Any Leica M9 + NEX 7 shooters out there?

[nowherean]

How do you compare NEX 7 to your M9? Is it a good complementary camera for your M lenses? I know from Huff's review that wide angle is not really an option with the 7 model, but how does it feel / render with other lenses? I need a back-up body and I'm wondering which one to get.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by nowherean

How do you compare NEX 7 to your M9? Is it a good complementary camera for your M lenses? I know from Huff's review that wide angle is not really an option with the 7 model, but how does it feel / render with other lenses? I need a back-up body and I'm wondering which one to get.

Steve Huff is a really nice guy, and writes reviews full of enthusiasm and perzazz. Much more positive and entertaining than Ken Rockwell.
But I don't think you should write off shooting wide with the NEX7. It's not fab with the relatively symmetrical voigtlander lenses, but it's fine with the modern Leica lenses which are much more retro focal.
Here's a shot I took on Thursday with the WATE at 16mm and (I think) f5.6.
I don't know about your standards, but "not an option" seems a bit harsh!



Worth mentioning that there are no corner fix or other mods here.

So, to answer your question. My primary kit is a couple of M9s and some M lenses. The only real backup is another M9. . . . But the NEX7 is a lovely camera; quite the reverse of the modern plethora of retro camera bodies. Sony have done something quite different. When you've worked out the settings which suit you, and you can forget about the menu system it becomes wonderfully fluent to shoot with; shutter speed with the left dial, EVFwith the right, aperture on the lens. Excellent. Focusing with focus peaking works fantastically well, even in low light where every eye has a little sparkle to get hold of. No focus and recompose as you can focus over the whole frame. Of course, if you're feeling lazy you can bung on a zoom!

It's not a substitute for an M9, but it has its own advantages, handles beautifully and produces excellent results.

[glenerrolrd]

Jono

Nothing much better than a good walk with your loyal companion and your camera . How great is that!

Roger

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Jono,

That's a wonderful image. I have the NEX-5N, should get the viewfinder by month's end, and hopefully the NEX-7 in April or May. I love my M9 as well as my Nikon D3, D300. The NEX-5N is beginning to grow on me.

This seems to be my usage pattern.

* I prefer to use the spectacular Leica M lenses from 16-135 mm on the M9.

* Older Leitz lens heads, with appropriate short focus mounts, as well as Telyts-V from 65-560 mm I prefer on my Nikons or with a Visoflex III on the M9. Also, the Leitz Bellows II is extremely useful in combination with these systems for macros.

* Finally, the NEX camera(s) permit me to use fabulous Leica R lenses with simple adapters without having to leitax them, as would be necessary for use with the Nikon cameras. Especially the NEX-7 should be very useful, once I have it, with my longer Leitz, Leica, or Nikon lenses. Of course, with appropriate adapters all my lenses can be used on the NEX cameras, particularly useful for lens comparisons. I even got the ZEISS 24/1.8 ZA, but it is no match for the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH on the NEX-5N. My thought was to have at least one autofocus lens for the NEXs.

I wouldn't want to give up any of these systems as they have their particular uses.

The Fuji X-Pro1 seems very interesting with regards to its sensor and perhaps its user interface. We'll see when it finally gets into customers' hands.

Of course, I hope (against hope?) that Leica will be imaginative with their M10 and MILC cameras if and when they finally will be announced and actually are available.

Regards, K-H.

[Paratom]

I am also a long time M9 user and recently added a 5n and now a Nex7.

I have not tried wide angel M lenses on the Nex but the 35 and 50 Summilux asph lenses and they work very good on the Nex.
I also got used better to focus peaking and it now works pretty good in many (not all) situations.

I am still NOT a fan of EVF. Also the menue syste, and user interface of the Nexes seems more complicated than the M9.
Still I use the Nex a lot.
Where I see the biggest benefits of the Nex are:
- swivel display allows different perspectives
- Its a good still camera but also does nice movies-all in one
- With the kit lens it is a light and flexible setup
- with the 18-200 it covers a really big range and still delivers fine IQ
- Color and tonalitywise I prefer the M9 (seems to have more pop and to need less/no postprocessing). In difference than others I also prefer the M9 for higher ISO at least up to 1250. 2500 or higher with the M9 might not be usable, but therefore 1250 and lower I prefer the M9 and find it to have less noise.
-The Nex 7 seems a great camera, and I get along fine with it, impressive how such a small camera can deliver such IQ.
But also some things feel a bit like a toy to me. For example the wheels turn much to easy for my taste. And they overdid a little bit with options for some things but then left out important things (auto iso setting, EV bracketing is very limited)

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

I even got the ZEISS 24/1.8 ZA, but it is no match for the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH on the NEX-5N.

Despite being of very different focal lengths, why is the E-Sonnar no match for the Leica 35/1.4?

Is it the weight difference that makes it a no match?

