munro harrap: Plus, nag, nag, it is absolutely useless without the EVF with those new zooms, and so the EVF should be built-in. ALL of it is cost-cutting and profiteering. I just hope it is weatherproof and that the very conductive body does not heat the noisy sensor and make it even more noisy.And I still think they are Fuji lenses.!!!!
Time to take your medication, munro. You're talking crazy again.
munro harrap: The adaptor for M lenses costs £300. The EVF costs £400. The camera itself costs £1350 and the kit lens costs £1250 (Fuji's is £500 new).
That adds up to £3000 for a 16MP half-frame camera.
Now, I would like to know, and perhaps Dpreview can help us here. Wuill the circuits fail after a few years because Leitz also use lead-free solder in their circuitry?Do the more expensive cameras have a longer (that is normal-like an old Nikon film camera) lifespan because they use leaded solder.
£3000 is a lot of money if it dies after a year or two.
Your question about whether the camera will "die after a year or two" is quite absurd. Did you just arrive in this century? My first DSLR was a Canon 10D back in 2003, which I gave to sold to a friend when I upgraded. A decade later, my friend is still using it, and it still works perfectly fine. Today, electronics are even better than they were ten years ago, and I'm quite sure that Leica's manufacturing and components are state-of-the-art. So to ask about the quality of their soldering material, as if you're the only genius to ever consider such a factor in a camera, is truly laughable.
BTW, APS-C is not "half-frame".
ThePhilips: "[...] 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.
I'm pretty sure the average Leica customer will be able to afford it. If you're the kind of person who is concerned about the cost of an additional battery, you're definitely not the kind of buyer that Leica is aiming for.
Frank_BR: I bet that Leica will get more comments here than orders for its new camera. :-)
I'm sure this is going to be a hot seller for Leica. It's a new lower entry point for a "true" Leica product. It reminds me of when Porsche introduced the Cayman as a cheaper alternative to the 911 Carrera. A lot of people criticized Porsche for introducing the Cayman, especially as the Cayman looked so similar to the Carrera, but at a much lower price. Well, the Cayman became a hot seller for Porsche, and gained them a much larger pool of customers that otherwise couldn't have afforded a 911 Carrera. It was a very smart move for Porsche.
With Leica, you still have the M as Leica's version of the 911 Carrera (the expensive model). But now we have the T as Leica's version of the Cayman (the baby Leica at a more affordable price). Both are still prestige products, but one is just a more affordable entry-point to the brands' prestige.
munro harrap: But it is only a half-frame 16MP sony in a coke can with no M mount.No pro other than a poseur will use it as you cant swap lenses and 16MP after Sony's own 24MP sensors (A6000, Nikon D7100) is a debatable choice, as with fast AF prime lenses who needs more than low isos in any case.
Its scary how you now pay so much more for a whole lot less. The M9 is a bargain in comparison.
None of the lenses are Leitz, when even their microscope eyepieces are.Shame!!
"Its scary how you now pay so much more for a whole lot less. The M9 is a bargain in comparison."
LOL, the $7,000 M9 is a bargain compared to the T? In case you didn't know, the M9 only has 18mp (compared to the T's 16mp). Plus, the M9 has no AF, no touchscreen, a comparatively tiny 2.5" LCD screen, no TTL viewing, no zoom lenses, no on-board flash, no 5fps shooting, no wifi, no on-board memory, no video, no electronic accessory port, etc. Sure, the M9 has a FF sensor, but that's about all it has over the T. So how is it that the M9 is a "bargain" compared to the T, and how is it that you're getting "a whole lot less" with the T? Please explain.
Frankly, I think it's time to put the M out to pasture. Time to pass the mantle onto the T (and a future full frame T)! The M is so last-century. The T (and a future full frame T) is the Leica system for the 21st century.
bluevellet: I sense a lot of fanboy fear from just a bland, APS-C camera costing 2000 bucks (lol).
