bluevellet: Cool feature if you already own the camera, but not really worth buying the camera for it. A real interchangeable lens camera is better and most m43/APSC mirrorless cameras are probably smaller with a 35 and 50mm lens attached.
No it isn't. You can hardly make a detachable 23mm lens of the size of X100's lens — just look how big is the Leica's Summarit T 2/23.
Boss of Sony: Is this camera better than Canon 70d or Pentax K3? Can someone help me? I have no idea.
It is very different. Most refined classic DSLR experience, which is also highly enjoyable, is I think one in the Pentax K-3. I believe Pentax makes best DSLRs and delivers top-notch DSLR experience, bar none.
One step below that classic and highly polished experience, and more towards the gadget level that appeases hordes, is the 70D. If you have canon lenses, maybe a good choice. But I think its OVF and usability is rather lacking, albeit there is enough gadgetry inside to keep you occupied for months.
A77 is different than both. I frankly do not understand the appeal of this line of cameras from Sony, because it is not built to provide any special aesthetic experience. A cacophony of technologies without a certain aim. I think Sony has lost the idea what matters in photography after a rather nice A100 camera, perhaps because most of it was designed directly by the ex-Minolta team.
Every single camera manufacturer applies for various patents monthly. I wonder why is this one taken out and presented on DPR? First I remember was a news "Sony is planning a possible firmware update", then this patent about a possible product from Sony — which in both cases is "news" about no news. A pinnacle of journalism, indeed.
nickthetasmaniac: DPR, I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the sustainability of using 1.2kg of aluminium to create a 94g shell? Even assuming the waste aluminium is reused, this still requires a great deal of additional energy. Or do these things not matter so long as "The result is an extraordinarily tactile, solid-feeling object."
Being a niche, artisan manufacturer does not excuse Leica from its environmental responsibility.
It is already recycled aluminium, most likely. But it has to be shaped in "bricks" or billets in order to use it. A frame produced in such a way is sturdier and will last longer, will be kept away from landfills for a long time. There are more benefits in this approach.
pedromeyer: Leica, seems to do a few things right, and then many more wrong. Get better advisors for starters. The ones you have, suck. You are not Apple, let us get that matter out of the way, no sense imitating them.
What would you change in T Type? It was obviously thought from the perspective of the iPhone, and imagines in terms, "How would an iPhone work as a real camera"? The proposition is not bad in itself, as many people are at home when using iPhones, and yet, many cannot grasp the entire complexity and use of their "real" cameras. Simple menu in T Type reveals everything, without magical combination of buttons to be pressed.Times change. iPhone did change photography, and it is a worthy cause to build and continue on iPhone's experience onwards, rather than fighting it. I personal think Leica did many thing right with T Type.
Bene Placito: I am using a Leica X Vario and enjoying the experience.
I will be interested to see how the T performs.
At the moment the X Vario is doing all the T seems to offer.
I think T Type does more than XVario in terms of versatility. However, XVario may have a slightly more expensive lens.
PhotoNaturally: Not everyone has 2 thumbs, so I think that one front dial and one back dial will still work better.
That is a valid criticism. And I think many would agree with that. However, like in case with iMacs, the vital ports thrown in the back (not even available on the sides) for the sake of "cleanliness" of lines and material. Form before function, than can be annoying to some degree.
Zvonimir Tosic: Sample images provided by DPR (it seems no matter which camera they test) are almost the worst one can find on the net, random in terms of composition and unappetising in terms of light. For a much better idea on what T Type Leica lenses and imaging can do, take a look at the review at Red Dot Forum with heaps better and varied sample images taken with both kit lenses:http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/343-Leica-T-(Typ-701)-Review
They are busy reviewing gear, obviously, but they would definitely benefit from a few workshops in photography.
Sample images provided by DPR (it seems no matter which camera they test) are almost the worst one can find on the net, random in terms of composition and unappetising in terms of light. For a much better idea on what T Type Leica lenses and imaging can do, take a look at the review at Red Dot Forum with heaps better and varied sample images taken with both kit lenses:http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/343-Leica-T-(Typ-701)-Review
Zvonimir Tosic: After pulling out EXIF data from some DPR test shots, it was concluded DPR indeed did a sloppy job in evaluating the K-3. In the AF-C test, they have left the Shake Reduction on, which means camera wanted to stabilise each image in consecutive firing like it would do in a single shot mode. The Conclusion? DPR made a wrong conclusion about the camera's AF, of course. Their verdict is invalid and wrong and inconsistent with results experienced users are getting out of K-3. Truth is the K-3 is a very sophisticated machine, allowing for many settings. It is not a P&S toy. Get to know your gear, especially with a less known and more unique brand of cameras, and have a thorough attitude before testing or making public verdicts.
To put it simply, SR is designed to correct for accidental movement when photographer is trying to hold the camera steady.
