Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
earleygallery

Looks nice but.....

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually James - everyone was really rude about the iPhone when it first came out - similar arguments to yours about this camera (where's the removable battery, where's the memory card slot etc. etc.)

 

I understand the criticisms of the camera (I certainly should do, I've had one since October). Added to which I've bought and used the obvious opposition cameras. But for many people, when they've handled it and realised that it encourages photography in a different direction then it becomes rather hard to resist.

 

Put it this way - for me the gloss has long worn off (my feelings, not the camera). But when Leica ask for the test camera back I'm just going to have to buy one - and the other mirror less cameras I've had over the last year or two are all going to the wall. Not because the T is better, or because I can't afford to keep them - but because Taifun really is different, and it encourages a different method of shooting (which none of the others do).

 

I love it that whilst everyone else goes retro and adds more and more options to the menus . . . Leica goes modern and deletes everything from the menus.

 

Have to say I am all for the reduced menu aspect of this and other leica cameras. Will be interesting to see if leica dare to introduce such a screen on the next version of the M. imagine the whole back with just the screen and thumb wheel. Now that would be something

 

Have just read Andy Westlake's preview/summing up on DPreview and have to say I pretty much agree

Edited by viramati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just visited the David Bailey exhibition in London - including some massive (and excellent) blow-ups from iPhone images. No, they weren't sharp-edged perfection, but they go to show that camera equipment does not define who is a photographer, let alone who is a professional photographer.

 

I may or may not buy the Leica T, but if I do, it will be a balance between (a) will it help me take the type of photo that I want to take (

will it be a good experience to have and to use and © can I afford it. I guess most people will have similar criteria, but their answers will differ.

 

I guess (a) could also include taking types of photo I hadn't thought about before. The concept of a totally software- and wifi-controlled compact camera has interesting implications (wildlife, street photography), though not always attractive ones (privacy and candids).

 

I suspect Leica has also been clever with © as well. They have priced it affordably for their market (most predictions were higher), but my Mk I crystal ball tells me this is the bottom end of the Leica T range to get the saliva glands working, and that a forthcoming full frame Leica T, which may sell in parallel with this one, will be priced significantly higher!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my Mk I crystal ball tells me this is the bottom end of the Leica T range to get the saliva glands working, and that a forthcoming full frame Leica T, which may sell in parallel with this one, will be priced significantly higher!

You should replace your crystal ball … The T system is APS-C and will stay that way. Leica’s one and only 35 mm system is the M system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this day and age when new camera come out every year cameras built to last forever really have no point!!

 

Unless you actually USE them a lot and expect value/quality for money spent.

 

Or you're a professional shooter. My primary dSLRs are all over 5 years old and still give me good results (EOS 5D mk II, EOS 7D). I started using my M3 in 1969, and my M8 in 2008.

 

Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Elliot Porter used the same equipment for years. They knew how their lenses drew, and used different 'looks' for different pictures.

 

So yes, many of us would like cameras to last awhile, especially now that anything over 12MP gives you salable results. Most digital cameras are tolerably usable, and their lenses give reasonable image quality.

 

The annual product release parties tempt the masses and raise corporate bottom lines. But useful new features? Not usually.

Edited by lecycliste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A professional has different economical requirements. If he can write the camera off properly against gain it is just a business expense, regardless of price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If he can write the camera off properly against gain it is just a business expense, regardless of price.

 

I don't know what you do in your part of the world but most tax jurisdictions allow a business to offset capital expenditure against taxable profit. Even with a 100% capital allowance (currently the case in the UK for small businesses but not the norm by any means) which allows the whole cost of capital expenditure to be written off in a single tax year, the business still ends up paying the net difference between the capital cost and the reduction to taxable profit. In other words, for a UK sole trader paying the higher rate of tax (40%), a £1000 capital expense is effectively reduced by £400. The net cost of £600 comes out of the sole trader's pocket – it isn't free money or free equipment as some people seem to imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you actually USE them a lot and expect value/quality for money spent.

 

Or you're a professional shooter. My primary dSLRs are all over 5 years old and still give me good results (EOS 5D mk II, EOS 7D). I started using my M3 in 1969, and my M8 in 2008.

 

Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Elliot Porter used the same equipment for years. They knew how their lenses drew, and used different 'looks' for different pictures.

 

So yes, many of us would like cameras to last awhile, especially now that anything over 12MP gives you salable results. Most digital cameras are tolerably usable, and their lenses give reasonable image quality.

 

The annual product release parties tempt the masses and raise corporate bottom lines. But useful new features? Not usually.

