What is the current status of the Leica T?

[spitze1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would seem that a 16 MB sensor is no longer competitive. I am considering buying into the T system but so not want to spend this type of money to read that a new version is on the horizon. Does anyone think Leica may soon release a T series II with the 24 MB sensor?

[Guest]

Personally speaking I don't care any more about sensor size. The results attainable by the T and T lenses are in my view excellent. I like the interface and it is a great travel camera. I also use it in the studio up to now to take jewellery images. I will do the same with an SL.

[Advertisement]

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

[SirPiet]

Just read some evidence on upcoming T cameras, in the spec sheet for the new Summilux TL it says: compatible with all Leica T models, Leica SL (Type 601)

Since there is currently only one T and one SL model I guess we can expect the T2 rather sooner than later.

[bencoyote]

Just read some evidence on upcoming T cameras, in the spec sheet for the new Summilux TL it says: compatible with all Leica T models, Leica SL (Type 601)

Since there is currently only one T and one SL model I guess we can expect the T2 rather sooner than later.

 

Heh I had just noticed exactly the same thing. And wondered if the rumor had hit the forum yet.

[bencoyote]

It would seem that a 16 MB sensor is no longer competitive. I am considering buying into the T system but so not want to spend this type of money to read that a new version is on the horizon. Does anyone think Leica may soon release a T series II with the 24 MB sensor?

Leica has not been quick to jump on the megapixel race. Note that the M old, Q newish, and SL new all have 24MP sensors.

I haven't checked the math yet but I heard that all their cameras use 6 micron pixels. So a 24MP APS-C would surprise me.

 

My expectation is that we might see more ISO, better video, SL or Panasonic DFD focusing, and maybe some case design changes.

 

Considering the X2 and X vario are getting older and the relative reception of the Q over the T, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a diversification of the T line making a refreshed 701 touchscreen version, an ultra portable X like one without an EVF , and maybe a Q like one with an EVF. However, I think they will all be 16mp.

 

Around here, I think you will get a lot of people who disagree with your assertion that 16 megapixels is no longer competitive. What was it that you were planning to do with those files?  How big are the prints that you're intending to make?  What is the resolution of your screen?  And 4K video is how many megapixels?

Edited March 23, 2016 by bencoyote

[spitze1]

Leica has not been quick to jump on the megapixel race. Note that the M old, Q newish, and SL new all have 24MP sensors.

I haven't checked the math yet but I heard that all their cameras use 6 micron pixels. So a 24MP APS-C would surprise me.

 

My expectation is that we might see more ISO, better video, SL or Panasonic DFD focusing, and maybe some case design changes.

 

Considering the X2 and X vario are getting older and the relative reception of the Q over the T, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a diversification of the T line making a refreshed 701 touchscreen version, an ultra portable X like one without an EVF , and maybe a Q like one with an EVF. However, I think they will all be 16mp.

 

Around here, I think you will get a lot of people who disagree with your assertion that 16 megapixels is no longer competitive. What was it that you were planning to do with those files?  How big are the prints that you're intending to make?  What is the resolution of your screen?  And 4K video is how many megapixels?

 

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I perhaps overstated that 16 megapixels is not competitive. I don't necessarily buy into the megapixel race. I have been burned in the past buying "too soon" with a newer version issued shortly thereafter. I currently use a Canon 6D which is getting too bulky, especially with L lenses, for my tastes and aging body and a near polar opposite - a Sony RX100 IV. I have used Leica M cameras in the film era and have a wealth of Leica M glass sitting idly in my closet. As a first foray into a digital Leica system, I thought the T would make sense as I would like to use it for travel especially to national parks. 

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I perhaps overstated that 16 megapixels is not competitive. I don't necessarily buy into the megapixel race. I have been burned in the past buying "too soon" with a newer version issued shortly thereafter. I currently use a Canon 6D which is getting too bulky, especially with L lenses, for my tastes and aging body and a near polar opposite - a Sony RX100 IV. I have used Leica M cameras in the film era and have a wealth of Leica M glass sitting idly in my closet. As a first foray into a digital Leica system, I thought the T would make sense as I would like to use it for travel especially to national parks. 

