Boy, I started down the old Yellow Brick Road of photography in 1941. My perspective covers a lot of ground but I am, at 79, still not an expert in the field. Still, I can't help thinking that we are arguing over the configuration of the oars when the canoe is sinking! With the advent of smart phones, the masses are suddenly Henri Cartier Bressons. This is both a curse and a blessing - it trivializes serious photography by putting instruments in the hands of casual users who need not study but put all on programmed autopilot and, if the shot fails, click over and over again. On the other hand, they do get feedback instantly. You could only do that with instant film not too long ago. The bigger threat is that high-end or professional camera makers won't have much of a market. This is already happening. The amateur buyers used to subsidize the development of pro technology. Smart phone users don't, at least not in such a direct way. Amateur shooters are now mostly using consumer appliances. Pro shooters who have to have rugged equipment will find themselves using older gear more and more. Maybe I am just an old Luddite. But I find myself always carrying a backup camera, despite the added burden in the mountains, deserts and forests I roam. Yes, I loved my Leicas, but when the E6 labs here all folded I, too, went over to an electronic, mirrorless digital camera system and am putting my chromes on disks. I fear many fine marques will fall by the wayside in this current sorting out.

Even though I want the Sony A7R, I will probably go for the Leica M240 simply because Germans DO NOT KILL innocent animals like dolphins and whales; the Japanese do!

I bought the A7r and it produces fantastic images. I own a 50mm Summilux that I mainly shoot on an M7 (relatively affordable used). As much as I would like to shoot with the Leica digital M, it's far too expensive for what you get in the sensor. Leica's own nightmare is itself as far as prices go and keeping pace with the sensor technology out there. It's not a business model that will last if they don't do something to bring down the price of the bodies. 6400 ISO is a joke this day and age.

"the mere fact that an old Leica lens can be bolted to an A7 and be used at advertised focal length is an achievement in itself…"

a feat of technical wizardry. now if only it could produce useable photographs. that would be really amazing! (yes, i've tried one extensively).

Time for Leica to return to its Canadian roots:

http://www.teledynedalsa.co...

If i can afford Leica, i'll buy the Leica M. So sony is for those who can't afford leica anyway. It won't affect leica's sale

Sony are aggressive, very innovative and four years on their cameras sell for $200. And like most of their other products are likely die prematurely. The one good thing is that they adopted Zeiss glass which IF they maintain the lens mount are likely to be held onto for more new Sony cameras, 8- 8R 9-9R… next year perhaps.

I doubt Leica gives a rat's ass about Sony. And I doubt Sony cares about Leica. They aren't competitors. They both have completely different products and very different market shares. Current M240 Leica owners may buy an A7/A7r for something to experiment with and have AF as an option, too. But otherwise these are owners wouldn't consider a second M240 body anyway. And the majority buying the A7/A7r wouldn't consider a Leica in the first place, despite any price differences. Sony and Leica lenses are in this same situation, too. Veblen products (e.g., Leica) have a unique position in the marketplace.

Sony is after some of the Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, and Canon market shares. It's more about unit sales volume.

A few days ago I tried an A7R with noctilux,it was pretty good but given the choice I would still prefer an M240..

Bottom line is Leica is a luxury brand and still has amazing lenses,there is no real substitute for an M..

Shouldn't your name be "Rich Chav"?

Leica Ms remain incomparable and unmatched. Leica's growing problem is the pricing policy. Three times as much (optics with an even higher multiplication factor) while prices for technology are sinking. Today's Leica is much about heritage and luxury. Sony doesn't kill the Leica experience, but it offers a very attractive alternative.

They've priced photographers out. It's a shame really.

I sold my Leica M9 and M240 for an A7R... I did keep my Leica lenses, but the Leica bodies are pointless now.

in what nightmare do you sell more lenses than ever ? because there is now another body to mount them on

Absolutely right. The dumbest thing they did was to come out with the Leica X i.e. fixed lens. They could have sold a few more lenses otherwise.

The first mirrorless (Oly? Pentax? Fuji?) full frame 36-40mp with ibis, an Oly-like vf4 evf, & focus peaking will be the real threat. Not a7r. Maybe Sony already has it & they're just waiting a few years to spoon-feed it.

You can't beat Leica with electronics and toys. That's not what Leica does nor a reason why people buy Leica.

Despite the few small bugs I have with my M I'd not swap it for anything. The sony looks like a fun toy. The M is fun but also hugely satisfying to use. Other modern cameras just can't come close.

I took a look at an A7 last weekend. Very light and easy to use, but even with a 35mm Zeiss attached, I can't help but get the impression that it feels like a Bridge camera. Doesn't look like something that will last a while, but more like consumer electronics. You certainly don't want to drop it or bump it against anything hard.

