Survey: Would you buy the new Leica T?

[swamiji]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, when it was announced I was certain I was uninterested. However now that the manual was released, and it indicated that GPS is not restricted by the camera as it is with the Multi-Function Handgrip. I am now in the wait and see category. It's advantage for me is that its built around the idea of using M lenses. The fact thats it's an APS-C sensor, just means I don't get quite as much DOF control, and some lenses will perform better. Since it's not a rangefinder, I don't have the issue with image size for pre-visualization. What the LCD shows is what you get...

[rockgod123]

I am sure that not everyone will agree, but if you are a serious photographer (including a professional sports photojournalist) rangefinder cameras are basically useless. You don't get shots like this with a rangefinder, but think what a joy it would be to be able to use a fast SLR with a new line of autofocus Leitz Apo telephotos!!

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

I am sure that not everyone will agree, but if you are a serious photographer (including a professional sports photojournalist) rangefinder cameras are basically useless. You don't get shots like this with a rangefinder, but think what a joy it would be to be able to use a fast SLR with a new line of autofocus Leitz Apo telephotos!!

 

Given that this is a Leica forum and that many of us own/use M cameras, I don't think many at all will agree!

 

Serious photographers think rangefinder cameras are useless? Really?

 

Yet another sweeping statement on the forum but unlike the pro-Leica sweeping statements this one will get more reaction!

 

Leica decided that they couldn't compete in the DSLR market. They felt that they couldn't differentiate their product enough, people wouldn't see the benefits in a Leica DSLR in such a crowded market segment and wouldn't pay the Leica premium.

 

Obviously the CSC market is completely different and the T will be a huge success.

[rockgod123]

Leica could have competed in the DSLR market, but as has been typical of them in the last decade or so, they have made totally wrong decisions!! Believe me, I still am a great Leica fan, but in order to do serious work (and I don't mean casual portraits, nice landscapes, etc. you need an SLR! It is nonsense to say that they decided that they couldn't compete in the DSLR market; they spent all of that money and research to bring out the S2! It is overpriced, under-powered, slow and has a marginal autofocus system at best! $25,000 plus: that is ridiculous at best!!!

[stunsworth]

...in order to do serious work (and I don't mean casual portraits, nice landscapes, etc. you need an SLR

 

Sorry, but that is rubbish. I think you are describing your own limitations rather than those of the camera.

[algrove]

$25,000 plus: that is ridiculous at best!!!

 

That part I agree with more than a little bit and keep in mind you have no lenses at that price.

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been a serious Leica enthusiast since I bought my SL while a student at Cal-Tech in 1966.

 

Very interesting... the SL was introduced in 1968.

 

Serious photographers do not want endless rangefinder type cameras, but true, full frame digital SLR's!!

 

To each his own. Many 'serious' photographers consider anything smaller than medium format to be a toy, and many 'serious' photographers don't need the speed or TTL viewing/focussing of your D4s.

.

I am really surprised that Leica is still in business, as their cameras now really only appeal to some "pseudo" collectors and those who desire to show that they can buy a camera with the Leica name.

 

That's news to those on this and other forums who are using them to make a living.

 

This may come as a surprise to you but there's much more to photography than (yawn) college sports.

 

Personally I'd love to be using my APO lenses on an R10 but I don't care for fast frame rates, pushing the ISO limits or autofocus of any sort. But then maybe I'm not 'serious' about photography.

[Jaybob]

I have been a serious Leica enthusiast since I bought my SL while a student at Cal-Tech in 1966. Leica has ENTIRELY missed the boat by not moving ahead with a new 35 mm. digital SLR that would take the existing R lenses, and also a new line of autofocus SLR lenses. When they brought out the S2, I thought they had lost their minds! It was overpriced, and after shooting with one I could hardly wait to give it back!! Serious photographers do not want endless rangefinder type cameras, but true, full frame digital SLR's!! I use a Nikon D4S, and have been able to use some of my great R lenses with this body.

 

I am really surprised that Leica is still in business, as their cameras now really only appeal to some "pseudo" collectors and those who desire to show that they can buy a camera with the Leica name. If the company is going to survive, it is time that they "get with the program" and bring out a camera that people who shoot seriously REALLY WANT- an R-10!! This would be a full frame, digital SLR, able to use (automatically) existing R lenses and have a new complement of autofocus lenses.

 

Dr. Martin A. Folb

 

Yawn...nice strobes, though. That is the sign of a serious photographer.

[danhefner]

I think I would buy the new T.

