lemonhooker: It is in no way difficult to handle. Leica designed it to fit right in your hand , much better than any of the competition .
And I think this a well enough designed body, but you've handled the entirety of the competition?
qianp2k: I went to see the show in last three years. Looking forward to playing some new cameras just announced recently or going to announce by September - Canon 3D? (mega-pixel), 7D II, Sony A7s, A77 II, A9?, RX10, Nikon D810, Df, Panasonic FZ1000, GH4, Olympus E-M1, something new, Pentax 645Z...
I can imagine other reasons for visiting Manhattan than photo gear stores. Also other ways than driving. Anyhow you'll have to make the short trip in late Oct if you want to go to the show.
Just another Canon shooter: It would match my kitchen appliances.
Which part, the Sony sensor? The aluminum block?
And what does your claim have to do with the OP?
Many of those are on display in stores already, so why wait until the end of Oct?
And Ricoh/Pentax wasn't there in 2013.
SammyToronto: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this thing doesn't look beautiful to me. It may be built like a tank, but it looks like the average Sony/Samsung mirrorless camera and less attractive than the average Fuji/Olympus mirrorless camera.
Now, I'm not talking about performance, status, heritage or any of that, but purely on the aesthetic level this Leica underwhelms.
It be plenty good aesthetically--unless you don't like the industrial look.
shutterbud: Well well well. Leica charge you a fortune for their "Optical Excellence" and it turns out to be smoke and mirrors. I was never likely to buy this camera but a tiny part of me wanted to be able to justify saving for it if the results were spectacular.Now it looks like even more of a chuffing con.
iAPX:I have yet to read reviews of the 23mm lens, but my experience was it is good not great.
jacobwhite: I simply don't understand why there is no choice for a full-frame camera in a professional body in the range of say 20-24 mp. For goodness sake just throw out a second model, everything the same just with a smaller sensor for those users who don't need a grip most of the time, but do require a professional body (i.e. not a D610). I'm not saying there isn't a place for the D810, I'm saying there is a need for a "Nikon 5DIII".
Unless you want the knobs and wheels, high ISOs are the only real advantage the Df has on the D610.
The Canon 6D is a somewhat better high ISO camera than the D610 and cheaper than the Df.
sixtiesphotographer: This camera seems to be a disaster from an ergonomic perspective: identical non-dedicated dials, controls buried in menus, non-intuitive or counter-intuitive operation.
I love my M3's and M6's, but those were created by a different (and much better) design team.
My Fuji X-Pro1 is a far better camera than this Leica T in all respects and is closer to what a "true Leica" should be in the digital era.
It's easy enough to use.
I disagree with some choices, but that's different.
quezra: How is making it so reliant on touchscreen in any way bold? Sony NEX-5N did it years ago. Samsung Galaxy NX did it the most recently. Even the upcoming Lytro camera is going to do it. I think DPR were desperate to say something nice about Leica, but honestly this isn't bold. It's a design choice that many have tried, and eventually rolled back in favor of more physical controls which a VF necessitates for tactile feedback.
This is significantly different than most other touch screens like that on the Samsung NX300. (I pick the Samsung because I'm more familiar with that than the Nex 5n.)
It is very bold step.
Tapper123: I wouldn't want one either. I don't even think it even looks particularly good.
I get the appeal of Leica rangefinders -- at least they offer something unusual compared to most cameras and the design is truly classic. But this T... strictly a fashion statement camera IMO. Much better off with a nice Fuji or Sony mirrorless.
And the look of the box is the deciding factor?
ThomasSwitzerland: The beauty of this Leica is that it is so useless in functionality. But the bright body got timeless style. It is not designed to make interesting pictures but to show off. Hence, it got its market.
If we had a stand-up comedian show, this camera could provide plenty of stories on how one might take pictures alternatively.
Leica delivers a big attention item. It differentiates the buyer from the rest of those “cheap” black plastic camera users. And you need the matching small dog or hand bag for this. So it stays in high ticket environments.
It's far from useless, and I've shot with it.
Flashback: It's Leica glass stupid....
I remember, everybody rubbishing the earlier X1, but boy did it produce some beautiful images.
While many Leica lenses are amazing, including m4/3s PanaLeicas and the X-Vario's lens, I'm not real impressed with the DNGs I shot with this T and the 23mm lens. They're good, not great.
For that price they should be great, perhaps something can be tweaked in the firmware to improve IQ, since other Leica X cams do excellent IQ.
whywefight: "The pricing is bonkers by anyone's standards..." So please, what does this have to do with the shooting experience?
Start up time and selection of the autofocus point!? That's all!? No other complaints? This review would be a lot more convincing if it both mentioned pros and con's of the interface. But it is written with so much anger and so one sided that it cannot be taken serious. Someone appears to have chosen to dislike the camera because he cannot afford it. This is my clear impression.
I extensively tested the camera in a Leica store. Anyone who claims he cannot tell apart the two rear dials must be bonkers by anyone's standards. Please get real. Since the interface of this camera is completely new and vastly different from usual cameras, I expected a thorough discussion of the pros and con's. Instead you get to read this childish rant. I am very disappointed.
Check the date on the first impressions "review".
ARB1: I wonder if I can just purchase the little red Leica sticker and put it on my Olympus OMD.
Why not? Good PanaLeica lenses to use. But not the same sensor.
Will Taylor73: God Leica are tedious! They bring out these hyped-up 2nd rate cameras and the mindless Leica fan-bois come out in droves to clap their hands and congratulate a dying company on it's paltry efforts to make itself relevant. Leica are simply irrelevant to modern photography. When I see someone with a digital Leica I know (from experience and making an effort to chat to these folks) that they are cashed-up pretenders who care far more about the credence the brand 'lends' their photography than just about anything else. Let Leica dye I say.
You know this how?
sghound: i wonder if this is more of a failure or the DF?
There's no mystery to how I acquired the raws, I shot them. I will not share them for download, and therefore there is no source to show.
I'm almost always identify the source for downloaded raws when I'm talking about raws that I got from say Imaging Resource or Photographyblog, or here at DPR.
Yes sometimes I have raws before they are extractable with ACR or C1. As do many other people.
However the A7S raws that I shot I extracted with ACR 8.5. Also using that body with the 55 f1.8 the color isn't great.
Now the D810 raws that didn't impress me for color were indeed extracted with ACR 8.6beta. I shot those raws.
I have my own raws from both, and I'm quite sure of what I speak.
Also ISO 3200 is not a high ISO for a full framed body in 2013 terms.
The D610 stops being useable at ISO 12800, while the Df can be easily used thru ISO 30000.
If you don't have use for these ISOs, why comment on high ISO bodies?
One uses high ISOs in doors in places like theaters, the usefulness is well established and in 5 years regularity shooting easily at ISO 50,000 will have become normal.
Dismayed: The price point is absurd when compared to the Sony NEX or to the Samsung NX lines.
Go by lens use not testing claims.
Yet again, I've avoided the price thing. And I don't dispute the price claim.
The Df's high ISO work is much better than the D610. It is not simply a detail thing, the magnification thing is a point of confusion. Resolution is not everything.
Sony is not the same company as Nikon. And Sony has much more experience in this area. As you say: External recorder.
Too bad that with fewer MPs, the Sony A7S can't match the high ISO capacity of the Df, or the color.
True to a point, but for whatever reason Nikon decided to go with a smaller sensor, makes for lighter bodies and smaller lighter lenses.
It's not a choice that I'd have made, but it's still completely valid.