Please explain.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Vivek,

Thanks for the question. I was comparing the image quality of these 2 scenarios:

* M9+35/1.4 Lux and NEX-5N+24/1.8 ZA autofocus, very similar angle of view, and
* NEX-5N in HHT mode with 35/1.4 Lux or 24/1.8 ZA autofocus, different angle of view.

In the second scenario the 35/1.4 seemed to produce more vivid and pleasing colors.

In the first, the M9+35/1.4 Lux outresolved the NEX-5N+24/1.8 ZA autofocus system with a progressively increasing difference in sharpness from the image center to the corners.

Of course, it will be interesting to repeat the first comparison with the NEX-7's 24 MP against the M9's 18 MP. Unfortunately, I have to wait until April before I get the NEX-7.
I would appreciate if somebody who has the necessary cameras/lenses could perform that comparison now and let us know about the results. Thanks.

Regards, K-H.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

Hi Vivek,

Thanks for the question. I was comparing the image quality of these 2 scenarios:

* M9+35/1.4 Lux and NEX-5N+24/1.8 ZA autofocus, very similar angle of view, and
* NEX-5N in HHT mode with 35/1.4 Lux or 24/1.8 ZA autofocus, different angle of view.

In the second scenario the 35/1.4 seemed to produce more vivid and pleasing colors.

In the first, the M9+35/1.4 Lux outresolved the NEX-5N+24/1.8 ZA autofocus system with a progressively increasing difference in sharpness from the image center to the corners.

Of course, it will be interesting to repeat the first comparison with the NEX-7's 24 MP against the M9's 18 MP. Unfortunately, I have to wait until April before I get the NEX-7.
I would appreciate if somebody who has the necessary cameras/lenses could perform that comparison now and let us know about the results. Thanks.

Regards, K-H.

HI There - Michael Riechmann did the comparison at Luminous Landscape. His rolling NEX7 review is good and interesting, although I don't agree with all his methodology, he's done better than many - he compares the 24 1.8 Zeiss to the 24 1.4 Leica - This is actually something I can do as well, but I've learned better than to present comparisons on the internet!

Still, my feeling is that at around 1/6th the price the Zeiss is very good value for money, and you'd be a strange person indeed to complain about the image quality.

Incidentally - it looks like nowherean who started this thread is as his name suggests!

[Vivek]

Thanks, K-H, for sharing your experience.

[k-hawinkler]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

HI There - Michael Riechmann did the comparison at Luminous Landscape. His rolling NEX7 review is good and interesting, although I don't agree with all his methodology, he's done better than many - he compares the 24 1.8 Zeiss to the 24 1.4 Leica - This is actually something I can do as well, but I've learned better than to present comparisons on the internet!

Still, my feeling is that at around 1/6th the price the Zeiss is very good value for money, and you'd be a strange person indeed to complain about the image quality.

Incidentally - it looks like nowherean who started this thread is as his name suggests!

Hello,

That seems to be excellent advice!

BTW, I am familiar with Mr. Reichmann's article. I just don't always agree with his methods or conclusions.
Also, you introduced a new element into the discussion, namely price/performance. I certainly didn't comment on that aspect.
Furthermore, I wouldn't interpret a comparative statement as a complaint.

Regards, K-H.

[Vivek]

Nice post, K-H.

[nowherean]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Incidentally - it looks like nowherean who started this thread is as his name suggests!

@jonoslack Sorry I'm not always plugged into my computer, so I don't respond right away. Great image! Nice to see that some wide angles can in fact be used on the NEX-7. I very much enjoy Steve Huff's reviews and at times Ken Rockwell is a fun read.

Many great responses to the thread. Thank you for all the comments. I've placed an order for NEX-7 but it's only going to arrive sometime in March. Seems like a great second body camera and with additional zoom lenses it can also bring some nice tele opportunities.

Wondering about Sony glass... is it any good?

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by nowherean

Wondering about Sony glass... is it any good?

I find the Sony kit lens pretty good for the price and for a kit lens, its about the best kit lens I have experienced.

The first impresiion regarding the 18-200 is quite good as well.

And I really like the 24/1.8, even though can show´quite a bit CA in certain contrasty scenes (shooting trees against bright background for example).

So yes, IMO the Sony glass is good.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

Hello,

That seems to be excellent advice!

Thank you!

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

BTW, I am familiar with Mr. Reichmann's article. I just don't always agree with his methods or conclusions.

Nor do I - especially when he downsizes one image and crops another before comparing!

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

Also, you introduced a new element into the discussion, namely price/performance. I certainly didn't comment on that aspect.
Furthermore, I wouldn't interpret a comparative statement as a complaint.

Regards, K-H.

Sorry - you seem to have taken those remarks to be a criticism of your post - I wasn't suggesting either that:
1. you had commented on it
2. that you'd complained about the quality of the Zeiss.

I was talking of an imaginary complainant!

all the best