advertisement


Leica T

Gary, I get the fact that you don't like it, but there's no need to criticize the people who might want one. This isn't the HiFi room you know

:D

Was never criticising the people who want one, never my intention. However, company's like Leica and Hasselblad are clearly using their name to market other people's products at stupidly inflated prices. If people want to buy into this that's their business, just don't forget a mark 2 will be out in no time, fixing all the faults with the first one, and guess what, your Leica (Sony) will be worth bugger all.
 
All digital cameras are expensive. For the average user, a film camera bought for peanuts would still provide the best VFM, even taking into account film cost.
 
Go and buy one if you think it will enhance your image.

WTF would I buy one for image enhancement?
For that I would have a Canon EOS 1 something or other with a great big lens on it.
Or a Nikon monster.

Who on the street has ever heard of Leica!
 
WTF would I buy one for image enhancement?
For that I would have a Canon EOS 1 something or other with a great big lens on it.
Or a Nikon monster.

Who on the street has ever heard of Leica!

Not likely, they don't have a red dot on the front.
 
A bit of googling turned up this on pricing for the camera, lenses and accessories in the U.S. --

The Leica T will be offered in anodized silver or black finishes. In the US market pricing is set at around US$1,850 for the Leica T camera body.

The first two lenses are priced at US$1,950 for the 23mm f/2.0 prime, and US$1,750 for the 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom.

The electronic viewfinder accessory is priced at around US$600, and the Leica M-mount adapter is the most affordable item at US$400 or thereabouts.

And some sample images -- http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/leica_t_photos/

Joe
 
I still think it is good that one of the major specialist camera manufacturers is modelling what the cameras of the future will look like. As has been discussed on another thread, cameras are not selling and I'm not sure the industry will survive on endless upgrades of the existing camera systems.

Fuji have struck out with the x retro vision, followed by Olympus with the OM-D series.

People still want cameras - I live in Oxford and 1 out of 4 people seem to have a DSLR round their necks - far more than Micro 4/3rds - and the rest seem to be taking images with phones.

Its an odd time when more and more images are being taken but the creations or recording of images isn't dependent on buying a camera as previously understood. The mobile phone camera is having a bigger impact that polaroids or instamatics did.

I think the cameras of the future will have to be based as much in phone design as a traditional film camera. The Leica model strikes me as worthy attempt to model what a hi end camera crossed with the best of phone / laptop/table technology might look like while still looking like a camera and having a core design based on great images. Samsung are doing similar things elsewhere in the market.

The future of camera won't be old guys like us who remember film: the creativity of the future will be based on the internet, the microchip and portability but also on great lens and image quality.

I think there is a route through the x100/OM-D EM/ T1 that will lead to the cameras our kids will be using in their 50s. They may not be for those of us who grew up with 35mm film but they are exciting.

I think the T1 is a lovely object - as far as you can tell without picking it up and using it. My resources won't let me get near one until my retirement lump sum in 10 years time so I'll be sticking with the X100 and Fuji x lenses for the time being. Photography is becoming increasingly ubiquitous and I think it will still be a significant art form in the future but it will at least in part do this using new tools that aren't all rooted in the style of the past.

Kevin
 
This is where I think the future of photography lies -- well, the future I can afford.

I must have the fishie boop for my X100.

boop_fish.jpg


Or the bip bug.

opera%20act%203%20on%20x-100%20front.jpg


Joe
 
You have to ask the question why someone would buy the leica T + 23/2 vs one of the many Fuji X with the 23/1.4?

I'm sure all sorts of people will tell you about how wonderful leica lenses are. I'm pretty sure these same people will appreciate how wonderful and unique Carl Zeiss lenses are. Here's a hasselblad article about their move to fujinon lenses for the H system from Carl Zeiss for their previous V system:

http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/media/1663143/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf

This makes interesting reading. Personally i'm interested in how little difference there is between a 20 year old CZ design and a modern Fujinon design. Colours, resolution and bokeh compared.

BTW, the old CZ 100/3.5 was/is considered the sharpest lens for the Hasselblads, better than the 80/2.8 standard lens due to one lens lens element (if you are ok with the 2/3rds of a stop less light).
 
Life in the digital age is hard for companies like Leica but this looks like a good effort. We would all prefer Leica to stay in business. Or not ?
 
To be honest, one wonders how many camera companies will exist as separate camera companies in 20 years time. The ubiquitous march of the camera-phone has stolen most of the compact sales and the MFT/Compact Camera systems have also suffered. the mainstream japanese camera companies have seen incomes and profits fall. It will be interesting to see how they keep prices down, when their sales volumes dip. At least Leica's business model is based on being a niche player with small volume sales.
 
An interesting mix of responses.

Not having a degree in psychology, I sometimes wonder what it is that causes us to sum up people in either negative or positive manner according to what choices they make upon things like dress, where they live, the cars they drive, and the things they choose to own re consumer items and appliances etc.

I'm always amazed, at how well meaning friends and acquaintances alike, will pick holes in these things, to ones face, as if they are either doing you a favour, or guiding you out of some woeful fate about to befall you.

As an example, I drive an Mercedes. Apparently, any fool knows that Euro cars are crap, overrated, heinously expensive to maintain, and any sensible person buys a Japanese econobox.