This camera obviously does nothing for me, but the commotion in the comment section is certainly worthy of interest.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "bland". Leica M bodies aren't exactly "exciting", because those bodies are actually quite conservative. And they cost a heck of a lot more than $2K. No, Leica M bodies-- on paper, at least-- have always been "bland" when it comes to their specs. Leica's have really been about their tactile feel, build quality, and the quality of their lenses. If all you care about is how Leica cameras compare in specs, then all Leicas are going to seem "bland." But you'd be missing the point of Leica cameras. It's never been about delivering exciting specs on paper.
billbourd: I'm surprised Leica chose not to machine the camera out of titanium instead of the cheaper, softer aluminum. If it were titanium I might have had to invest in one. :)
I think it's completely absurd that some people here are thinking that aluminum is "soft" and somehow inadequate. I guess these people have never used a unibody Macbook, which is made of aluminum. Or used an iPhone, which is made of very thin aluminum and yet is very stiff. The iMac I'm typing on is made of aluminum, and it's as tough as nails. High quality aluminum is definitely not "soft". The latest Ford F-150 pickup truck has a new aluminum body, for crying out loud!
Peter CS: Too much time spent on this "luxury camera" by DP, which is sorely lacking in both technological innovation and resolution. Construction quality is great, but real Leica (M film and Digital) photographers also want weather-sealing, high dynamic range, high resolution, etc., and not just a fancy red Leica dot on an aluminum brick. For the price and prestige, I would expect a weather-sealed, titanium or magnesium brick with a great- read high-traction grip and designated add-on extra battery grip. This Leica T, unfortunately, fails to even create or inspire a "lust to own" factor.
"Construction quality is great, but real Leica (M film and Digital) photographers also want weather-sealing"
Leica M's are not weather sealed. Neither are their lenses. Weather sealing has never been a selling point of Leica M gear, and it still hasn't kept them from having a loyal fan base. Leica M's aren't made of titanium either, except for a few limited edition units. As for magnesium, I don't think that would be any better than milled aluminum; in fact, I think it'd be worse because magnesium is more brittle. Aluminum is also more corrosion resistant; a magnesium body requires a protective coating to save it from corrosion, which means Leica wouldn't be able to offer it in the shiny bare aluminum. It's probably only be available in black, like all the black magnesium DSLRs that are currently in the market, or they'd have to paint it silver.
rondhamalam: and the Image Quality is NOT better than Nikon D5100
Well, back in the film days, a $2000 SLR camera didn't give you better image quality than a $200 SLR camera. In fact, today I'd say that without pixel peeping and without going to extreme ISO levels, most of today's latest digital interchangeable lens cameras produce image quality that is fairly comparable. So the reality is that we are pay different prices on different cameras for reasons other than just image quality.
You also have to remember that just like in the film days when two different cameras were using the exact same film (and therefore, delivering the same image quality), the same is happening with today's digital cameras that are using the same (or very similar) sensors. So just like in the film days, it shouldn't be that surprising that one camera doesn't deliver better image quality than another camera. So, as I said before, you can choose one camera over another for reasons other than image quality.
JohnnyOldBoy: This what the market needs, something different and not overloaded with features most people will never need. The style and design will attract new people to photography. My kids would buy and use this but they wouldn't consider a bloated CaNikon DSLR.
I like some of the design features including the use of colour and the way the strap attaches to the body.
Also it comes with 16GB memory included, like tablets and phones, I have wondered for a while why other manufacturers don't do this and offer memory options.
@HowaboutRAW - regarding the wifi data transfer, I think it could be a great convenience if they had an app or program where it happens automatically. My Android phone uploads photos to the cloud automatically every time it gets onto a wifi network. It also automatically downloads new podcasts onto my phone. I also transfer movies and television shows I want to watch onto my phone via wifi (I watch them at the gym when I'm on the stationary bike or treadmill). So I'm probably already transferring gigs of data back and forth over wifi on my phone. And its convenient because it's not as if I'm sitting there watching it transfer; it all happens automatically, behind the scenes. If we could get our cameras to do the same things are phones are already doing, it would be awesome. But even plugging a camera into a computer really shouldn't be a big deal. A lot of us are already doing these behaviors with our phones; I'd like to do the same with a camera that has internal memory (and wifi).
MM67: Hilarious. I think that $100 turd of a case proves Leica knows it's new 'base' will buy anything if it's overpriced enough. It matches those ghastly neon sneakers I see everyone wearing while on holiday in NYC. This isn't sour grapes: I owned and loved using my M-6s for decades. I'm so glad the object of my young gadget lust was a beautifully styled/built juggernaut of a camera. Not some shiny, mediocre-spec laden novelty. Someone's got to pay the bills at Solms I guess!
