Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Full frame or not is not a quality parameter for me. I would prefer a superior APS-C over a so-so full-frame. It is the result that counts. If the previous X cameras are anything to go by, sensor size will not be an issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that small a camera though. Same length as M bodies more or less (14cm).

Same length as a Barnack Leica: 13cm - and perhaps something, differing how you measure. That is also the length of the X.

 

When I first saw the leaked photo, my reaction was: they missed the design of the Leica II - a larger „hump“ on the top could have underlined the similarity. Though that would have been without any function as it would never have been big enough for the larger viewfinder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I‘ve got a T and a M but this little beauty will complete my collection. This is the Leica I have eben waiting für so long

 

 

That sounds as if you know a lot more about this camera. Do tell...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the difference between a TL3 with viewfinder and an XY with the same mount and same sensor? Makes little sense and I don’t see how come they could appeal to different market segments. Both pricing in the high $2000 or even more I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see good reasons for mirrorless cameras with built-in EVF but why such a large size for a mere APS-C body? 14 and 13cm are not the same length. All my M & R full frame Leicas are 14cm more or less. X1 & X2 are closer to 12cm and my Fuji X-E2 is 13cm. Desire to copy bulkier Fuji X-Pros? The latters have the excuse of an hybrid EVF at least...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

if it has the same 4MP EVF as the SL then it should do very well and if it's priced aggressively it could upset the mirrorless market although historically I think that's unlikely.  Would one interest me?  Probably not because it would find difficulty getting out of the house ahead of the M10, the SL, and the C, which all have their particular purposes and would, I assume, cover what the XY has to offer.

 

I'm glad to see Leica continuing to develop and innovate.

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that people who like the TL dislike the XY and vica versa shows that Leica got it just right. They want to sell both lines and not have one eat into the other.

 

I'm not sure about that. The general impression I've had is that the T cameras didn't sell as well as hoped for, so maybe that's why Leica decided to adopt a more traditional look for the new camera.

 

I personally would have preferred a 'mini SL' design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that. The general impression I've had is that the T cameras didn't sell as well as hoped for, so maybe that's why Leica decided to adopt a more traditional look for the new camera.

 

I personally would have preferred a 'mini SL' design.

i ultimately chose the q over the t because the t was too d@mn heavy that solid brick of aluminum weighs a lot and carrying it around all day is tiring 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i ultimately chose the q over the t because the t was too d@mn heavy that solid brick of aluminum weighs a lot and carrying it around all day is tiring

 

Well, the CL is heavier than the TL2! Add on visoflex to the TL2, might be a tad heavier. Real question is how they compare in comfort on the grip.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...