Poor Man's M...

I read a comment recently about the NEX7 being the poor man's M9. That struck me as funny because in my world the NEX7 is still too spendy for me to think about picking up. Granted by comparison it is a lot cheaper than an M9. In fact a NEX7 and a nice 50/2 Summicron could probably be had for less than the M9 body alone. That said, it still seems like rarified air to me. I'd drop that kind of money on 3 tickets to Europe but a camera...don't think so. I just dipped my toes into the NEX waters by picking up a used NEX-C3. It's not a NEX7 or 5n but to me it seemed like a lot of camera for not much money. I plan on pairing it up with my Hexanon 24/2.8 and rather than a poor man's M8 (I'm adjusting downward) I am hoping to have a small camera that is evocative of the first cameras I every used...70's compact RF cameras. Granted there is no RF (although the RF on my Konica S3 or Olympus 35RC weren't exactly roomy). I am hoping the NEX-C3 is a decent re-interpretation of that idea...small, great lens (I guess that part is up to me), easy to manually focus, creative controls and most of all fun.

FWIW the M9 (and M8 as well) are what they are. I don't think its possible to have a poor man's M because the very nature of the M means it is not a poor man's anything. I like Leica glass but I got to play with an M8 for a while and it sure didn't seem to be something I would want. It was nice but just not for me.

 

I received my C3 a few days ago and so far have been very pleasantly surprised with it.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7458343574/" title="Yellow by dixeyk, on Flickr"> "1024" height="680" alt="Yellow"></a>

I have been thinking a bit more about this idea of a poor mans M...I am not expert on the Leica M8 or M9 but I can say that the C3 I just got does a very nice job being a digital back of legacy lenses. The IQ is terrific and despite the consumer orientation of the C3 it is delivering everything I need it for. I can get to the functions I want quickly and easily (exposure compensation, ISO, metering etc.). It's small, is quick enough and from my perspective money well spent. This may be a horribly simplistic comparison but from my perspective the NEX seems like a natural option for someone considering an M8. They are not the same by any stretch and there are many reasons someone might prefer an M8 but for me the combination of great IQ, low noise, terrific High ISO and ease of using MF lenses at a very reasonable price is very attractive. I think if I were looking at an M8 I would find a camera like the NEX7 a really attractive alternative for half the price.

 

The NEX focus peaking is a really different way of approaching the problem of getting focus. It comes form Sony's experience with video and if someone is willing to give it a try and not be put off by it being different for what they are used to it can prove to be a very effective way to do things. Like any system it has it's strengths and weaknesses but as a new NEX owner I am finding it a very impressive platform indeed.

 

I think Leica lenses are superb and I can appreciate the fact that hand-made lenses and bodies carry a premium price but some of the prices that Leica gear commands are nothing short of breathtaking. I'd love to have a Summicron 40/2 but other that there is very little chance that I will ever own any other Leica gear. Even the "cheap" digital M body the M8 (used) is 8x to 10x the cost of something like my C3 costs. I'm not saying the C3 is better than the M8 but the C3 has as good (or even better) IQ, better low light, a very similar crop factor, and while I am a big fan of RFs I think the NEXs LCD with focus peaking is a very effective method of doing manual focus. Even the top of the line NEX7 is half the cost of the M8. If I were considering an M8 I would also give the NEX a good hard look as well.

 

I'm a software trainer/teacher and I run into the idea that software is a replacement for skills all the time. It's been the core of software advertising for years now. Buy Final Cut Pro or Premiere and that makes you a video editor. To a lesser degree it has been the way camera companies push their wares as well. Leica has spent years building a well deserved reputation for quality. The way the founders of Leica went to great personal risk to get Jews out of Germany before the Holocaust (The Leica Freedom Train) is enough for them to have my respect and admiration. Leica has become shorthand for quality and that reputation is interpreted by some folks as a sort of magic bullet. I see it with my students. A lot of them have this idea that all the knowledge in the world is out there at their fingertips and they don't actually need to learn anything but instead can just look it up. Combine that sense of entitlement with the way our consumer driven society works and you have people constantly looking outside of themselves for things instead of looking within. Leica means "high quality" so I need to buy one and then my photography will be high quality because I have high quality gear. Substitute BMW, Porsche, Rolex, Ferrari or whatever premium brand you like and it still works. Brand loyalty is also tied up with self image. If someone spend s a lot of money on something the last thing they want to hear is that there is something else that is less expensive is better, prettier, faster, or even as good. It can end up getting really nasty.

