AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #161 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) so what's the necessity to slag off the Leica T with such consistent energy? Â Can't help being energetic but considering the T, EVF, and two very basic lenses cost $6000 (maybe $7000+ after some batteries, case, strap and sales tax here) do I need to have more reasons to be perplexed by anyone buying it after a cost/benefit analysis? Yes, I know money grows on trees for some. Â At something like $1000 for the body and maybe $400 -$500 for each lens and $350 for the EVF I could accept even those inflated prices as the red dot tax and the camera's stripped to the "essentials" marketing concept. But at this price you must really be committed to the idea of having fewer features as some kind of significant advantage. That makes little sense to me since most of those left off features are transparent in use anyway. Now if the lens were a 16-70 2.8 IS that miraculously was reasonably compact and made great quality images, it might be worth every penny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Hi AlanG, Take a look here No focus peaking???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
colonel Posted May 9, 2014 Share #162  Posted May 9, 2014 Well Harold - if I'm looking for IQ then I'll use my M, but If I'm looking for something with a good design to go hiking in English weather - then the E-M1 or E-M5 are the cameras, and although the image quality of m43 was a little questionable a few years ago, these produce excellent quality images - certainly so close to the NEX as to make no practical difference. Each to his own. . . . . But I really have spent a lot of time comparing these cameras - a LOT of time!   Me too, particularly the EM-1 and EM-5. Very disappointing IQ compared to APS-C, particularly Sony and Fuji, Noise even at base ISO !!! The EM-1 particularly reminded me of a quote from trading places (displaying my age) - "all dressed up and no one to blow" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 9, 2014 Share #163  Posted May 9, 2014 Can't help being energetic but considering the T, EVF, and two very basic lenses cost $7000 (maybe $8000+ after some batteries, case, strap and sales tax here) do I need to have more reasons to be perplexed by anyone buying it after a cost/benefit analysis?  People don't always buy 'stuff' purely on the basis of value for money. Otherwise who would buy a watch (hope the analogy doesn't offend) other than a £5 one from a filling station. After all it keeps perfect time, and what else could anyone want from a watch?  Leica can't compete, will never compete, on value for money. They're too small a company. Their attraction to purchasers lies elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #164  Posted May 9, 2014 People don't always buy 'stuff' purely on the basis of value for money. Otherwise who would buy a watch (hope the analogy doesn't offend) other than a £5 one from a filling station. After all it keeps perfect time, and what else could anyone want from a watch? Leica can't compete, will never compete, on value for money. They're too small a company. Their attraction to purchasers lies elsewhere.  Well it is obvious that few would buy the T based on value for the money. How many times do I have to say it?  So Leica is depending on people to fall in love with it for other reasons that are not easy to explain but are mostly driven by marketing than by performance as a photographic tool.  That is my basic problem that Leica has gotten away from its original focus of making fine tools for photography at prices that were necessary to justify the quality of the product to selling luxury goods based on emotional appeals... whether the performance or craftsmanship justifies the price or not. (I used to shoot jewelry catalogs and ads.)  I can totally see why people buy watches and jewelry for the status and bling appeal. Many people with money like to show to others they have it. Plus it helps them identify each other. You have to examine a diamond pretty closely to tell if it's real. And a gold plated watch looks just like a solid gold one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 9, 2014 Share #165 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Ah - the Leica Luxus from 1929 was a pure photographic tool because it had snake leather and real gold plating - as Leica eschewed the luxury market back then.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #166 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Ah - the Leica Luxus from 1929 was a pure photographic tool because it had snake leather and real gold plating - as Leica eschewed the luxury market back then.... Â OK Leica has been selling stupid special editions for a while. Now I have lost all respect. How would you feel about a gold plated T? I know Hassy and Linhof made gold special editions too. I think that was pathetic and just a way to milk some money from collectors. It in no way contributes to the world of photography... and that is the only thing I care about doing with cameras. I am not into collecting and polishing them. I have no idea how much of Leica's resources went to these special editions and if there was a long range benefit to targeting collectors. I just want camera companies to concentrate on performance not bling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 9, 2014 Share #167 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Me too, particularly the EM-1 and EM-5. Very disappointing IQ compared to APS-C, particularly Sony and Fuji, Noise even at base ISO !!!The EM-1 particularly reminded me of a quote from trading places (displaying my age) - "all dressed up and no one to blow" Â Then turn down the input sharpening. Whatever - this thread has now gone around in a complete circle - I don't think I have anything else to contribute . . . . . . . toddle pip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted May 9, 2014 Share #168 Â Posted May 9, 2014 OSS compensates for some camera shake...transparent in use. Why anyone would be against these is truly puzzling. Â OSS is of very limited if any use to me because my support system (monopod + shoulder stock) steadies the camera enough that subject motion becomes the limiting factor, OSS adds several air/glass surfaces to the lens, under some conditions it will create weird bokeh effects, and is not immune from Murphy's Law. Not to mention the degraded optical performance numerous photographers noted when lenses with optical stabilization replaced older non-stabilized models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #169 Â Posted May 9, 2014 OSS is of very limited if any use to me because my support system (monopod + shoulder stock) steadies the camera enough that subject motion becomes the limiting factor, OSS adds several air/glass surfaces to the lens, under some conditions it will create weird bokeh effects, and is not immune from Murphy's Law. Not to mention the degraded optical performance numerous photographers noted when lenses with optical stabilization replaced older non-stabilized models. Â I turn off IS when using a tripod. We all know that. I am not of the opinion that leaving off IS from the lens design is necessary to make a good lens. Â We are kind of moving far afield from the likely user of a T shooting handheld with a kit zoom. Or for handheld video. They are not shooting with anything like what you use. Are you planning to hang a 400 on the T or something? Do you use a remote release when shooting with a long lens? Â Anyhow, countless sports and nature shooters use long lenses that have IS and AF whether it is on or off at the time. (Handheld, tripod, monopod.) Whereas Leica MF non IS lenses are no longer made. Maybe the market has spoken despite what you think is best. And any optical criticism against IS does not apply to sensor based stabilization anyway. Leica could still choose to incorporate that in a future model This could explain leaving it off the lenses and would make a lot of sense for a camera that might be used with M and R lenses. Â I can't see how any of this applies to leaving IS off a consumer level kit zoom. Considering the basic 18-55 costs $1750, what would a really great long lens for the T sell for? It won't likely happen but if it does it will be AF if not include IS too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 9, 2014 Share #170 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Well it is obvious that few would buy the T based on value for the money. How many times do I have to say it? Â Well, you are by your own words 'perplexed' as to why someone would buy a 'T' after doing a cost/benefit analysis. All I'm saying is that there are other things to be taken into consideration than purely price and features. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #171 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Well, you are by your own words 'perplexed' as to why someone would buy a 'T' after doing a cost/benefit analysis. All I'm saying is that there are other things to be taken into consideration than purely price and features. Â Yes if price is not a consideration, what does anything matter about it? They could sell a $100,000 solid gold diamond encrusted pinhole camera to someone I am sure. Yes since I look for value in my expenses, spending $6000+ for a very very basic 2 lens APS camera "system" is not something I would casually do. However cute it may be or fun to use. It only is a 28-70 (not even that wide it turns out due to the auto correction) equivalent slow lens and a moderate aperture 35 equiv. Is the prospect of shooting only with those lenses so compelling? Doesn't almost everyone here have those needs covered? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 9, 2014 Share #172  Posted May 9, 2014 This excerpt seems at the heart of the debate, i.e., not just too few features according to Alan, but too high of a cost for those limited features. We're talking about Leica here. The cost issue, and cost/value equation, could be argued for virtually every Leica product, including every accessory. Old news.  One needs to either accept the Leica pricing strategy or not. Asking for more 'features' by those who don't accept the value equation is unlikely to sit well with those who already do.  And the beat goes on….  Jeff  Over 50 posts ago.  And the beat goes on….  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 9, 2014 Share #173 Â Posted May 9, 2014 OK Leica has been selling stupid special editions for a while. Now I have lost all respect. How would you feel about a gold plated T? I know Hassy and Linhof made gold special editions too. I think that was pathetic and just a way to milk some money from collectors. It in no way contributes to the world of photography... and that is the only thing I care about doing with cameras. I am not into collecting and polishing them. I have no idea how much of Leica's resources went to these special editions and if there was a long range benefit to targeting collectors. I just want camera companies to concentrate on performance not bling.For a while? Since they built their first camera. So what? does that diminish the quality of their cameras somehow? Would you not buy a Mercedes because the sell a silly thing like a Maybach? Companies are in business to make