Survey: Would you buy the new Leica T?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

:confused: Me? Sony???

[janki]

Why........I have the Sony a7r and it is pretty much the same size at the T. I am not knocking Leica I am just saying that Leica should have put a full frame sensor in the T and then they would have had something to shout about

 

The lens mount on the Leica T has the market's biggest diameter.

All agree that it by a good margin can accommodate a FF sensor.

 

Leica do as Sony, they collect experience with an APS-C system, - then later they will offer an FF system with the same lens mount.

 

Who knows, maybe the T-mount in the long term is intended to replace even the M-mount?

 

Leica has now fully demonstrated that they have no objection to outsource production of lenses.

If necessary, they can easily do more of that in the future.

 

If you want a modern FF camera-system from Leica with auto focus, it is only to exercise patience, - it is obvious that it is coming.

[Advertisement]

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

[Joe Lazio]

After the Leica T launch is some days ago and a lot of reviews are published, here our question to you:

 

Would you buy the new Leica T? No

 

Please vote above and comment in this thread.

I have one

 

Startup is slow (probably loading the graphics is the reason)

No Bulb position

Not abrogate review photo

Does not have a screen with LEVEL

Not have sensor cleaning

It has no real image stabilizer (not stabilize anything)

You can not check depth of field

Does not have Adobe color RGB

Not allowed to use only RAW

Focuses bad in low light (The illuminator does not help)

Menus mixture of different languages ​​(unpresentable translations)

Very slow writing to SD, if RAW is used with bracketing you should

 

wait a while .... (Using SD 95 Mb s /)

 

 

 

A big part of these problems have a easy solution with a firmware

 

revision

I hope they do

 

It have a very good AWB

Very good color

very good measurement of light

The Vario-Elmarit 18-56 is very good optically, construction

quality is not the same level.

 

The Olympus 12-40 has an outstanding quality both optical and

mechanical and the price is much lower.

 

These are my first impressions

Edited June 19, 2014 by jaapv
dig at beta testers removed.

[jaapv]

So why on earth did you buy one?

[timde]

So why on earth did you buy one?

 

I guess there will be a lot of this commentary, since Leica make a camera that now competes directly against a fairly mature market. Whether Leica is believing that or not

 

What will be more interesting is if they actually will change the behaviour at all. So far most things are working as described in the Manual ...

[jaapv]

Well, if the buyers in this market are in the habit of plunking thousands of $$$ on the table without being aware of what they are buying....

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Olympus 12-40 has an outstanding quality both optical and

mechanical and the price is much lower.

 

 

well its 70% of the price, only works on a smaller sensor (2x compared to 1.5x on T) and has atrocious build quality. Its a very thin metal shell on a fully plastic housing.

Even more the housing is connected to the mount with plastic screws which can sheer off even on small drops to the sofa:

 

Olympus 12-40 Ouch!

[colonel]

I guess there will be a lot of this commentary, since Leica make a camera that now competes directly against a fairly mature market. Whether Leica is believing that or not

 

I don't believe Leica competes against the bog standard in the market

It always offers something different on handing, workflow, style, build and usually lenses.

 

Its a premium product that takes great pictures whilst engendering joy of ownership.

If none of that means anything and one wants to read from a spec sheet then possibly Leica is not for you !!!

[bocaburger]

For me the omission of a built-in EVF is a deal breaker. An eye level finder is a must for me, and I see no sensible reason to add cost and bulk to get it when there are plenty of cameras with it built in. I'm intending to get a used NEX-6 to backup my M240. Same size sensor as the T (16mp APS-C), built-in EVF (of higher specs than the one on the M240) with excellent manual focus assist, and virtually no need to deal with post processing corrections for wide rangefinder lenses. Camera and M adapter will run me about $500US. The M's are the only current digital cameras with optical rangefinders, which makes any comparisons an apples-to-oranges case. Not so with the T.