 

Maybe I wasn't being very clear. Back in the days of film things moved a lot more slowly and the changes in film technology were spread over a longer time than the change in sensor technology where the last few years have seen enormous gains in DR and ISO (though I am not so interested in the MP race). I remember the early days of the M8 when leica described it as a camera for life but pretty quickly changed their advertising method. So yes if I hadn't moved totally to the Leica system I probably would still be pretty happy with the Nikon D700 (and I may well get the Sony A7s which is only 12MP when it is released) but that is not really the point. On the other hand I do feel that with the high end DSLR's we are in fact reaching a point where a camera could be more than enough for most of our needs of many years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you do in your part of the world but most tax jurisdictions allow a business to offset capital expenditure against taxable profit. Even with a 100% capital allowance (currently the case in the UK for small businesses but not the norm by any means) which allows the whole cost of capital expenditure to be written off in a single tax year, the business still ends up paying the net difference between the capital cost and the reduction to taxable profit. In other words, for a UK sole trader paying the higher rate of tax (40%), a £1000 capital expense is effectively reduced by £400. The net cost of £600 comes out of the sole trader's pocket – it isn't free money or free equipment as some people seem to imagine.

 

In the USA, cameras are depreciable over 5 years. You can't take it all in the same year.

 

Also remember that deductions are against taxable income. Depending on what you're making, that's only a 20-35% cost savings. It's much better than nothing, but it's not like you're getting equipment for free.

 

** Professionals don't just buy anything they want - that's a myth. **

 

It does matter what you buy. You want to maximize the usefulness of your purchase, and minimize business expenses. Otherwise, you're not in business very long.

 

Austin-based photographer Kirk Tuck once told me not to be an equipment junky, you can shoot salable stuff with a $99 Yashica MAT TLR.

 

And your spouse doesn't care what you shoot with, but only wants to enjoy good pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus Wept

 

It's an outstanding piece of industrial design with probably the best user interface available in any camera ever.

 

And it's a Leica with outstanding image quality and versatility.

 

Do I need to spell it out - quality costs more than the global mediocrity norm.

 

Sheesh

 

do you think that this "outstanding image quality" will surpass the Sony A7r ? couse if this aps-c 3 years old sensor has oustanding IQ how we will call sony A7r output ?

 

ps we will see with use how will be practical this fully touchscreen camera compared to normal buttons

 

last but not least i don't understand what is the premium to have a camera designed by AUDI

 

lets finish that if this "Audi design" make the camera look like a samsung camera maybe they didn't apply to much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you do in your part of the world but most tax jurisdictions allow a business to offset capital expenditure against taxable profit. Even with a 100% capital allowance (currently the case in the UK for small businesses but not the norm by any means) which allows the whole cost of capital expenditure to be written off in a single tax year, the business still ends up paying the net difference between the capital cost and the reduction to taxable profit. In other words, for a UK sole trader paying the higher rate of tax (40%), a £1000 capital expense is effectively reduced by £400. The net cost of £600 comes out of the sole trader's pocket – it isn't free money or free equipment as some people seem to imagine.

 

True. However a professional will usually be charging the client a gear hire fee. I do for every project and the cost of any and all equipment is apportioned to each project equipment budget. It's also a tax deduction too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have all the cameras I could want, and two of each, including several Leica Ms (not the 240), I want the T just because none of my small cameras have that certain something - simplicity, great physical design, that the T has. By gosh, I'm going to get one. (I'll pretend it is a gift for my lady.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I have all the cameras I could want, and two of each, including several Leica Ms (not the 240), I want the T just because none of my small cameras have that certain something - simplicity, great physical design, that the T has. By gosh, I'm going to get one. (I'll pretend it is a gift for my lady.)

 

Pico, I think you should be gifted one by Leica since your removable strap lug mock up, at the time of the M lug fault, was probably what influenced the removable strap design.

Edited by Paul J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. However a professional will usually be charging the client a gear hire fee. I do for every project and the cost of any and all equipment is apportioned to each project equipment budget. It's also a tax deduction too.

 

Yes, but the point is no one gives you gear for free. You still need to buy what you use up front, and take deductions later.

 

Hopefully, that gear makes you a profit, which you maximize by avoiding overspending for the same results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jono

I can see your point and yes it obviously a new and intriguing way to work but I really couldn't justify the cost of the system when you compare it to other cameras. I have to say that I am also beginning to think this with the leica M which i now only really use on lenses wider than 28mm and when and if Sony come out with some good wides even the M may have to go!!!

All that said I could be tempted but the T and the 23mm lens but when you can get the Fuji X100s for under £900 with the hybrid finder and silent shutter it just makes no sense.