 

I have been using an M8 for about seven years. I'd had some point-and-shoot digital cameras since the early 2000s, but the Leica M8 was my attempt to step up my game. I didn't come into the digital M system from any history with film or the M system. So, I never had any reason to pine for "full frame," and I have never thought of my M8 as somehow compromised because of its sensor's cropped format. I still very much like the images I can make using the M8 (I've noted comments - in reviews or blog posts by professionals with far more experience and sense about these things than I will ever have - that still refer to the M8/8.2 as a very good camera to use these days). So, I never "upgraded" to the M9, nor yet to the M(240), but I've been thinking about it.

 

Last year, I acquired an MM, which I really love. While I haven't lately had as much time to use it as I'd like (what with this past brutal winter and a full work schedule), the B&W stuff is what I really am most drawn to these days. So, while the focus of my response to this forum question really has to do with color photography, having a Monochrom weighs in my consideration about whether to buy this T or not.

 

Anyway, it's time to send my M8 in for a check up (it's never been sent to Leica for any love (I think some adjustment of the rangefinder may be needed)), and I am aware that it's aging and that certain parts will not be available for ever. All this has me questioning whether it makes sense to find a successor for my M8 (again, logically, the M(240) until the recent announcement of the T). If mine were a film camera, succeeding it would not be on the radar screen, but digital cameras are a different kettle of fish.

 

I have invested in a collection of various coded M lenses, and in any color camera, I would want to use them. This new T, as well of course as the M(240) would let me do that. But, for the price, I compare the T with the M(240) and my current M8, and I think that the T would be the better choice for an upgrade. Technically, my thought process dwells on the following:

 

The cropped sensor of the T, as opposed to the M(240), seems its most obvious choice for criticism, but since I'm used to the cropped M8, this doesn't bother me. A non-full-frame sensor can produce great images. (I've seen some comments by others suggesting that a full-frame T won't be seen for quite some time specifically because Leica might be worried that it would cannibalize too much of the M market. If that's really true (!!), it speaks volumes about the utility of the T with M lenses and the *real* importance of "full frame").

 

The lack of a rangefinder on the T is the biggest gamble. However, I think the interface of the T, possibly with external finders, should enable one to focus and compose with M lenses effectively, if differently than on an M body. After all, for me, using a rangefinder involved an initial learning curve. Seeing the subject will be different on the T than on an M, agreed, but........ it could be interesting.

 

Other issues -

 

The T's sensor has a higher resolution than the M8's.

 

The T should perform better in low light conditions (higher ISO without as much noise) as the M8. That said, I could use some education about the differences (if any) between the basic sensor technologies between the T and the M8.

 

The T is both smaller (somewhat) and lighter (appreciably) than the M8.

 

The T will allow for a broader range of uses - specifically autofocus lenses, which I'm not used to. Initially, I will not buy an AF lens with the T - I'll wait to see what other T lenses (especially primes) are released and force myself to use my M lenses with the T.

 

Both the T and the M(240) use a different battery system than the M8 (too bad). So, either way, I have to buy new batteries.

 

Technical issues aside - and this is probably the big selling point for me - the T should be able to be used far more versatilely than the current or past M cameras, and in ways that complement the historic and classic uses that M cameras have been famously effective at. Consider the ramifications for street photography (a classic M camera use): A prime challenge with street photography is being discreet and inconspicuous; some people are very good at this, but most struggle. With a T, a smartphone app will let you see (more or less) what the camera sees while the photographer need not even be physically connected to (or even looking at) the camera! One should be able to position the T in a holster or on a table (disguised as any other piece of stuff the user is not presently concerned with) or elsewhere within WIFI range, stare at one's iPhone like 75% of everyone else, and shoot candid shots without anyone ever knowing. This, coupled with a good sensor and excellent optics, tips the scales for me. I want the T.

 

I would like to learn about technical differences in the sensors of T vs. M and their ramifications for image quality (moiré? sensor thickness and focus?). I'm admittedly not sufficiently technically knowledgeable about these issues to deduct my own conclusions, but I would really appreciate anyone's perspectives.

 

Also, my response obviously is "on paper." I'd be very interested in some hands on experience and others' opinions from actual use first.

 

So, for what it's worth, I vote "yes" for the T.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I have been a serious Leica enthusiast since I bought my SL while a student at Cal-Tech in 1966. Leica has ENTIRELY missed the boat by not moving ahead with a new 35 mm. digital SLR that would take the existing R lenses, and also a new line of autofocus SLR lenses. When they brought out the S2, I thought they had lost their minds! It was overpriced, and after shooting with one I could hardly wait to give it back!! Serious photographers do not want endless rangefinder type cameras, but true, full frame digital SLR's!! I use a Nikon D4S, and have been able to use some of my great R lenses with this body.