Article sponsored by Sony?
Most important incentive to photography is creativity and it comes when I have right tool in my hand. Sure; plastic, full of electronics Fuji/Sony might produce nice output but not the same feel and satisfaction.
It's the same as analog watch on your hand vs electronic one.
Of course there are areas where rangefinders shouldn't go (like sport) but these Sony/Fuji aren't better too.
And yes, I do have Fuji X for light telephoto work (and Nikon for hard job).
For me Nikon Df is far more interesting proposal (although still too big).

To fit such amazing glass on such ugly body... Leica enthusiasm are shriveling in fear all over the world.

I don't see that. The Sony is a digital beast trying to put on some old world charms with buttons and stuffs. The Leica M is an old world camera with digital innards. Using the Sony feels like just another DSLR, while the Leica is a completely different experience. Image quality is one big factor, but shooting experience counts for me as well.

For those who complain about cost: have you looked at the used market for Leica gears? A $7000 M9 is going for $4000 used, 4 years after its release. If you sell it, the real cost for the M9 is only $3000 after 4 years. Still not cheap, but not as expensive as you may think.

Having been using a Nikon D300 with a 24mm F1.4, switching to a Leica M not only saved me from dislocating my shoulder, but also offers so much more simplicity and joy in capturing an image.

First they said that "Fuji is the next Leica", and now "Leica's nightmare is Sony". Why everyone is trying to pick on Leica :D

"They don't boo Nobodies."

--Reggie Jackson

Kaufman is right. You want a Sony, take one. A rangefinder is something else. I'm a pro working for more than twenty years with Leica ( and other stuff), and seriously can say that with the new M the rangefinder system is once again one of a superior kind.

As long as you are willing to confine your focal lengths between 28mm and 90mm. The rangefinder mechanism is an anachronism for a niche market, primarily street photography. But if like me, you have Leica R lenses, shoot ultra wide-angle, landscape or have telephotos, you need an EVF. The Sony A7r provides the compact EVIL solution that Leica ignores.

For ultra wides there are viewfinders. Landscape can be done with RF and LV.Telephoto's?: get a DSLR. Very much more practical, faster and better. Optical viewfinders are in every way superior to EVF. In that respect the Fuji is a far better alternative for the Leica, most certain when it will have FF. But if you can afford a Leica, get one.

I respectfully disagree. For ultra-wides, you are referring to the "Frankenfinder", a ridiculous retro solution to the limitations of the rangefinder. You may prefer optical viewfinders, but only if they are RF. I am a Leica owner and shooter for over 30 years. You ignore the fact that for 40 years Leica made excellent R cameras and lenses for those of us who prefer TTL composing and focusing. DSLRs are overly large and heavy. The compact Leica R4 was the size of the A7r. Leica could easily replace the expensive, imprecise (and for R shooters, redundant) RF with an EVF and sell it for $4,000. I'd buy one tomorrow.

Your rangefinder "über alles" mindset is self-serving. If it is sufficient for your shooting style, enjoy your M, but don't call it superior to all other viewfinders. Modern EVFs are closing the gap with OVFs and are in some ways superior with focus peaking, better performance in low light and with greater depth of field WA lenses. With EVFs you see exactly what you will get, in terms of focus and exposure. RFs will remain with us in the future as charming anachronisms just like vinyl LPs and typewriters.

I am a Leica aficionado, own their R lenses and wish they would make a mirrorless EVIL with their typical superb build quality. But right now, the A7r is the superior solution for R lenses.

" Leica could easily replace the expensive, imprecise (and for R
shooters, redundant) RF with an EVF and sell it for $4,000. I'd buy one
tomorrow."

That's the only sentence that you really needed to write. The problem (for you) is price.

I suggest getting a 6D and a few R-to-EOS lens adapters. That will give you everything you are looking for, at half the price that you are willing to pay. The 6D is bigger than an R4, but it's smaller/lighter than an R4+motor, or an R8/R9.

It has nothing to do with price. I could easily have bought a 5DIII. With CaNikon I have to use stop-down metering and their OVFs have no split screens for accurate focus. Besides the 6D has an inferior sensor with soft AA filter. The Sony A7r is superior to Leica M and CaNikon in every way for R users: sensor, EVF, size and weight.

As I said above, I'd prefer a Leica EVIL solution and would gladly pay even $4,000 for such a body, but why should I pay a premium for an expensive rangefinder mechanism that is useless for me, plus an external EVF? Leica can continue the M for RF purists, but should add a FF EVIL body to fill out the middle of their range. Until then, the A7r will be my digital solution. The EVF is the future.

