badi: It would have been nice if the zoom lenses were some like their tri-elmar lenses for M. Also the aesthetics should be similar. For the price... and sensor size... 3.5-5.6 sounds so... sad. Some Tri-Elmar 18-35-56 F/2.8 would make so much more sense ... or at least 3.5.
The body is beautiful, but it has to stay with some lens on it... and if the lens are not of the same style & beauty .... well...
"but with a camera like this it makes much more sense to have a zoom"
The question is: does Tri-Elmarit has IQ of a prime or of a zoom?
If it is former, then I want one for m43, please.
Blake Willis: This would have been somewhat interesting had Fuji not eaten (& continues eating) Leica's lunch starting a couple years ago with the X-system.
With yet another proprietary lens mount it's dead in the water for anyone outside the money-is-no-object target market.
It's unfortunate that they didn't take this opportunity to build something with an existing lens system, along with a host of fine lenses that users of other bodies would be drawn to. But then I guess they were never interested in being a volume player...
But some are less so.
Nikon's F-mount is open by virtue of Nikon never really bothering to patent/copyright/etc it.
Sony's E-mount is free/open (depending on whom you ask) to lens manufacturers.
Olympus/Panasonic MFT mount is open to members of the MFT consortium, to which theoretically any company can enter. (MFT consortium right now has more than 20 members now - http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/group.html . Fun fact: Leica is a member.)
Shamael: let's now wait that Panasonic brings us the same camera with bit more plastic and 950$ lens included.
Rumors say that Panasonic is a manufacturing partner, but the T cameras and lenses are going to be exclusive to Leica.
You can tell that Panasonic is only a manufacturer by the handicapped video capabilities of the T.
Nick8: There are only 3 camera manufacturers making profit and Leica is one of them.They are doing their homework right, obviously.A stupid car costing millions is attracting fewer critics than an expensive and high quality camera, which is just slightly out of the reach for many people. I am one of those who cannot afford to buy it, but I would.
> A stupid car costing millions [...]
... has torque and horse powers to show for it. The expensive wood/carbon/leather finish is just a sugar coating, really.
This Leica T? Nothing really but the expensive finish. And another proprietary mount.
LarryLatchkey: From an environmetal point of view aluminium is one of the most problematic materials, and milling this thing from a block ... Germany has been a lot about sustainability, but the richer the customer the less important the green credentials.
Is this uni-body really about more than marketing and appearance? I could see it as a body that you can send in to get the aging/broken interior replaced in 5 years. This is made to last, so why not develop a system where the body can be re-used? the flange focal distance won't change, and APSC will stay around for a while, or not?
"from a recycling point"
Only small fraction of goods reach recycling. Most end up in a landfill.
Plus, even if recycling aluminium is cheap, producing aluminium is very energy-consuming and water-polluting process.
So on the whole, aluminium isn't particularly environment friendly.
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.
"So there can be no luxury in consumer electronics?"
There can be.
But that is also automatically diminutive: luxury items are to be displayed to others, not to be used as tool. Only gullible buy luxury tools. Because even typical rich person has more sense (or s/he isn't going to be rich for very long).
IOW, if you want a camera, then you do not want the Leica T. If you want an exclusive item sitting on the shelf of your cool office, then Leica M with a Nocticron would do a much better job.
Arthur Winner: I would be interested to know how well existing Leica "m" lenses work with the Leica T body and in particular if Leica will make any firmware adjustments to get the best out of the "m" lenses.If they have or will then I might get one.
But only with a crop factor, since sensor is APS-C, not 35mm.
"[...] instead the battery has an integrated cover that fits flush with the baseplate."
Oh my. The battery gonna cost. And if you wanna spares, if gonna costs twice as much.
Graham Gibson: So many haters here who bash this thing purely on cost. I wonder how many of them paid a premium for an Apple computer or iPhone over some cheaper alternative? I don't see much difference. Surely there's some level of enjoyment to be had from the design and ergonomics.
"I wonder how many of them paid a premium for an Apple computer or iPhone over some cheaper alternative?"
iDevices are not as overpriced as the Leicas.
Also Apple's premium is recuperated very very quickly with their excellent service, which very often is close to where one lives.
For Leica analogies you need to dig the luxury goods market. E.g. designer sofa for $10000, which is almost identical to the Ikea's $250 one...
JohnEwing: Ohne mich.
Ohne dich kann ich nicht seinOhne dichMit dir bin ich auch alleinOhne dichOhne dich zähl ich die Stunden ohne dichMit dir stehen die SekundenLohnen nicht
Juraj Lacko: That brushed aluminium will pick scratches like crazy.
"They are fairly resistant to scratches."
No, they are not. Scratches are harder to stop but they are there all right. (Dents, even small, are more visible.)
Also the scratches often happen in the same place and though invisible in the beginning, later, when their number increases, they become highly visible and unaesthetic: as if somebody touched the surface with sandpaper.
I'm no fan of the FF/135 format, but IMO for Leica to release an APS-C camera is a HUGE mistake.
The 100% M mount compatibility (with adapter) should have been the top priority and top feature of the T.
All in all, I'd say, the release is "well" timed: I foresee a spike in Sony A7 sales.
A mirrorless without PDAF in this age??
miiicho: At these prices ... suddenly even OM-D E-M1 looks like a bargain.Seriously ...
@G1Houston, and BMW dealer points to the other corner of the shop and says: "There we have the 3s for half this price". ;)
To some it is about *a* camera. To others it is about *the* camera. To former it is a tool - to later it is a statement and/or symbol. Former show you the images - later show you the camera.
ranger604: No IBIS or OIS. Does this make purists happy?
I don't know.
But inclusion of AF sure makes them upset.
Impulses: Wish they'd add a touchscreen! Would solve some of the UI issues. It's so nice for setting up an AF point or even shooting all in one tap...
@pew pew, all touch screen boasting mirrorless have an option to disable it. Even the Pana GM1, which is almost unusable without it.
Debankur Mukherjee: Fuji High ISO has very less noise but the raw files are not that sharp.......its a bit soft.......
That is one of the central ideas of the X-Trans layout: ability to better eliminate the chroma noise. Sadly, details are washed in the process too. But the colors are preserved much better with much less guessing than in Bayer layout. To me personally (disclaimer: I'm no Fuji X owner) the trade off is very good: to me at high ISOscolor fidelity is more important than the fine details.
Anyhow. Fine details would always suffer on the X-Trans, compared to the Bayer, since former uses 3x3 pixel groups while later 2x2. Yet it is quite debatable by how much the details "suffer", since both of the sensors are not true-color ones a-la Foveon: fine details (and fine color variations too) are inevitably lost to demosaicing.
Elaka Farmor: How can RX100 (with its much smaller sensor and more megapixels) have better dynamic range and color depth, and a two years old olympus with a smaller sensor (E-PM2) have much better low light ISO??http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-PowerShot-G1-X-Mark-II-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PM2___941_896_840
@Elarka: "How can [...] have much better low light ISO??"
I have a simple explanation: DxO numbers are worthless and have little relation to reality.
Ever wondered why DxO is the only one doing the number magic? Even DPR doesn't do it. Probably because everybody else stopped, thought about it for a short moment and dismissed the whole idea of expressing camera performance with a handful of numbers as ridiculous.
ThePhilips: I hope the lens performs. Because it appears that they have fixed most complains of the original G1X.
Not including an EVF is a let down, though.
True. But ruins the all-in-one experience.
I hope the lens performs. Because it appears that they have fixed most complains of the original G1X.