Best reason to purchase the Leica T

[sfage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not understand this fixation on focus peaking. It is only accurate on long/longish lenses, the more pronounced it is the less accurate and it is less useful as the sensor gets smaller. I only use it for lenses over 135 mm.

 

I find the GXR function 2 focus assist to be absolutely outstanding. I rarely -if ever- miss-focus a shot.

[Peter H]

I find the GXR function 2 focus assist to be absolutely outstanding. I rarely -if ever- miss-focus a shot.

 

What is it, please?

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

Is this the thread for sweeping statements?

Absolutely (just like every other thread I've seen)

I guess straight facts have no place in this thread? Like for example: The Leica T doesn't even have focus peaking, which many people like to use and for some are a necessity, when using manual lenses.

Indeed - certainly true - although manual focusing does seem to work pretty well

Or that the Sony Nex 5n also sported a 16mp sensor and did very well with many M lenses. It was released in august 2011..

Again - quite right (I'd forgotten I'd borrowed one - the Nex 6 is also good (as implied above)

Or the fact that there are many many more kinds of older manual lenses than just the Leica-M lenses. When you're going to use adapters to use classic lenses you might as well buy a system that has adapters to whole range of other mounts.

There are - but don't you think most people buying the T will be interested in M and R lenses?

Or the fact that even Jono Slack, when saying he likes the Leica T second best for M lenses, he comments that it might be only because the adapter can adjust exif information in the files.

Well, It's true - and actually it's really quite useful (if you want to know which lens you used for a shot, and you're changing lenses). The implication was that there were several APS-c and µ43 cameras that do a good job - I don't think any of them do a better job than the T though.

 

Sorry for bringing facts to this thread, but allow me to end by a sweeping statement that many would be better of either buying a Leica M to use M lenses on OR if they really want to dabble in this "never quite the way it should be" world of using lenses not quite designed for a camera in the first place, they should just buy something cheaper which has more than 2 native lenses available for it. oh, btw 2 lenses made by some unknown manufacturer in Japan apparently. 2 lenses that are way too expensive compared to most other aps-c lenses made in Japan.

Why? unless they're trying to save money, in which case they'd be better off without their M lenses too!

. . . and the unknown manufacturer is not unknown at all (largely unguessed I'd say). Just not known by you (I've no idea why Leica don't make it public)

Seriously though, I just don't agree that image quality is the best reason to buy the Leica T. I think most people would state other "best" reasons...

Seriously though - I quite agree with you - but you could turn it around and say that image quality is no reason NOT to buy the T. (cup half full?)

 

I honestly agree with tookaphotof's reason.

 

The best reason to buy a Leica T is because you like its design, build quality, you want autofocus, because you happen to like the character of the Leica lenses and above all: you can afford its price. Nothing more, nothing less.

Leica lenses work best on a Leica camera, gosh, really...

 

and Bill

 

For a lot of crazy folks here, the best reason to purchase the Leica T is because they want one.

 

and Peter

The best reason to buy a T is because you like it. You don't have to justify it to anyone. Not even yourself.

Edited May 1, 2014 by jonoslack

[sfage]

What is it, please?

 

It is a sort of "Frankenstein" IR-looking BW image for focusing. The best focus assist I have ever seen.

 

"Sean concluded that the GXR Mount A-12 clearly once again out-resolved the Leica T with these compact 25mm and 28mm lenses. In his view the GXR M-Mount “is one of the most underappreciated digital cameras ever made.”

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53584614

Edited May 1, 2014 by sfage

[colonel]

I quite agree James

but to be honest, without a catastrophe (like the 28 'cron on an A7r for instance) it's pretty hard to make valid judgements without a large range of files, (different distances, lenses, colours, scenes) - a huge job; thankless (you'll get flamed to hell for your technique - I know - I've been there) and largely pointless, as it's impossible to construct sensible criteria for making a useful judgement (the criteria will certainly vary from person to person).

 

So sweeping statements can be quite useful.

 

here's one

 

I've tried M lenses on Olympus E-M1, Fuji X-T1, Sony A7, Sony A7r, Sony Nex 7, Sony Nex 6, Leica M and Leica T. and my personal feeling is that they work best on the M, followed by the T (even only if it's convenient to have the lens name in the exif data). The only cameras which posed a serious issue were the Sony A7r, Sony A7 and NEX 7 - all the other cameras did a creditable job with no smeariness (apart from Fuji greens) and very limited colour shifts.