Yep, sounds like sour grapes, alright. LOL. You seem to forget that, in its time, there were plenty of other photographers who considered your beloved M6's to be nothing but overpriced, over-romanticized, shiny, anachronistic novelties for people with more money than brains. Now, you're exhibiting the ultimate in hypocrisy by approving of your own appreciation for your Leicas, while ridiculing any appreciation for this new Leica. If anything, your Leica M6's (adjusted for today's dollars, and taking into account that they were little more than glorified light-tight boxes that held film) were *FAR* more overpriced than this Leica T. A new Leica M7 costs a whopping $5K. Surely, for that price, film must be included, right? No? Do you get an APS-C sensor for that money? Any internal memory? A large rear LCD? AF? Nope, just an overpriced, shiny, sub-mediocre-spec novelty. LOL. The reality is that for what people paid for M6's, it makes the T seem like a bargain.
blink667: Beautiful camera, but $2000 for $500 worth of performance?
So? I have male friends who spend $5000 on a watch that doesn't tell time any better than a $35 Casio. I have female friends who spend $5000 on a purse that doesn't carry their lipstick any better than a $35 purse. Not every purchase is a pure value calculation, especially when you get into the upper levels of income and when it comes to premium goods.
fakuryu: So what is special about this Leica compared to the rest of the mirrorless market?
IMHO Leica is a special camera as they are able to fit a 135 sensor in something as compact as a rangefinder and in tandem with their excellent FF lenses.
So how does this compare and differentiate itself to Sony, Fuji, Samsung (you can also throw a Pentax K01 in the mix) when it comes to IQ? None really, the competition is so tight it will be hard to differentiate what is what.
So how about the lenses now? Nothing also really since other manufacturers also produce top quality optics on par with any other company. Mostly it is ignorance and badge snobbery.
Lay people have been saying "Leica's aren't really that special" ever since the film days. But Leica people obviously feel quite differently. For one thing, they appreciate the unique build quality of Leica bodies. For example, Leica rangefinders use milled brass top and bottom plates. In the case of the Leica T, it uses a body milled from a solid block of aluminum. Not everything is about speeds and feeds (specs).
And as for competition, anyone interested in a Leica really isn't going to be shopping around for the best value camera. It's the same way that some people don't shop around for the best value in a car; some people just want a particular brand of car because that's what they want, and they have the money to afford it. There are plenty of people who go out and buy a $150K car, even though there are a lot cars that offer better bang for your buck.
I have female friends who own purses costing $5,000. These purchases aren't about absolute practicality or value.
topstuff: Amazing the inverted snobbery in play here. I simply cannot understand why people give Leica ( and their owners ) such a hard time for simply being a "premium brand".
Drive an Audi and most of the mechanics are shared with a VW. A new Bentley has much in common with a VW.
Anyone with a "prestige" car criticising a Leica is rather missing the point IMO.
Or does everyone on DP review reject "premium cars" and drive Korean? I bet they don't.
I agree. There's definitely a place for "premium brands" in the marketplace for those who choose to spend more for it. It's like Apple in the computer/electronics market. I was always a PC user, but I got a Mac a couple years back, and I really do have to say that my iMac is built to an entirely different quality and materials standard than any other PC I've ever used. It's like an Audi or Lexus sitting on my desktop. The same can be said for this new Leica mirrorless. If you want cheaper, go buy another brand. But let there be Audi or Lexus-level "premium brand" products for those who don't mind spending more for them! There's already plenty of cheap plastic junk out there to choose from.
ottonis: This Lytro camera represents the consequential evolution of a revolutionary concept that had been presented to the public a few years ago. Not necessarily this particular camera but the concept behind it certainly represents the future of photography. I dare to predict that in 10y from now most cameras will use further refined and improved implementations of this technology. People who are ridiculing the Lytro camera are the same type of people who ridiculed the emerging digital photography 20y ago. We all know how digital phography has evolved and developed and how it almost entirely replaced film photography.This is the future. Certainly not in its final form, but the idea represents the future of fotography. Progressive photographers will embrace this (and other= novel technologies and romantic souls will dismiss it - till the Nikon Df mark 8 will be based just on this Lytro concept.
@munchmeister- "Why not just use what is available now (focus stacking, anyone) to make everything in focus in the first place."
