Great new Review of the Leica T

[likalar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the review link. The Art Direction is excellent, as are the photos, nicely befitting the styling of the T camera.

 

Larry

[Ecaton]

Over priced or not, he asks.

Everything which sells is not over priced. Prices are a function of supply and demand. If demand lacks, prices will move lower. In the case of the X Vario it already happened to a surprising extent and, for a Leica, relatively shortly after launch of the camera into the market space. Time will tell whether the T will suffer the same fate. The T and XV try to establish niches in otherwise highly competitive market segments. Unlike the M, which, in its tiny niche, is still the only game in town.

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

Over priced or not, he asks.

Everything which sells is not over priced. Prices are a function of supply and demand. If demand lacks, prices will move lower. In the case of the X Vario it already happened to a surprising extent and, for a Leica, relatively shortly after launch of the camera into the market space. Time will tell whether the T will suffer the same fate. The T and XV try to establish niches in otherwise highly competitive market segments. Unlike the M, which, in its tiny niche, is still the only game in town.

 

Well, perhaps you're making assumptions about the fate of the XVario (who really knows?)

 

I agree that only time will tell whether the T is a success, but word on the street is that it is selling well.

 

I suspect the real decider will be the next camera - give it IBIS, weathersealing and a 24mp sensor and it'll do really well. . . . .

[Ecaton]

Well, perhaps you're making assumptions about the fate of the XVario (who really knows?)

 

I agree that only time will tell whether the T is a success, but word on the street is that it is selling well.

 

I suspect the real decider will be the next camera - give it IBIS, weathersealing and a 24mp sensor and it'll do really well. . . . .

 

Concerning the XV, I bought a brand new one from the official Leica boutique in Zurich for CHF 1950 about 4 months ago. At this price, it`s an excellent value imho. The original sticker price at market introduction was CHF 3100, sans EVF. Lack of demand brought prices to levels at which my perception of value and Leica`s price point met.

[jmahto]

.....I suspect the real decider will be the next camera - give it IBIS, weathersealing and a 24mp sensor and it'll do really well. . . . .

I will certainly wait for that.

[jonoslack]

I will certainly wait for that.

 

Hah! I wouldn't hold your breath - I've no idea if it'll have those things, but I'm sure it will be a bit of a wait.

[Mixalis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andrew Kim of Minimally Minimal is one of my favourite bloggers and I have been following him for several years. He has a great eye for design but doesn't specialise in cameras by any means. His photographs in this piece are exceptional and, as Jono says, it makes a great read.

[jdsheepdog]

I recently wandered onto the "Digital Photography Review" site. I came away feeling that I should put all my Leica equipment into an unmarked brown paper bag, and after dark slip it into the wheelie bin. Only then could I avoid the sneers of those who worship the gods of Sony and Olympus (no, not the original gods) and Fuji.

 

For these people, it is only about price. Bugger how well made it is, bugger how much you like it, and bugger how well it works. The only thing that matters is that IT COSTS TOO MUCH.

 

Every where you look, away from here, and reviews such as this, all you hear about is how much Leica costs, and how the Fujipus does it just as well for a third of the money, and how Leica is owners have Ferraris and wear their cameras as jewellery, or leave them around to impress dinner guests at their mansions.

 

Some Leica owners are well off financially. Some even have Porsches. One or two might live in mansions.

 

Well, heads up people. Most however use them to take pictures with. I for one do not have a Ferrari, or a Porsche. My wife and I live aboard a sailing yacht. It is all we own, no house.

 

My first Leica was a second hand M3, purchased 40 years ago. It still works perfectly. My most recent an M T240, I purchased as a present to myself for working one more year.

 

Considering that I have accumulated over the years a reasonable collection of glass, all of which still works stunningly, the cost of the M 240 was about the same as tossing it all away and starting again in the Sony (or similiar) store.

 

But, if I did that, the shutter on my new plastic fantastic would not work when I press the button, but only after it has thought about for a (admittedly very little) while. This has frustrated me always. And the ability to use a short lens and crop to telephoto equivalence without buying, or lugging around a long heavy lens would not be there. And the autofocus would half the time autof***up, and on and on it goes.

 

So, I am not the rich stereotype of the detractors, just an ordinary person who has tried a lot of alternatives, found them basically lacking, and returned to Leica. The others, Pentax, and Nikon, I use for work where it does not really matter if I drop the camera in some appalling goo.

 

Then after writing this, I realised that I was becoming infuriated by people who are nothing more than inverted snobs, in my opinion the worst kind of snobbery. So I went out to take some pictures.

 

There is still film in the M3, and a full battery in the M 240, so life is good, and if I can afford it, I will buy my wife the T as an anniversary present.

 

And when get home, I might post this rant on the "Digital Review" site.

Edited August 29, 2014 by jdsheepdog

[Guest badbob]

....The T and XV try to establish niches in otherwise highly competitive market segments.

 

I disagree, and I think most people are missing the point entirely. The 'T' at $4000, and the 'XV' in the mid-2000's USD, were never intended to "compete" with Sony, Fuji, et al. They were clearly intended to provide Leica cameras (made by Leica) to people who would never spend $12000 USD and higher for 'M' rangefinder cameras, which BTW do not even have zoom lenses.

