Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rramesh

Full Frame T?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s not so much a prediction as an explanation of what Leica has in mind with the T.

 

As far as I remember you also negated that Sony will go this step with E-mount.

 

Leica will (or might have already) realize, that the niche for M(esssucher / RF) cameras is getting smaller and smaller and that they will need a mount that copes better with further digital development when they want to survive and utilize capacities in a long term. So it makes sense to develop a mount that is also usable for full frame sensors and still a good compromise to keep that body compact.

 

May be, a new series of full frame bodies will get a different name than "T" but I bet they will use the same mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Only question is will an M lense adapter transmit cam focus info?

 

There may even come a time when an optical rangefinder is a clip on accessory in place of an EVF. I believe Linhof briefly did this with the 4x5 Techica 2000.

A servo coupled mechanical-electrical-mechanical transfer of cam position.

One advantage would be the ability to apply corrections to compensate for older lens cam innacuracy or focus shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I remember you also negated that Sony will go this step with E-mount.

 

Leica will (or might have already) realize, that the niche for M(esssucher / RF) cameras is getting smaller and smaller and that they will need a mount that copes better with further digital development when they want to survive and utilize capacities in a long term. So it makes sense to develop a mount that is also usable for full frame sensors and still a good compromise to keep that body compact.

 

May be, a new series of full frame bodies will get a different name than "T" but I bet they will use the same mount.

 

 

And therein lies the rub, IMO. Leica is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I remember you also negated that Sony will go this step with E-mount.

I had said that they shouldn’t and why it was a bad idea. My assessment hasn’t changed, even when I understand why Sony made this decision (see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-t/329525-t-mount.html#post2680222).

 

Leica will (or might have already) realize, that the niche for M(esssucher / RF) cameras is getting smaller and smaller and that they will need a mount that copes better with further digital development when they want to survive and utilize capacities in a long term.

Leica is pursuing various ideas but that is something I cannot talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had said that they shouldn’t and why it was a bad idea. My assessment hasn’t changed, even when I understand why Sony made this decision

 

Only because you have a different idea about a successfull full frame mount, it does not make it a bad idea.

 

If I were Sony I wouldn’t build this camera. A new FF system would be a different matter, of course.

 

I am glad, Sony did'nt care.

 

There is an army of enthusiast photographers who eagerly await affordable full frame alternative to Leica M camera.

That would be a rather small army. The Vatican’s Swiss Guard comes to mind.

 

To me, half a year later, this looks different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

I am glad, Sony did'nt care.

....

 

If you google with "A7" + "smear" you really get the impression that Sony didn't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you google with "A7" + "smear" you really get the impression that Sony didn't care.

 

Sony did not have optimization for symmetric M lens designs in mind and even though, many M lenses from 16 - 135 perform very well on A7 / A7R. Sometimes you must apply the same digital corrections in post like the M bodies do by firmware.

 

By the way: "A7 + smear" 3.48 mio. hits. "Leica focus issue": 5.65 mio. hits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There may even come a time when an optical rangefinder is a clip on accessory in place of an EVF. I believe Linhof briefly did this with the 4x5 Techica 2000.

A servo coupled mechanical-electrical-mechanical transfer of cam position.

One advantage would be the ability to apply corrections to compensate for older lens cam innacuracy or focus shift.

 

I suggested that some time ago. Modular viewfinders with electronic pickup off the cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally suspect Leica has been taking a lot of bad advice from its trusted circles.

 

I think they should listen to the clients more than the "experts".

 

So, APS-C is a better option than FF, and iPhone style touch screens are better than real analog buttons and dials. Let me se how far Leica can go with such philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of reason to assume that the T series as we know it today will stay with APS-C as the lens size is the limitation for a system which is meant to be compact. But is it equally reasonably to assume that Leica is not going to stay with manual focus for its full-frame cameras forever. And if they want to have auto-focus, they need a different mount than plain M - so they probably would reuse the T mount instead of inventing yet another one.

And it would be quite attractive to imagine a body the T size, but perhaps instead of the cut-out area on the front side, have a full depth body M-style which might or might not fit an internal viewfinder that takes either M primes or a small selection of FF autofocus primes (which would be larger than current M/T lenses but hopefully not awfully much so).

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally suspect Leica has been taking a lot of bad advice from its trusted circles.

 

I think they should listen to the clients more than the "experts".

 

So, APS-C is a better option than FF, and iPhone style touch screens are better than real analog buttons and dials. Let me se how far Leica can go with such philosophy

 

HI Edward

The problem with your argument is that (because it's flavour of the month) it leads straight to producing a 'Me Too' Sony A7. But, they don't have the resources to compete face to face with the big boys (it's why they pulled the R10). . . . . .

 

Personally, I thought that if they wanted to go compact they'd have been better with µ43, but I've changed my mind about this. Certainly if you want a compact camera system then going full frame is not the answer (because the lenses must be big).

 

I think that a quiet, gentle shutter a small body and lenses and excellent image quality more than makes up for a clattery shutter and great big lenses . . . but that's just me.

 

all the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sony has proven already that sensor size and camera body size are not proportional:

 

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

As for the lenses, I don't think the FE 35 f2,8 is that much bigger then the T 23 f2,0

Yes, the 23 is a stop faster, but the sensor of the FF gathers twice as much light.

 

The size advantage of APC-C isn't that big

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, APS-C is a better option than FF, and iPhone style touch screens are better than real analog buttons and dials. Let me se how far Leica can go with such philosophy

 

 

The T as well as the X series aim to different targets than the M. Ms are for pro or advanced amateurs that do not want any compromise as to image quality and that deem traditional commands, rangefinder and high quality manual lenses as an asset that can't be possibly given up.