 

I am really surprised that Leica is still in business, as their cameras now really only appeal to some "pseudo" collectors and those who desire to show that they can buy a camera with the Leica name. If the company is going to survive, it is time that they "get with the program" and bring out a camera that people who shoot seriously REALLY WANT- an R-10!! This would be a full frame, digital SLR, able to use (automatically) existing R lenses and have a new complement of autofocus lenses.

 

Dr. Martin A. Folb

 

Leica is still in business because they STOPPED making R system lenses and concentrated on digital M. Unlikely that sufficient numbers of photographers would be interested in a FF Leica DSLR for it to be a viable product and Leica are unlikely to have the capacity to design and manufacture a new line of AF 'R' fit lenses.

 

But don't give up on an 'R' lens solution if a FF mirrorless 'T+' camera is announced. The future is mirrorless - not SLR. Full frame DSLR 'system cameras' are too expensive to produce and could never compete as professional cameras with established Nikon and Canon systems. The Leica 'R' system was never a front runner with professional photographers.

 

Regardng your assertion that Leica cameras "only appeal to pseudo collectors … " that's a very dogmatic statement and wishful thinking.

 

And what is this 'program' which according to you Leica has to "get with"? Get with what exactly

 

I do not 'get it' … whatever you are suggesting.

 

dunk

[chrismuc]

Why would you choose a Leica T, not for example a Fuji X-T1?

With the X-T1 you get the same crop factor and same resolution, same usage of M-lenses via adapter, but additional:

- excellent EVF

- full manual control

- 8 frames/s and predictive continuous auto-focus (with Fuji X lenses)

- turnable display

- focus peeping option

- option of excellent, affordable Fuji X prime and zoom lenses

 

 

I think I would buy the new T.

 

I have been using an M8 for about seven years. I'd had some point-and-shoot digital cameras since the early 2000s, but the Leica M8 was my attempt to step up my game. I didn't come into the digital M system from any history with film or the M system. So, I never had any reason to pine for "full frame," and I have never thought of my M8 as somehow compromised because of its sensor's cropped format. I still very much like the images I can make using the M8 (I've noted comments - in reviews or blog posts by professionals with far more experience and sense about these things than I will ever have - that still refer to the M8/8.2 as a very good camera to use these days). So, I never "upgraded" to the M9, nor yet to the M(240), but I've been thinking about it.

 

Last year, I acquired an MM, which I really love. While I haven't lately had as much time to use it as I'd like (what with this past brutal winter and a full work schedule), the B&W stuff is what I really am most drawn to these days. So, while the focus of my response to this forum question really has to do with color photography, having a Monochrom weighs in my consideration about whether to buy this T or not.

 

Anyway, it's time to send my M8 in for a check up (it's never been sent to Leica for any love (I think some adjustment of the rangefinder may be needed)), and I am aware that it's aging and that certain parts will not be available for ever. All this has me questioning whether it makes sense to find a successor for my M8 (again, logically, the M(240) until the recent announcement of the T). If mine were a film camera, succeeding it would not be on the radar screen, but digital cameras are a different kettle of fish.

 

I have invested in a collection of various coded M lenses, and in any color camera, I would want to use them. This new T, as well of course as the M(240) would let me do that. But, for the price, I compare the T with the M(240) and my current M8, and I think that the T would be the better choice for an upgrade. Technically, my thought process dwells on the following:

 

The cropped sensor of the T, as opposed to the M(240), seems its most obvious choice for criticism, but since I'm used to the cropped M8, this doesn't bother me. A non-full-frame sensor can produce great images. (I've seen some comments by others suggesting that a full-frame T won't be seen for quite some time specifically because Leica might be worried that it would cannibalize too much of the M market. If that's really true (!!), it speaks volumes about the utility of the T with M lenses and the *real* importance of "full frame").

 

The lack of a rangefinder on the T is the biggest gamble. However, I think the interface of the T, possibly with external finders, should enable one to focus and compose with M lenses effectively, if differently than on an M body. After all, for me, using a rangefinder involved an initial learning curve. Seeing the subject will be different on the T than on an M, agreed, but........ it could be interesting.

 

Other issues -

 

The T's sensor has a higher resolution than the M8's.

 

The T should perform better in low light conditions (higher ISO without as much noise) as the M8. That said, I could use some education about the differences (if any) between the basic sensor technologies between the T and the M8.