I'm told my Miele washer and dryer is a waste of money, because I could've just bought something much cheaper and replaced it when it broke. Apparently they all just break regardless. Or so I'm told.

My Naim Hifi was the best that money could possibly buy, but when I changed it out to what I felt was superior Sony ES on sound quality and build quality grounds, I was called a heretic, and the cries for 'stone him' and 'burn him at the stake' went up.

Now that I've moved again to B&O, apparently this is kit for 'lifestyle' posers, that no audiophile worth his 'salt' would touch, let alone take seriously.

And so on.

Quite why people take it upon themselves to tell you all this stuff, often unasked, I don't quite know why, except that I've experienced it quite a bit from friends and strangers alike over the years.

Leica make damnably good cameras. So do lots of other camera manufacturers.

Leitz, Zeiss, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Schneider are all companies that have enviable reputations for lenses.

The T1, is undoubtedly an overpriced posers toy to some, but then, and the irony is not lost upon me, so is most high end HiFi to most non audiophiles.

So if we put the perceptions, preconceptions and biases aside, what I see, is a camera body, that whilst not weather sealed, looks from an engineering POV to be one of the best made cameras that money can buy.

By 'made' I mean quality of design, engineering, materials and strength. If it's unibody construction imbues it with the sort of torsional rigidity and strength of something like a MacBook Pro, then there's scant little that will touch it in that regards - despite that it looks like other, less well engineered camera bodies.

The Lenses will be up with the best money can buy.

The control interface looks sensational, in that it does to cameras what the iPhone did to smartphones; the removal of multiple buttons, and obviating the need for endless keying and scrolling through endless menus and sub menus with respect to settings.

The only thing I'd 'like' it to be, would be full frame sensor.

Other than that, I think its a stunning engineering achievement, and if it doesn't sell really well, I'll be very surprised indeed.

Just probably not to audiophiles though.... :)


Best


John
 
Jonboi,

Not having a degree in psychology, I sometimes wonder what it is that causes us to sum up people in either negative or positive manner according to what choices they make upon things like dress, where they live, the cars they drive, and the things they choose to own re consumer items and appliances etc.
Judging people by their possessions seems, well, rather shallow. A few advantages early in life or being born at the right place and time could easily contribute to a person being a "success" and having the means to buy expensive things and, conversely, a few shit hands in life and any of us could be struggling to make next month's rent payment let alone buying stuff that projects a certain image.

I would rather "sum up" a person by his or her actions. That to me speaks louder and more reliably than stuff we've bought or can afford to buy.

But if we're talking about the design of an expensive camera I think it's fair to say that one should have a few features as givens, which for me would include being able to see, compose and snap the shutter at the right time in the light of day. The Leica T is damn expensive for a camera that's probably no better than an iPhone is that respect. Or maybe it's just me. I can't compose on a screen or through an EVF to save my life, and taking pictures at arm's length just feels so unnatural.

Joe
 
Jonboi,


Judging people by their possessions seems, well, rather shallow. A few advantages early in life or being born at the right place and time could easily contribute to a person being a "success" and having the means to buy expensive things and, conversely, a few shit hands in life and any of us could be struggling to make next month's rent payment let alone buying stuff that projects a certain image.

I would rather "sum up" a person by his or her actions. That to me speaks louder and more reliably than stuff we've bought or can afford to buy.

But if we're talking about the design of an expensive camera I think it's fair to say that one should have a few features as givens, which for me would include being able to see, compose and snap the shutter at the right time in the light of day. The Leica T is damn expensive for a camera that's probably no better than an iPhone is that respect. Or maybe it's just me. I can't compose on a screen or through an EVF to save my life, and taking pictures at arm's length just feels so unnatural.

Joe

I would agree on all counts

I've been anti the idea of an EVF, almost certainly because the early generations of them which I have seen, have been, well, pretty useless IMHO.

However, I had a look at the OLED EVF on the Sony A7r a couple of weeks back, and also the EVF on the Leica X Vario at the same time/same store, and was very pleasantly surprised - much better than I was expecting and definitely usable, if not up to the delights of say my ageing Olympus optical rangefinder.

Personally I wouldn't want to use the T series Leica without an EVF - and one with diopter adjustment, which it has - as an eyeglass wearer.

Also agree about trying to take piccies at arms length - I have enough issues doing that with my iPhone to not want to do that on ANY camera.

From reviews thus far though, the EVF seems to remove any qualms about this, er, unbalanced method of taking photos like a glorified iPhone.

Best

John... :)
 
jonboi,

One of those old-fashioned optical viewfinders is rather impressive if you value accurate colours, high resolution, and light-speed (literally) refresh rates.

Joe
 
Having a fair number of m-mount lenses (all non-encoded, btw) is there any advantage the T1 has in terms of handling over, say, an A7r with m adapter? If it could operate as an M body but with an EVF based RF split image, reading distance from the lens helicoid, and +/- light meter that would be cool.
 
Having a fair number of m-mount lenses (all non-encoded, btw) is there any advantage the T1 has in terms of handling over, say, an A7r with m adapter? If it could operate as an M body but with an EVF based RF split image, reading distance from the lens helicoid, and +/- light meter that would be cool.

You've just described a Leica M Type 240
 
Dan, the Sony A7 series have an articulated rear screen the Leica T doesn't - the A series are full frame, too...
 


advertisement


Back
Top