The A7 went this morning and I'm taking the plunge

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a fair question, Alan. I use my cellphone quite a lot for taking pictures. If you're saying that the image quality of the T will be no better than a cellphone, I'd have to ask what evidence you have for that.

 

Cheers

John

 

Not at all about quality. I just find myself taking a lot of photos with my cell phone and it suits that function pretty well... mostly to share with family and friends. I have software that scales the cellphone images down to save on transmission and downloading overhead. So I am generally not even using the quality that is there. I do have some shots I really like too.

[IkarusJohn]

Not at all about quality. I just find myself taking a lot of photos with my cell phone and it suits that function pretty well... mostly to share with family and friends. I have software that scales the cellphone images down to save on transmission and downloading overhead. So I am generally not even using the quality that is there. I do have some shots I really like too.

 

So do I. But you seem to be saying the T camera will be no better than that; I'd say that you have absolutely no justification for that assertion. It's a bit like Pico saying the camera is a "point and shoot" - baseless, pejorative and pointless.

 

You have a point of view, and you've made it. I just don't get why you need to add to that point by pouring scorn on the camera and people who buy it. Has someone offended you by criticising your gear decisions?

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

Of course the T is much better than a cell phone. I'm not you so my family snapshots don't require much of a camera. What I was getting at is the T might be overkill for that use, but would be justified for more rigorous applications. I knew a guy who took snapshots of his celebrity restaurant patrons to hang on the wall. He used a Hasselblad for that. I'm ok with that too.

[jonoslack]

Of course the T is much better than a cell phone. I'm not you so my family snapshots don't require much of a camera. What I was getting at is the T might be overkill for that use, but would be justified for more rigorous applications. I knew a guy who took snapshots of his celebrity restaurant patrons to hang on the wall. He used a Hasselblad for that. I'm ok with that too.

 

Alan, I fear you have a real problem - you like cell phone interfaces to take pictures, you like small mirror less cameras when you aren't working . . .

 

The obvious solution is to get yourself a Leica T - it has the interface of a phone (with options) together with the quality of a good mirror less.

 

What's Not To Like

[peterv]

John, congratulations on your decision. May your T arrive soon and may it serve you better than the Sony you've sold.

 

Me, I'm on the fence right now, though I really need another camera for the exact same purpose as you, family-snaps and general walk-about. The thing is I just bought myself a 120 mm CS for my S2, and I'm waiting on the first reviews and sample images of the new Sony 7s. If the AF is workable, and frankly I can't believe it will be worse than the T's AF, the 7s may be a good alternative for the T. Relatively small camera with 'low' resolution, enough for snaps. And I know that when making these kinds of family/party/dinner photo's, what I need most is good high ISO. That will most likely be the area where the 7s is unbeatable, except maybe by the Nikon 4s, which is of course waaaay too big.

Just my 2 cnts. Have fun with your new camera!

[AlanG]

Alan, I fear you have a real problem - you like cell phone interfaces to take pictures, you like small mirror less cameras when you aren't working . . .

 

The obvious solution is to get yourself a Leica T - it has the interface of a phone (with options) together with the quality of a good mirror less.

 

What's Not To Like

 

Funny... Truth is I never met a camera I didn't like. I worked in my cousin's camera store when I was young so I had countless ones to play with. We sold Leicas and I owned some by age 19. And Hassy by 20 then added Linhof by 22. Big color darkroom too. We had Sinars in college.

 

Up to about 12 years ago I had about 30 cameras in a variety of high end systems. Once the 1Ds came out, I moved completely to Canon and sold all film gear. I am no longer interested in owning many cameras so even a Nex is kind of a luxury to me. (I can afford to buy whatever I want, but don't. )

 

Hence the smartphone is fun to me as it lets me shoot without feeling I'm at work. And I always have it with me. I would not expect many here to understand this attitude and I can certainly see why many would like all things Leica.

 

I've almost pulled the trigger on getting a digital M several times due to an emotional attachment. But never could decide if I needed it for anything. Finally I realized that a IIIg represents my true emotional connection to Leica and my view of the epitome of classic camera design. So maybe I should get one and just shoot Tri-X with it for a while.

