Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on April 04, 2014, 12:43:52 pm
-
http://photorumors.com/2014/04/04/this-is-the-upcoming-leica-t-type-701-camera/
If this is true then this will be the most depressing moment in the history of Leica IMHO, this camera doesn't seem to be even remotely related to Leica design aesthetic or function aside from the fact that it will accept Leica M mount lenses with an adapter....
....A non-full frame (APS-C) camera with an EVF..... ~ and we know it won't be the latest and greatest EVF...
....a body made in Germany....lenses made in Asia...~I'm hoping that they have that backwards...
relatively concerning seeing the latest products coming out of Leica....
-
www.the.me/more-details-on-the-compact-system-camera-leica-t-codenamed-taifun/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themephoto+%28theme%29
-
http://photorumors.com/2014/04/04/this-is-the-upcoming-leica-t-type-701-camera/
If this is true then this will be the most depressing moment in the history of Leica IMHO ...
....A non-full frame (APS-C) camera with an EVF
Why is either a 24x16mm format or an EVF so depressing, so long as there are lenses designed for its format and Leica also keeps making true rangefinders in 36x24mm format, and SLRs in 45x30mm format? I do not see a problem in Leica offering a range of format sizes, price levels, and viewfinder technologies.
-
Why is either a 24x16mm format or an EVF so depressing, so long as there are lenses designed for its format and Leica also keeps making true rangefinders in 36x24mm format, and SLRs in 45x30mm format? I do not see a problem in Leica offering a range of format sizes, price levels, and viewfinder technologies.
You are absolutely correct. I would have thought this is the first step in Leica's 'end game'. A new Leica S, in all probability by the end of the year, The Leica M (240) evolves, The M-E is distanced from the 240 by turning it into a pure EVF - no more rangefinder - and a direct competitor to the A7 series etc etc. This is but a first step into the APS-C domain. Full frame mirrorless is here to stay and who better than Leica to finally cater to the mass of M lenses currently being used on a variety of EVIL's ?
The priority is not going to be autofocus but the implementation of combined live view and focus peaking.
-
http://photorumors.com/2014/04/04/this-is-the-upcoming-leica-t-type-701-camera/
If this is true then this will be the most depressing moment in the history of Leica IMHO
It feels like somebody is trying to start a Lunar here…
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Excellent strategy from Leica!
-
The priority is not going to be autofocus but the implementation of combined live view and focus peaking.
Taking lotsa pics over the past few days with my "new" (to me) Leica M8.2, it's made clear to me again how fast rangefinder focusing is relative to magnified EVF focusing. I can snap an image into focus with a good RF faster than it takes to think about doing it. Like riding a bike. IMO cameras with EVFs would benefit from a speedier manual focusing option, maybe something like Fuji's split-image scheme.
-Dave-
-
I don't like this obsession with Made In Germany.
A quality prodict can be made anywhere and Made In Germany is in itself no guarantee of anything let alone quality. So, please lets drop the automatic negativity to anything made in Asia or anywhere else not Germany.
Lets instead judge a product for what it is and not because of the badge or where it's made.
-
Leica M bodies are assembled in Portugal. (At least I think they still are.) At one time Leitz had a facility in Canada where they made lenses. Some of my favorites are Canadian. My German-made Y/C Zeiss SLR lenses are no better or worse than their Japanese-made counterparts. Pentax lenses from the 1970s & '80s are among the best-built, smoothest operating I own...all made in Japan. Last year I bought a Korean-made Guild M75 Aristocrat electric guitar. High quality materials, fantastic workmanship, great playability & sound. Fender, Gibson and even Guild would've killed for this kind of quality back in the 1970s guitar nadir. These days, with automated processes, place of manufacture has little relevance. Design and materials used are what matter.
-Dave-
-
monocoque aluminium ...
(https://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/tnr-production/uploads/post/4918/images/634/large_Leica_T_03.jpg)
(https://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/tnr-production/uploads/post/4918/images/632/Leica_T_05.jpg)
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-pictures-ot-the-leica-t-has-aluminum-unibody-just-like-your-macbook-pro
-
I don't like this obsession with Made In Germany.
Zeiss decided to have the Zeiss Otus manufactured by Cosina in Japan for a reason... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've discussed this elsewhere before, but Leica is a company that makes superlative mechanics and optics. Unfortunately, only one of those is truly crucial to camera design and manufacturing anymore, and it ain't the former.
Prior to going digital, Leica's cameras were already behind the 8-ball when it came to electronics. It's why they turned to Minolta in the 1970s (and in recent years to Panasonic).
As soon as the camera became both mechanism AND medium (aka digital cameras), this problem was magnified over night.
The company's solution (I think wisely) was to position itself as an ultra high end purveyor of luxury photographic instruments. They turned a disadvantage — building cameras using expensive antediluvian technology — into a strength by marketing their products as exclusive, luxury goods manufactured with "old world craftsmanship".
Leica became the Rolex of cameras; a fashion statement.
If I sound flippant or cynical, I don't mean to be; IMO it was a smart move on their part. The photographic world can certainly support one uber luxury camera brand … and Leica ought to be it.
I really can't comment on Leica's forthcoming interchangeable mirrorless camera. My biggest fear is that it will continue the tradition of using electronics that are a few years behind current, state-of-the-art Japanese designs — thus overpriced and under spec'd — but we won't know for sure until it's announced.
-
I've discussed this elsewhere before, but Leica is a company that makes superlative mechanics and optics. Unfortunately, only one of those is truly crucial to camera design and manufacturing anymore, and it ain't the former.
Prior to going digital, Leica's cameras were already behind the 8-ball when it came to electronics. It's why they turned to Minolta in the 1970s (and in recent years to Panasonic).
As soon as the camera became both mechanism AND medium (aka digital cameras), this problem was magnified over night.
The company's solution (I think wisely) was to position itself as an ultra high end purveyor of luxury photographic instruments. They turned a disadvantage — building cameras using expensive antediluvian technology — into a strength by marketing their products as exclusive, luxury goods manufactured with "old world craftsmanship".
Leica became the Rolex of cameras; a fashion statement.
If I sound flippant or cynical, I don't mean to be; IMO it was a smart move on their part. The photographic world can certainly support one uber luxury camera brand … and Leica ought to be it.
I really can't comment on Leica's forthcoming interchangeable mirrorless camera. My biggest fear is that it will continue the tradition of using electronics that are a few years behind current, state-of-the-art Japanese designs — thus overpriced and under spec'd — but we won't know for sure until it's announced.
IMO it is a bit unfair to only see Leica as a fashion statement.
I am certainly not going to defend Leica as the best camera in the world. It is not. In a lot of ways it is by no means a modern camera.
But it is a lot of fun and it has the potential to produce unique images!! And for a lot of people it represents photographic pleasure in its purest and simplest form. What is not to like about that?
PS. I assume you are talking about the Leica M mainly, there is obviously also the Leica S.
-
I was speaking of the M Series, yes.
I'm not seeing Leica strictly as a fashion statement. But there's no denying that the company itself sees itself, at least in part, this way. Just look at the special edition Ms that have been created in conjunction with fashion manufacturers. It speaks volumes about where the company is positioning itself.
Not denying that shooting with a Leica is a fun or pleasurable experience. For many, it is a great (if limited) instrument to capture images. And the lenses are uniformly excellent (unlike the Japanese manufactures who cater to everyone from pros, to prosumers, to casual snap-shooters … with optics that reflect that).
I guess what I'm saying is that while Leica is relevant as a maker of luxury instruments, it hasn't been particularly relevant as a camera manufacturer, per se, since about 1970. I would like to see them change this. But it will require designing and building a cutting edge camera that caters to photographers' needs first and foremost, and rich collectors second. The M3 was cutting edge for its day. Leica haven't topped that relative level of innovation since.
-
I'm not seeing Leica strictly as a fashion statement. But there's no denying that the company itself sees itself, at least in part, this way. Just look at the special edition Ms that have been created in conjunction with fashion manufacturers. It speaks volumes about where the company is positioning itself.
