1. Handled an A7 and an A7r on Sunday. SWhile not Leicas, both cameras appeared equal and very high quality to me. Contrary to the many contrary opinions on the net, I found the A7 shutter to sound significantly quieter and actually seemed as though it had less lag from touch off of the shutter to completion of the cycle. Despite the micro lenses and lack of low pass filter, the A7 produced images that were less color cast and sharper at the edges with my 35mm Summicron asph than did the A7r. In the case of the Leica 35 f2 asph I have to disagree with the notion that the new Sonys will work well with RF WA glass. Too much “character” with the 35 (my favorite lens for film).
    My bias has been to the many pixel A7r over the A7 but my recent experience tends to favor the camera with the lower pixel density, at least with my 35 asph.

  2. The Sony stores in LA now have a demo A7 (not A7r) model that you can pick up and play with. I have to say I’m surprised as to how cheap and plasticky it feels. The A7r should be better as it has more metal in it, but the base A7 completely fails the “want to use it” test for me.
    It feels like a toy and honestly it does not matter how good a camera is technically if I don’t want to pick it up.

    • I’ve not yet held one (of either) but I definitely take your point.
      For me, lighter is generally better – and certainly a good thing… so long as it retains a the feel of a solid, well manufactured and durable tool.

      • In my hand the A7 does not feel at all solid, well manufactured or durable.
        Just plasticky and,well, hollow. My tiny Canon S95 feels better than this.

        I’m sure it takes incredible photos, but as the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you. And I wouldn’t want this one.

        But… I’ve yet to handle the A7r. That is meant to be built with a magnesium alloy structure.

        p.s it does feel super light, but now I know why.

    • Even the A7 is a disposable device that will become obsolete in five years, latest. First by the advanced competition, second from failed components for which suppliers have discontinued spares or went out of business.

      Why anyone would want to make body, dials or buttons last for decades?

      • Because we should strive to make the best we can. It defines human achievement.

        My Leica M3, Nikon FM2, Nikon F2, Rolleiflex 2.8 are all ‘obsolete’. And yet they all work incredibly well, are built incredibly well and the oldest was made in 1950.
        I could find a Pentax K1000 (a ‘cheap’ camera new compared to mine) from the same era and expect the same.

        There is no reason for digital cameras to have such a short life expectancy unless ‘we’ accept that. Don’t you think the manufacturers are absolutely delighted to hear your statement?
        If we demand support for our equipment, then the mfgs will keep providing it. Leica STILL makes replacement parts for the M3! They stopped making that camera in 1967!

        But what incentive is there for a mfg to support, or even build a camera to last when people are willing to expect to get 5 years out of them?

    • I just got picked up an A7 for 1100 euros in Switzerland. Incredible price, I could not resist. Quite hard to believe actually.

      The build quality is quite good. I’d say it’s similar to an E-M5, slightly less sturdy than my E-P5. The material feels very similar to the black Olympus 17/1.8 lens if that makes any sense. I absolutely love the look and feel of the camera.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.