Edited May 7, 2014 by AlanG

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would not expect many here to understand this attitude and I can certainly see why many would like all things Leica.

 

hey hey you have no idea how many are shooting with smartphone, it is even ok use it as print. Lomo? heard it? I think you have work on definition of art photography and its meaning.

 

I think you have very dark picture of most Leica users. therefore you're worried whether you think how other leicists perceive you and vice versa.

 

It is just a bunch of photographers like the rest of the world.

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks Peter. I will try to post here once I have it, and I will try to share pictures (if any of them are good enough).

 

On the AF, I had every reason to think that the AF on the A7r would be good enough. I have had only two AF cameras before - the F5 with the AF-S 17-35/2.8 ED (which was very early, but still worked well) and the D800E with the 80 Micro and the new AF-S 80-400 VR. The D800E AF is fast and accurate, with an intuitive movable focus point. Now, I accept that it is unfair to compare the Nikon to the little Sony, but that was my experience. I like being able to fine tune the AF with the manual focus ring - that seemed beyond the A7r.

 

I also admit I never really got over fiddly little buttons in odd places on the back of the Sony, but the AF was a shocker. Picking up the camera to be greeted with a blurry image through the EVF was the norm. It took me a while to realise that the A7r is taller than my M cameras, and the diopter adjustment was brushing against the side of the bag. I then found that in average light conditions (not even low light), the AF just gave up the ghost. No hunting, nothing - just an out of focus exposure. I looked everywhere through the menu system, poked every button, and nothing helped. To add insult to injury, turning the fly-by-wire manual focus ring most of the time did noting more than raise my blood pressure - zip!

 

So it was a short decision for me. When I came back from the US and found the number of out of focus images (many taken in daylight), I gave up on it. The 24-70mm AF lens was brand new, and has optical stabilisation - I really could see no excuse of out of focus or blurry images, but that's what I got.

 

I don't know if the T will be any better for me, and I'm disappointed you apparently can't move the magnification point when using M lenses (why on earth not?), but I can't imagine it will be any worse. I will be using M lenses with this camera most of the time anyway - slipping the body and adapter into my bag with the Monochrom takes almost no space at all.

 

Cheers

John

[jaapv]

Funny... Truth is I never met a camera I didn't like.

Hah! In a misspent youth I once bought a Revue 1000 which is a rebranded second-choice Praktika 1000 :mad: It nearly put me off photography forever. The only redeeming feature it had was that I could use Super Takumar lenses on it….(at least on the odd occasion that it decided to work more or less properly)

[IkarusJohn]

hey hey you have no idea how many are shooting with smartphone, it is even ok use it as print. Lomo? heard it? I think you have work on definition of art photography and its meaning.

 

I think you have very dark picture of most Leica users. therefore you're worried whether you think how other leicists perceive you and vice versa.

 

It is just a bunch of photographers like the rest of the world.

 

Isn't the question Alan raises whether or not this camera makes sense, technically and from a market perspective?

 

It's easy for Leica owners to look at it and say it fills a gap between the M cameras and the X cameras - a gap we've talked about for some years. Price is okay, but specs are modest (particularly the sensor and lens specs) compared to the opposition (and particularly Sony). What it does have is a shiny exterior, Audi design and hubris about polishing; and perhaps that is what offends, particularly when looking under the hood and saying this camera is pretty ho-hum.

 

I recall many of us having the same views about the XVario - all a bit disappointing, despite Jono and others saying that actually for image quality, the bit that really counts, it is a very good camera. It doesn't have the shiny bits or the Audi/Apple interface, nor the M lens compatibility, but it is a very good camera nonetheless and worthy of the Leica name. But it hasn't made the market impact that Leica hoped.

 

I think Alan misses a point, though (or he gets it, but doesn't like it). He compares the Leica T specs with the NEX, and says he can get the same spec for a fraction of the cost. But Leica is not about that sort of comparison and never has been. What this camera does is take a proven sensor (okay, I really would prefer it if it was the 24MP sensor out of the M(240), but that's falling into the same trap), and represents it with an entirely new interface and a compact lens (with similar compromises, I suspect, to the XVario lens). It looks like it will sell (he says, more than 2 weeks before the official release date) - the NZ allocation of the first two shipments has completely sold.