I think they're doing this simply because it allows them to survive. Leica is a small company. They don't have the resources to go toe-to-toe with the big players. So they've found a niche they can fill. I hope whatever it is they're doing with this new camera system finds a sustainable niche too, and maybe even allows them to broaden their appeal a bit.
-Dave-
-
I'm not criticizing their strategy so much as hoping that they'll create a quality product that is a bit more on the cutting edge ... and yet still attainable to serious photographers, as opposed to just the rich.
They are a smallish company, but they seem to have the resources to open dedicated stores around the world, much like high-end jewelers and clothiers, e.g. Tiffany & Co., Gucci, Polo, Yves Saint Laurent, etc.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that while Leica is relevant as a maker of luxury instruments, it hasn't been particularly relevant as a camera manufacturer, per se, since about 1970.
I tend to disagree here. The Leica M9 was IMO very relevant as the first FF digital camera in such a small package.
But it will require designing and building a cutting edge camera that caters to photographers' needs first and foremost, and rich collectors second.
This is precisely the intention of the Leica S… Leica is using the S to re-connect with professional photographers. The Leica M is the milk cow that is making that possible.
I'm not criticizing their strategy so much as hoping that they'll create a quality product that is a bit more on the cutting edge ...
What is cutting edge? The latest and greatest specs…? I am sorry but I might not be that interested.
The latest generation of cameras is already better than most photographers will ever be and slightly more DR or better focus tracking is not going to keep me awake at night…
-
I walk past 2 leica shops several times a week, I have never seen a customer inside or going in/out, maybe they sell a lot of microscopes/industrial optical products to keep these loss-leader outlets going?
-
I walk past 2 leica shops several times a week, I have never seen a customer inside or going in/out, maybe they sell a lot of microscopes/industrial optical products to keep these loss-leader outlets going?
Leica Microsystems makes those products but the current Leica Camera company doesn't. Two different firms. Leica Camera makes cameras, camera lenses, binoculars & spotting scopes. That's it. Dunno if the stores are profitable or not but I'd guess they are.
-Dave-
-
I walk past 2 leica shops several times a week, I have never seen a customer inside or going in/out, maybe they sell a lot of microscopes/industrial optical products to keep these loss-leader outlets going?
I visited the Leica store in NYC last year. It is very busy but then again a lot of it is tourists.
As discussed in the store I sent them an email afterwards with gear that I wanted to trade in to partially fund a Leica S. They do sell used gear in the store as well.
I never got a reply… I could understand that they were not interested but at least have the decency to reply to a potential customer!
A few months later I sent a reminder email. Also no reply…
One thing is sure. If I ever do decide to buy the Leica S my first stop won't be the Leica store in NYC...
-
I'm not suggesting that Leica move to autofocus for the M, because it would be an enormous engineering hurdle and stray too far from the company's entrenched reputation for building traditional rangefinders.
Thus, the Leica is a precision tool for a very specific type of shooting. However, it's not a highly versatile professional tool for a wide variety of shooting situations.
That said, there are some things that could be improved upon, such as higher ISO performance. For example, I'm not particularly impressed with the CMOSIS sensor tech used in the 240, and think Leica would be better served using current generation Sony sensors.
There are a few items of control operation that could stand improvement as well, but I'm not going to get bogged down listing them all here.
-
I'm not suggesting that Leica move to autofocus for the M, because it would be an enormous engineering hurdle and stray too far from the company's entrenched reputation for building traditional rangefinders.
Thus, the Leica is a precision tool for a very specific type of shooting. However, it's not a highly versatile professional tool for a wide variety of shooting situations.
That said, there are some things that could be improved upon, such as higher ISO performance. For example, I'm not particularly impressed with the CMOSIS sensor tech used in the 240, and think Leica would be better served using current generation Sony sensors.
There are a few items of control operation that could stand improvement as well, but I'm not going to get bogged down listing them all here.
Interesting… just out of curiosity, do you actually own a M 240? Have you ever shot one?
-
I do not own an M240, but I have a friend who owns one and I have shot with his on a few occasions. Personally, I own at late '30s Leica III and an M3.
-
I have my issues with the basic look of the M240's files, but they're malleable enough that you can work 'em in post to pretty much get what you want. One of the reasons I've taken so well to the M8 is the ease of getting a look I really like. The tonal separation present in the RAW data stays intact no matter what processor I use.
I can see a future M camera abandoning the opto-mechanical rangefinder in favor of an electronic one. This would improve focusing accuracy, if properly implemented, and eliminate the need for an external EVF. A drawback, though, would be the loss of seeing outside the field-of-view of your mounted lens.
-Dave-
-
I think getting rid of the opto-mechanical rangefinder mechanism would be a tough choice for Leica to make; it would mark the passing of a very long era for them and might hurt their purist base.
The likelihood is that Fuji's X-Pro 2 will use an improved version of their OVF/EVF hybrid system, whereby the OVF will be further tweaked, and the EVF will be another iteration beyond the already excellent one in the new X-T1.
Such a system really will offer the best of both worlds, and may be something that Leica will eventually need to adopt in a future M. Though not sure how Leica would feel about emulating a Japanese company in their flagship line.
-
Not all Sony sensors are off-the-shelf solutions. Most are custom designed (or tweaked by the destination manufacturer) to suit the purposes of the particular camera in question. The same could hold true for Leica.
I hope Leica continues for a long time, too. But people tend to have short memories, and Leica have traditionally been very shortsighted. They almost went bankrupt back in 2005, largely because they were too slow to enter the modern world (read: adopts new technologies). I hope they learned something from this.
The primary reason they've turned things around is because they've subsequently positioned themselves as a purveyor of high-end luxury goods.
For example, here in Vancouver one of our local retailers has a Leica boutique within his store. The manager of the store told me in no uncertain terms that 95% of the buyers are well-heeled Asian shoppers who are purchasing Leica for its status. Only a tiny percentage of them are serious about photography.
Targeting the uber-rich is a perfectly valid strategy … I would just like to see Leica target serious photographers as well — ones who aren't perhaps quite as wealthy — with a product that is a little more reasonably priced and fully competitive.
Perhaps that's not possible within their new business model, I dunno.
My fear is that this new T-Type 701 camera will be beautifully made mechanically, but that it will still suffer from slow autofocus, poor high ISO performance, etc … and yet will still be priced way above other cameras that offer better overall performance for actual photographers. That's unacceptable, IMO.
I could be wrong. I sincerely hope I am.
-
My fear is that this new T-Type 701 camera will be beautifully made mechanically, but that it will still suffer from slow autofocus, poor high ISO performance, etc … and yet will still be priced way above other cameras that offer better overall performance for actual photographers. That's unacceptable, IMO.
Yeah, the electronic stuff will need to be done right. But I suspect this system will have a lot of Panasonic DNA in it, which if true bodes well for AF, etc.
I'm a spectator on this one in any case. :D
-Dave-
-
"Why the fear? Is it really an option you are looking to buy?"
Possibly. If it really has a 'very quiet shutter', I have an application, but it would also require high ISO capacity on par with Fuji's X-Trans sensor. I doubt we'll see that.
--
"I'm sure it's perfectly acceptable to all those well-heeled Asian shoppers who are purchasing Leica for its status."
You hit the nail on the head, sarcasm notwithstanding.
--
"Oh, I think you'll find they do, but perhaps you're far more serious about your photography than those here who are just using Leica cameras to earn their living?"
More power to you. But in the world of professional photography, "those here who are … using Leica cameras to earn their living" remain very much in the minority.
-
I don't see any issue either with Leica releasing another APS-C camera. This sensor format, and the system around it, could be appropriate for the targeted market, i.e. amateurs (and by that I mean selfie shooters/football mums) with enough disposable income.