 

The T is both smaller (somewhat) and lighter (appreciably) than the M8.

 

The T will allow for a broader range of uses - specifically autofocus lenses, which I'm not used to. Initially, I will not buy an AF lens with the T - I'll wait to see what other T lenses (especially primes) are released and force myself to use my M lenses with the T.

 

Both the T and the M(240) use a different battery system than the M8 (too bad). So, either way, I have to buy new batteries.

 

Technical issues aside - and this is probably the big selling point for me - the T should be able to be used far more versatilely than the current or past M cameras, and in ways that complement the historic and classic uses that M cameras have been famously effective at. Consider the ramifications for street photography (a classic M camera use): A prime challenge with street photography is being discreet and inconspicuous; some people are very good at this, but most struggle. With a T, a smartphone app will let you see (more or less) what the camera sees while the photographer need not even be physically connected to (or even looking at) the camera! One should be able to position the T in a holster or on a table (disguised as any other piece of stuff the user is not presently concerned with) or elsewhere within WIFI range, stare at one's iPhone like 75% of everyone else, and shoot candid shots without anyone ever knowing. This, coupled with a good sensor and excellent optics, tips the scales for me. I want the T.

 

I would like to learn about technical differences in the sensors of T vs. M and their ramifications for image quality (moiré? sensor thickness and focus?). I'm admittedly not sufficiently technically knowledgeable about these issues to deduct my own conclusions, but I would really appreciate anyone's perspectives.

 

Also, my response obviously is "on paper." I'd be very interested in some hands on experience and others' opinions from actual use first.

 

So, for what it's worth, I vote "yes" for the T.

[Leicaiste]

...

I guess like everyone else who buys the T, I would use it for family and travel snaps. Like many, I see other uses for it as well: for example, it is very practical for music performance events and similar, where a light, unobtrusive, quiet camera is vital.

...

 

The Leica T will never be unobstrusive for people sitting next or behind you at a music performance events and similar, if you don't use the Visoflex.

 

And then ... will it be unobstrusive enough for you ?

 

Visoflex // Technical Equipment // T-System // Photography - Leica Camera AG

 

Lucien

[jaapv]

I’m getting one because it ticks all the boxes and I don’t give a d*mn who made it. I guess I have to take a week off now to troll all the camera brand forums to tell anybody who’ll listen why their cameras are useless cr@p….

[jaapv]

I am sure that not everyone will agree, but if you are a serious photographer (including a professional sports photojournalist) rangefinder cameras are basically useless. You don't get shots like this with a rangefinder, but think what a joy it would be to be able to use a fast SLR with a new line of autofocus Leitz Apo telephotos!!

 

Yes - and? If you are a professional you better get the proper tools for the job and not be brand-blinded.

[Steve P]

I’m getting one because it ticks all the boxes and I don’t give a d*mn who made it. I guess I have to take a week off now to troll all the camera brand forums to tell anybody who’ll listen why their cameras are useless cr@p….

Only a week? Don't you ever sleep?

[jaapv]

 

It goes part way but never the whole way - and why they think these add on viewfinders are good beats me and prevents me from buying the T, as in the real world it ruins the shape and design of this admittedly sleek and well designed camera and also is vulnerable to damage or snagging, and I for one would much prefer a slightly larger camera that incorporated a built in EVF.

 

A removable EVF makes sense because it reduces camera size when it is not needed and provides the same functionality when used. The same way you can hitch a trailer to your car but don’t have to drive a pickup van all the time. Edited May 2, 2014 by jaapv

[Leicaiste]

The Leica M, R and S are (or were) camera to create pictures.

 

Beautiful viewfinders with easy to use focusing systems and beautiful lenses with great apertures permitting to control the final result.

 

The X and the T are making the process of taking pictures more difficult instead of more easy. Bad viewfinders (if any), slow focusing, to much depth of field.

 

In the same category, the 1973 Leica CL was much better at that than a 2014 Leica T (or X), in my opinion.

 

Lucien

[jaapv]

I agree - back to view cameras - wonderful ground glass focusing, narrow DOF, beautiful contacts from the glass plate. That newfangled 135 format is for stupid amateurs only!

Sorry - your post sounded so much like the 1920/30ies format fights…

[IkarusJohn]

I’m getting one ...

 

 

Now there's a surprise :-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

The Leica T will never be unobstrusive for people sitting next or behind you at a music performance events and similar, if you don't use the Visoflex.

 

And then ... will it be unobstrusive enough for you ?

 

Lucien

 

Of course, you're right, used as you describe. However, used remotely with a phone app, it is a different kettle of fish.