 

Here is my honest appraisal of the T.

1. I like the T.
2. I feel like the UI is cutting edge and gives you great access to the manual features that you need while keeping things simple. 
3. I believe that the if anything Leica under sells the capabilities of the camera. They don't fudge on anything. They don't use tricks to bump up the ISO or push things to the edge of their capability. It is conservative in every way. For example, you will notice things like when you are focusing really closely, the lens will not go to full aperture. The result wouldn't be up to Leica standards and so the camera just won't do it.
4. It is a camera that gives you what you need to take good pictures and not a whit more. They certainly do not burden it with featuritis. 
5. I think that the T was kind of rough around the edges when it was released and it has gotten steadily better.
6. I think that the biggest mistake that Leica made was by not building in the EVF. You will need it for the manual lenses.
7. slow zoom lenses are a challenge and really an expert's tool. I don't believe that most people get this. I don't believe that most camera manufacturers get this. A 18-56 f/3.5-5.6 is a much harder lens to use than a 50mm f/2. You have to really know what you are doing to know how and when to appropriately use all the different focal distances. You have to know how to compose well to know to compose well to make good images in spite of the fact that you can't hide distractions in bokeh. 

However, given your particular situation I would consider getting a used M 240

• The price of used M's is currently down right now.
• To use the T with your M lenses you will need the M-adapter-T and will basically need the EVF. These two accessories will put you within striking range of a used M from eBay.
• The EVF reduces the carryability of the system considerably if you want to shove it into a bag or onto a holster.
• Focusing manual lenses on the T isn't quite as easy as with a rangefinder. This is highly debatable and might not matter to you given what you shoot.
• Because it is an APS-C rather than a full frame camera, your lens system will not be quite as well tuned as it was on film. A 35 will behave like a 50, a 50 like a 75, and I don't know if they made 24s before they released the M8.

I'm not suggesting not getting a T. I'm just suggesting that you CONSIDER getting a used M instead.

 

For me the T really shines when it is a grab and go situation or when AF is most important. For example today, I went running with a running club and the colors of the people's shirts were complemtary and looked cool amongst the trees. I pulled the T out of my backpack and while running, I shot a few frames WHILE RUNNING. Running with camera in my backpack? I had it with me "just in case". There is no way I could have pulled that off with the M. Plus the size and the weight of the M vs. the T makes it more practical for just tossing in my backpack just in case. On the other hand, if I was going running and I knew that I was going to go to a place where their we're going to be interesting shots, then I would have taken my M.

 

Since you have M glass, If you do decide to buy a T. I would consider getting the 23mm for general cases where you don't want to have to worry about focusing. And if you find that you need wider angle, the 11-23 is a fabulous lens and there aren't that many M lenses that wide.

[Belle123]

Latest rumor I have heard via someone more connected to Leica, a new M may be eminent sooner than expected with huge changes which suggests a newer T probably is further off.  I doubt they are significantly changing the T body for a built in EVF this soon.  And sounds like new M will set the forum on fire a bit.  If I was in the market for an M, would wait if you like to use the EVF.  For me, that means waiting for the next M to be converted to Monochrome.

 

All rumors of course.  

[spitze1]

Here is my honest appraisal of the T.

1. I like the T.
2. I feel like the UI is cutting edge and gives you great access to the manual features that you need while keeping things simple. 
3. I believe that the if anything Leica under sells the capabilities of the camera. They don't fudge on anything. They don't use tricks to bump up the ISO or push things to the edge of their capability. It is conservative in every way. For example, you will notice things like when you are focusing really closely, the lens will not go to full aperture. The result wouldn't be up to Leica standards and so the camera just won't do it.
4. It is a camera that gives you what you need to take good pictures and not a whit more. They certainly do not burden it with featuritis. 
5. I think that the T was kind of rough around the edges when it was released and it has gotten steadily better.
6. I think that the biggest mistake that Leica made was by not building in the EVF. You will need it for the manual lenses.
7. slow zoom lenses are a challenge and really an expert's tool. I don't believe that most people get this. I don't believe that most camera manufacturers get this. A 18-56 f/3.5-5.6 is a much harder lens to use than a 50mm f/2. You have to really know what you are doing to know how and when to appropriately use all the different focal distances. You have to know how to compose well to know to compose well to make good images in spite of the fact that you can't hide distractions in bokeh. 

