Have any M (240) owners compared IQ with the T?

[woorob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I had a T with 23mm on order but cancelled after it was suggested to me that the image quality of the T would be more similar to that of the X series than an M. I've had both an X1 and X2 and liked each of them very much, so that is not the issue, and I'm reconsidering the T.

 

I've been looking for something that could serve as a backup to my M, use some of my M lenses, and provide image quality rivaling the M. A tall order, I understand, but that's what I'm hoping/looking for. I went down the A7r path but decided that wasn't for me.

 

So my question is -- Are there any M owners out there who have recently purchased the T? If so, what are your observations as to the difference in image quality between the two cameras? I understand there may be some differences in functionality with the touch screen on the T, but that doesn't really matter to me. I'm primarily interested in the differences in image quality between the two. It would be fabulous if links were available to high-res DNG files taken at the same time, comparing the two cameras.

 

Thanks for any and all input!

Edited June 2, 2014 by woorob

[digitalfx]

since its the same sensor as the X...

 

regarding a comparison...the T isn't going to best the M in any way. Ive only had my T for a few days, and I can tell you that the M produces more consistently better images. Is the T a slouch?...absolutely not.

Edited June 2, 2014 by digitalfx

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thighslapper]

X-Vario images compare very favourably with the M9 .... in fact colour fidelity,WB and exposure is consistently more accurate. I anticipate the T will be just the same.

 

For holidays and full days out I tend to take both M240 and X-Vario ... and use them interchangeably ..... as a result my pictures in LR are pretty jumbled up ...... and to be honest I cannot immediately identify which is which ...... except that more XV photos tend to be 100% in focus and WB is generally better.......

 

Apart from making big prints or stiff cropping I am not sure there is all that much difference. The XV lens is a real little super-star .... it remains to be seen if the T offerings will match up ....... I will know tomorrow ....

[AlanJW]

since its the same sensor as the X...

 

regarding a comparison...the T isn't going to best the M in any way. Ive only had my T for a few days, and I can tell you that the M produces more consistently better images. Is the T a slouch?...absolutely not.

 

 

I have had the T for less than a week. It produces superb images, but not surprisingly not with the same level of detail as an M(240). M lenses work very well on the T, but I find focusing easier with the OVF of the M(240). Hence, working with M lenses on a T for me is much slower as I need the focus magnification. Obviously it is faster with T lenses and autofocus, and do not underestimate the 23mm. It is quite good.

 

My personal opinion is also that the M is far easier to handhold down to slow speeds (like 1/15), while the T seems less steady. For sure using it without the EVF and holding it out to focus and frame is inherently unsteadier. I am going to usethe T as a backup for my M, but I do not think it reasonable to expect the same kind of results. I have been searching for the holy grail of an M backup, trying two Sonys and an Olympus with adapters, and now the T. They are all good, but I have come to realize that the only true backup for an M is another M. The only thing I would consider as "close enough" is an M9, which is ironic because I could have kept the one I had, or bought a used one for what I lost on all my prior tries. But I will keep the T. It is a pleasure to use, especially with T lenses, and gives me an autofocus option for when I need it (I love the RF but my aging eyes are not always quick enough or sharp enough). And while the T is not a perfect backup, it is a better solution for me than anything else I have tried.

[jonoslack]

I have had the T for less than a week. It produces superb images, but not surprisingly not with the same level of detail as an M(240). M lenses work very well on the T, but I find focusing easier with the OVF of the M(240).

 

Well, How many years have you been practicing to focus properly with your rangefinder?

 

I'm not suggesting for a second that the T is a better bet than the M - but I've learned to focus with M lenses and the EVF over the last few months, and found that with practice I've got pretty good at it (no zooming in, just on the EVF) . . . and I can handhold pretty well with that lovely quiet shutter.

[AlanJW]

Well, How many years have you been practicing to focus properly with your rangefinder?

 

I'm not suggesting for a second that the T is a better bet than the M - but I've learned to focus with M lenses and the EVF over the last few months, and found that with practice I've got pretty good at it (no zooming in, just on the EVF) . . . and I can handhold pretty well with that lovely quiet shutter.

