Looks nice but.....

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What comparable product is £300 ?

 

This one Buy Canon EOS M Compact System Camera with 18-55mm EF-M Lens, HD 1080p, 18MP, 3" Touch Screen, Red online at John Lewis (other colours are available!)

 

That price includes the lens by the way. APS sensor, simlar feature set, touch screen panel, similar specification 'standard' zoom......

 

If you're going to bash the Canon as cheap and inferior I'd like to see some real world comparison images.

[colonel]

This one Buy Canon EOS M Compact System Camera with 18-55mm EF-M Lens, HD 1080p, 18MP, 3" Touch Screen, Red online at John Lewis (other colours are available!)

 

That price includes the lens by the way. APS sensor, simlar feature set, touch screen panel, similar specification 'standard' zoom......

 

If you're going to bash the Canon as cheap and inferior I'd like to see some real world comparison images.

 

 

Oh I don't know

 

The Samsung NX2000 with lens is £223 and it has more megapixels, lenses available then the eos-m and is a supported system, unlike the eos-m which is being wound down

 

I understand the eos-m doesn't take Leica AF lenses, any kind of EVF, have wifi or gps and it doesn't look as cool as the T

 

My point is, to be clear, that I don't think "comparable" works here ....

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

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

[Carbon111]

This one Buy Canon EOS M Compact System Camera with 18-55mm EF-M Lens, HD 1080p, 18MP, 3" Touch Screen, Red online at John Lewis (other colours are available!)

 

If you put the nasty build quality and lack of EVF aside, the performance of the EOS M is execrable, even after the software update.

 

Being a Canon 5DmkII guy, I was looking forward to the M as an adjunct to a big DSLR but, in hand, it was pretty awful.

[Paul J]

Comparable? I was interested in the EOS M because I have a load of Canon lenses. Until I tried it. It's a kludge, it's focussing is terrible and it has the handling of a small boat anchor. I found it uninspiring to say the least. There is a reason it launched at £800 odd pound and now sells for £300, because hardly anyone wants it.

 

I think that is like saying there is no point buying a £50K Mercedes because a £20K Kia is comparable because it drives.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Paul J

[jonoslack]

HI James

 

I'm sure it's nicely made and all that BUT would I spend approx. £2400 on it when I could buy a comparable product for £300? No I wouldn't.

 

So, I don't need to handle it in order to have an opinion.

 

Fine, but that's a specific to you, and reflects on you, not on the camera - which is okay, but largely irrelevant to anyone else . . . worth mentioning that in my writeup on the camera I said:

 

Certainly, if one is going to choose a camera based on a check list and a budget, then you would be unlikely to choose the Leica T.

 

It's pretty obvious I'd say,

 

The fact that some here love the new camera and have even ordered it is irrelevant. Leica has its fanatics just like Apple and some will buy every new gadget they release regardless.

 

Presumably anyone who buys a Rolex watch is a fanatic because they can buy a cheap quartz watch which will keep better time?

 

Also, I think it's slightly impolite to badge all those who have pre-ordered the camera as fanatics?

Edited April 28, 2014 by jonoslack

[Steve P]

I think that is like saying there is no point buying a £50K Mercedes because a £20K Kia is comparable because it drives.

 

There's never a £20k KIA!?!

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Presumably anyone who buys a Rolex watch is a fanatic because they can buy a cheap quartz watch which will keep better time?

 

In this case the "Rolex" watch is simply an aluminum case with mostly the same components that other quartz watch companies have been incorporating for a while.

[M9reno]

Can't wait to get a T as a backup camera to my Hassie Lunar. Both are real works of artisanship, but I am heartened to see Leica undercut its closest competitor by £4K!

 

Hasselblad Lunar

[stunsworth]

In this case the "Rolex" watch is simply an aluminum case with mostly the same components that other quartz watch companies have been incorporating for a while.

 

I thought that Rolex's were stainless steel, or precious metal, with mechanical movements? I know there was a quartz one a while ago, but that seems to have been discontinued.

[A miller]

In this case the "Rolex" watch is simply an aluminum case with mostly the same components that other quartz watch companies have been incorporating for a while.

 

I think an appropriate analogy involving Rolex would be if they came out with a watch that

 

-was slightly less robust in size and weight

-yet still built using the same superior principles of workmanship and materials

-but using NO real jewels and a cheap chinese made quart movement

-and had a cost that was way out of line with other fashionable quartz watches (such as a high end Seiko)

 

Sure, people may purchase this watch to compliment their regular rolex and for use on those occasions in which they want a little gentler/lower profile look, particularly if they just care about the brand and have zero appreciation for the quality of the timepiece inside the watch.

 

But would YOU buy this watch??

[DigitalHeMan]

I thought that Rolex's were stainless steel, or precious metal, with mechanical movements? I know there was a quartz one a while ago, but that seems to have been discontinued.

 

 

Correct. If they did contain a quartz movement they might at least keep better time

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jonoslack]

In this case the "Rolex" watch is simply an aluminum case with mostly the same components that other quartz watch companies have been incorporating for a while.

 

HI Alan

I don't have a Rolex watch, but I don't think they make quartz watches.

[jonoslack]

Correct. If they did contain a quartz movement they might at least keep better time

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

yes indeed, but they wouldn't take such good photographs

[Jeff S]

The images I produce from either a Nikon F3 or a Leica M6 are pretty much the same.

