What camera do I buy? / general gear talk

Hey @Vesalius i found a deal on a A7rii and i might be getting that one. Ofcourse i wont have the fantastic 55mm but i will use some old lenses on it until i save for some native ones.

If that falls through i'm considering going back to Fuji and get an XP2 or just get an x100t and save some money in the process

Depends how much of a premium you put on portability, really. The Xpro 1 is wonderful compared to an SLR, compared to a pocket camera it's big. I have found myself using the x100 and Ricoh GR more because of the size and because I've mainly been taking photos on a whim when I'm out and about. If I were being a lot more active about going out and 'doing photography' I'd probably keep the xpro 1 though.

Hey @Vesalius i found a deal on a A7rii

Gotcha!

:) after some search i'm also considering a Leica M9!

Aren't we all :)

If I ever win the lottery I'm buying a Monochrom...

Good advice.. i never take my XP1 out to just 'do photogaphy' and often find myself not taking it to things i would like to take it to because i dont want to carry a bag.. think I might just by the sony, see how much i use my XP1 over the first few months and sell up if i dont use it

Ok. So Sony sold.

Let me hear reccomendations. Either a sony A7Rii or a Leica M9.

I kmow they are two very different cameras really. Mind says Sony heart says Leica. Never owned a digital Leica before. Had an M3 briefly but i sold it due to film/film development is not so available here (cyprus)

I borrowed an m9 with a silly Noctilux when it first dropped.

I was impressed but it was the first Leica and 'proper' rangefinder I'd used so it was a revelation in that regard. There is no problem with that sensor either. It compares well with the D700 and D3s and who needs more?

I live for manual focus but sheeeit... using the f.95 50mm in the dark was a bit frustrating (and arguably a stylistic cul de sac).

tldr

Buy the Leica but don't buy an extreme lens.

Thanks @miro_o. Its true,who needs more. The a7rii is a bit of an overkill. And i hate that nane :)
I'm a bit scared of the Leica,i'm sure the image quality will be great but the rangefinder focus in unknown to me

I should add that had the Noctilux been on an SLR it would have been pretty useless - so it's no critism of the patch or finder in the M9.

I think rangefinders are very much my cuppa, I wish I'd tried a good one earlier (and had money for m mount lenses).

I already have a voigtlander in M mount but its a 21mm. I may sell it to get 35mm. Or find a cheap 35mm Voigtlander. If i go for the Sony i have some old 50mm lenses i can use

I totally agree with Miro about rangefinders and 'extreme' lenses.
The 50mm Summicron is a venerable lens on any of the film or digital M's.

I'd ask what type of photography mostly floats your boat though?
If street, reportage, documentary is your thing they're hard to top but if you like dong anything in the studio they can be limited.
The Sony A7R2 is amazing, brilliant in fact with the lens you sadly sold:( I've used it on location and in the studio and been really impressed with it even against MF dig files (Pentax 645D). The fact that it also does pretty seriously good 4K video too is an impressive bonus:)

Alternatively, I've used M8's and M9's on and off for a long time and they are cameras that just make you want to take pictures, just like my old M6 and Tri-X always did:-)

What you most like taking pictures of (and if you make any money from it) should be the biggest influence.

Like you said I guess, Head says Sony, heart says Leica...
Shit... I've been useless haven't I!
Sorry:D

I totally agree with Miro about rangefinders and 'extreme' lenses.

I'm not quite sure what you guys are getting at with this

I've never used a Leica but I'd have assumed the rangefinder focusing would be completely independent of the lens mounted on it?

And even on an SLR, wouldn't an extreme aperture lens like 0.95 provide a nice bright viewfinder when focusing?

I fully expect to be missing something here though.

hahaha totally useless man :)

having just sold the a7ii (which was brilliant) i think i'm leaning towards the Leica. Just for the experience. they hold their value and i will probably be able to resell with a small loss if i don't like it.

You know i started shooting some events, weddings christenings and stuff.. It drained my love for photography. had to give it up in order to start shooting (and enjoy it) again. and i haven't even started yet, slowly getting back to it. I may shoot some events as backup now for a friend who went full pro!

video is useless for me. thats why i said that the a7r2 is a bit of an overkill.

depth of field so thin that its almost impossible to have something (you aim at) in focus wide open

Gotcha, and stopping down doesn't help at all?

Ignore me that was a brain fart

stopping down helps but why buy a .95 lens to stop it down :)

I guess you can't "stop down" whilst focusing anyway right? Unless the lens is in full manual, it would stay wide open till you pull the trigger.

This all sounds like a lot of hassle I get it now haha

everything is in full manual with Leica! its part of the experience :):)

Rubbish help I know;-)
If video is pointless to you and you're looking to regain the love then the M9 would help, lots:-)
Whenever I go out with an M, everything looks like it could be a shot and I'm literally itching to use it!
These days I have an X100s that fills that hole, the switchable EVF and total silence are a winning combination, that and the 35mm equivalent lens is perfect for me.

Shooting weddings and christenings and such events will curdle your, photographic, soul!
You may have just made the perfect argument for treating yourself:-D

Let me hear reccomendations. Either a sony A7Rii or a Leica M9.
I know they are two very different cameras really.
Mind says Sony heart says Leica.

Did not own (or even use) either of them yet.
Have seen stunning images from both.
As you know they're very different cameras so depends on what you plan to do with it.

I checked out these Sonys at a mall the other day and honestly I thought these weren't the real camera bodies, but some dummies, as the lettering looked a bit shit and some of the dials felt cheap.
I then realized these were indeed the real camera bodies.
Like I said I realize they can produce really great images, but everytime I see somebody on the street with one of these, some weird lens mounted on that fucking anodised mount, I think to myself : what the fuck.
It's over 2k but looks like garbage.

Anyone wanna give a quick run though of the differences in the RX100 models in terms of just taking pictures...? i doubt id ever use the video function at all nevermind the 4k, so what else makes the newer models worth the extra cash?

Realtalk. I agree completely but they do make excellent images and videos.

Battery life is meant to be a joke though.