Edited July 1, 2014 by bocaburger

[colonel]

For me the omission of a built-in EVF is a deal breaker. An eye level finder is a must for me, and I see no sensible reason to add cost and bulk to get it when there are plenty of cameras with it built in. I'm intending to get a used NEX-6 to backup my M240. Same size sensor as the T (16mp APS-C), built-in EVF (of higher specs than the one on the M240) with excellent manual focus assist, and virtually no need to deal with post processing corrections for wide rangefinder lenses. Camera and M adapter will run me about $500US. The M's are the only current digital cameras with optical rangefinders, which makes any comparisons an apples-to-oranges case. Not so with the T.

 

 

I used to think that too until I got used to touch focus, now the EVF is relegated to second tier.

Having one built in would be nice however if it doesn't increase bulk, otherwise I prefer external. I was always a big advocate of the RX1 external viewfinder as you could choose compact or with EVF depending on the situation

 

Rgds

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I'm intending to get a used NEX-6 to backup my M240. Same size sensor as the T (16mp APS-C), built-in EVF (of higher specs than the one on the M240) .

 

Don't do it

[jim sink]

yes , I already have one. A very nice camera.

[bocaburger]

Don't do it

 

I certainly would not get a Nex 6 if I hadn't already used one extensively and found it the best M240 backup to suit my needs: small (no add-on EVF or bulge like the A7), relatively inexpensive (<$450 brand new on closeout with warranty and a 32GB SD card), and needs less post processing corrections for wide lenses than others except the Ricoh, which needs an add-on EVF. This is to be used only if the M240 craps out on vacation, not alongside it. If I could afford to I would simply keep my M9. Barring that, I don't feel like spending $1000 or more for an emergency backup.

Edited July 1, 2014 by bocaburger

[IkarusJohn]

... and virtually no need to deal with post processing corrections for wide rangefinder lenses.

 

Not my experience with either the Nex-5n or the A7r.

 

I'm not doubting your criteria or your experience, but I do wonder when people have firm criteria about the camera and its equipment (I must have a Range Finder, the EVF must be built in etc), when it really comes down to getting to grips with the camera haptics as designed and, more importantly, image quality. Yep, it would be better if the EVF didn't stick up out of the top of the camera like a carbuncle, but then if it was built in, the camera would be bigger (A7r dimensions ...). Much like Harold, I'm finding that I am using the camera a lot without the EVF - it's very convenient that way. It is what it is, and I'm not wasting any energy stressing over what it isn't.

 

I think if I designed this camera, it would not be very good. Leica has had more experience designing, manufacturing and using cameras than I have, and so far it has been my experience is that they've done a very good job - better than Sony with Leica lenses and the same sensor.

 

If you prefer the Sony images, that's fine, but that's not really about the EVF.

 

Cheers

John

[bocaburger]

From my using of the Nex 7, Nex 6 and A7 (not "r") I found the 6 did better with the wide and ultrawide rangefinder (M and CV) lenses in terms of edge sharpness and corner color casts. That seems, from all I've read, to be the experience of many other people too. I'm not saying the 6 is perfect in that regard. Obviously it can't be, as there are no corrective firmware algorithms such as found in the Leica M-series digitals and the Ricoh. But it appears that the crop (compared to the A7) and lower res sensor (compared to the Nex-7) doesn't bring those gremlins out as strongly. (I currently have an old Panny G1 which handles wides very well, but it's a sub-APS and a 2x crop factor so the widest I can go is 24mm using the CV12 and it's an f/5.6 lens which means bumping the ISO into the noisy range too often). And BTW I also found (as have others I read) that the Nex-6 is less noisy at high ISO than the Nex-7.

 

For critical shots, ie those with light, blank corners, and which I would want to print, I probably will need to use Cornerfix with the Nex-6, but I can deal with that. I'll be satisfied as long as the bulk of my travel shots can pass muster without Cornerfixing. And edge smearing is something I don't even know how to correct in post (or if it even can be). As I said, this will be my emergency backup body to my M-240. As such, cost and the space it occupies in my luggage are major priorities. A 5n would be cheaper, but there there's the cost and bulk of a separate EVF. For me an eyelevel viewfinder is essential to my way of photographing. I literally have never gotten a decent shot holding a camera at arms length regardless of OIS and brightness boost. I do not prefer Sony images. If I did, I surely would not have bought an M-240 (or an M9 and M8 before that). But in fairness, the Sony images are pretty decent. If a Leica T cost $500 and had a built-in EVF would I have bought one in preference to a Nex-6? Absolutely.

