Leica T performs digital lens correction , a claim by dpreview.com

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just an answer to post #409.

 

You would be hard put to use a T lens on film.

[luigi bertolotti]

.... Today I'm afraid Leica's name is not as well known (its probably better known in binocular circles) and I'd suggest that the T system will actually have to stand on its merits far more than many previous Leica cameras, which is why its design is so important..

 

That IS the main point, indeed (largely unrelated to the specific argument of this thread) : Leica, in cameras, did incur in the risk to become a very marginal brand for the real today's market : so, I tend to think that they have implemented, some years ago (Dr. Kaufmann takeover of the Company) a multyearstep-by-step focused strategy (surely bounded, in timing , by capacity of investiment) to regain a real presence and brand recogintion by new generations :

 

- Put the Leica name on the lenses of P&S, on the top of Panasonic product line (low risk)

- Put the Leica name on P&S, positioning them with a price over the mean for similar cameras (a bit more risky... their practical performing is not different from dozens of other cheaper ones)

- Make a line of cameras of high price, but which stand apart of the mainstream of the offerings (... an higher risk again... a market full of zooms offering could REFUSE the fixed focal approach of the first X series models)

- T is the final step of this long approach... and the riskiest one... Make a camera that stands into the mainstream of APS mirrorless offering, positioning it, anyway, at a high price point... with a differentiation that comes MORE from the Brand than from other concrete contents (the body... the "halo" on optical excellence...)

 

That is what, imho, makes the T so important, but I think they'd not made and announced it if the previous steps shouldn't have given sales results sufficiently satisfactory to afford the risk of the "T step" : seeing it in the above multi year perspective, I tend to think that they have proved the capacity to implement a longterm strategy, which is very appreciable for a small Company. And the fact that they have found a financial backing probably just around the time in which the "T project" was plotted, does fit well, too, in this capacity to "think long".

Edited May 10, 2014 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

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

[theboch]

Thank you Luigi. A very interesting post about Leica's possible strategy. I agree!

[diogenis]

For me, the move towards the T signifies 2 very important factors that I have already mentioned:

1. Go for some modern designs using Audi's design team is alone something that every other maker lacks. It alone is very very very important.

2. Focus in usability and handling with their interface

I want to see both of the above in an updated modern version of an M

[luigi bertolotti]

For me, the move towards the T signifies 2 very important factors that I have already mentioned:

1. Go for some modern designs using Audi's design team is alone something that every other maker lacks. It alone is very very very important.

2. Focus in usability and handling with their interface

I want to see both of the above in an updated modern version of an M

 

Correct, but I think they will make an appreciable redesigning of M only if and when they'll decide to make a big (hard ? ) intervention on the VF/RF side... the RF mech is highly "imposing" on the dimensioning/styling side... till now, it seems to me that the styling exercises performed as "specials" on the digital M body are maybe fine, but hardly justified for the camera as it is engineered now. With less limitations (Hybrid VF when will be really enjoyable?) they will be able to make a good design job....

[thighslapper]

For me, the move towards the T signifies 2 very important factors that I have already mentioned:

1. Go for some modern designs using Audi's design team is alone something that every other maker lacks. It alone is very very very important.

2. Focus in usability and handling with their interface

I want to see both of the above in an updated modern version of an M

 

....... yes I can foresee a full frame version of this which is a bit bigger...... with the flash dumped and a built in EVF shoe-horned in the space created ....... not an M but a T on steroids ......

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just an answer to post #409.

 

You would be hard put to use a T lens on film.

 

"Film" is a short way to say "without the possibility of image corrections".

 

You cannot use these lenses on film, of course. This is why they follow this approach.

 

The manufacturers tried to hide this new design philosophy (the Panasonic affaire with Adobe, the Olympus 12mm lens), maybe because it could imply bad publicity.

 

The formats are small, the speed usually is modest, the performance is not stellar in many cases and the prices are high (compared with reflex lenses for 35mm format). The lenses are small though. I would like to know the impact on production costs.

Edited May 10, 2014 by rosuna

[pico]

"Film" is a short way to say "without the possibility of image corrections".

 

With digital we are entering an entirely new paradigm of sensor-driven lens design.

 

In my view it marks Leica's classic, film oriented design as a new standard to which digital mavens must answer.

 

The manufacturers tried to hide this new design philosophy (the Panasonic affaire with Adobe, the Olympus 12mm lens), maybe because it could imply bad publicity.

 

The formats are small, the speed usually is modest, the performance is not stellar in many cases and the prices are high (compared with reflex lenses for 35mm format). The lenses are small though. I would like to know the impact on production costs.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[Guest]

Is the "Lunar" machined out of a solid bloc and hand-polished?

So the T isn't priced right.

 

It is is still not too late for a 10% offer to Jean-Claude Biver.

Top priced watches are not about time, and this here is not really about photo but it got to be :cool:

Too bad that without top spin doctors the T is caught now in this hoi polloi corner of having to answer technical questions, instead of being IT.

 

They've created a Boxter

Edited May 10, 2014 by tri

[jonoslack]

I

 

They've created a Boxter

 

Well, in the longer term that might be a good thing. Porsche haven't done too badly with the Boxster.

[diogenis]

Correct, but I think they will make an appreciable redesigning of M only if and when they'll decide to make a big (hard ? ) intervention on the VF/RF side... the RF mech is highly "imposing" on the dimensioning/styling side... till now, it seems to me that the styling exercises performed as "specials" on the digital M body are maybe fine, but hardly justified for the camera as it is engineered now. With less limitations (Hybrid VF when will be really enjoyable?) they will be able to make a good design job....