I guess I'm being a bit cynical here, but since the Leica T seemingly won't be supporting aperture rings, I very much doubt it would make for a good spiritual descendent of the CL :-X
Though the company could still decide to release some lenses with such a ring down the road, like the did with recent µ4/3 Panasonic lenses.
-
Canon isn't particularly "cutting edge" anymore. Of course, neither are they antediluvian, either.
If anyone is pushing the envelope these days I'd say it's Fujifilm. It will be interesting to see what comes of their development [along with Panasonic] of organic sensor technology.
-
"those here who are … using Leica cameras to earn their living"remain very much in the minority.
Your probably right. The professional camera of choice, is a 5d1/2/3 or a nikon dee something.
Leica.
You can't spit the first syllable out the name without someone saying yea . . . rich dentists, or lately. . . rich Chinese looking for dash a ornament for their Bentley.
Now I know most people are going to take exception to this, but to me no camera company defines photography as Leica.
I'm not a carry a camera 24 hours a day type of guy.
I've tried with those little olympus em-1 and em-5 and I love em to death, but whatever I throw one on my shoulder when we go out, I shoot something and I just don't ever do anything but clear the card, though once again, I'm not really a street photographer.
I do sometimes carry my m8 and It always inspires me. Maybe not as a single photo, usually something I see that I can use as the genesis to build a composite, but regardless, I use it take pictures and actually use them.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/m8_sf.jpg)
Compared to modern cameras everything with an m series is old and wrong. No autofocus, a pretty good meter but not great, lenses past 75mm are almost impossible to frame and focus but I rarely use anything but the 24mm anyway.
Using an overpriced, outdated Leica is like the first time you have a meal prepared by a Sicilian chef rather than Olive Garden. You understand why a salad really is worth $27.
Regardless, there is three positives about these old style limitations.
They're actual cameras, not camera shaped smart phones, no matter how much electronic c__p they hide in them.
Picking up a fuji pro something is like going to the apple store and looking a speakers. Those huge things that look like real speakers until you lift them and you realize they are made from recycled evian bottles.
Secondly, you'll probably never sell the Leica. I mean, there is very little reason to because m8 to m 240 or 360 or wherever they take it, it will look, work and do the same stuff. Even the S2 to S is pretty much the same, whether they stick with ccd or go to cmosoes.
The last and most important thing is Leicas make you use the most important tool you own . . . your brain.
When you compose you think about it, when you focus you line up some little squares and and . . . you think about it.
The thing about real leicas including the S2 is they aren't perfect. The ccd versions shoot cool, like film and everybody can say cmos makes them wet . . . don't care, because ccd makes me work like film which means we actually work to make a photo.
Working at making something interesting is good.
IMO
BC
-
Leica.
You can't spit the first syllable out the name without someone saying yea . . . rich dentists, or lately. . . rich Chinese looking for dash a ornament for their Bentley....
The last and most important thing is Leicas make you use the most important tool you own . . . your brain.
IMO
BC
I do wonder why there seems to be a tend to refer to some cameras or the companies who make them in mildly derogatory terms. Can't we love what we love and let the others exist with our blessing?
These days electronic companies have the temerity to make cameras but so what? They're not camera phones they're cameras and any unwanted add ons such as wifi and HDR can be turned off or ignored leaving you with, if that's what you want, a camera set to manual.
I've never owned a Leica as I just didn't see the need to spend that much money. Instead I owned lesser RF's each with a single lens and enjoyed using cheaper but still enjoyable gear. I sold my RF's years ago and although I do still own film cameras it's just for the memories and my most used camera now and for some time was made by a massive far eastern company - and I love it. They make cameras, fridges, vacuum cleaners and all manor of things and they probably make ships too and they almost certainly make phones but what I own is a camera and I use old manual lenses on it in aperture and occasionally manual mode and to me it's a very film shooting like experience and not at all like phoning my dentist.
-
Your probably right. The professional camera of choice, is a 5d1/2/3 or a nikon dee something.
Leica.
You can't spit the first syllable out the name without someone saying yea . . . rich dentists, or lately. . . rich Chinese looking for dash a ornament for their Bentley.
Now I know most people are going to take exception to this, but to me no camera company defines photography as Leica.
I'm not a carry a camera 24 hours a day type of guy.
I've tried with those little olympus em-1 and em-5 and I love em to death, but whatever I throw one on my shoulder when we go out, I shoot something and I just don't ever do anything but clear the card, though once again, I'm not really a street photographer.
I do sometimes carry my m8 and It always inspires me. Maybe not as a single photo, usually something I see that I can use as the genesis to build a composite, but regardless, I use it take pictures and actually use them.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/m8_sf.jpg)
Compared to modern cameras everything with an m series is old and wrong. No autofocus, a pretty good meter but not great, lenses past 75mm are almost impossible to frame and focus but I rarely use anything but the 24mm anyway.
Using an overpriced, outdated Leica is like the first time you have a meal prepared by a Sicilian chef rather than Olive Garden. You understand why a salad really is worth $27.
Regardless, there is three positives about these old style limitations.
They're actual cameras, not camera shaped smart phones, no matter how much electronic c__p they hide in them.
Picking up a fuji pro something is like going to the apple store and looking a speakers. Those huge things that look like real speakers until you lift them and you realize they are made from recycled evian bottles.
Secondly, you'll probably never sell the Leica. I mean, there is very little reason to because m8 to m 240 or 360 or wherever they take it, it will look, work and do the same stuff. Even the S2 to S is pretty much the same, whether they stick with ccd or go to cmosoes.
The last and most important thing is Leicas make you use the most important tool you own . . . your brain.
When you compose you think about it, when you focus you line up some little squares and and . . . you think about it.
The thing about real leicas including the S2 is they aren't perfect. The ccd versions shoot cool, like film and everybody can say cmos makes them wet . . . don't care, because ccd makes me work like film which means we actually work to make a photo.
Working at making something interesting is good.
IMO
BC
I completely get what you're trying to say here.
But let me ask you this, Russell: Could you / would you realistically jettison every other piece of gear you own and use your Leica(s) exclusively for all of your professional work?
I think we both know the answer to that, and I think when you strip everything else away, it drives to the core of the matter.
There's no question that a particular instrument or the right tool can emotionally motivate someone to push their creativity further; to work harder; to connect to their art more completely by its very nature. So we're sort of "right brain"-ing ourselves at this point, but I'll accept that as a valid argument. This is artistic expression, after all, and whatever inspires you artistically is legitimate.
However, can said instrument give a photographer who lacks "vision" eyes with which to see the world around him/her?
I don't think so.
Moreover, all of today's higher end cameras are generally capable of producing images better than what the photographer is capable of creating.
So, it's the photographer, then. To borrow from a familiar phrase (in the US at least): Cameras don't take pictures, people take pictures.
Consider this: If you remove emotion from the argument, what you see with Leica, historically, is a company that innovated consistently right up until the M3. Remember, at the time the M was introduced, nobody used terms like "traditional", or "old school", or a "slower more methodical way of shooting"; the M3 was simply state-of-the-art for its time. In fact, it was "faster" and more responsive than anything else. Sound familiar?
They haven't done anything like that since. Every subsequent M has been an iterative evolution of that same basic design (today that's being marketed as "traditional"). Engineering innovation from Leica after the M3 slowed…markedly. This was likely due to the Japanese entering the camera market en masse around the same time.
And by the 1970s Leica missed entirely the importance of the SLR. The Leicaflex SL — solidly built though it may have been — couldn't compete on any real-world level with the Nikon F2 or Canon F1, to say nothing of the ELs, EFs, FEs, FAs, A1s, etc that followed, all of which embraced the electronics revolution that was occurring. So, who did Leica turn to for help? Minolta; hence the XE-7 became the R3.
(Notice I'm not questioning Leica's optics here; we all know they're magnificent.)