However, given your particular situation I would consider getting a used M 240

• The price of used M's is currently down right now.
• To use the T with your M lenses you will need the M-adapter-T and will basically need the EVF. These two accessories will put you within striking range of a used M from eBay.
• The EVF reduces the carryability of the system considerably if you want to shove it into a bag or onto a holster.
• Focusing manual lenses on the T isn't quite as easy as with a rangefinder. This is highly debatable and might not matter to you given what you shoot.
• Because it is an APS-C rather than a full frame camera, your lens system will not be quite as well tuned as it was on film. A 35 will behave like a 50, a 50 like a 75, and I don't know if they made 24s before they released the M8.

I'm not suggesting not getting a T. I'm just suggesting that you CONSIDER getting a used M instead.

 

For me the T really shines when it is a grab and go situation or when AF is most important. For example today, I went running with a running club and the colors of the people's shirts were complemtary and looked cool amongst the trees. I pulled the T out of my backpack and while running, I shot a few frames WHILE RUNNING. Running with camera in my backpack? I had it with me "just in case". There is no way I could have pulled that off with the M. Plus the size and the weight of the M vs. the T makes it more practical for just tossing in my backpack just in case. On the other hand, if I was going running and I knew that I was going to go to a place where their we're going to be interesting shots, then I would have taken my M.

 

Since you have M glass, If you do decide to buy a T. I would consider getting the 23mm for general cases where you don't want to have to worry about focusing. And if you find that you need wider angle, the 11-23 is a fabulous lens and there aren't that many M lenses that wide.

Thank you for your very thoughtful post, Bencoyote. You have given me a few things to ponder. I may wait for the rumored new M while I think about my current situation.

[jrichie]

all I can say is I used to want an M and now I have the T I feel it is the best of all worlds, allowing autofocus when you want it with the ability to use M lenses.  All depends on the quality of output you want I guess.  

For me the T is spot on and I love it.

[jevidon]

Please note that if you take the 24 mgpxl FF sensor and cut it down to APSC size, the resultant mgpxl count is exactly 16 or the same as the Leica T and X family..  It is no surprise then, that if you compare the IQ of the Leica T to the Leica M or Q or even the SL, they all look pretty much identical as long as you are not into giant wall sized prints or extreme cropping with the T. Careful composition when you shoot will generally avoid extreme cropping. My printer has a 13 inch carriage, but I'm sure that even a 17 inch wide printer will produce excellent images with my T. If you insist on mgpxl bragging rights, buy a Sony a 6000 or 6300 with 24 mgpxl. My wife has one and it is a very nice camera. But below 1600 ISO, my T without an AA filter apparently produces a sharper image.

Edited May 3, 2016 by jevidon

[Belle123]

Please note that if you take the 24 mgpxl FF sensor and cut it down to APSC size, the resultant mgpxl count is exactly 16 or the same as the Leica T and X family..  It is no surprise then, that if you compare the IQ of the Leica T to the Leica M or Q or even the SL, they all look pretty much identical as long as you are not into giant wall sized prints or extreme cropping with the T. Careful composition when you shoot will generally avoid extreme cropping. My printer has a 13 inch carriage, but I'm sure that even a 17 inch wide printer will produce excellent images with my T. If you insist on mgpxl bragging rights, buy a Sony a 6000 or 6300 with 24 mgpxl. My wife has one and it is a very nice camera. But below 1600 ISO, my T without an AA filter apparently produces a sharper image.

I have the T, the M (was 240 and now the 246), and the Q.  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the T.  But one day awhile back I went around shooting the same scenes with both my T and my M 240, both with M glass.  The M won.  Why?  I can't answer that.  But to my eyes the images were better.  But the T images were still very very good.  