Edited July 1, 2014 by bocaburger

[IkarusJohn]

My comment was only to counter your apparent suggestion that the IQ from the Nex 6 with wides is better than with the T.

 

Saying that, I have no experience of the Nex 6. Using the 15/2.8 Distagon and the 21 Summilux with both the Leica T and Nex-5n, for me there is no comparison. There is a pasticity (or perhaps it's the colour balance) from the Sony images which doesn't appeal, whereas even the JPEGs from the T are very good. The Leica T images are closer to the images I get from my M9 than either the A7r or the Nex-5n. Corner smearing was a real problem on the A7r, and it could not be fixed, other than by cropping.

 

I agree the pricing of the T is an issue. By Leica standards, it's cheap. By Sony standards, it's a rip-off. I guess the problem is that in the lofty territory of the S and M cameras, Leica can justify its premium by observing that the price goes up incrementally with small gains in quality. The S and M lenses are the pinnacle of quality.

 

That argument looks a little thin when cameras like the T delve into Nex territory. Then again, it does differentiate itself with its user interface and Leica lens compatibility. If it has the full frame CMOSIS sensor, then its Sony competition would be the A7/r/s and the price differential wouldn't be so bad.

 

It is interesting, as you observe, and as is clear from the A7s and Nikon D4 (with "only" 16 MP sensors), that higher resolution brings problems, whereas lower resolution and better pixel pitch has considerable advantages. Perhaps the same can be said for sensor size? I'm not yet convinced. I would like an 18 MP full frame sensor in the T, with all the advantages that appears to bring.

 

For the moment, I'm actually enjoying the APS-C sensor (much to my surprise), and I have no problem with the clip on EVF as it is always in my bag if I need it. I'm not really sure why people think you have to hold the camera at arms length to use the LCD - I wear my glasses :-)

 

Cheers

John

[bocaburger]

My comment was only to counter your apparent suggestion that the IQ from the Nex 6 with wides is better than with the T.

 

Ah, that was the misunderstanding. My statement was meant only to compare the Nex-6 to the Nex-7 and A7 handling of wides. My only objections to the T are price and the separate finder.

 

I'm not really sure why people think you have to hold the camera at arms length to use the LCD - I wear my glasses :-)

 

When I hold the camera at eye level I need to tilt my head back to see through the lower (close distance) part of my glasses and I find that to be quite literally a pain in the neck

[IkarusJohn]

I have noticed even reading that I tilt my head back as a matter of habit - it's odd when you don't have your glasses on!

[bocaburger]

Before I wised up and got a pair of single-vision glasses I keep by the computer I was using a pair of lined bifocals. Messed my neck up something awful. The cracking sound it would make when I lowered my head should've been enough of a hint but it wasn't. Took about 6 months on NSAIDs for the pain to go away. Getting old(er) is not the most pleasant experience but it beats the alternative

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[colonel]

 

I agree the pricing of the T is an issue. By Leica standards, it's cheap. By Sony standards, it's a rip-off. I guess the problem is that in the lofty territory of the S and M cameras, Leica can justify its premium by observing that the price goes up incrementally with small gains in quality. The S and M lenses are the pinnacle of quality.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

Not be controversial but I think the pricing of the T body is quite reasonable given the construction and the size of Leica, for a cottage industry product. The lenses are where more profit is, although top Japanese construction is still expensive.

 

The small and quirky nature of Leica standing out from the main stream is a key appeal. I'm not saying that the camera doesn't take superb pictures with great handling and some interesting innovations, but the small industry character is great.

 

I saw the Louis Vuitton camera bag last week, £2,600, now that's a rip off .......