What I'm arguing is that it would be nice for Leica to innovate again, rather than just market what is effectively a half-century old design to rich collectors. I'm not saying stop the M cameras; their longevity has clearly become entrenched in our collective photographic DNA. But show us something NEW that demonstrates Leica is capable of innovating once again. (I don't think fully entering the 21st century with a new product has to subtract anything from the M, or Leica's tradition.)
Leica does industrial design and menus, etc. very elegantly. It's the electronic guts where they continually come up behind. Don't just give us a mirrorless camera made of unobtanium or vibranium, or some other rare Earth material, and then stick 3-year-old electronics or a 2-year-old sensor design into it and call it a day. Don't handicap it with slow autofocus or poor high ISO performance.
Maybe I'll be wrong and they'll surprise us with something amazing. I hope so.
Let me just add: the photographic world needs Leica. Leica is a part of modern photographic history and tradition. Today more than ever. Their very existence gives photography a certain cachet, particularly in this world of smartphone proliferation. But I think if they want to continue commanding exorbitant prices from serious photographers, they need to offer products that are as competitive functionally as they are well-crafted physically.
-
Leica T Website is Made Live by Accident (http://lavidaleica.com/content/leica-t-website-made-live-accident)
Cheers,
-
Everything else about the T may or may not be useful to enough people to make it a viable product, but who is buying any kind of a camera for anything more than iPhone snaps that does not have a viewfinder. Once you put the viewfinder on it, it becomes a Frankenstein.
-
Personally I have no angst about Leica innovating or not innovating. The opto-mechanical 135-format rangefinder camera was IMO perfected with the M3, and it's just been tweaking ever since. Electronic sensors are nothing but another kind of tweak. You either love Leica RFs or you don't, but if you do you likely don't worry about innovation...you just want the latest one to do that thing the older one did/does. For convenience sake I like that my M8s save image data to SD cards rather than film frames, but otherwise they're basically M6s (which are themselves just M2/3/4s with lightmeters). And that's a good thing.
Now this new T camera is a different thing. It may or may not be innovative or prove successful...we shall see. But it seems Leica is interested in more than just iterating new M & S models. That could be a good thing too.
-Dave-
-
Well said, Dave. And I understand wholeheartedly what BC says. I had an M8 and sold it because I was doing a project where I needed the 75mm and 90mm range and I hated not being able to frame accurately. Got myself two Sony A900's with Zeiss glass that got the job done, but man, did I miss my M camera and glass.
I'm working exclusively with an S2 now for more then a year and I really like what I'm getting out of this camera, the glass being exceptional. Strange thing is, the A900 and the S2 are in a lot of ways quite similar, but the images I get from the S are more satisfying, I'm thinking perhaps that's because I work harder when I'm on a Leica.
-
Well its out.
I think I will be chuckling away at the $1800 price tag on the 18-56 kit zoom. insane.
-
The review of Steve Huff:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/04/24/the-leica-t-type-701-unibody-digital-camera-review-by-steve-huff/
Obviously most people know what to expect from Steve Huff...
-
Let me try to make some sense of the pricing:
1) At US$1950, the 23mm f/2 Summicron is a bargain by Leica standards: its closest 35mm format counterpart, the 35mm f/2, is US$3,200, so you save enough on this lens to buy the EVF (US$595) and an elegant leather holster/strap (http://leicarumors.com/2014/04/23/leica-t-website-now-live.aspx/t-system-accessories-leather-holster-cross-category-teaser_teaser-307x205/).
2) Once the value of Leica lenses justifies their pricing, the price of body and accessories is little to worry about.
-
A few observations:
With the EVF included it is double the price of the Fuji X-T1 ($2.2K versus $4.4K)...
The Fuji X-T1 has good ISO performance though and an excellent and bright built-in EVF...
Only x3 and x6 magnification available as manual focusing aid...?
About the IQ being better, how can you really tell when only looking at JPEGs? What counts for me is the file you obtain after using a capable raw converter.
-
I have my issues with the basic look of the M240's files, but they're malleable enough that you can work 'em in post to pretty much get what you want. ....
-Dave-
A bit like most other recent cameras, I'd guess.
Roy
-
Neither does talking the talk (to borrow from another familiar phrase).
Well, one can always walk away from the talk at any time.
-
I've no doubt Leica will sell chests full of T.
I think so as well. And the whole Leica boutique concept suddenly makes a lot more sense…
It is a boutique and lifestyle camera. It was designed to be hip, cool and stylish. And I believe it will deliver.
Feature wise and price wise there is no way it can compete with the Fuji X-T1 or similar cameras. It is not even close and at double the price.
But then again if that 23mm lens delivers and if it is fun to use, why the hell not?
-
In my opinion this camera is a revolution, just like the iPhone was a revolution in the phones market.
In terms of design, this is a radical change or, if you prefer it, a clever turn of the screw.
Leica has suppressed all unnecessary physical controls.
It does not make any sense the interaction of a physical button or wheel with a passive screen (play, delete, set, iso... ok, up, down, right, left... and so on), when you can do the same on an active screen. More simple, more elegant, better interface. And Leica did this very well (responsive, elegant).
Leica keeps two direct controls in the T, two wheels, the same controls you had in the M and S (aperture and exposure time). In aperture priority you can transfer a different function to one of these wheels (or not).
This is ultra minimalism, but meaningful minimalism. And we will see other cameras with this same philosophy, by Leica and other manufacturers. This is the interface of the future and I would like to see this implemented on a M camera.
Leica has been the first in going so far. It is incredible Sony or Samsung did not see this. But they did not. It was Leica.
Leica's designers should be proud of this seminal innovation.
-
^ dont believe the hype people. :D
so what do you gain over a nex-3? it’s the same sensor isn’t it?
-
^ dont believe the hype people. :D
so what do you gain over a nex-3? it’s the same sensor isn’t it?
Well, in the minds of its purchasers, they gain status. The raison d'etre of luxury brands and IMO a damning comment on our society.
Roy
-
Leica has suppressed all unnecessary physical controls.
It does not make any sense the interaction of a physical button or wheel with a passive screen (play, delete, set, iso... ok, up, down, right, left... and so on), when you can do the same on an active screen. More simple, more elegant, better interface. And Leica did this very well (responsive, elegant).
Using a touch screen instead of physical controls will I assume mean that you'll be able to change fewer settings with your eye to the VF and will need to do more with your eye away from the VF and the scene and instead looking at the touchscreen.
I only have one touch screen camera but I've turned the touch screen off.
My view on the camera system is that it has more to do with fashion and posing/bragging rights than taking pictures and I'm sure there's a place for that in the market and I'm also sure owning it will be nice for those who like to own nice things.
-
I am interested in the camera.
Initially after comparing with the Fuji X-T1 I was like what the heck? The X-T1 appears to be a better camera in pretty much all aspects.
That being said, I do like the look of the camera very much, I like the touch screen approach, and if the 23mm is as good as they say it is and if it delivers on the IQ this could be an interesting experience.
I don't think I am really interested in slow and overpriced zooms… which is a concern because Leica only seems to have those in the road map…
An excellent review of the Leica T is the one by David Farkas which can be found here:
http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/343-Leica-T-(Typ-701)-Review
-
My view on the camera system is that it has more to do with fashion and posing/bragging rights than taking pictures and I'm sure there's a place for that in the market and I'm also sure owning it will be nice for those who like to own nice things.
There have always been luxury status brands. I don't have a problem with that.
What I take umbrage with is putting a luxury philosophy ahead of building a proper photographic instrument that can handle a variety of shooting situations — all because the decision was made to favor using billet aluminum for an expensive monocoque body instead of a state-of-the art sensor, or focusing system, or processor, or image stabilization, etc, etc…
Ya know, the stuff that actually matters to the photograph itself.
To me that's putting the cart before the horse.
Instead, what you end up with is very modest high ISO performance coupled with slow lenses, finished off by a lack of image stabilization. So forget about shooting this thing in low light.
That's where Leica falls down, IMO. That said, some of the stuff they did on this camera is admittedly very nice and quite interesting (and it would be awesome to see some of it show up on the next M). But most of it is extraneous to actual photography.