One of the problems of gear oriented forums (even terrific ones like here, mu-43 or SC) is that it kind of comes with the territory.

For me it isn't about gear it's about the images. I know folks will argue that it IS about the gear and that better gear makes a difference but I think that only applies when you have specific constraints put on you like a working professional providing images for stock. There are some very specific requirements for that kind of thing and that can easily dictate equipment choices. But when it comes to the the art/craft of making images I feel it about the eye of the photographer than anything else. I make my choices of what gear to buy based on a few simple criteria. Am I comfortable using the gear? Does it do something to help enable me to make images? Can I afford it? I really don't care what name it has printed on it because in my limited time producing images I have yet to have anyone ask me what camera i shot an image on (unless it was on one of the forums here).  

 

AWESOME...mind if I use that?  

 

Thank you, glad to be here. I am really loving the C3 as well. The thing that I cannot get over is how easy manual focusing legacy glass is. I may never go back to AF lenses.  

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7470612760/" title="Tick Tock by dixeyk, on Flickr"> "680" height="1024" alt="Tick Tock"></a>

 

I have a been fan of m43 for the past few years and the main reason was the quality of the native lenses. Although I have a real love of legacy glass using them on m43 bodies was just not all that fun. I tried everything but the native glass was a lot simpler to use so I built up my m43 lenses and started to sell off my legacy lenses figuring that their time was past. I had extensive sets of Hexanon, Super Takumar and OM lenses that I sold off (only keeping a few lenses) that I wish I had kept right now.

The NEX has really been quite the revelation. When I started photography my first cameras were these small compact RF cameras. They were small, very capable and a real blast to shoot with. I also had my OM1 and OM2 but there was just something special about those compact RF cameras. Ever since my first digital camera I have been wanting to find something that would replicate that feeling and the NEX is the first digital camera to do that for me. My C3 with the Konica 40/1.8 reminds me a lot of my Konica Auto S3 (except for the longer focal length). The C3 might be the low end of the NEX line but I honestly don't see what more I could want at the moment. I feel like a NEX body with a 24mm and 50mm (or something close) is a terrific way to go if you're looking for manual focus heaven. With my Hexanons (24, 40 and 50) I end up with the equivalent of a 36/2.8, 60/1.8 and 75/1.4...they may be a tad peculiar focal lengths but very useable.

...a Leica M9 for $50K? Well it makes the garden variety M8 and M9 seem positively cheap.

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7470611790/" title="Pastellar by dixeyk, on Flickr"> "1024" height="680" alt="Pastellar"></a>
Hexanon 40/1.8 @f5.6

Here is something I have been noticing...the texture of the pansies that almost makes them look like paper. Is that the additional resolution of the NEX sensor doing that? I don't recall ever seeing that before. Well, whatever the cause I quite like it.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7470610872/" title="Last Stand of the Lupines by dixeyk, on Flickr"> "1024" height="680" alt="Last Stand of the Lupins"></a>
Hexanon 40/1.8 @f4

 

Most definitely...none of my m43 bodies produce images like this even using the same lenses. There is a delicacy to the images that is breathtaking. The NEX and the Hexanons are pretty special but I am eagerly awaiting the NEX to m42 adapter I ordered so I can try out my Super Taks (50/1.4 and SMC 28/3.5) and my Helios 44M. That petal detail in the daffodil is a knockout.