 

I don't think you have to be a camera expert to understand why a Leica 'T' at $4000 is an incredible bargain compared to a 'M' plus two lenses to match the zoom range of the 18-56. I understand it very simply - I want a real Leica camera, and I know it's going to cost a lot more than Sony or Fuji, and I don't really care that the Sony is "faster" or whatever it's supposed to be. But I (the new Leica customer) wouldn't consider the $12000 camera with no zoom to be a desirable item, so the 'T' with its zoom lens is not only a better all-around camera than the 'M' for everyday shooting for most potential customers, it's way cheaper.

[Ecaton]

I disagree, and I think most people are missing the point entirely. The 'T' at $4000, and the 'XV' in the mid-2000's USD, were never intended to "compete" with Sony, Fuji, et al. They were clearly intended to provide Leica cameras (made by Leica) to people who would never spend $12000 USD and higher for 'M' rangefinder cameras, which BTW do not even have zoom lenses.

 

I don't think you have to be a camera expert to understand why a Leica 'T' at $4000 is an incredible bargain compared to a 'M' plus two lenses to match the zoom range of the 18-56. I understand it very simply - I want a real Leica camera, and I know it's going to cost a lot more than Sony or Fuji, and I don't really care that the Sony is "faster" or whatever it's supposed to be. But I (the new Leica customer) wouldn't consider the $12000 camera with no zoom to be a desirable item, so the 'T' with its zoom lens is not only a better all-around camera than the 'M' for everyday shooting for most potential customers, it's way cheaper.

 

The M as a system is actually inexpensive (that`s not the same as cost) if cost, depreciation of body and appreciation of lenses are taken into consideration. It`s all about the lenses. The T will have to show yet, that its lenses are holding their value or even appreciate. I see no reason why they should as they are nothing special, neither performance nor build wise.

[Guest badbob]

The M as a system is actually inexpensive (that`s not the same as cost) if cost, depreciation of body and appreciation of lenses are taken into consideration. It`s all about the lenses. The T will have to show yet, that its lenses are holding their value or even appreciate. I see no reason why they should as they are nothing special, neither performance nor build wise.

 

I bought a M Monochrom and Noctilux lens for $18945, and the best I could get selling it 9 months later, with very little use in mint condition with all original packing etc., was $5400 and $7100 - i.e. $12500 total. Less than 2/3 what I paid. I advertised the 2 pieces for a couple of months on several forums, and couldn't even get anyone to make an offer, until I got lucky and someone bought the lens, then they found me a buyer for the camera. BTW, that lens was perfect - not even a tiny imperfection.

 

Nobody has inquired since then either. But 3 months before I bought the MM/Noctilux, I sold my X Vario for $2150, or 3/4 what I paid.

 

As far as 'T' lenses go, they are unique to the 'T', and that's not arguable. I sure wouldn't think of buying the T and then sticking some non-T lens on it. I realize that some people do that, but my purpose in having a T is to take T photos, and if the T body and T lens aren't up to my expectations, I'd just get something else, maybe another X Vario.

[Ecaton]

I bought a M Monochrom and Noctilux lens for $18945, and the best I could get selling it 9 months later, with very little use in mint condition with all original packing etc., was $5400 and $7100 - i.e. $12500 total. Less than 2/3 what I paid. I advertised the 2 pieces for a couple of months on several forums, and couldn't even get anyone to make an offer, until I got lucky and someone bought the lens, then they found me a buyer for the camera. BTW, that lens was perfect - not even a tiny imperfection.

 

Nobody has inquired since then either. But 3 months before I bought the MM/Noctilux, I sold my X Vario for $2150, or 3/4 what I paid.

 

As far as 'T' lenses go, they are unique to the 'T', and that's not arguable. I sure wouldn't think of buying the T and then sticking some non-T lens on it. I realize that some people do that, but my purpose in having a T is to take T photos, and if the T body and T lens aren't up to my expectations, I'd just get something else, maybe another X Vario.

 

I bought my M lenses 10-5 years ago used in mint condition exactly from sellers like you, except for two new ones which I got at below sticker prices as well. If sold today they all would go at significantly higher prices than what I paid.

[Guest badbob]

I bought my M lenses 10-5 years ago used in mint condition exactly from sellers like you, except for two new ones which I got at below sticker prices as well. If sold today they all would go at significantly higher prices than what I paid.

 

The point was resale value based on original price, and with 'M' gear it's lousy. Certainly if someone buys a T and lens at 60 percent of MSRP now, they will be able to sell it for a gain in 5 years. That's true of all real Leicas that I know of.

[jaapv]

In my experience resale value on anything you buy new is lousy. Just try and sell a mint roll of toilet paper....

[thighslapper]

In my experience resale value on anything you buy new is lousy. Just try and sell a mint roll of toilet paper....

 

We don't appear to have that flavour available in the UK ........

[jaapv]

:D

It is wonderful to wrap a mint Noctilux in. Better than Gaffer's tape on the dot