-
There have always been luxury status brands. I don't have a problem with that.
What I take umbrage with is putting a luxury philosophy ahead of building a proper photographic instrument that can handle a variety of shooting situations — all because the decision was made to favor using billet aluminum for an expensive monocoque body instead of a state-of-the art sensor, or focusing system, or processor, or image stabilization, etc, etc…
Ya know, the stuff that actually matters to the photograph itself.
To me that's putting the cart before the horse.
Instead, what you end up with is very modest high ISO performance coupled with slow lenses, finished off by a lack of image stabilization. So forget about shooting this thing in low light.
That's where Leica falls down, IMO. That said, some of the stuff they did on this camera is admittedly very nice and quite interesting (and it would be awesome to see some of it show up on the next M). But most of it is extraneous to actual photography.
Lots of assumptions herein. Are you seeing sample photos that are disappointing? I have an X Vario, and I can tell you from personal experience that the low light performance is stunning, "slow" lens notwithstanding. Same non-state-of-the-art sensor, I believe. Noise simply doesn't pose a problem and the clean high ISO compensates very well for the maximum aperture of the lens.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Leica-X-Vario-sensor-review-Formidable-low-light-performance
I think the facts about the T, its lenses (like the XV lens) and Leica's processor, etc will stand up to scrutiny...of the actual output, vs. speculation and reaction to the specs. Is it expensive for what you get? Maybe, but I think that is really a matter of what one values. The MacBook Air upon which I type at the moment is, to some, a piece of crap for the money. I would not trade it for 10 PCs. I bought my XV, marching straight into the teeth of all the naysayers, haters, and speculators....and I couldn't be happier with it. The only camera I have that gives the XV a challenge in the IQ department is the Sigma DP-2 Merrill. That set me back about $800, its an ugly brick, and certainly no fashion statement. I love that one too. ;)
-
Lots of assumptions herein. Are you seeing sample photos that are disappointing? I have an X Vario, and I can tell you from personal experience that the low light performance is stunning, "slow" lens notwithstanding. Same non-state-of-the-art sensor, I believe. Noise simply doesn't pose a problem and the clean high ISO compensates very well for the maximum aperture of the lens.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Leica-X-Vario-sensor-review-Formidable-low-light-performance
I prefer to stick to facts, not assumptions.
I don't need to see or use the camera to know it's made out of billet aluminum and that that's a "luxury" choice not a practical one. I don't need to use the camera to know the sensor is now 4 years old. I don't need to use the camera to know it doesn't have image stabilization. I don't need to see the camera to know the lenses are slow. And I don't need to play with it to know that putting all three together equals a camera that isn't going to be a good low light performer (unless you want to tote a tripod around with you).
Just a word about tests (DxO or anyone else): conditions and samples very widely, and since there is no international body that standardizes camera tests; uses the same procedures and equipment; evaluates under the same conditions; adheres to strict criteria for the calibration of measurement equipment, etc., etc., etc., it’s wise to take all these tests with a grain of salt. I prefer real world shooting with my own eyes to make this evaluation.
I don't think the Mac vs PC analogy works here, because it's common knowledge that OSX blows away Windows legacy architecture in terms of performance, reliability, and usability. That's an apples (no pun intended) to oranges comparison.
-
Even if you use the camera and like it, it's still an overpriced status bauble.
Nothing wrong with that, but why try to elevate it above the other small format mirrorless competition when it's offering nothing new?
All that's needed now is a marketing pic with an elephant standing on it's machined aluminium body. Oh has that already been done? Just like most of this camera then.
The S is quite unique as is the M-monochrome this new camera is not something to get excited about IMHO.
-
What I take umbrage with is putting a luxury philosophy ahead of building a proper photographic instrument ...
Umbrage ? Really ?
I prefer to stick to facts, not assumptions.
Given that your only first-hand experiences are a couple of vintage Leicas, perhaps you should try one before spouting off. I've little doubt that your damning assessment will come as a major disappointment to Leica but let's just hope they manage to overcome their despondency.
-
The S is quite unique as is the M-monochrome this new camera is not something to get excited about IMHO.
In and of itself perhaps not, but again depends who's buying.
-
Umbrage ? Really ?
Given that your only first-hand experiences are a couple of vintage Leicas, perhaps you should try one before spouting off. I've little doubt that your damning assessment will come as a major disappointment to Leica but let's just hope they manage to overcome their despondency.
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for intelligence.
And my first-hand experience extends beyond vintage Leicas.
-
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for intelligence.
Facetious more than sarcastic ...
-
Why use the camera
I won't.
Just talk the talk.
Beats drinking Kool-Aid.
-
Facetious more than sarcastic ...
Oh, well then … you might want to polish your prose a bit more the next time.
That's facetious.
-
There are several aspects to the 'T' that have made me sit up and take notice;........At last we have a European take on mirrorless cameras and it's a refreshing one at that. You either 'get' that less is more or you don't. Presumably none of the far east makers do, and they look at cameras as collections of selling points that may be quite useless for actually making images in real situations. The 'T' does not do this as it represents an attempt to 'design for purpose'. If only other makers can see the same clarity at a cheaper price then people like me might be able to find a decent model that they can forget and just use to make images!
As for "facts rather than assumptions"....Leica do not use Sony sensors and this sensor is not 4 years old. also there is no AA filter. The CNC machining from solid is not actually intended as a selling point (even if the ad-men are trying to turn it into a plus!), the fact is that many small low volume parts and reduced production runs are made by CNC because it's cost effective due to lack of expensive die-casting moulds and facilities. Lastly the 45 minute polishing by hand is be no means either excessive or unusual in high quality low volume production....many areas of top quality manufacture use much more and longer hand finishing even in the age of robots. Luxury cars, quality clocks and watches, optical instruments and many items in the defence industry are laboriously hand polished and finished over many hours.
-
I enjoy taking pics with my phone & its minimalist interface. It's a different thing to using a rangefinder or an SLR, but it works really well. IMO putting a good amount of the T's interface on the rear LCD makes sense, if for no other reason than in terms of appeal to folks familiar & comfortable with touch surfaces. Curmudgeons may grumble, but this camera isn't for them. (It's not for me either...the last thing I need is more photo gear.)
-Dave-
-
I hope they sell a shitload of these Ts...
I hope some of the ideas from the T make it into the M as well…
I hope both further make the development possible of the S system, a few more focus points for one would be nice...
-
I think you can count on the first 2, JV. The good Dr. has created an energetic, forward-looking, modern company. And he's making a barrel-full of money, some of which is likely to translate into some fruitful R&D in future.
-
Do we know for a fact where the sensor is sourced from?
I'd be very surprised if it weren't Sony. It wouldn't make much sense for Leica to buy a small batch/high price unproven design when the Sony APS-C is cheap and performs better than FF sensors of some vendors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do we know for a fact where the sensor is sourced from?
I'd be very surprised if it weren't Sony. It wouldn't make much sense for Leica to buy a small batch/high price unproven design when the Sony APS-C is cheap and performs better than FF sensors of some vendors.
No, we don't. At least I don't. Asked the question and was told 'can't say ...' None of the reviewers seem to know either. There was even a doubt as to whether or not there was an AA filter!
There may well be a good reason why Leica are keeping so tight-lipped about it ...
M
-
There may well be a good reason why Leica are keeping so tight-lipped about it ...
OK, then I guess it is indeed Sony. I cannot think of any reason why they wouldn't want to quote the source if it was something special offering positive differentiation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OK, then I guess it is indeed Sony. I cannot think of any reason why they wouldn't want to quote the source if it was something special offering positive differentiation.
Hi Bernard,
Perhaps the reason is that all the T-701 reviews are based on pre-production models running beta firmware, and the 'reviewers' are still sending feedback to Leica. Whatever the reasons, though, I've never known Leica to be quite so secretive.