Why not? For the same reason that photographers, videographers, and film makers currently use selective focus: to focus attention on a particular area within an image or scene. It's a visual tool that can be quite effective in directing the viewer's attention. A lot of times, when you have an image where "everything is in focus in the first place", sometimes the resulting effect is that the viewer ends up focusing on nothing, because there's just too much visual information to take in. Selective focus-- including dynamic and interactive selective focus that light field technology now offers- - is a way to focus the viewer's attention. Selective focus is also closer to the way the human eye sees the real world. We don't see the world "with everything in focus in the first place"; we selectively focus. Interactive Lytro images emulate real life.
illdefined: So many close-minded traditionalists here...1% of whom make any prints with their 20+ megapixel Bayer beasts..
Using this camera to make prints on paper is like watching a 3D movie with one eye closed. It completely defeats its intended purpose.
This camera isn't to correct focusing mistakes after-the-fact no, its to make INTERACTIVE STILLS. Yes, intended for the medium you are using right now, the SCREEN, which the vast majority of us look at _way_ more than ink on wood pulp, whether on our desks, the wall, or in our hands.
This camera makes photos you _interact_ with, so even in fine art applications, the output of this camera would be on Touch Screens, not paper. That said, 1080p is only 2mp; the latest commercial displays are 4k, which is just 8mp! That should put some of the worn-out MegaPixel Pride here in check (doubt it).
For those with no imagination, expect every working Product or Food Photographer to get one of these or risk losing business, and thats just for starters.
It's natural for the conservative, older generation to dismiss something new on the horizon. This reaction has been repeated multiple times throughout history. Now the stodgy older generation is doing it yet again with what this light field technology is offering.
Houseqatz: i almost feel bad for the people who cannot see the potential in this device.. almost..
@falconeyes - Really? When was the last time you were able to touch a photo and have it respond to your touch be altering its point of focus? They were doing this in 1908?!?! Can you post a link to these photos from decades ago with this capability?
The reality is that we now live in the age of the iPad and ubiquitous touch screens. And so many of the images we see are on these interactive devices. It is therefore logical that a new class of images arises in this new era of technology. I expect that it will seem perfectly natural for tomorrow's generation to want to interact and interact with photos, rather than just looking at them. Right now, we just passively view images with our eyes. Tomorrow's images will be much more interactive, allowing us to change the point of focus, increase or decrease the depth of field, maybe even allow slight shifts in perspective, etc. You certainly can't do that with today's photos, and certainly not with photos from 1908.
MaxiMax: I wonder how useful this technique could be. From what I understand, the image effects can only be displayed on monitors. For printing, one selects the effect to be printed - but then, much of it can also be done with post processing sw.
I think you're still thinking old-school, i.e., thinking of photography exclusively as it relates to the physical print. But the reality is that in the digital age, so many photos exist (sometimes exclusively) on digital screens and on digital devices. Most will never find their way onto a physical print. And they don't need to. We now live in the iPad age, the touchscreen age, where people no longer buy physical magazines or physical newspapers anymore. (I get all my mags on my iPad now; the iPad magazines are better anyways because they're more interactive, with interactive video, audio, images, etc.) So this Lytro technique is really the birth of a new type of still image for the digital touchscreen age where magazines and newspapers exist in electronic form rather than paper form. These new still images break from the static nature of print photos, much like magazines and newspapers have broken from the static nature of their printed form.
Basically, these are still images for the touchscreen age. If you look at kids these days, since they've grown up with iPads, when you put them in front of a desktop or laptop screen their natural inclination is to touch the screen. They expect the screen to respond to their touch. They want to move things around the screen with their fingers. They want to manipulate things on the screen with their touch. For them, the computer screen is an INTERACTIVE touch surface. Why can't photos allow this same kind of interactivity? Why can't a photo respond, interactively, to the viewer's touch? Of course, up until recently, that's just not been possible with still images. But I think Lytro opens up the door to this new kind of still image...the INTERACTIVE IMAGE, as you've put it.
I agree. This is a different type of "still image". Traditionalists still think of the "still image" in terms of the printed form: fixed, static, immovable. But so many of today's images now exist exclusively on the web and on digital devices, which frees them from the "fixed, static, immovable" restrictions of the printed form.
I think tomorrow's generation will think it perfectly natural to touch an image and be able to change its point of focus! Today's generation is going to naturally dismiss it as being absurd, much like many people dismissed the idea of using a smartphone without a physical keyboard as being absurd. Today's generation still thinks of a photo as being something that you don't interact with; it's simply something to be viewed passively with your eyes, like viewing the window displays along 5th Avenue in New York. These Lytro-type images allow more interactivity, allowing viewers to navigate and explore into an image, revealing things through interaction.