 

What Alan doesn't seem to like is what Ming Thein describes as the game changer - the interface. The kit zoom lens is irrelevant - no one needs to buy it. You can buy the Summicron 23mm prime (which is apparently very good) or use your M lenses (no one is going to say they are cheap crap). But the interface seems to be the problem (along with the shiny exterior). Being an Apple kind of guy, I'm really not interested in people giving me functionality that is possible (but actually won't work that well) - I would rather they applied themselves to what is needed, and making that intuitive. Being an iPhone/iPad user, the interface looks very good to me (though I admit I'm worried that I might not be able to turn autoreview off - hate that function).

 

Cheers

John

[AlanG]

After shooting 4x5 for 30+ years, all digital camera interfaces seem fast and simple to me.

[IkarusJohn]

After shooting 4x5 for 30+ years, all digital camera interfaces seem fast and simple to me.

 

Well, after shooting manual Nikons and a Hasselblad for over 30 years, I find most digital user interfaces and menus a pain in the ass That's what drew me to the M9 (my first Leica), and it is what I find attractive about the T camera.

 

I guess that's the Leica gestalt, and it's what their marketing says (Essence).

[Ozkar]

Isn't the question Alan raises whether or not this camera makes sense, technically and from a market perspective?

 

It's easy for Leica owners to look at it and say it fills a gap between the M cameras and the X cameras - a gap we've talked about for some years. Price is okay, but specs are modest (particularly the sensor and lens specs) compared to the opposition (and particularly Sony). What it does have is a shiny exterior, Audi design and hubris about polishing; and perhaps that is what offends, particularly when looking under the hood and saying this camera is pretty ho-hum.

 

I recall many of us having the same views about the XVario - all a bit disappointing, despite Jono and others saying that actually for image quality, the bit that really counts, it is a very good camera. It doesn't have the shiny bits or the Audi/Apple interface, nor the M lens compatibility, but it is a very good camera nonetheless and worthy of the Leica name. But it hasn't made the market impact that Leica hoped.

 

I think Alan misses a point, though (or he gets it, but doesn't like it). He compares the Leica T specs with the NEX, and says he can get the same spec for a fraction of the cost. But Leica is not about that sort of comparison and never has been. What this camera does is take a proven sensor (okay, I really would prefer it if it was the 24MP sensor out of the M(240), but that's falling into the same trap), and represents it with an entirely new interface and a compact lens (with similar compromises, I suspect, to the XVario lens). It looks like it will sell (he says, more than 2 weeks before the official release date) - the NZ allocation of the first two shipments has completely sold.

 

What Alan doesn't seem to like is what Ming Thein describes as the game changer - the interface. The kit zoom lens is irrelevant - no one needs to buy it. You can buy the Summicron 23mm prime (which is apparently very good) or use your M lenses (no one is going to say they are cheap crap). But the interface seems to be the problem (along with the shiny exterior). Being an Apple kind of guy, I'm really not interested in people giving me functionality that is possible (but actually won't work that well) - I would rather they applied themselves to what is needed, and making that intuitive. Being an iPhone/iPad user, the interface looks very good to me (though I admit I'm worried that I might not be able to turn autoreview off - hate that function).

 

Cheers

John

 

Success for the T will be based on sell-through. The NZ distributor may sold their entire T allocation to their dealers but this does not mean that dealers have pre-sold all their stock. My local dealer, a Leica A level Australian dealer, does not have a single deposit on a T. This is mighty unusual!

[IkarusJohn]

I'm told they were pre-orders, but I have no idea how many there were - could be 2, in which case, it's underwhelming.

[Ozkar]

I'm told they were pre-orders, but I have no idea how many there were - could be 2, in which case, it's underwhelming.

 

I REALLY like this camera and I'm keen to see how it performs with the 11-22 zoom. This looks like a killer combo. However, given that the slow kit zoom will sell in Oz for $2300, I'm expecting the 11-22 to sell for over $3k. That will make the body, lens and EVF over $6k. I'm not sure whether I like it anywhere near this much.