M
-
Tao of Leica speaks:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog-2/leica-t-the-uber-gadget.html
-
Tao of Leica speaks:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog-2/leica-t-the-uber-gadget.html
Largely agree.
-
Erwin's take is the typical plaintive "Why can't we just keep doing things the old way?" ::)
-Dave-
-
I enjoy taking pics with my phone & its minimalist interface. It's a different thing to using a rangefinder or an SLR, but it works really well. IMO putting a good amount of the T's interface on the rear LCD makes sense, if for no other reason than in terms of appeal to folks familiar & comfortable with touch surfaces. Curmudgeons may grumble, but this camera isn't for them. (It's not for me either...the last thing I need is more photo gear.)
-Dave-
Dave, love your open mind.
Personally I'm impressed with Leica.
They are producing new product, traditional product and professional product.
All from a company that was given up for dead a decade ago.
I love the idea of the T series. It's not the camera for me, because it's too large to drop in a pocket too small for most professional work, but if you want a modern version of the M, then they made it.
They do need lenses and that's the one thing every maker seems to have issues with on new introductions and Leica needs to up their video quality to make a true modern multimedia camera.
What I would really love to see is a photographer's mobile phone. A dedicated camera first, phone second I think would be a big hit, all done in the Leica T/Mac Style.
Last Saturday we went to the Hollywood Bowl to see Black Sabbath. Had great seats, first row from the media area so decent enough view to shoot some images to send to friends and family.
Like everyone in the crowd I taped away at will. Standing next to me was a 25/30 year old woman, with a Leica M8. Now an M8 isn't really a concert camera, but you could tell she knew what she was doing.
She pre focused, by measurement, set the exposure and the moment she put the camera to her eye security stopped her. She obviously wasn't shooting for commerce and with an M8 going to break some kind of liscesning agreement, unless Getty owned the stills (which is more and more commonplace).
I would imagine she was shooting personally or for a blog, but none the less, she was less intrusive than the 5,000 shaky videos that were going to be on you tube that night.
Why stop her? Because she was holding a real camera.
IMO
BC
-
Though the prices make no sense for me, I will say a few things in defense of the Leica T system:
1) Sensor price and performance are only very loosely related to the appropriate price for a camera: some 35mm film cameras (like Leica M's and the top-of-the-line Canon and Nikon models) justified costing about ten times as much as other cameras using the same "sensors" (36x24mm frames of 135 film), and even costing more that the most affordable medium format cameras, like the Pentax 645. So to me it is nonsense to argue that a camera cannot be worth significantly more than the cheapest camera with the same or similar sensor. [Doug Peterson will agree, even if no one else does!]
2) If "f/8 and be there" is your thing in 35mm format of the sake of getting enough DOF, then the f/5.6 and faster T system lenses do the same in its format -- except with vastly better low light abilities than 35mm film @ f/8 ever offered. Indeed, the available lenses already offer better low light performance than 35mm film with any Leica lens. So it is nonsense to declare than the lenses limit this camera to good light or use on a tripod. [Granted, IS would make this even more true. I can see Leica moving towards sensor-based IS, perhaps with help from Panasonic which has only recently developed that, but Leica lens purity probably rules out the use of wiggling lens elements.]
2) The Leica T is potentially the first camera to design an interface around the use of a touch screen, rather than just clumsily tacking some touch features onto an 80's flavored "viewscreen, four way arrows and nested menus" interface. The difference between this and the Olympus touch screen interface that I suffer with could be like the difference between the touch interfaces of an iPad and a Windows XP tablet. Not worth the extra thousands, but it is one of several signs that Leica is taking a serious and forward-looking approach to the T system, very unlike certain recent Hasselblad product lines.
-
What I would really love to see is a photographer's mobile phone. A dedicated camera first, phone second I think would be a big hit, all done in the Leica T/Mac Style.
Last Saturday we went to the Hollywood Bowl to see Black Sabbath. Had great seats, first row from the media area so decent enough view to shoot some images to send to friends and family.
Like everyone in the crowd I taped away at will. Standing next to me was a 25/30 year old woman, with a Leica M8. Now an M8 isn't really a concert camera, but you could tell she knew what she was doing.
Why stop her? Because she was holding a real camera.
IMO
Thumbs up on the camera-centric smartdevice.
Hope Sabbath played "War Pigs." ;)
It must be rough to do security at shows nowadays with all that recordin' & photographin' & videoin' & copyright violatin' goin' on. Gotta stop someone, dammit!
-Dave-
-
What I would really love to see is a photographer's mobile phone. A dedicated camera first, phone second
Maybe an updated version of this eight-year-old one (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=15)?
Jim
-
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701/6
I'll refrain from comment and look forward to comments by more discerning, Leica-aware, contributors.
Roy
-
Overall, we have no problem with Leica using this technology - incorporating software corrections into lens designs has enabled the creation of a range of very good lenses that wouldn't have been feasible if only glass were used. The only thing that we'd take issue with is the company claiming not to use this approach, when it so clearly is.
I actually thought it was common knowledge that Leica also did this…
Why else would M glass be better on M cameras than on other cameras?
-
I actually thought it was common knowledge that Leica also did this…
Common knowledge or not (there may be some denial involved) software correction goes back at least to the Leica DMR.
-
The DPR article begins:
"During pre-launch briefings for the T, Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor.
No one would suggest that Leica shouldn't use software correction, I believe. But it's hypocritical to suggest that you produce a lens that doesn't require such correction whilst actually incorporating it in order to compensate for some fairly extreme deficiencies - and then charging a preposterous sum for a slow, variable aperture, kit zoom.
This sort of bull5h!t is why many people are justifiably cynical about Leica in its current incarnation as a manufacturer of baubles like this one.
Roy
-
The DPR article begins:
"During pre-launch briefings for the T, Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor.
No one would suggest that Leica shouldn't use software correction, I believe. But it's hypocritical to suggest that you produce a lens that doesn't require such correction whilst actually incorporating it in order to compensate for some fairly extreme deficiencies - and then charging a preposterous sum for a slow, variable aperture, kit zoom.
This sort of bull5h!t is why many people are justifiably cynical about Leica in its current incarnation as a manufacturer of baubles like this one.
Given that Leica does indeed employ software lens correction in various cameras—and has made no effort whatsoever to hide this...hell, they've even highlighted it—my guess is DPR has misunderstood what it claims to have been "told."
People who rag on Leica re. their pricing, or view their products as baubles, don't seem to get that the company's primary target market is the affluent. They're not trying to appeal to a broad demographic. Now you can certainly object to that as a strategy...but it's been a successful one and it's why the company still exists.
-Dave-
-
Just read this on DPreview and could help thinking "why on earth did they waste time publishing this crap".
Frankly, who cares whether they use software based distorsion correction or not? DxO has proven for years that it can be done without much visible image quality drop. Releasing an optical design with less focus on distorsion correction makes it possible to optimize other important parameters, so you end up with better image quality.
We buy systems, not lenses, especially in the case of totally closed solutions such as the Leica T.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just read this on DPreview and could help thinking "why on earth did they waste time publishing this crap".
Frankly, who cares whether they use software based distorsion correction or not? DxO has proven for years that it can be done without much visible image quality drop. Releasing an optical design with less focus on distorsion correction makes it possible to optimize other important parameters, so you end up with better image quality.
We buy systems, not lenses, especially in the case of totally closed solutions such as the Leica T.
Cheers,
Bernard
You are missing the point. Probably intentionally.
Roy
-
You are missing the point. Probably intentionally.
Roy
Roy,
I am very happy about the 2 Leica R APO lenses I have converted to F mount, that's the extend of my relationship with Leica and I don't see why I would invest more in the brand based on their current line up and pricing strategy. This being said, my first hand experience tends to confirm their overall claims of optical excellence.
So I think you are just reading too much in what can only reasonnably be assumed to have been a misunderstanding. You seem to see Leica a certain way and are just interpreting doubtful information in such a way that it fits in your pre-defined model.
IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just read this on DPreview and could help thinking "why on earth did they waste time publishing this crap".
Frankly, who cares whether they use software based distorsion correction or not? DxO has proven for years that it can be done without much visible image quality drop. Releasing an optical design with less focus on distorsion correction makes it possible to optimize other important parameters, so you end up with better image quality.
We buy systems, not lenses, especially in the case of totally closed solutions such as the Leica T.
Cheers,
Bernard
The problem I have, if indeed DPR claims are true, is that Leica lied, plain and simple. And this is serious, especially given their prices and claims that the lenses are corrected optically, not requiring software to do so.
What I suspect is that only the zoom is software corrected, prime lenses should not require software correction, or if so, only a minimal amount.
I am fine with software correction (which for example I use to correct some distortion and CA from my Zeiss 21 ZE), what I criticize are false claims.
-
Some things I don't get.
For 7 years I've been using Contax/Zeiss lenses on my contax 645 with an aptus 22, Leaf Valeo, Phase -30+, and P21+.
Now I use them with the Leica Convertor on the S2.
I've rarely see any need for correction in post, except for the rare CA when shooting wide open in bright back light.
The Zeiss are always brutally sharp, actually a little too sharp though sharper than the Leica 120 I own, though the leica (to me) has a prettier character.
Now the flip side of this is my 43 lenses and cameras. I have a bag full of Olympus m43 primes I use on the em-1, em-5 and gh3's.
On the Olympus and panasonic they are sharp, crazy sharp, but they seem to lack some character and I'm sure there are a lot of behind the scenes correction going on in the camera, or the lens/camera or the lens/camera/software.
The reason I think this is when I mount Leica M mount lenses on the m43 cameras, the leica lenses display softness, severe ca but used on an m8 they are fine.
Also Interesting is the Pansonic lenses aren't quite as sharp, especially the zooms but have much nicer roll off and character to them the the Zeiss/Pansonic lenses continue with this look, though don't have that extreme bite of sharpness of the Contax lenses.
Not that it matters, other than in the final look, but using the contax lenses, some older film lenses like Nikors I'm amazed that they need very little post correction and hold up extremely well, considering they are 10, 12 who knows how old designs.
I personally think the less digital correction needed the better the lens, though in all honesty, the prettiest lens I've ever used, film or digital is the old boris Hartblei tilt shift in a contax mount.
It's not really crazy sharp, surely not pixel peeping sharp, but has the most beautiful roll off of any lenses I've used.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/lk_pairis_preview1.jpg)
IMO
BC
P.S. I doubt seriously if Leica would out and out lie about using digital corrections if they didn't. Maybe I'm naive, but to me that would open up a very not nice door that would be hard to shut and Leica has too much brand equity to lose.
-
The problem I have, if indeed DPR claims are true, is that Leica lied, plain and simple. And this is serious ...
This is bringing innuendo and conspiracy theories to farcical levels. You've got no named source, no citation, no link, no spec sheet - just an allegation, so far unsubstantiated. It's worthy of gossip rags.
At launch, the reviewers all had pre-release models to base their initial reports on. Their was, as it turned out, some MISINFORMATION, not lies, nor duplicity nor conspiracy. It wasn't just software correction - there was also doubt about whether or not the T had an AA filter - some were told yes, others no. It was clarified - the answer is no. Likewise for software correction (on M lenses). The T lenses do have software correction.
Software correction is not only for distortion, but also luminance vignetting and colour drift. I imagine it would be a time consuming and laborious job to correct the whole backlog of M lenses for the new aps-c sensor. Certainly difficult in time for the initial release but something they could add at a later date via firmware - if they so wish. Leica seem to be keen to differentiate amongst their products. Sinar - S - M - X and T. Now the M's have built-in correction already, the T is aimed at a different market - why would they ?
http://j.mp/1c7dRuR#sthash.aSeDbv8f.dpuf
-
Far more revealing is that still no-one I know can or rather won't say what the sensor in the new T is. Bernard may well be right when he surmises that it's a Sony, but then why the secrecy ...
-
Bernard may well be right when he surmises that it's a Sony, but then why the secrecy ...
the exclusivity and myth go out the window, pride of ownership and plaudits from your peers are non-existent once the world knows your veblen goods are not what you once believed in. :'(
-
I have the lens correction stuff turned off on my M8s. I've seen no need for it with any of my lenses other than the Voigtländer 15mm, which is uncoded anyway and whose files can be easily adjusted (frame-edge magenta color cast) in post.
The Oly & Panasonic m43 cameras do correct (JPEGs) for barrel/pincushion distortion and also chromatic aberrations. It's interesting to convert the same RAW file in, say, Lightroom and then in a processor that applies no such corrections, like PhotoRaw on my iPad. Some of the m43 lenses exhibit significant barrel distortion, no doubt allowed as a means of simplifying design & reducing cost. It's also clear the corrections have minimal to no impact on spatial or tonal detail, so I'd say the strategy is a good one.
The interesting thing to me about using M lenses on various cameras is how variable their performance is. Take the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8, a Biogon design. More or less symmetrical. It's utterly mediocre on m43, a bit better on APS-C (Epson R-D1, Fuji X-E1), then suddenly great—uncorrected, mind you—on the M8, then very good (with correction) on an M9, then utter crap on Sony's A7r. The A7r performance is understood...but the m43 performance seems puzzling. I doubt it has anything to do with behind-the-scenes processing since other non-Olympus/Panasonic lenses, like the Voigtländer f/0.95s, perform wonderfully.
I'll be interested to read about how M lenses perform on the T.
-Dave-
-
This is bringing innuendo and conspiracy theories to farcical levels. You've got no named source, no citation, no link, no spec sheet - just an allegation, so far unsubstantiated. It's worthy of gossip rags.
At launch, the reviewers all had pre-release models to base their initial reports on. Their was, as it turned out, some MISINFORMATION, not lies, nor duplicity nor conspiracy. It wasn't just software correction - there was also doubt about whether or not the T had an AA filter - some were told yes, others no. It was clarified - the answer is no. Likewise for software correction (on M lenses). The T lenses do have software correction.
Software correction is not only for distortion, but also luminance vignetting and colour drift. I imagine it would be a time consuming and laborious job to correct the whole backlog of M lenses for the new aps-c sensor. Certainly difficult in time for the initial release but something they could add at a later date via firmware - if they so wish. Leica seem to be keen to differentiate amongst their products. Sinar - S - M - X and T. Now the M's have built-in correction already, the T is aimed at a different market - why would they ?
http://j.mp/1c7dRuR#sthash.aSeDbv8f.dpuf
Farcical? Perhaps, but the fact remains that as of today, there has been no official communication from Leica to clarify whether or not the T lenses have software correction of optical defects. The fact remains that during a presentation/interview a Leica representative said that the T lenses use only optical correction. This is not true.
So yes, Leica have not lied, but a Leica representative was one of the following: ignorant about the product; overenthusiastic; full of BS.
I was not discussing the filter, and I have no problem with software correction, just with false allegations and claims.
Relax, I am sure the T is a great camera, I would buy one with the 35mm equivalent lens if I had the money. As it is, I make do with the also excellent Fuji X100...
-
The fact remains that during a presentation/interview a Leica representative said that the T lenses use only optical correction. This is not true.
The fact remains? The possibility exists, yes, but who has established this as fact? All I've read are claims & statements, along with varying degrees of self-righteous indignation.
Anyway, per my earlier post on the subject, I suspect the fuss is less about this particular product and more about a distaste for Leica's marketing & pricing strategy. A distaste those objecting to the strategy are mostly unwilling to directly express.
-Dave-
-
Good God, this is all so pointless...all of it, on this forum and elsewhere. Buy it, or don't. Everyone has an a**hole and an opinion, and its all so silly. If you think Dr. Kaufmann gives a rat's derriere, you're wrong. He's too busy counting his money. ::)
-
At least the 'image quality professor' sits there in his white coat and looks busy.