As far as I'm concerned, but I suspect that others might share my point of view, the M series bridge the traditional camera into digital domain in a somewhat limited extent in the attempt of getting the best of both worlds. I always had the feeling that either the M8 and M9 were like an M7 with a sensor in place of the film. Files are obviously to be worked in totally a different fashion but operating the camera is very traditional. Who knows how to handle an M3 can handle an M8/9/M without difficulties.

 

On the other hand the T is aimed to a (wealthy) younger customers base, well accustomed with mobile devices and duly spending their share of time on social networks, who are advanced enough to want the flexibility of an interchangeable lenses system but are wilfully trading in a bit of image quality and manual control in favour of some more compactness and ease of use. Yes, ease of use. Not everyone shoots mentally calculating the exposition based on sunny 16 rule, nor are willing to deal with the imprecise viewfinder framing nor remember to preset the focusing distance when they go for street shooting.

I personally favor landscape photography and to me, a camera that doesn't force me to mount a double shoe accessory to accomodate an external viewfinder and a bubble level and check focusing in the framefinder as I' forced to do with the M9 is welcome.

Also the external tiltable EVF expands framing possibilities and gives better chances to shoot with the camera at waist level.

I didn't handle enough the T to state this firmly, but if the touchscreen interface is really that easy to learn and use, we're in front of a sort of iPhone on steroids. Operating the T would be obviously different but not necessarily be any more difficult than operating an M. After all if there are so many auto-everything cameras around is because the M way to operate a camera is not that easy on the casual/recreational photographer.

 

In the end to each his one.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Sony has proven already that sensor size and camera body size are not proportional:

 

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

As for the lenses, I don't think the FE 35 f2,8 is that much bigger then the T 23 f2,0

Yes, the 23 is a stop faster, but the sensor of the FF gathers twice as much light.

 

The size advantage of APC-C isn't that big

 

 

Leica too proved that. The Fuji X100 is almost as large as an M9 but has half the sensor...

 

Cheers,

Bruno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI Edward

The problem with your argument is that (because it's flavour of the month) it leads straight to producing a 'Me Too' Sony A7. But, they don't have the resources to compete face to face with the big boys (it's why they pulled the R10). . . . . .

 

Personally, I thought that if they wanted to go compact they'd have been better with µ43, but I've changed my mind about this. Certainly if you want a compact camera system then going full frame is not the answer (because the lenses must be big).

 

I think that a quiet, gentle shutter a small body and lenses and excellent image quality more than makes up for a clattery shutter and great big lenses . . . but that's just me.

 

all the best

 

Hi Jono,

 

Your reasoning makes sense but I'm very stubborn and can't be easily convinced

 

I think Leica will be in direct competition even more with an APS-C sensor. If Sony is the only "giant" making FF mirrorless, Leica will be directly competing with Sony, Fuji and Samsung in this format.

 

My reasoning, and I might be wrong on this one, is that the chance for Leica to expand its customer base is very slim, while the chance to sell more products to its existing customer base is real and well proven. I am very convinced that 90% of the sales will be to people who already own an M or X camera, and these people appreciate a large sensor and analog controls, and they don't give a damn about how good the Sony A7 is

 

PS: I think all what Leica needs to do is make an M body with a high quality EVF in place of the OVF, minus 2000$, and it will sell like hot cakes (in Leica standards of course

) Edited by edwardkaraa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jono,

 

My reasoning, and I might be wrong on this one, is that the chance for Leica to expand its customer base is very slim

 

Wrong assumption.

 

Think Guess vs Louis Vuitton bags. They both serve a utilitarian purpose of carrying goods. Not everyone who walks into a Louis Vuitton shop buys luggage which is their pedigree. They walk out with handbags, wallets, belts. They flash them and people meters away can recognize them.

 

Now think Sony vs Leica cameras. They both serve a utilitarian purpose of taking pictures. Leica wants those who can afford it, to walk into their shops and come away sporting a camera or camera product with the red dot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jono,

 

Your reasoning makes sense but I'm very stubborn and can't be easily convinced

 

I think Leica will be in direct competition even more with an APS-C sensor. If Sony is the only "giant" making FF mirrorless, Leica will be directly competing with Sony, Fuji and Samsung in this format.

 

My reasoning, and I might be wrong on this one, is that the chance for Leica to expand its customer base is very slim, while the chance to sell more products to its existing customer base is real and well proven. I am very convinced that 90% of the sales will be to people who already own an M or X camera, and these people appreciate a large sensor and analog controls, and they don't give a damn about how good the Sony A7 is

 

PS: I think all what Leica needs to do is make an M body with a high quality EVF in place of the OVF, minus 2000$, and it will sell like hot cakes (in Leica standards of course

)
The weak spot in your reasoning is an excusable one as it comes from your interest in photography. Members of camera forums are geeks who care about things like sensor size. The audience for the T that Leica is aiming at doesn’t even know, or at least doesn’t care, about the subtle differences between FF, APS-H, APS-C, 4/3rds, etc. They want a camera that looks like a high-end product, is executed like a high-end product and takes images on the level of a high-end product. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Sony has proven already that sensor size and camera body size are not proportional:

 

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

As for the lenses, I don't think the FE 35 f2,8 is that much bigger then the T 23 f2,0

Yes, the 23 is a stop faster, but the sensor of the FF gathers twice as much light.

 

The size advantage of APC-C isn't that big

 

I quite agree about the body (and the T could easily fit a full frame sensor)

 

There's a huge size difference between the respective kit zooms (I know, I've got them both) - small wide primes I agree, but you wait until you compare respective 70-200 equivalent lenses.

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