I did not particularly refer to the Frankenfinder. There are more options. RF imprecise? In any case not the 240. RF über alles? By no means. Teleshooting?: DSLR. Much faster! Without AF, and only focus peaking, EVF is a kind of joke, when it comes to tele. Therefore R lenses are an anachronism. One of the reasons press photographers left Leica. Besides all this optical finders are so much more natural than EVF. Superior!

IMHO Fuji are a far greater threat to Leica than Sony.

Yupp, but since a lot of Leica owner's have the extra $$$ to spend, most i know own a Leica and a Fuji as a back up.

Good point.

I actually owned an M9 with 2 x Zeiss lenses. The experience wasn't what I thought it would be. I traded it in against an X100 and XE1 and 35mm lens.

Don't regret it and wouldn't go back.

Maybe you should have bought some Leica glass...

Michael, maybe I should have. However, the reviews I read on the Zeiss lenses were excellent and most reviewers said the differences were negligible, certainly against the Leica lenses I could afford anyway. Anyway, as I said I am more than happy with the Fuji. Each to their own I guess!

I own an M9 with a bunch of leica glass, used to have voigtländer and zeiss as well and sold it off... not because it's better, but because i had the money at that time and the fact that leica is keeping it's value better and actually rising in price over time seemed like a good investment to me! the zeiss zm 50 f2 was an amazing lens... sharp as can be... i do prefer the oldish rendering of my summilux 50 pre asph better though... even though it's less sharp...
but on topic: i still lust for an A7r... i d love to try it out some time, but i think i d really like the focus peaking!

I don't see these systems having much in common. The Leica stays close to it's analog roots while being digital, Sony is electronic wizardry with a few dials. Both have their places.

Leica may be wishing the Sony works well with their lenses, this will increase demand for lenses and sales should improve for the profitable lenses vs. the not so profitable unavailable bodies.

In the old days, you need only to know the ISO, aperture and shutter speed, and focus, to take a picture. Thank goodness you can still do that with a Leica. The Sony Canikon whatever have menus, sub-menus, nested menus, sideways menus, and a few hundred buttons to figure out. I don't need to operate a 747 just to take a picture.

Well you're kind of forgetting that film developing and printing were fairly complicated too. Nailing a 4x5 chrome wasn't exactly just remembering shutter speed, ISO and aperture. Photography is complicated sometimes, and you occasionally need to teach yourself something. Operating a 747, or operating an 8x10 color enlarger, or operating an E6 line, or operating the zone system...I think you may be over simplifying the film days.

Agree that photography is a continuous learning process, and that's what makes it so enjoyable and satisfying. I have done B&W D&P and it was certainly enjoyable using my hands and eyes. Colour was too complicated for me, but happily I can now use Aperture instead of the darkroom. What I was actually referring to earlier was the process of operating the camera to take a picture. There are just too many bells & whistles in modern digital cameras, as compared to my first SLR, a Nikon FE ( that's where my reference to aperture, shutter speed, ISO and focus came from).
Hence my reference to a 747. I am one of those people who can't even program my TV set top box.

Hi Chris,

Re: Zeiss lenses, you are likely correct, however it moves photographers closer to the purchase of more lenses and exotics such as the numerous summilux and one noctilux. The Leica body may follow as the system is compelling.

Re: 747...lol
+1
The menu maze is ubiquitous today. It's a slippery slope to desire more features and relatively easy to program a chip to provide these, yet simplicity suffers. That has happened with the M240, the simplicity of the M9 has been lost.

Yes, Daryl, but least I can still figure out the Leica menu. With the Nikon, I always worried that I may have accidentally set the wrong feature, OMG.
BTW, I have only two Leica glasses, a 35mm and a 90 mm. Just too expensive for me but it does help to make do with what I have and concentrate on the picture,

Actually they will go for Zeiss ZM lenses. Leica lenses are too expensive for a Sony unless you happened to have some old ones.

Absolutely, it's actually good news for Leica as it can expand its customer base quickly. Some A7R owners seeking quality will become first time Leica owners and buy a Leica lens. I don't think that journalist thought much about possible synergies.

And coincidentally just before the release, they raised the prices on many of their M-lenses. Obviously not a coincidence on their part.

The article was written by a Journalist who did not know much regarding rangefinder cameras. We at Leica say: "Who needs a Sony should have a Sony!" In my humble opinion the Sony will be discounted soon, and for a reason...

I agree but for people who use it as a tool instead of collecting it: if I had to wait another 10 MONTHS (time took for my M240 to arrive; previously using M6) AGAIN, I would consider alternatives seriously.

That's about 1% of my life in this world, and a huge price to pay then its 7k price tag if I'm stupid not to get something else and start shooting.

Do you guys consider Fuji a bigger thread to Leica? If not, do you consider any camera/lens manufacturer a real competitor? (assuming you are the real Dr. Kaufmann)