 

Jono, I think you are partially right. But only partially. Only 12 years for me with Leica rangefinders. I am comparing only what I see and feel now with the T, but I have tried other EVF cameras for the last several years (Nex7, A7r, Oly) and for lenses from 35-75 the OVF is just easier. For anything wider, the zone of focus is too wide for pinpoint focusing with an EVF even with assist lines, as too much is thought by the camera to be in focus (and opening up wide doesn't help for lenses like the WATE as it is only f/4). On the other hand, for teles, the EVF is better because I find the RF patch too small and RF lines too small for easy framing. And for zooms the EVF is required. To me the best system would be a user selectable good OVF and high res EVF. That would be the best of all worlds.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jono, I think you are partially right. But only partially. Only 12 years for me with Leica rangefinders. I am comparing only what I see and feel now with the T, but I have tried other EVF cameras for the last several years (Nex7, A7r, Oly) and for lenses from 35-75 the OVF is just easier. For anything wider, the zone of focus is too wide for pinpoint focusing with an EVF even with assist lines, as too much is thought by the camera to be in focus (and opening up wide doesn't help for lenses like the WATE as it is only f/4). On the other hand, for teles, the EVF is better because I find the RF patch too small and RF lines too small for easy framing. And for zooms the EVF is required. To me the best system would be a user selectable good OVF and high res EVF. That would be the best of all worlds.

 

A Leica M hybrid would be nice, rangefinder and an EVF (like the x-pro1) with highest possible resolution and DR.

[thighslapper]

here are some comparison images ......... a bit rough and ready from this afternoon.

 

M+50/2 apo plus crop

T+Vario with Vario Elmar at 50

T+Summicron C 40/2

 

These were all indoors on a rainy day so are at about 500iso ..... I have sharpened and NR to get the best image..... all were close with WB (sl adjustments) and auto exposure (unadjusted ... although uploads always seem eunderexposed compared to the originals). All taken at the base Vario-Elmar aperture of about f5.

 

 

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions ......

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited June 4, 2014 by thighslapper

[thighslapper]

T+Vario with Vario Elmar at 50

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thighslapper]

T+Summicron C 40/2

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

That old Summicron appears to be holding its own quite well.

[jonoslack]

Excellent Steve - and nicely done.

My conclusion is that the M with the 50 'cron is best, but it's hard to see that the difference would spoil a good picture . . . . and even less likely to improve a bad one!

[thighslapper]

That old Summicron appears to be holding its own quite well.

 

....... thought you would be pleased with the result ... with the MT adapter it's not quite as compact as I had hoped, but in fact the slight extra space from the body helps focussing as the tab is really too close when fitted direct to a Leica body. I found focussing actually more accurate on the viewfinder without focus-assist magnification ..... which is a bit of an acquired art and unintuitive ... the actual best focus is when the image goes a bit blocky and shimmery (you will see when you try) .....

[jonoslack]

....... thought you would be pleased with the result ... with the MT adapter it's not quite as compact as I had hoped, but in fact the slight extra space from the body helps focussing as the tab is really too close when fitted direct to a Leica body. I found focussing actually more accurate on the viewfinder without focus-assist magnification ..... which is a bit of an acquired art and unintuitive ... the actual best focus is when the image goes a bit blocky and shimmery (you will see when you try) .....

 

someone suggested some changes to the way the focus assist works - maybe in the next firmware.

I agree with you though - the best way to focus is looking full screen for the shimmer. I don't use the focus assist much at all now.

[thighslapper]

Forgot the X-Vario ..... same settings ....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[barjohn]

You did such a great job matching up exposure and WB that on my 27" iMac I can hardly see any difference. The biggest difference I see is in your 100% crops the lens with the shallowest DOF appears to be the 40 Cron. The rocks and plant on the other side of the door are in soft focus whereas they are in sharp focus in the other two shots. When I magnify the image, the Cron shows as much detail as the 50 on the M and the two zooms appear about equal.

Edited June 4, 2014 by barjohn

[Doc_P]

X-Vario images compare very favourably with the M9 .... in fact colour fidelity,WB and exposure is consistently more accurate. I anticipate the T will be just the same.

 

 

 

For holidays and full days out I tend to take both M240 and X-Vario ... and use them interchangeably ..... as a result my pictures in LR are pretty jumbled up ...... and to be honest I cannot immediately identify which is which ...... except that more XV photos tend to be 100% in focus and WB is generally better.......

 

 

 

Apart from making big prints or stiff cropping I am not sure there is all that much difference. The XV lens is a real little super-star .... it remains to be seen if the T offerings will match up ....... I will know tomorrow ....

 

 

Same experience by me for landscapes... The LXV delivers!

[woorob]

Thighslapper,

 

Really appreciate the time and effort you put into this very helpful set. And my, what beautiful flowers you have!

 

Now I wish I had kept the 40mm I had with my CL years ago.

[barjohn]

I like your floor and your furnishings! Don't worry, I won't let my wife see these pictures.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

I like your floor and your furnishings! Don't worry, I won't let my wife see these pictures.

 

..... Jerusalem limestone ....... 1 inch thick and weighs a ton ....... not cheap, but by far the most attractive flooring I have ever come across ....... it's flecked with fossil shells and sea urchins and a bit more creamy than the photos would suggest..... Lovely stuff.