money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #174 Â Posted May 9, 2014 For a while? Since they built their first camera. So what? does that diminish the quality of their cameras somehow? Would you not buy a Mercedes because the sell a silly thing like a Maybach? Companies are in business to make money. Â I didn't say I wouldn't buy as a result.It does diminish Leica's image for me. I think the Maybach is a completely different model and not just an embellished Mercedes, but maybe I am wrong. Very high end cars are mostly sold as status items and because money is no object to some. I just bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland model and it is full of fancy electronic features, great 4X4 performance, a smooth quiet ride and a high end cabin with real wood and nice leather ventilated seats. Even this was more than I actually "needed" and I can't see what more I could want in such a vehicle. Still expensive to me at nearly $50K. So I wouldn't go for a Range Rover or Mercedes. I don't think driving a Jeep carries much status in the affluent Washington DC area. It is a very practical car for my needs or at least that's how I justify it. My friend is rich so he owns new Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Porsches, two or three at a time along with other vehicles. He always has to have the latest and greatest, but doesn't drive them very much. That is his thing and I know he just likes buying and owning them. Why I can't say. Â If Leica wants to sell a camera based on polishing aluminum by hand and people respond to that, I'm good with it. But that is not the image of Leica that I ever related to. Their enlargers were nice simple tools. Did they ever sell any gold plated enlargers? Of course not because people can't show off an enlarger. Â Do we buy our cameras to take photos or to show off? The eternal question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 9, 2014 Share #175 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Do we buy our cameras to take photos or to show off? The eternal question. Â Collector editions are a separate category. People collect all kinds of stuff, usually not to show off, but to feed the addiction. In the case of Leica, those profits help fund all the other stuff and, for me, I'm thrilled with that as long as I like at least some of that other stuff. Â Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2014 Share #176  Posted May 9, 2014 Collector editions are a separate category. People collect all kinds of stuff, usually not to show off, but to feed the addiction. In the case of Leica, those profits help fund all the other stuff and, for me, I'm thrilled with that as long as I like at least some of that other stuff. Jeff  Since the early 70s I've debated whether Leica's limited editions and Leica collecting in general was good or bad for the company. I have not concluded that it was a good thing. I believe it led to complacency and higher prices. I could be wrong. maybe that is the best they could do in that time period. The S system certainly demonstrates their newer capabilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 9, 2014 Share #177 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Would you have been happier with its going out of business? Â Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 9, 2014 Share #178 Â Posted May 9, 2014 ..... Do we buy our cameras to take photos or to show off? The eternal question. Â Do I have "all the above" option? Â Seriously, aesthetics matters for me for anything which is visible to others. I don't consider that show off. Of course I have my own decision engine (just like others) and nobody is allowed to question it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboch Posted May 9, 2014 Share #179 Â Posted May 9, 2014 Alan, I have checked all your recent posts you have made on this board. 90% of them are trying to somehow make the T look bad and you are also immediately present when a Sony camera somehow is criticized in a thread. I see a pattern there ;-) Â You are taking part in every thread about the T and often you are not adding anything useful to the discussion and only repeating your arguments against the T. Â And please STOP arguing about the price and the price/feature ratio of the Leica products. Stop it please! Â I happily pay 70 EUR for a fine steak, but I would not pay the same money for caviar. Live and let live! Everyone has different priorities and "flavors". Â Do you know why I will buy a T and pay the high price? Because I have checked one out in a shop and loved it immediately as I picked it up and handled it. I buy it purely for the joy of myself. I love the buying experience, reading & discussing on the board here and I love the feeling to take pictures with the camera I enjoyed to buy. Â Maybe a USD 800 camera lens combination would do the same or even more. But it does not give ME the same JOY. Â I like to feel the solid body of the M, I love to touch the well made T lenses, I love believing I'm buying a part of a famous historical german company which made cameras since the early beginnings. Â It is GAS, it is like a drug... and a lot of us are addicted to buying the latest and greatest gear. And a lot of us "loose money" in buying and selling that stuff. But after all it is a hobby and for leisure... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 9, 2014 Share #180  Posted May 9, 2014 BTW, My NEX-6 looks good with 50 Lux too !!  (BUT... I am hoping T will look even better). 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/226018-no-focus-peaking/?do=findComment&comment=2586979'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.