Leica T

[-ph-]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As the contacts are placed differently than those of the EVF of the M240, there is no way how it could work with the M240. This does not preclude either making a version with M240 style contacts or alternatively, an iteration of the M240 which has the new contact layout.

 

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[stevelap]

Or an adaptor.

[Archiver]

But even those who can spend 3000$ on a whim may be frustrated, when they realize that the nice housing contains outdated technology. At least, if the buy such a toy also for taking photos and not only a nice looking gadget for their handbag.

 

You're assuming that the people who can 'spend $3000 on a whim' are shallow fashionistas who know nothing about photography. I bought my secondhand M7 as a sudden impulse purchase. I paid $3000 on it within twenty minutes of seeing it in a shop. But I had read and drooled and dreamed of a M7 for years before stumbling across a mint condition chrome model.

 

And besides, how exactly is a current 16mp Sony sensor, still used in cameras like the Ricoh GR and Nikon A, 'outdated technology'? That sensor still creates better images than many enthusiasts or amateurs will be able to fully exploit, and certainly more than enough for the hypothetical shallow no-nothing that some are assuming will be lining up to throw money at the T.

 

All the initial reviews suggest that the T produces beautiful image quality and performs competitively with current aps-c mirrorless cameras. That doesn't sound outdated to me.

[spylaw4]

All the initial reviews suggest that the T produces beautiful image quality and performs competitively with current aps-c mirrorless cameras. That doesn't sound outdated to me.

 

It certainly does produce really excellent images - and thanks to Jono for the DNGs I have been able to print a selection of them out and they really are very good. It's a very competent camera! Go see, handle, and actually try it, rather than pontificating endlessly about it!

[Archiver]

It certainly does produce really excellent images - and thanks to Jono for the DNGs I have been able to print a selection of them out and they really are very good. It's a very competent camera! Go see, handle, and actually try it, rather than pontificating endlessly about it!

 

As soon as I get the time, I'm hitting the shops to handle the T. Excited!

[diogenis]

I very much liked this new T system.

But why -oh- why does Dr. Kaufmann had to make a video and present him like Jony Ive is something I cannot bare. All white backgrounds, him speaking like Ive, aluminum unibodies, swiping the screens... and more. Are we sure it is about a Leica product? Is it possible Apple bought Leica in the end

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I very much liked this new T system.

But why -oh- why does Dr. Kaufmann had to make a video and present him like Jony Ive is something I cannot bare. All white backgrounds, him speaking like Ive, aluminum unibodies, swiping the screens... and more. Are we sure it is about a Leica product? Is it possible Apple bought Leica in the end

 

Leica T marketing is a big improvement on the XV 'Mini M' marketing.

 

dunk

[!Nomad64]

I really cannot tell if you are being sarcastic about this being cheap or not?

 

The sub-$400 Sony NEX 3n has the same sensor in it. (The thing that makes the photos.) So, when you see that it will cost $5,000 to have this with a viewfinder, a kit lens, and a neck strap... you're making a little joke by saying it's cheap, right? Or were they serving Koolaide at that shop today?

 

Whoa, folks! I would never imagine that I'd cause quite a stir by using unfitting words. I'm not english mother tongue so you'll want to please allow me for an error margin!

 

I wasn't sarcastic at all, but the word "cheap" has to be considered in its appropriate contest.

With an M body selling at € 6,380, an X Vario selling at € 2,450 and and X2 selling at € 1,770 (here in Genoa at least), I deem the € 1,500 for the body of the T being actually "cheap". Cheap for Leica and cheap in the relative way, of course. I fully agree that spending that amount just for the sake of making pictures as an amateur is a slap in the face of misery, but my comments had no social implications.

 

Fact is that Leica is a luxury brand and as such one has to be prepared to pay for the extra red dot tax.

Sure, there are other cameras that can provide the same performances if not a tad better and can accept the same lenses at a fraction of the price. But IMHO here we enter into another territory, namely personal gratification.

Do these other cameras have the same appeal? Do they give the same feelings? I think not. It's not only for the sake of making the photos, but also for the pleasure of handling a beautifully crafted object of exquisite design, easy to use, innovative and still compatible with legacy lenses.

I might just quote other users' comments that compare the premium prices to pay to have an iPhone or a MacBookPro when one could buy an el-cheapo Android terminal or a plastic laptop, but I won't.

 

I'd rather ask why one would buy a Mercedes or a BMW when a Skoda Octavia does the very same job at a fraction of the price.

The Skoda Octavia is powered by robust and reliable VW engines, has (or had) 4WD traction, can comfortably carry the same number of persons, has a lot of loading room, its design is not too shabby, respects the same pollution regulations and given the speed limits goes as fast as any Mercedes or BMW on highroads and gets equally stuck in the traffic jam. So why to pay the extra monies?

Based on pure logic it would be a nonsense, but many prefer to buy a Mercedes over a Skoda, obviously if they can afford it.

 

I firmly believe that prices, tech data and performances can't be the only applicable criteria for a choice. There's that extra quid that drive some of us to make apparently illogical choices. No one is forced to buy Leica or Mercedes, but some prefer so to do and I don't see that as a crime.

