colonel Posted April 24, 2014 Share #41 Posted April 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think Leica is going for a low body entry price (relatively) to lock you into a lens system which will not be low balled In that sense it is not going to compete with a D610 or Df, say, and the excellent Nikon range of 1.8G lenses, or Fuji with it's excellent X lenses. It's more the Sony model of good value bodies but no discount on lenses Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Hi colonel, Take a look here T pricing. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Herr Barnack Posted April 24, 2014 Share #42 Posted April 24, 2014 Alan, My guess is now no. M240 = yesterday’s baby. Wilson The T looks like a nice midlevel camera - but it is no replacement for "yesterday's baby" - not to say that everyone here doesn't already know that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkine Posted April 25, 2014 Share #43 Posted April 25, 2014 how come everybody seems to be so excited about the pricing? As much as I like Leica, I think it's a rip-off: $1.850 Body, $1.950 Summicron lens, $595 Viewfinder, $395 M-Adapter quickly adds up to $4.790, if I add another lens I'm at $6.640....I'm rather going to save up and buy a M240 next to my MM... I agree. I am looking for an M9P or ME and think I can get a good one at around this price, and I'll be able to use my Summicron 50 and Elmarit 28 at their proper focal and without adapter... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted April 25, 2014 Share #44 Posted April 25, 2014 I agree. That is an impressive pricepoint for Leica! If I were in the market for another camera, I think I would actually pick it over the Sony A7, which I would never have guessed in the lead up to this announcement.. I was thinking like 3000 would be the price... Of course, once you really start calculating, it's still very expensive. I mean 600$ for an EVF, quickly carries the price beyond reasonable again. Still... This seems to be a very nice development for Leica. Well done! After a nights' sleep and reading some more about the camera I feel I have to correct my initial enthusiasm for the price a little. The body price was encouraging, but to be honest the whole package needed to shoot comfortably does still seem way too expensive. So I wouldn't really pick this over the sony a7 or most other apsc and m4/3 competition. It still seems like a nice camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 25, 2014 Share #45 Posted April 25, 2014 Whereas the body price looks reasonable, the zoom lens looks expensive alongside the Olympus 12-40 (24-80 EFOV) M-Zuiko Pro f2.8 constant, which gets rave reviews. The Olympus is £799 and is an all metal lens, with lots of exotic glass and asph elements. The 23mm Summicron looks expensive against Leica’s own 25mm DG f1.4 Summilux MFT currently for sale in the UK at £429, again a lens which gets first class reviews. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted April 25, 2014 Share #46 Posted April 25, 2014 There is no such thing as a decent Acer.I have an Acer One netbook which is still ticking after 5+ years of service. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest odeon Posted April 25, 2014 Share #47 Posted April 25, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can use $7000-tagged Leica M (typ 240) with 35'lux, or 50'lux. They are around $4000. If i buy a Leica T (typ 701), i must pay more than a Leica T price for use it. I think, the body has true tagged. But, the lenses should be discounted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 25, 2014 Share #48 Posted April 25, 2014 I can use $7000-tagged Leica M (typ 240) with 35'lux, or 50'lux. They are around $4000.If i buy a Leica T (typ 701), i must pay more than a Leica T price for use it. I think, the body has true tagged. But, the lenses should be discounted. Exactly. I think a reasonable “kit” price with the zoom lens should be in the region of £2000 or $2800 pre-tax. Would anyone give a hoot if the lens were to be made by Panasonic to kept the price down - not many as long as it does not say Panasonic on the lens. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted April 25, 2014 Share #49 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) The lenses are made in Japan Wilson (if that's what you meant?), just not by Panasonic according to what the beta testers were told by Leica. I agree that a 'kit' price for the zoom bought together with a body would be preferable, otherwise it's a £3000 entry price including the EVF. Edited April 25, 2014 by stevelap 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 25, 2014 Share #50 Posted April 25, 2014 The lenses are made in Japan Wilson (if that's what you meant?), just not by Panasonic according to what the beta testers were told by Leica. I agree that a 'kit' price for the zoom bought together with a body would be preferable, otherwise it's a £3000 entry price including the EVF. Steve, I had not realised that. In that case, they are even more ambitiously priced than I thought, when I assumed they were at least assembled in Germany or Portugal. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted April 25, 2014 Share #51 Posted April 25, 2014 Whereas the body price looks reasonable, the zoom lens looks expensive alongside the Olympus 12-40 (24-80 EFOV) M-Zuiko Pro f2.8 constant, which gets rave reviews. The Olympus is £799 and is an all metal lens, with lots of exotic glass and asph elements. The 23mm Summicron looks expensive against Leica’s own 25mm DG f1.4 Summilux MFT currently for sale in the UK at £429, again a lens which gets first class reviews. Wilson The Olympus 12-40mm is plastic with a thin partial metal cladding The four clips that connect the metal mount to the chassis are plastic which has resulted in sheering. See m43s forum and dpreview for pictures and examples I regard that as a cheap as chips lens The pictures quality is not bad for a f5.6 (FF equiv) constant aperture but not great. I used it on an EM-1 Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 25, 2014 Share #52 Posted April 25, 2014 The Olympus 12-40mm is plastic with a thin partial metal cladding The four clips that connect the metal mount to the chassis are plastic which has resulted in sheering. See m43s forum and dpreview for pictures and examples I regard that as a cheap as chips lens The pictures quality is not bad for a f5.6 (FF equiv) constant aperture but not great. I used it on an EM-1 Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I was going on my local reseller, which described it as a “metal lens” but obviously that means there is some metal in it:) Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals, who talks more common sense than most other pundits, thinks there was a bad batch of the 12-40, which led to the mount failures. He quotes many other lenses, generally regarded as professional from Canon etc, which have plastic mounts. Very interested to hear your so-so opinion on the 12-40/f2.8, as I was contemplating upgrading my 12-50 to the 12-40. I might see if I can rent one first. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted April 25, 2014 Share #53 Posted April 25, 2014 I have the 12-40 and find it outright excellent. Very sharp even wide open. Peter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted April 25, 2014 Share #54 Posted April 25, 2014 The Olympus 12-40mm is plastic with a thin partial metal cladding The four clips that connect the metal mount to the chassis are plastic which has resulted in sheering. See m43s forum and dpreview for pictures and examples I regard that as a cheap as chips lens The pictures quality is not bad for a f5.6 (FF equiv) constant aperture but not great. I used it on an EM-1 Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk The light gathering ability is f2.8 …but the depth of field is double that of FF … hence equivalent to f5.6. If you take a light meter reading and it states f2.8 you still set the actual f2.8 aperture … not f5.6. Light meters do not have and do not need different scales for different formats. dunk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted April 25, 2014 Share #55 Posted April 25, 2014 The light gathering ability is f2.8 …but the depth of field is double that of FF … hence equivalent to f5.6. If you take a light meter reading and it states f2.8 you still set the actual f2.8 aperture … not f5.6. Light meters do not have and do not need different scales for different formats. dunk yes, correct however the light falling on a smaller sensor is less then the light on a larger sensor, even with the same hole I have found this effects colour depth and DR. Interesting to compare on the same silicon (EM-1 and 5 use Sony sensor of the X2 generation) The 12-40mm is very good, but the primes are noticeably sharper. Note that I am not a fan of M4/3s so I will not give more impressions. I stopped using the system some time ago. best rgds Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 25, 2014 Share #56 Posted April 25, 2014 however the light falling on a smaller sensor is less then the light on a larger sensor, even with the same hole This might be true of a sensor measured in photon widths but in the real world it sounds like bollocks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted April 25, 2014 Share #57 Posted April 25, 2014 I do hope that Leica succeed with this one; I am sure they have done their market research. However, just packing my bag for our trip to Paris next week, I am sitting here with my MM and my Fujifilm X-E2 complete with Metabones adapter in front of me and I am not getting that tingling 'perhaps I'll change the X-E2' sensation that I got when the X-T1 was announced a few weeks ago. Not terribly excited by the T I'm afraid How much easier just to pack and M2 with a few rolls of film. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted April 25, 2014 Share #58 Posted April 25, 2014 How much easier just to pack and M2 with a few rolls of film. An M2 and film is fine if you do not mind waiting for the images … and if you choose the film ISO rating carefully for the occasion . But how much easier to load the digital images to a computer and see the results almost 'realtime' … and to change the ISO 'mid-sensor' so as to speak … cannot do that 'mid-roll' dunk 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafikiphoto Posted April 25, 2014 Share #59 Posted April 25, 2014 How much easier just to pack and M2 with a few rolls of film. Each to his own.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timd. Posted April 25, 2014 Share #60 Posted April 25, 2014 Steve, I had not realised that. In that case, they are even more ambitiously priced than I thought, when I assumed they were at least assembled in Germany or Portugal. Wilson is workforce in japan really that much cheaper than in portugal or germany? i feel not, but im not an economist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.