 

Despite all the hype, I get the impression (from talking to local dealers) that demand from punters is luke warm. The consensus seems to be that the body and, particularly, the lenses are very appealing but the price not so. Perhaps we're all waiting for the inevitable ... very generous discounts

[tundraline]

I have to say that while the A7 doesn't have the menus simplicity of the Leica M it is so customisable that I have been able to reduce all the functions I need to a few buttons and actually find it pretty quick and easy to use. Compared to menu system I remember when I had the D700 the Sony is a pure joy!!!

Now if the T had a built in EVF, faster lenses and was FF I may have considered it but the only really advantage it has for me over the A7 is a quieter shutter

 

It's pretty tough to get everything you want in a single camera. The A7R was just not for me. My M240 is a much more manageable and logical camera to use. The Sony A7R certainly has its strong points, but after quite a while of using it I became weary of its poor interface. The T looks like a nice camera that I would enjoy using, but its high price puts me off. Maybe once I see one in the flesh I'll change my mind.

[Ecaton]

............. This camera is not a replacement for my M cameras (though the M9 will suffer for its presence, if I'm honest) - it is a walk about AF zoom camera that does all those things that the M cameras don't. It's also a camera which makes no apologies for being an electronic camera - it's not for life, it's not manual and it sits with my M cameras very well (at least, that's what I'm hoping).

 

....................

 

Cheers

John

 

An excellent summary of the small camera (system) I was trying to find in the various milc formats and makes over the last couple of years. All were disappointing so far in one way or the other and the buy, try, sell exercises cost me a fortune. Maybe the T will be the one and I might give it a try.

[biglouis]

I hear what you are saying. I think there are real some big differences in usability (at least for me) between the A7 and A7r. The A7 doesn't suffer from mirror slap as it has the electronic first shutter and it also has phase-detection focusing. I personally find that I can hit focus wide open 95% of the time with the A7 and FE55 something I could never do with the M and Lux 50. I also find the eyes focus function useful for up close portraits. In fact almost the opposite to you I now never use my lux 50 asph. I also like the fact that it has the same size files as the M which makes my work flow easier. The phigment adaptor sounds interesting but I see from their site that it vignettes on FF with a lot of lenses.

There of course no doubt that the T will take great images and I am sure hope that you enjoy it

 

I'm with David. I've been using the A7 with Sony lenses for several months. I don't understand the 'miss focus' thing. You either can use technology or not. You'll miss as much focus with any AF camera, otherwise. The 55/1.8 is the best 'normal' lens I have ever owned. The T is nice and I have ordered one but I'm still not 100% decided. The A7 has proved to be very good with my C-50 cron, Elmarit 90/2.8 and CV21/1.8 (the latter especially).

 

LouisB

[viramati]

The more I think about it the only advantage I can possibly see that the T his is it's quieter shutter. This is about the only thing that I find hard to get used to with the A7 apart from the aperture control wheel going in the opposite direction to the leica lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[colonel]

The Sony A7R certainly has its strong points, but after quite a while of using it I became weary of its poor interface. .

 

Its all personal taste, but the interface on the Sony (the Menu ?) I think is excellent. Its well organized and you have to have tabs when you have alot of configuration

 

The M240 linear list is getting to a point where it is disorganized and at will need to be "tabified" in the future. They have kind of side stepped that by having the set menu and main menu separate buts its confusing to a newcomer which of these menus (which have different buttons) things are in

 

I also think Leica could be shooting itself in the foot limiting configuration just to make the menu easier. Being able to pick different peaking colours and strengths mush be easy to implement but is so useful, a strength of sony. Inexplicable why not in the T ?

 

After spending sometime with the T interface, it sure is nice, but I still think the X-Vario wheels are a better idea for my workflow. I can see how someone new to photography from the Android generation would take to it though. My 8 year old loves it - shes not a bad photographer as well, has been using an Panasonic TZ40 for many months now

 

Lastly, on the continuing comparison between the A7 and T. They are just not two cameras that I would compare for many reasons. The best comparison is the Fuji X-E2 and Sony A6000, both of which are excellent. Personally I would buy the T over the X-E2, but not convinced about over the A6000. However as a birthday or anniversary present for my wife, it can only be the T

Edited May 8, 2014 by colonel