Maybe he (Leica MD) should stop counting his money, buff some aluminium then sign the camera for added value?
-
The fact remains? The possibility exists, yes, but who has established this as fact? All I've read are claims & statements, along with varying degrees of self-righteous indignation.
Anyway, per my earlier post on the subject, I suspect the fuss is less about this particular product and more about a distaste for Leica's marketing & pricing strategy. A distaste those objecting to the strategy are mostly unwilling to directly express.
-Dave-
In my case, I have no distaste for Leica's marketing and pricing strategy. I know I will never have money to buy them:) Once upon a time I managed to buy a Leica CM, very nice camera. In my post, I never commented on their pricing, just that their representative was wrong in not being open about the correction subject.
Had I a distaste, you may be sure that I would have no problem in expressing it directly. I also can not understand all this "fan boyism" and defensive attitude, look, Leica does not need you to defend them:)
-
I also can not understand all this "fan boyism" and defensive attitude, look, Leica does not need you to defend them:)
Hey, I'm interested not in allegation but information. Anyone can claim anything about anything. But what are the facts of the matter? Seems to me the matter is murky, therefore best not to make conclusions. I could care less about defending Leica...but neither am I predisposed to condemn them.
Since we're already way off-topic...I've attached a test pic taken with an M8 & Zeiss 21/2.8 lens. 720 nanometer IR filter, ISO 640, 1/30th sec., f/5.6, handheld. Processed on my iPad with PhotoRaw and Photogene. The lens has an IR focus offset mark, which in my testing is well placed. One person's flaw—"excessive" IR sensitivity—is another's "Hell, yeah!"
-Dave-
-
Wow everyone. Be cool.
All this is just fun talk about pretty little cameras to make pretty little pictures.
The Leica thing always freaks people out, I dunno why.
Maybe it's the Porsche 911 thing. Some people see Le Man's victories, some see guys with gold chains, but honestly the brand stands for both.
Same with Leica. It's a bauble to some, a well made tool for others, but it's nothing to get hot about.
This is my favorite m8 shot I did barcelona
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/barcelona1.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
BC,
Nice picture, thanks for sharing.
Best regards
Erik
-
A review on La Vida Leica!. It seems to fall a bit short…:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/hands-leica-t-type-701
-
A review on La Vida Leica!. It seems to fall a bit short…:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/hands-leica-t-type-701
Personally I see no reason what so ever to buy this system and if it was made by Samsung I doubt anyone would look twice at it. Maybe I'm being cruel but I suspect that the badge is everything and the only reason this will sell regardless of how many times it locks up. I think that not being able to stop it reviewing every shot would be enough by itself to make me drop kick it over a hedge.
-
Wow everyone. Be cool.
All this is just fun talk about pretty little cameras to make pretty little pictures.
The Leica thing always freaks people out, I dunno why.
Maybe it's the Porsche 911 thing. Some people see Le Man's victories, some see guys with gold chains, but honestly the brand stands for both.
Same with Leica. It's a bauble to some, a well made tool for others, but it's nothing to get hot about.
hmmm, I hope you know more about cameras than you do about vehicles…. really...
-
hmmm, I hope you know more about cameras than you do about vehicles…. really...
A bit pedantic, no? Porsche makes cars that run in Le Mans races. Guys with gold chains dig Porsches. Some of 'em anyway. BC's link is thereby established. :D
-Dave-
-
allegretto obviously owns porche but finds gold chained men distasteful........This site can be so entertaining!
-
well no fellas… I raced cars. The last ones being Porsche Cups. And while a 911 is occasionally owned by a be-baubled old guy, the truth is that the Italian breeds are far more likely to be their ride of choice. Ferraris and Lambos are far more popular with the Viagra for Lunch Bunch
A 911 is an exquisitely designed car, and in any of its renditions can be driven directly from the showroom to the track, beaten like a rented mule all day and drive home a pretty as you please. And come back tomorrow and do it again. In truth there are very few vehicles that can make such a claim, literally you can count them on one hand. It's brakes, steering, cooling, engine, transmission… all the things many think all cars simply possess, are engineered to a different standard than just about anything out there. Yes, viewfinder, I admire the cars Porsche makes and most who know about these matters too share that admiration.
No doubt there are professional cameras that have parallel durability and performance and some of you could school me all about it. The poster simply chose a poor example to make a valid point. No harm, just a bit of insight into an interesting thread. Nothing to get upset about...
-
Sorry, actually tuned into this thread to see what people thought about the Leica T. Bought one yesterday and am having a lot of fun with it. Wanted to get other opinions, but it appears that not many here have actually used or own one so there isn't too much to go on about.
Sorry my 911 comment ruffled feathers, truly. But it's just that Porsche doesn't design that car for the gold-chain crowd, sincerely.
cheers
-
Sorry, actually tuned into this thread to see what people thought about the Leica T. Bought one yesterday and am having a lot of fun with it. Wanted to get other opinions, but it appears that not many here have actually used or own one so there isn't too much to go on about.
Sorry my 911 comment ruffled feathers, truly. But it's just that Porsche doesn't design that car for the gold-chain crowd, sincerely.
cheers
It doesn't matter as I just used it as an example.
Obviously it touched a nerve, but since Porsche sold 18,000 Cayenne SUV's compared to 10,000 911's in 2013 U.S. sales, It's obvious that every porsche sold isn't isn't aimed at a motor sports market, but it helps fund their traditional cars.
You know . . . as a professional photographer that has made 100% of our household income in the industry for most of my adult life, I've listened to . . . I dunno about a billion people who own a __fill in the blanks__ and call themselves a photographer.
I guess I could take exception and explain to them my view of what a photographer is, but I've learned to not judge by quick comments and honestly have been pleasantly surprised by a few very good enthusiasts.
But back to the T type. I messed around with one, think it's interesting, might be the future of things to come.
I wouldn't go as far as calling the T a bauble, but for serious photography it's more of an interesting anecdote that an actual balls out tool.
What I find interesting is the operating system in concept, less in function, though I believe the concept could have a more involved purpose
if Leica chose to expand upon it.
We'll see.
IMO
BC
-
thanks for the input cooter
all good by me, no nerves or arteries hit... ;)
-
allegretto,....Well put and honourably said!
I will be most interested to see how you get on with the 'T',....the ONLY current small camera that I feel naturally drawn to. Looking at the web material it looks superbly simple and seems the essence of 'form follows function'........It just looks like the perfect tool for my fumbling efforts!
..........I'm seriously tempted to scrape my bottle tops together and get one with v/f, and perhaps 'kit' zoom.
I would love to see how it would behave with my Canon FD lenses that have resided in the cupboard these past 25 years......
-
I'm in DC now working it out
will post up when done
you will need a Metabones on top of the M-adapter for Canon of course and I doubt it will AF, but maybe…
FWIW, I have an M240 and some great M-glass so this was an easy call. I just wanted to make sure it had Leica color balance, and it surely does! So I now have a crop chip for all my M-glass… cool from my POV. I tested it on my MBP/retina and the res isn't quite up to M-class, but ya gotta pixel peep t be sure.
Def prefer the color balance to my RX-1, though it can't match the Sony's hi-ISO performance.
My current DSLR is a 6D and I have a lot of Canon lenses, but will likely sell that for a A7s and use it for low-light. I realize that many pray to the MPx Gods, and in some cases nothing else will do… but I'm not a long tele guy, so don't run into many FL-limited situations for my shooting
Will tell you that the 23mm 2.0 is very sharp. Maybe almost 50-cron sharp, but will have to compare. Certainly rivals the RX-1. The "kit" zoom is also quite good, but an outdoor or flash lens to be sure.
Love the interface, and I'm >60 so don't worry guys, the screen is sharp.
cheers
-
Some more feedback on using the Leica T:
http://blog.leica-camera.com/photographers/interviews/marc-schuhmann-the-leica-t-goes-professional/