 

One of the reasons people still claims Leica's technology is obsolete is because of the retro look of it's M line. They can do wonders and still not touch the RF/VF. The M doesn't need a hybrid VF, since the optical one is far superior. If you come think of it, of all its cameras only M is left out with a retro look. The titanium was an effort in this direction, then the failed Red model of Ive's.

[luigi bertolotti]

One of the reasons people still claims Leica's technology is obsolete is because of the retro look of it's M line. They can do wonders and still not touch the RF/VF. The M doesn't need a hybrid VF, since the optical one is far superior. If you come think of it, of all its cameras only M is left out with a retro look. The titanium was an effort in this direction, then the failed Red model of Ive's.

 

I understand... but I put it in future perspective.... they cannot continue in Aeternum to have their top of the line camera (ok, there is the S... but is a Pro item which will follow the Pro Market trends), with a retro look... it is a lot appealing to a certain breed of users (me included) but it won't be always like this.... the users that now are teenagers and in ten years can be potential customers haven't any addiction to the legendary M3 look... and can learn what is a rangefinder just because is a term used in other fields...

Not to be destructive (and, btw, don't like to think at when I'll be next to 70... ) but in 10 years or so the "present M" can have the role that now MP has.... and , after the T (provided that it is succesful) they must go on and escalate... this, imho, will be the moment in which they will think of a top of the line WITHOUT rangefinder, with M class lenses (even before, if T would be HIGHLY succesful )

Edited May 11, 2014 by luigi bertolotti

[jonoslack]

they must go on and escalate... this, imho, will be the moment in which they will think of a top of the line WITHOUT rangefinder, with M class lenses (even before, if T would be HIGHLY succesful )

 

Top of the line is a bit of a nebulous concept isn't it? I guess that the S is currently the 'top of the line', but you would need to develop a criteria:

capabilities

reputation

sales

 

There are three different but sensible criteria . . . each of which will bring you a different line.

 

I can see a lot of scope for development around the T mount, and surely that isn't just good luck!

[mjh]

Yes, the ‘top of the line’ concept might be misleading. The M has a bigger sensor than the T and it is also more expensive, but then again, the S has an even bigger sensor and is even more expensive. And what does it mean for the customer? Should a photographer who buys a T today buy an M tomorrow? Does Leica even expect that? I don’t think so. Neither is an M photographer expected to switch to the S as soon as his or financial situation allows it. These are all very different cameras, conceptually, and their respective audiences differ as well, even there is some overlap.

[Carbon111]

...then the failed Red model of Ive's.

 

Not failed. It never was a production model and was never intended to be. Just built for the auction.

[tomasis7]

For me, the move towards the T signifies 2 very important factors that I have already mentioned:

1. Go for some modern designs using Audi's design team is alone something that every other maker lacks. It alone is very very very important.

2. Focus in usability and handling with their interface

I want to see both of the above in an updated modern version of an M

 

i agree, the design makes difference,

 

Thats sum of all posts here in T-section.

[pgk]

For me, the move towards the T signifies 2 very important factors that I have already mentioned:

1. Go for some modern designs using Audi's design team is alone something that every other maker lacks. It alone is very very very important.

2. Focus in usability and handling with their interface

I want to see both of the above in an updated modern version of an M

The M remains, in essence, a rangefinder system camera with all the limitations that that implies. Its a tried and tested design and modifying it (M5;)) is not so easy as history tells us. I could see an M built out of a machined aluminium block as being potentially viable, as long as it stays in essence the same as it is now, but I fail to see how usability and handling can be significantly improved, other than perhaps by simplifying the design and reducing the controls (dump A, get rid of jpeg, and remove other unnecessary irrelevance) and ending up with a 'purists' rangefinder. Removing the rangefinder would, as has been stated innumerable times here on this forum, so substantially change to concept of the M as to negates its essential difference from other camera systems.

 

So implement redesign of an iconic design at your peril.

 

But by all means have an M lens fitting camera which isn't a rangefinder (nor an M). I have no problem with this concept except for the raison d'etre of such a camera and the host of technical problems it presents.

[jonoslack]

So implement redesign of an iconic design at your peril.

 

But by all means have an M lens fitting camera which isn't a rangefinder (nor an M). I have no problem with this concept except for the raison d'etre of such a camera and the host of technical problems it presents.

 

Hi Paul

I couldn't agree more the M should stay as the M, in my opinion any changes should enhance the original design rather than modify it (or add to it).

[diogenis]

The M remains, in essence, a rangefinder system camera with all the limitations that that implies. Its a tried and tested design and modifying it (M5;)) is not so easy as history tells us. I could see an M built out of a machined aluminium block as being potentially viable, as long as it stays in essence the same as it is now, but I fail to see how usability and handling can be significantly improved, other than perhaps by simplifying the design and reducing the controls (dump A, get rid of jpeg, and remove other unnecessary irrelevance) and ending up with a 'purists' rangefinder. Removing the rangefinder would, as has been stated innumerable times here on this forum, so substantially change to concept of the M as to negates its essential difference from other camera systems.

 

So implement redesign of an iconic design at your peril.

 

But by all means have an M lens fitting camera which isn't a rangefinder (nor an M). I have no problem with this concept except for the raison d'etre of such a camera and the host of technical problems it presents.

These are not the problems if they would try a redesigned M.

The real problems would be that they will change a trusted for more than 6 decades design for something new. I never said to change the RF mechanism. But I do like the simplicity and modern looks of the T. On the other hand, 60 years of history is no small thing

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

We can be sure Leica will not do anything radical to the basic design and concept.