2WK
Rangefinder User
I was just kind of thinking it might be nice in addition to my Leicas. Not as a replacement for an M. But it might be nice for say in the studio. I would be interested in using my 50 Summilux, but for anything wider I would probably go with the native Zeiss lenses.
Would it be a better color/work camera than my X-Pro1? It would manual focus better, bigger files, etc...
Would it be a better color/work camera than my X-Pro1? It would manual focus better, bigger files, etc...
Lss
Well-known
I don't consider the A7 as a replacement for my M8, it can't do that. The M Typ 240 can for a lot more money. But I use many other cameras, and the A7 is an upgrade in that department. It is an upgrade also for M mount lenses vs., say, the NEX-5N that I currently use.
uhoh7
Mentor
I saw many edges issues at wide aperture with SLR glass on R.
the plain A7 is a smarter choice for most legacy glass.
Yesterday I met with a Los Angeles area Art Director.
He sold his M240 and bought both the A7r and A7, with cash left over.
He commented that for him the M240 was just not worth the price,
especially considering the better EVF in both of the Sonys
and the higher resolution sensor of the A7r.
I guess he never bothered to drink the Kool-Aid while an M240 owner.
Of course that is only one ex-240 owner, but it does indicate Leica may need to offer more for the money to remain at the top of the game.
Stephen
He sold his M240 and bought both the A7r and A7, with cash left over.
He commented that for him the M240 was just not worth the price,
especially considering the better EVF in both of the Sonys
and the higher resolution sensor of the A7r.
I guess he never bothered to drink the Kool-Aid while an M240 owner.
Of course that is only one ex-240 owner, but it does indicate Leica may need to offer more for the money to remain at the top of the game.
Stephen
__--
-
No concern about color rendition?
No concern about color rendition?
For me the big issue is the color rendition of the M240: from everything that I've seen, including DNG files that I've processed, I much prefer the color rendition of the M9. Recenlty "fotografz" (Marc), whose concern has been skin tones and whose color judgment I trust, has tried the M240 as well as the A7R. Someone sent me fotografz's conclusion which is a follows (I don't know where he posted this):
—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]
No concern about color rendition?
For me the big issue is the color rendition of the M240: from everything that I've seen, including DNG files that I've processed, I much prefer the color rendition of the M9. Recenlty "fotografz" (Marc), whose concern has been skin tones and whose color judgment I trust, has tried the M240 as well as the A7R. Someone sent me fotografz's conclusion which is a follows (I don't know where he posted this):
The experience of "Prosopos" (Peter), written up on his blog, is similar: because of its unsatisfactory color rendition he sold his M240 and went back to the M9. In the light of this I am surprised that no one in this thread has discussed the issue of color rendition, which, according to fotografz, seems to be outstanding from the A7R, although I have not looked into this myself.
—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's interesting that the M240 has offered little over the M9 aside from video (who cares) and better high ISO performance. As said above Leica will need to lift their game if they want to maintain station against the tide of new full frame compacts that can mount their lenses.
Lss
Well-known
Sensor-view is a fairly significant addition, not just for video. Most functional innovations we have so far seen in digital cameras require reading the sensor prior to actual (still) capture. It is true that Leica has not innovated in this space, and with the constraint of manual focus only some features that many people like (and others find gimmicks) and expect such as face tracking focus or touch screen focus are not even possible.
My biggest disappointments with the new M (that I have never had the opportunity to try) are the center-only limitation of magnification and no easy and direct rangefinder calibration via sensor-view. The latter would be a nice innovation for digital rangefinders.