 

. . . . but in the end, I'll use my M lenses on an M, with the exception of longer focal lengths (75-135) where a small sensor makes for a fast telephoto.

 

That sounds very sensible

Lenses work best on the system they were designed for

Putting a FF Leica lens on a APS-C ore M4/3s camera anyways solves many of the problems in the corners where they accumulate

Its great fun, for sure, and the longer focal lengths perform great, but I would caution this being the main solution for any photographer

My benchmark for maximum Lecia lens performance was always the Nex-6. Preliminary wide angle results show that the T is not as great as we thought it was. I say this doesn't make any difference to my high view of the T

[miatadan]

I never thought there be so many negative reply's here...

 

Over the years in general , it has been the quality of Leica lenses ( both optical and build ) that set them apart from other camera name brands. For me Leica lenses are more important than the camera bodies.

 

Just because T lenses are made in Japan, there is no reason for it not to be as well made as their other lenses made in Germany. Also thought there was article saying that there will be some german made T lenses in future?

 

Dan

[Steve P]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Sean concluded that the GXR Mount A-12 clearly once again out-resolved the Leica T with these compact 25mm and 28mm lenses. In his view the GXR M-Mount “is one of the most underappreciated digital cameras ever made.”

 

I think that has to do with the fact that, unlike every other non-Leica body, the GXR-M unit was designed specifically as a native mount for M lenses, with no need for adapters. Other systems were designed for use with their own dedicated lenses. Adapted M lenses were understandably no more than an afterthought. It remains to be seen whether or not the Leica T will turn out to be a first rate platform for M lenses or not. Early signs are positive so I'll continue to 'watch this space'.

[AlanJW]

I do not understand this fixation on focus peaking. It is only accurate on long/longish lenses, the more pronounced it is the less accurate and it is less useful as the sensor gets smaller. I only use it for lenses over 135 mm.

I totally agree. The A7r, which is a very capable camera, has focus peaking and I have tried it with a variety of lenses. For a lens like the WATE, which is slow (f/4) and wide, focus peaking is almost useless as the system seems to think everything is in focus, even when wide open, because wide open isn't that wide open at f/4. For mid range lenses like Summilux 35 and Summilux 50, it is just slightly better but the only way to be sure is to focus wide open and stop down to taking aperture. That brought me back to the 195os- 60s and "preset" lenses. There's a reason they went away. For long lenses like the APO 135 it is better still and using a lens like that with an EVF is easier for me than looking at a tiny frame in the rangefinder. But with the 135 you also are better off focusing wide open and stopping down to shooting aperture. In no way can this be considered ideal or significantly better than simply having an "electronic ground glass" (EVF) to use for focus.

[algrove]

My answer as was posted in #20 above is AF plus weight-less weight in my bag.

Edited May 2, 2014 by algrove

[StevenWithAVee]

Because it fits my needs (wants) and my budget at the time. End of story.

 

So much animosity around here(not just in this thread...) towards the people that want this camera. It's only for idiots who want a fashion statement, etc? But I can't wait to get it in my hands and to start using it. And yes, it'll look great in my Louis Vuitton bag as I drive around in my BMW...

 

If it's not for you then that's ok! But why hang around in the Leica T forum just to bash it and its users(future users). It's something I've never understood about internet forums. Unfortunately it's all too common, but I still don't get it.

[Ozkar]

I quite agree James

but to be honest, without a catastrophe (like the 28 'cron on an A7r for instance) it's pretty hard to make valid judgements without a large range of files, (different distances, lenses, colours, scenes) - a huge job; thankless (you'll get flamed to hell for your technique - I know - I've been there) and largely pointless, as it's impossible to construct sensible criteria for making a useful judgement (the criteria will certainly vary from person to person).

 

So sweeping statements can be quite useful.

 

here's one

 

I've tried M lenses on Olympus E-M1, Fuji X-T1, Sony A7, Sony A7r, Sony Nex 7, Sony Nex 6, Leica M and Leica T. and my personal feeling is that they work best on the M, followed by the T (even only if it's convenient to have the lens name in the exif data). The only cameras which posed a serious issue were the Sony A7r, Sony A7 and NEX 7 - all the other cameras did a creditable job with no smeariness (apart from Fuji greens) and very limited colour shifts.

 

. . . . but in the end, I'll use my M lenses on an M, with the exception of longer focal lengths (75-135) where a small sensor makes for a fast telephoto.