If the camera is meant to move (when panning, tracking a subject, etc) for which a photographer will most likely use AF-C, then the SR should be turned off.
PeakAction: I wish people would stop using the term, "rangefinder style mirrorless" to describe every camera that simply has a flat top plate. It doesn't even have a built-in EVF.
Consider it a bonus. While image quality today is good enough to stand the test of time, EVF technology is still in diapers. Removing it from the camera body does not denigrate camera's value as quickly as in the case, of say, G7, OM-D, etc.
arndsan: 45min hand polished - bizarre marketing for a camera.
Not bizarre at all. Truth is that not a single component in this sorry industry gets any decent human attention. The amount of human interaction is minimised to save on cost. When something is hand made, or assembled and hand tuned, that is a miracle these days. The whole of manufacturing has been dehumanised.
topstuff: Really, really, puzzling how people interested in a supposedly creative subject like photography, place no value at all on aesthetics or the satisfaction of the interaction with the tools they use.
This Leica is by all accounts a very pleasing and satisfying thing to use -from the feel of the body to the better-than-ever-before use of a touch screen. This alone is justification enough for its existence.
If some people fail to see that there is satisfaction to be gained in the user experience of something like this, compared to interacting with a lump of black plastic, then that is their problem.
MacBook costs less because it is made by Apple in California and designed by Apple in China.Or it is the other way round?
Marty4650: It really is nice to have a high build quality, made using premium materials.
But is it really necessary to build a camera body to last 100 years, when the sensor is probably good for around 5 years, the shutter probably for 10, and the electronics themselves probably for less than 20?
Lenses might last forever, but digital camera bodies have a very short life, in terms of technology.
Since so many people treat their cameras as disposable, upgrading them constantly, then perhaps the bodies should be made of plastic and cardboard?
But then again... Leicas aren't cameras as much as they are jewelry, status symbols, and luxury items. Most real photographers aren't fabulously wealthy, and would not buy a $2,000 camera when a $500 camera would perform just as well.
Compare the Leica T to the Fuji X-A1 ($450) and you will see my point. Two very similar cameras, with very similar capabilities, but one costs four times as much as the other does.
Aluminium is very reusable. In fact, this construction is more environmentally friendly and is easier to recycle. But to switch to it, other manufacturers would need a slight revamp of their facilities, and retooling. It isn't Leica's fault others are not investing in something that is obviously better in the long run.
plasnu: It's pathetic that they have to emphasize how the body is made... This is probably the only distinctive feature of this gadget.
Nah. If they had to show everyone how lenses are designed and made for the T, people would get a heart attack when realising how cheap, and utter rubbish kit lenses are by all other manufacturers.
andy amos: It should make for a very stylish paperweight in a couple of years.
Is that "couple of years" 2 years, or 5, or 7? Because I can still use a digital camera of 5 years ago to make my bread and butter. If your cameras turn into paperweights in 2 years, that is not your camera's problem, but yours obviously.
digiart: When electronics advance so fast, mechanical excellence ads little value. Making it from a solid chunk of aluminum might be "cool", but the whole point of mechanical excellence is durability, and this camera (like others) will probably be too outdated in less than 5 years.
In 10 or 20 years time, probably it will not even be possible to buy a new battery! Over $3500 USD for such short lifetime seems excessive.
I don't think it will. That might have been true 8 or 9 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago, but not so today. Sensor tech in particular was progressing quickly and tech was obsolete yearly. But with care, today's system cameras can last a long time. On the other hand, smartphone photography is at the level of digital P&S photography of 8 years ago, and people buy it every year.
melon: No offense to Leica users, but I can only thank Fuji that they had released their X system before Leica did this.
By all means try T Type, and then try Fuji's X camera. And then you will see and understand. I personally use Pentax cameras and Limited lenses and cannot really enjoy Fuji cameras because they feel inferior in every respect of craftsmanship. In 10 years maybe they'll make something nice.
Or in terms of a sport's vocabulary, what you showed us is a punch below the waist, Richard. Those images should be pulled down asap, as they show wrong use, and are shots against the recommended settings. If you want to make us believe K-3 delivers same results with or without SR turned off, then we shall at least say to readers of this review that is not true. However, if that is really the case, then please substitute same poor images with SR on with poor images with SR off, to give readers more precise evaluation to conclude whether it's the camera's fault, or your lack of skill. Thank you.
Camera is by no mean a mind reader which knows what next move a user will do, and how quickly the panning / camera motion speed will increase. Thus it is generally recommended to leave the SR off in AF-C. (Despite some users' claim they always and on all Pentax cameras successfully used AF-C with SR on, but which is wrong use despite the fact it may work in some specific instances). We'd love to see all the motion tracking images you have taken with the SR off, to analyse exif data and see other variables and how can you improve K-3 handling and technique.