Oh, by the way I can't currently afford the Skoda Octavia, go figure a Mercedes and I always bought all my Leica gear 2nd hand with some sacrifices because I could never afford it otherwise.

 

Peace,

Bruno

[BJDrew]

Whoa, folks! I would never imagine that I'd cause quite a stir by using unfitting words. I'm not english mother tongue so you'll want to please allow me for an error margin!

 

I wasn't sarcastic at all, but the word "cheap" has to be considered in its appropriate contest.

With an M body selling at € 6,380, an X Vario selling at € 2,450 and and X2 selling at € 1,770 (here in Genoa at least), I deem the € 1,500 for the body of the T being actually "cheap". Cheap for Leica and cheap in the relative way, of course. I fully agree that spending that amount just for the sake of making pictures as an amateur is a slap in the face of misery, but my comments had no social implications.

 

Fact is that Leica is a luxury brand and as such one has to be prepared to pay for the extra red dot tax.

Sure, there are other cameras that can provide the same performances if not a tad better and can accept the same lenses at a fraction of the price. But IMHO here we enter into another territory, namely personal gratification.

Do these other cameras have the same appeal? Do they give the same feelings? I think not. It's not only for the sake of making the photos, but also for the pleasure of handling a beautifully crafted object of exquisite design, easy to use, innovative and still compatible with legacy lenses.

I might just quote other users' comments that compare the premium prices to pay to have an iPhone or a MacBookPro when one could buy an el-cheapo Android terminal or a plastic laptop, but I won't.

 

I'd rather ask why one would buy a Mercedes or a BMW when a Skoda Octavia does the very same job at a fraction of the price.

The Skoda Octavia is powered by robust and reliable VW engines, has (or had) 4WD traction, can comfortably carry the same number of persons, has a lot of loading room, its design is not too shabby, respects the same pollution regulations and given the speed limits goes as fast as any Mercedes or BMW on highroads and gets equally stuck in the traffic jam. So why to pay the extra monies?

Based on pure logic it would be a nonsense, but many prefer to buy a Mercedes over a Skoda, obviously if they can afford it.

 

I firmly believe that prices, tech data and performances can't be the only applicable criteria for a choice. There's that extra quid that drive some of us to make apparently illogical choices. No one is forced to buy Leica or Mercedes, but some prefer so to do and I don't see that as a crime.

Oh, by the way I can't currently afford the Skoda Octavia, go figure a Mercedes and I always bought all my Leica gear 2nd hand with some sacrifices because I could never afford it otherwise.

 

Peace,

Bruno

 

I appreciate the response. I can also agree that the body itself - without lens, strap, adapter, EVF, extra battery, etc. is not wildly above market. This was a wise choice for Leica, as they can say "Well, look - we have a very fair and accessible entry price here."

 

As for the choice to purchase one? I'm completely behind the Leica badge as having equal emotional and technical components. There's nothing wrong with 'desire' in this context.

[3D-Kraft.com]

I can also agree that the body itself - without lens, strap, adapter, EVF, extra battery, etc. is not wildly above market.

 

To what do you compare???

[Steve Ash]

The complains about the price very much reminds me about the request of left wings politicians "Die Linke" in Germany: "Luxury for everybody"

[AlanG]

I have an idea - having spent lots of time recently with both.

The quiet shutter makes the Leica T much easier to hand hold and produces better images at about half the shutter speed.

 

No image stabilization in the camera or the lenses... correct?

 

When seeking the better quality, I find it is generally worth the effort to go to the trouble to use larger cameras, tripods, and large lighting gear when necessary for the results I want. I have explained this approach to my clients as some of the justification for my fees. Of course I could just compromise and I do that for many personal images where quality is not such a driving factor.

 

But for those uses, I wouldn't spend thousands on a camera system that just achieves slightly better results than a much cheaper one. Of course it is clear that others just like having certain cameras for whatever reason and don't mind the cost.

[Phil75]

My personal experience with my previous Canon gear is that image stabilization only led to minor improvements in low light conditions but if switched on regularly to less sharp images. I often forgot to switch it out and afterwards was somewhat disappointed by the results regarding image quality. So, where are the gains?

[pico]

No image stabilization in the camera or the lenses... correct?

 

According to the manual, it does have something like stabilization.

PICTURE STABILIZATION

 

• With this function the camera automatically takes two pictures,
  one after the other (you can hear the shutter release twice). It
  then combines the pictures into one using digital techniques.
  
• Hold the camera steady until after the second picture.
  
• As the function uses two pictures, it can only be used for
  stationary subjects.
  
• Picture stabilization is only possible with shutter speeds in the
  range 1/4s to 1/30s, and sensitivities up to ISO 800. It is not
  available when using series of pictures, automatic bracketing
  the self-timer, in fl ash mode, or with the DNG data format.
  

[AlanG]

My personal experience with my previous Canon gear is that image stabilization only led to minor improvements in low light conditions but if switched on regularly to less sharp images. I often forgot to switch it out and afterwards was somewhat disappointed by the results regarding image quality. So, where are the gains?