[CVickery]

Please note that if you take the 24 mgpxl FF sensor and cut it down to APSC size, the resultant mgpxl count is exactly 16 or the same as the Leica T and X family..  It is no surprise then, that if you compare the IQ of the Leica T to the Leica M or Q or even the SL, they all look pretty much identical as long as you are not into giant wall sized prints or extreme cropping with the T. Careful composition when you shoot will generally avoid extreme cropping. My printer has a 13 inch carriage, but I'm sure that even a 17 inch wide printer will produce excellent images with my T. If you insist on mgpxl bragging rights, buy a Sony a 6000 or 6300 with 24 mgpxl. My wife has one and it is a very nice camera. But below 1600 ISO, my T without an AA filter apparently produces a sharper image.

Not to disagree with the essence of your statement, but your math is off...crop a 24mgpxl FF sensor to APSC size and you get a ~10mgpxl image, not 16. Not a huge difference really, but there is a resolution impact that can be apparent a larger print sizes. 

[Belle123]

Not to disagree with the essence of your statement, but your math is off...crop a 24mgpxl FF sensor to APSC size and you get a ~10mgpxl image, not 16. Not a huge difference really, but there is a resolution impact that can be apparent a larger print sizes. 

The T produces 16.3 MP images, just to clarify.  Now on the SL using the TL lenses, it's 10MP.

[bencoyote]

Please note that if you take the 24 mgpxl FF sensor and cut it down to APSC size, the resultant mgpxl count is exactly 16 or the same as the Leica T and X family..  It is no surprise then, that if you compare the IQ of the Leica T to the Leica M or Q or even the SL, they all look pretty much identical as long as you are not into giant wall sized prints or extreme cropping with the T. Careful composition when you shoot will generally avoid extreme cropping. My printer has a 13 inch carriage, but I'm sure that even a 17 inch wide printer will produce excellent images with my T. If you insist on mgpxl bragging rights, buy a Sony a 6000 or 6300 with 24 mgpxl. My wife has one and it is a very nice camera. But below 1600 ISO, my T without an AA filter apparently produces a sharper image.

 

Can you explain your math,  I get a different number when I do mine. It appears to me that the season on a full frame camera would be around 36mp if your math were correct then the T would only be about 10mp which agrees with what you get when you mount a TL lens on a SL.

[LexS]

It would seem that a 16 MB sensor is no longer competitive. I am considering buying into the T system but so not want to spend this type of money to read that a new version is on the horizon. Does anyone think Leica may soon release a T series II with the 24 MB sensor?

 

My two cents: in my opinion pixelnumbers have not much to do with quality...

[jmschuh]

Fujifilm made a sensor update from 16MP to 24MP (X-Pro2). The difference in resolution in not so big. The difference in noise is not so big. After some tests for my own, I see no advantage in 24MP on a APS-C Sensor. But it´s marketing and we will get it sooner or later.

 

I would prefer a 16-20MP CMOS sensor with a better signal-noise-ratio, an EVF and a more traditional method of operation and not touch only.

 

I would prefer to see the aperture, shutter and ISO below the picture and not left in the display above the image when shooting.

[bencoyote]

I would agree that 16 vs 24 mp really doesn't matter very much to me. I think that noise is fine at least up to 1600 and I don't really think that I need more in this camera but what I would love in adopting a new generation of sensor is more dynamic range i.e. Bits per pixel per color channel and the effective decrease in the DR as ISO increases slowed.

[LexS]

Can you explain your math,  I get a different number when I do mine. It appears to me that the season on a full frame camera would be around 36mp if your math were correct then the T would only be about 10mp which agrees with what you get when you mount a TL lens on a SL.

 

CVickery is right. the surface of the 24MP sensor is 864 mm2, the surface of a APS-C sensor is 368 mm2. thus 368/864 is 10MP, while the sensor of the T is 16MP !! meaning higher pixel density.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jevidon]

CVickery is right. the surface of the 24MP sensor is 864 mm2, the surface of a APS-C sensor is 368 mm2. thus 368/864 is 10MP, while the sensor of the T is 16MP !! meaning higher pixel density.

 

 

Whoops!