 

Careful, or you'll spoil the ubiquitous 'horses for courses' sentiment around here….horses for the same course?

 

I generally agree with many of your comments, except that some camera changes, e.g., from 35 mm to a large format view camera, can indeed influence the photographer's choice of subject matter and style, e.g., more contemplative. Inverting and reversing the image, and lugging huge gear around, may do that. Of course the photographer decides the subject matter, 'vision', and the camera to begin with, so it's not as if the camera makes the choice.

 

But I still get your point, and the T doesn't seem in any way transformative in the same regard. As a non-user, however, I'll let others be the judge.

 

Jeff

[AlanG]

HI Alan

I don't have a Rolex watch, but I don't think they make quartz watches.

 

But Leica does. (It's an analogy.)

 

Way off subject but FWIW, this $25 "Rolex" has held up well for three years, and has an accurate automatic movement of unknown origin.

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 April 28, 2014 by AlanG

[jonoslack]

But Leica does. (It's an analogy.)

 

But clearly (in this case) rather a poor one

[AlanG]

But clearly (in this case) rather a poor one

 

I thought you liked the camera.

[jonoslack]

I thought you liked the camera.

 

Yes, but not the analogy - I do like your $25 Rolex though. I had one as a present from a son - the rain got in and the paint on the face ran (I was rather sad)

 

More seriously. Leica cannot possibly hope to compete with the R&D of companies like Sony and Nikon. So they have to compete elsewhere. For the T they could have just relied on a polished outside and a nice 'feel' - and probably it would still have sold (like the recent Hasselblad/Sony cameras which seem to be selling). . . . But they haven't - they've gone for a minimalist approach and a novel UI which (IMHO) works really well. But at least it's adventurous rather than boring.

 

I like cameras for the sum of their parts (e.g., I like the Sony NEX 6, but not the A7). NOT for the number of boxes they tick. The T is a pleasure to shoot with, and the image quality is great, as are the lenses

[CalArts 99]

Careful, or you'll spoil the ubiquitous 'horses for courses' sentiment around here….horses for the same course?

 

I generally agree with many of your comments, except that some camera changes, e.g., from 35 mm to a large format view camera, can indeed influence the photographer's choice of subject matter and style, e.g., more contemplative. Inverting and reversing the image, and lugging huge gear around, may do that. Of course the photographer decides the subject matter, 'vision', and the camera to begin with, so it's not as if the camera makes the choice.

 

But I still get your point, and the T doesn't seem in any way transformative in the same regard. As a non-user, however, I'll let others be the judge.

 

Jeff

 

Okay, I promised not to comment anymore, but....

 

Yes, the camera is a device and it cannot make choices itself. And yes, a camera either facilitates making certain images or it doesn't. It can interfere or it can become transparent (or fall somewhere in between.) And I think that's what users of the T are really trying to say: that this camera can become more transparent than others out there and may help 'free up' the user. And I'd agree with that. Some tools are too fussy and some are more 'invisible.'

 

And I haven't been talking about the surface of the image (e.g., when I said: "The images I produce from either a Nikon F3 or a Leica M6 are pretty much the same.") I'm talking about the content and context of the image (as I mentioned in my very first post.) Whether I use the F3 or the M6, or a 4x5 or a little Ricoh GR, my imagery is still the 'same' in respect to my work; what I'm doing with a photographic device and what is coming out of my head. The intellectual and creative processes remain the same. The camera itself doesn't change that but it can (or can't) facilitate me. The camera itself doesn't make me look at the world any differently. I look at the world, think about interpreting it and then use a device that best facilitates me. This does not mean that there is no "decisive moment" or that all is calculated in advance. Or that intuitive creativity (whatever one wants to call it) doesn't come into play. It certainly does. But it's not all just by chance, it's coming from inside me; how I was raised, what I learned, what I read, how I react to the world based on my view of it. It's what makes different authors different. And what they produce is going to be different even if it's the same materials and same subject matter. The camera itself is simply a device, and one designed (ideally) to help write about the world (and I'm sure the Leica T will help many authors out there.)

 

But then again, I'm not a snapshooter and I don't even take a camera on vacations/travel (I want to relax and experience the place and not record it; only unless it's part of a project or something.) And I don't 'hunt for my prey' very often. I have projects and ideas in mind and then I go out and attempt to create them. And again, that's not to say that things don't change or I don't experiment during the act of making the images, or that new ideas don't pop into my head (when I was a grad student I used to sit in my studio all day just visualizing a project; when I was in the process of making it transpire then things certainly did change and new ideas would come to the surface.) Anyway, I know a lot of artists who work this way so I don't think it's unique.

 

Edit: Okay, I really, really do promise: no more from me now.

 

And Jono: glad to hear the charity ride was so successful!

Edited April 28, 2014 by CalArts 99

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[NZDavid]

Do you ever look at a scene and "previsualize" (in Ansel Adams' words) what it would look like as a photograph? In B+W or color? With whatever lens? If you are used to the capabilities and handling of one model camera perhaps you will end up seeing the world in a different way. If the camera is quick and easy to use you might nail the shot. Then again you may just prefer to enjoy the moment in your mind's eye and take pictures only when you really feel like it or need to and can concentrate on the process methodically.