 

I did a number of tests with the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100- 400 IS and there is no question the stabilization allows ME to handhold and get sharper images at lower speeds. The same is true with the 24-105 IS, and the stabilized 16-50 and 55-210 Nex camera lenses I have. I think IS long ago established itself as proven technology. I have seen no problem leaving the IS on when shooting in bright light at higher speeds either and find it beneficial when shooting from a helicopter. I do turn it off when using a tripod.

 

My feeling is that even if the Leica lenses are better than my cheap Nex lenses, stabilization will lead to sharper images with the Nex in some situations. (Of course there are better lenses for the Nex too, but I don't require them.) Additionally, the Nex has a few special modes for low light where it will take several images in a rapid sequence to either minimize noise or minimize the blurring caused by movement. And of course better bike components are carbon fiber.

 

I know the T is the latest offering from Leica but it clearly does not have the most recent state of the art technology that is offered by some other brands in APS mirrorless cameras. And new cameras are coming out all of the time which would make me hesitate to invest a lot of money in any camera that is likely to be further surpassed pretty soon by less expensive offerings.

 

Having only two AF lenses available makes it rather limited at this time and by the time more of a system is available there may be a newer more advanced body. So for some that would make it more sensible to wait and see what is the best choice for one's needs at that time. E.g. I first was attracted to the Nex 7 but waited for the Nex 6 and the very compact 16-50 zoom because the Nex 7 and 18-55 was too big a camera to fit my travel needs. Sony may release a replacement for the Nex 7 pretty soon and that camera may be one to also consider before making a decision.

 

Likewise the overall weight and size with the zoom lens and EVF on the T totally eliminates this camera from being useful to me (yes, my needs not yours) regardless of price or image quality. No HDMI port and limited video modes also would rule it out for my needs.

 

As for the cost of the polished machined aluminum chassis, some machined and polished aluminum wheels for cars are pretty cheap. I have no idea how much harder it is for Leica to machine the little camera body but I have plenty of machined aluminum items that didn't cost much. (E.g. bicycle components.)

[pico]

About the Leica T

 

It is what it is. Concentrate upon that rather than what it is not.

 

What it is not is not our problem.

 

Most whining posts wish to draw attention to the poster who is disappointed that it does not live up to his expectations. What is that except public admission of misdirected expectations?

 

Leica did not develop the T to replace everything else. Quit the primitive exclusive digital logic and learn the AND operator. You can have a typ 240 AND whatever you wish from the market, including nothing from Leica.

 

It is what it is. So what is the T, really?

 

It is a competent cluster of digital guts surrounded by an obsessively crafted brick of metal (subtext: made for us to think of precious bullion which it really is not), and pretty good-to-outstanding lenses PLUS all the legacy lenses.

 

More to come. Life calls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[dkCambridgeshire]

The big question for me is this: will the T's EVF work on the M240, and if so would it be an improvement?

 

 

No it will not … and neither will an Olympus VF2 or VF4 work on a T . And the VF4 will not work on the M240.

 

But if T sales are high enough, maybe a third party finder might surface.

 

dunk

[jmahto]

I do use NEX6 (alongside M9) and have used Sony 16-50 compact zoom, BUT now I am thinking of selling the 16-50 zoom since picture quality across frame is not satisfactory (to me). For wide angle I simply use CV 15 which is quite compact and for 50mm end I use the 50Lux that I have (with M9). I got NEX6 to use with adaptor+legacy glass since M9 doesn't have liveview. It had been good experience with NEX6 but it is falling short (again, for me) in two ways: i) WB, Color, IQ is underwhelming, even after PP compared to M9 in good light and ii) I can't use 28mm cron on NEX6 above f8 for good quality output.

 

Therefore, the T seems to fit as replacement for NEX6 for me. Note that it extends my system of M9+M lenses in a better way (than NEX6 did).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jank]

That brick of metal approach might be a very practical way to go.

Aluminum is cheap ( by the weight).

There is a minimum tooling required.It goes quickly from CDA design to machine, having the prototype next morning.It cuts de velopment time. It gives design flexibility.

Clasical tooling for die casting and several molds for plastic means the design has to be fixed early.

Molds are great a nd economical if you make tens of thousands pieces a month and a convenience to wait for molds being finished.

Aluminum approach gives flexibility, you can double the production rate by just getting another machine a run it 24/7 if necessary.

Jan

Jan

[3D-Kraft.com]

Quit the primitive exclusive digital logic and learn the AND operator. You can have a typ 240 AND whatever you wish from the market, including nothing from Leica.

 

Then "AND" operator would (mathematically) extract, what the T and whatever you combine it, have in common.

 

As you seem to mean a kind of adding: When I decide to place another camera in my bag, the only reason to justify the extra weight and money would be a set of features that the other camera will not cover or to have a backup camera (that should be able to take the same lenses). For me, there is no reason left for the "T" alongside an A7R at about the same price than just the nice design which does not justify it (for me).