Leica T

[hammeredklavier]

And my point was not that Sony is bad, but that the Leica is overpriced for what it is.

Quote so. And I'm sure Leica would admit quite openly to not making value for money products. Their glassware's nice and has a certain je ne sais qua; but even there, Sony/Zeiss and even Sigma are as good if not better for a lot less dosh nowadays.

 

[hammeredklavier]

Including Fuji.

Yeah, I've heard it rumoured that the X-Trans is basically the same 16MP Sony sensor that Nikon used in the D7000, only with their unique RGB filter. Not that that's a bad thing, mind, that's still probably my favourite APS-C sensor.

 

[cliffpatte]

Sony/Zeiss and even Sigma are as good if not better for a lot less dosh nowadays.

Sigma ? Really ?

Which Sigma lens is better than the APO ASPH Summicron 50mm then?

 

[cliffpatte]

Dudes,

What's the difference between the 240 and M9P? Just the sensor?

Joe

As well as what Ian said, here's my experience

The 240 is heavy, like the difference between breezeblock and a solid clay brick

The rear of the camera supports menus, picture review and live view

a few of the dials and buttons have changed function

the tripod mount is through the base into the body instead of just being in the base

the battery is bigger and lasts a bit longer provided you don't use live view

the Top flash mount also supports the EVF

The Highest ISO is higher and the images are clean to ISO3200 and beyond

The sensor is a custom build for Leica rather than one that Kodak just happened to have lying around when Leica went shopping

 

[hammeredklavier]

Sigma ? Really ?

Which Sigma lens is better than the APO ASPH Summicron 50mm then?

Well, I gather the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art' comes within a whisker of the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus... that's pretty good going:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/08/zeiss-55mm-f-1.4-otus-lens-review

Alex

 

[cliffpatte]

so, the Sigma is a little less sharp than the Zeiss and a bit worse than the Zeiss in Chromatic Aberation and micro contrast - all very techie - I wonder how they fare head to head in portrait work.

 

[hammeredklavier]

so, the Sigma is a little less sharp than the Zeiss and a bit worse than the Zeiss in Chromatic Aberation and micro contrast - all very techie - I wonder how they fare head to head in portrait work.

Dunno, but I would say that was quite a lens whichever way you cut it! I have the 18-35mm 1.8 'art', and I can tell you Sigma are turning out some stellar glassware at the moment. At the price, nothing comes within a country mile...

 

[Joe P]

Cliff,

I wonder how they fare head to head in portrait work.

Both are shit for portraits. Way too sharp. ;-)

Joe

 

[hammeredklavier]

Cliff,


Both are shit for portraits. Way too sharp. ;-)

Joe

They certainly wouldn't leave much to the imagination partnered with a 24 or 36 MP full-framer...

 

[hammeredklavier]

Interesting reading re the new Leica T lenses:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701/6

Alex

 

[cliffpatte]

Cliff,


Both are shit for portraits. Way too sharp. ;-)

Joe

yeah, I was thinking that the face detail would be way too sharp, and the background defocus would be way to busy. It's obviously a lot of glass for the money. I quite like my 50-200 Olympus F2.8-F3.5 for portraits - just sharp enough and really smooth in the background. Horses for courses I guess.

 

[chipbutty]

Indeed they are. The Sigma 60mm f2.8 is very popular for m43 and costs £120 It has had rave reviews.

Dunno, but I would say that was quite a lens whichever way you cut it! I have the 18-35mm 1.8 'art', and I can tell you Sigma are turning out some stellar glassware at the moment. At the price, nothing comes within a country mile...

 

[chipbutty]

 

[auric]

An enthusiastic tour around the T. I think I'd rather have a black one if spending my cash but if not spending my cash the silver will do. All donations gratefully accepted.

 

[Joe P]

After watching the video chipbutty embedded I have to say I get the Leica T even less than before.

I think a Fuji XPro-1 and a couple of lenses for the same kind of dough would make much more sense, but maybe I need to acknowledge that I cling to the past and things that look like they're from the past -- and that some people actually prefer to compose on an LCD screen at arm's length.

Joe

 

[Stunsworth]

After watching the video chipbutty embedded I have to say I get the Leica T even less than before.

I think a Fuji XPro-1 and a couple of lenses for the same kind of dough would make much more sense...

In which case you need the clip on EVF <grin>.

As someone who recently bought an X Pro-1 by current feelings are that I should have saved up and bought a used M9. However I'll give it another few months.

 

[Joe P]

Steve,

Are you not happy with the XPro-1? If I didn't have a bag full of old Nikkors from my film days I would be all over the Fuji. (I know you can mount Nikkors on an XPro-1 using an adapter, but it seems these sorts of accessories are more hacks than proper working options.)

Joe

 

[chipbutty]

Me neither. The touch screen interface does look fantastic. I seriously wouldn't swap it for my X100. Well, I would and sell it and buy an XT1

After watching the video chipbutty embedded I have to say I get the Leica T even less than before.

I think a Fuji XPro-1 and a couple of lenses for the same kind of dough would make much more sense, but maybe I need to acknowledge that I cling to the past and things that look like they're from the past -- and that some people actually prefer to compose on an LCD screen at arm's length.

Joe

 

[Stunsworth]

Steve,

Are you not happy with the XPro-1?

I've been a Leica user for the best part of 20 years (mainly M2/3 and M6), and I've had an M8 since 2006, so it's more a case of feeling more comfortable with that system. There are some features of the Fuji that I like - the single electronic framelines is something I thought Leica would introduce at some point - but it's not the same. That's why I'm not going to rush into getting out of the system, it may win me over in time.

As for the lenses, I only have two. The 18mm that came with the body, and isn't that good at the edges, and the 35mm lens that I chose as my 'free' one when I bought the camera. The 35mm lens is much better, though they are both larger than similar M lenses (but lighter).

I bought the Leica M adaptor, but that means I have to use the EVF, and while it's better than other EVFs that I've used it's still nowhere near as good as a 'proper' SLR. The other thing is that I find the EVF rather dark in daylight, that's possibly just a setting somewhere as it's fine in low light.

I've found it very easy to accidently move the exposure compensation wheel when taking the camera out of the camera bag, to the extent that it's something I check now before switching the camera on.

The good things? Well, the high ISO is much, much, better than my M8 - and I expect an M9 - but I never shot much above ISO 400 in my film days.

So overall it's still a work in progress, lets see what the rest of the year brings.

 

[Joe P]

Steve,

If you've used Leicas for years I think that staying within the Leica ecosystem makes sense. My problem with the Leica's digital rangefinders is their cost. Not that the M-series film camera are cheap, but at least you don't have to buy a new camera if film is improved.

The M8 is a classic example of the problem -- a great camera with a meh sensor, at least compared with what's available today.

Joe