Anyway I am sure you will enjoy the camera and make some fantastic pictures with it

 

HI David

That's a completely different issue, and of course I quite understand your point, I was only taking issue with your "not a photographer's tool" remark, and if specifications/value for money are your primary criteria . . . . . To be honest, if you like working with an A7 better than an M, there really isn't much excuse for any of the Leica products - even the lenses (I thought that they were pretty much all compromised wider than 50mm). But then of course, that's my opinion!

 

All the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should replace your crystal ball … The T system is APS-C and will stay that way. Leica’s one and only 35 mm system is the M system.

 

HI Michael - whilst I'm certain you're right, it's interesting that they've made the lens mount wide enough that it certainly 'could' hold a full frame sensor - wise to keep their options open!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI David

That's a completely different issue, and of course I quite understand your point, I was only taking issue with your "not a photographer's tool" remark, and if specifications/value for money are your primary criteria . . . . . To be honest, if you like working with an A7 better than an M, there really isn't much excuse for any of the Leica products - even the lenses (I thought that they were pretty much all compromised wider than 50mm). But then of course, that's my opinion!

 

All the best

 

True that the leica wides are not up to scratch on the A7 and even the 50 lux asph is not great and this is why I only use the FE lenses on the A7 plus my 90 elmarit-m and 135/3.4 apo-telyt both of which give superb results and the CV 35/1.2 which is good but not perfect. I use the M for my 28 cron asph, WATE, CV21/1.8 and CV12/5.6. It is not so much that I prefer the A7 it is just the fact that I can get such good results from it and more consistently. The Sony/Zeiss FE55/1.8 is such a superb lens that I no longer use the lux 50 asph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is a BMW 5 better then a Vauxhall/Opel Insignia ?

You decide

 

The EOS-M is not the best comparison

Probably the Fuji X-E2 and 18-55mm which is only half the price and plastic. Plus we have yet to see the edge performance of the Leica zoom measured and the micro-contrast recorded,but if it's like the X-Vario it's worth paying for. How much ? Individuals will decide ?

 

Audi and BMW more then survive, technically only slightly better then Ford and Opel for double the price !!

(I am a past customer of BMW - just saying)

 

I sit in a car and drive it, and it needs to keep me safe, so quality of build is going to affect far more important things than the build of camera will. However 'robust' the aluminium housing is (and that remains to be seen) it is worth little if the electronics are not up to scratch. At least in the past, that has not been Leica's strength. If on top of that the camera is buggy with barely adequate chip power and dodgy firmware (hopefully not, but on past experience, who knows) the value of a nice shiny metal body may seem less important.

 

There is much that is just plain inaccurate with the rest.

 

I can't see why the EOS-M is not a reasonable comparison. Image quality probably won't differ much and it seems the closest in terms of equipment and lens choice. The Fuji XE-2 is metal, as is the zoom, and all the other lenses. It also has a built in EVF and a wide range of excellent lenses with aperture rings, so in many ways it is obviously a better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand I do feel that with the high end DSLR's we are in fact reaching a point where a camera could be more than enough for most of our needs of many years to come.

 

That's exactly the point - we're already there.

 

For example, many of us still use the EOS 5D mk II as primary camera for paying work. It was released September 2008, 5 1/2 years ago. It gives great image quality, even if it's a boat anchor, like most comparable dSLRs.

 

The M8 is quite usable within its noise / ISO limitations, and many of us still use it, too.

 

That's not to say I wouldn't want an M240, but I can't justify the expense for what it would give me.

 

And the Fuji X-E2 does what the Leica T 701 does for 1/3 the price, with a real shutter speed dial, the EVF included, fast phase-detect AF and with an excellent set of available lenses. Mine works very well, especially with the 135mm f/4 Elmar and 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M v2 (not ASPH).

Edited by lecycliste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A professional has different economical requirements. If he can write the camera off properly against gain it is just a business expense, regardless of price.

Professionals prefer to minimise costs and maximise profits because they are trying to run a business. Leica M digitals hold their resale value relatively well as they actually depreciate far less than high cost dSLRs. So their economics are better in some ways, if that is, they are a viable tool for the work being undertaken - always a prime consideration. The downside is the high outlay in terms of lens cost (but even lower real world depreciation on lenses fortunately).

 

Whilst the T looks nice enough, but I can't see it being a viable and genuine tool for many professional photographers at all. [And few enough of us are fortunate to be able to class and use M cameras as genuine tools and, yes, I do actually use mine as tools and I do actually sell images from them].

 

FWIW when I shot film I reckoned on a camera (Leica M6 or Nikon F4 or 5 say) having a 10 year life. With digital bodies I'd hope for a 5 year life now, and given that the (admittedly high) outlay cost 'effectively includes film', I'd say that this is pretty reasonable myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy