Why Sony A7 is a better street camera than Leica M(9)

It´s a few weeks now since I traded my Leica M9 for a Sony A7. A crazy thing to do, many people would say, but so far I don´t have any regrets (except missing the feeling to own a digital Leica). I have to admit that in most cases the Sony is a better camera.
The Zeiss Sonnar 55mm is huge, but the body is actually the same size.The lens quality is amazing, clearly up to Leica standards. The 24 megapixel sensor is to my knowledge comparable to Leicas M. And most important, I  love autofocus. I did not think I would ever write that, but the fact is, I love AF.
Yes, its a different way of taking pictures the slow Leica way. And yes, it has many advantages. But at the end of the day, I get more usable photos out of the Sony than I did with the Leica. And the people who sees my photos only cares about the picture, not what camera I used to take it. So If I get more good photographs out of a modern AF camera, It´s time to trade.

Here are a few shots from a 15 minutes walk today in Stockholm. I doubt I would get as many sharp shots from the M9 in that short time.

Is the 55mm really that good? (part 1)

Before getting the SonyA7 and a prime 55mm I read a few reviews on the web of the lens and every tester seems to be impressed by the glass. DXO Mark claims its the best AF lens they have ever tested, a lens thats only rivaled by the Otus 55mm.
The 55mm 1.8 is not small, in fact for a 1.8 lens it´s huge. And it´s not chap. Again, for a normal 1.8 lens its very expensive. Only Leica thinks its OK to charge more for a slow 50mm lens.
But when shooting with the lens I realized, it´s worth the money. The contrast and the crispiness is absolutely first class. What I see when I shot portraits reminds me of when I had a chance to briefly test the already legendary Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 on my Nikon D600. This is obviously first class glass.

Just for fun I did a small test shot this morning, comparing the Sony A7 and Zeiss 55mm with my Sigma 50mm 1.4 on my D600. The cameras are comparable, both are 24 megapixel and have modern and similar sensors. (Yes, they are not 36 megapixel, but thats i really something will never ever notice since I don´t do 50 inch prints.)
Also I chose the Sigma in stead of my Nikon 50mm, since the Sigma is a much more ambitious lens than Nikons older 50mm. (The new 58mm 1.4 is another story.)

Have a look for yourself and see what you think.

 In case you wonder, The pictures are first Sigma then Sony:)

None of the pictures have been edited, just concerted from RAW. The Sigma is in my opinion a bit smoother. The Nikon/Sigma also produces a bit lighter photos. The Sony would probably need a bit editing in Photoshop, but the end result is sharper, crispier and more contrasty.By far!

What I don´t like with the Sony A7

There are a few things i don´t like with the Sony A7 and some things I really hope that Sony will fix. The mediocre autofocus in bad light is an issue, but since I also have a Nikon D600, i can live with it. I bought the camera for street and I mainly shoot that in daylight. There is no built in flash, and thats an issue for a compact. I get the camera since its small so I don´t want to carry an extra accessory.
And I really don´t like the size of the 55mm. Its a great lens and I´m sure there is an explanation for why is has to be big. But still, it´s bulky and heavy.
I really really hope that Sony or a third party will come up with a panncake-style 40-45mm. F2.8 or fine, if its just more compact.
That would make it possible to me to bring the camera ion my briefcase, now its just too big.
But besides that, I love it!

Stockholm

Hanna

Stockholm, Old Town

Stockholm, Old Town

Stockholm, Old Towm