 

Of course, M lenses will be sharper across the frame with the T compared to an A7 since you're throwing half the image area away.

[Ecaton]

 

For me the best reason to purchase the Leica T is because of Leica lenses.

 

The T lenses are better optics/ build quality than the competition.

 

Dan

 

I suggest you have a close look at the USD 1k priced weather sealed FF SEL 1.8 55mm and how it handily outperforms the Leica 50mm M-lenses.

[Ecaton]

Really? Can you post some photos showing these comparisons and demonstrating the obviously better image quality ?

 

Perception rules. Particularly when it comes to "rationalize" desires for and purchases of emotional luxury products.

[michaelbrenner]

For me the best reason to purchase the Leica T largely concerns accessibility. I have been musing on getting an M 240 with some M lenses but now that the Leica T has arrived, I think it may be a more cost-efficient way to explore the world of Leica, with professional-quality possibilities while not requiring the skill going in the door of the M rangefinder camera.

 

I can get the body for $1850 and the vario lens for $1750 (or the prime for $1950) and the grab the M adapter for $395 and a used M lens on the cheap. Voila - an entry level professional Leica setup with autofocus and opportunity to try out some M lenses.

 

Then, once budget and skill coalesce more coherently, off to get an M, while keeping the T for projects for which autofocus and small size lend themselves more readily.

 

The only caveat I see to this plan is that the T has a 1.5x crop factor, so a Leica M 24mm becomes 36mm on the T but "reverts" to 24mm on the M, giving a different look. However, this may be desirable, for artistic reasons, for example. Also, the T lenses will not be usable on the M. And, of course, autofocus will not be available on the T when using M lenses.

 

Still, overall, I think it's a good plan, on a tentative basis...

[jaapv]

I find the GXR function 2 focus assist to be absolutely outstanding. I rarely -if ever- miss-focus a shot.

I rarely if ever miss focus on an SLR with a split-wedge focusing screen. Yet this system is pretty useless in many cases.

[jonoslack]

Of course, M lenses will be sharper across the frame with the T compared to an A7 since you're throwing half the image area away.

 

Hi Ozkar - one could argue about the relevance of that. But M most wide lenses are much sharper across the frame on a Leica M than on an A7r as well - and you aren't throwing anything away anywhere

[colonel]

I feel nervous about a thread seemingly having to ask other people to justify a purchase

 

If you love the look and feel and are happy with the results (that you see) and the lenses/system makes sense for your needs, and you have the money, then just buy it

[filzer]

I am wondering why seemingly no one is interested in the ease of use of a camera. The T offers a very cleaned up user interface with a lot less buttons and "selling features" (= features that let your product look good on paper compared to your competition, but in fact are unimportant for real world usage).

I realize myself when switching from the M9 to my panasonic GX7 - lots of clutter, accidently pressed buttons, overwhelming menus filled up with stuff i do not really need. This gets in my way when taking pictures.

 

For me, i have a M9, there is no need for an T. But anyone who wants good quality with an clutter free, very easy to use camera (and does not need to read a manual as heavy as a bible) - the T would be my first Suggestion. The interface of the T seems to help taking pictures, not beeing a constant annoyance as so many other models do. I actually don't know any other camera of the digital age that seems to be that easy to use.

[leicatraveller]

Hi Ozkar - one could argue about the relevance of that. But M most wide lenses are much sharper across the frame on a Leica M than on an A7r as well - and you aren't throwing anything away anywhere

 

 

more mp you have less sharp it will be....36mp are really much and lens must be outstanding ...when leica will have 36mp we will see if they are sharp like on a 18-24mp sensor

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jonoslack]

more mp you have less sharp it will be....36mp are really much and lens must be outstanding ...when leica will have 36mp we will see if they are sharp like on a 18-24mp sensor

 

No No No No - You simply can't fudge this - use a 28 summicron on an M and it's sharp - sharp to the corners at f2. Put it on an A7r and there is a huge area of smudge in the corners, and if you're shooting an english sky you'll likely have a nasty colour shift as well.

 

Thats nothing to do with 36mp it's to do with the fact that Sony (quite understandably) don't do firmware correction, and their sensors don't handle very steep angles of incidence well (and why should they). Leica put a lot of money and effort into this, and it shows.

 

This is not me criticising the A7r - just saying that it wasn't designed to be used with M lenses, and the M is . . .