Shiny object: Leica T Shooting Experience

That's pretty much true across the board with DSLRs and MILC you can't just buy a new more modern digital back. Never had a Leica and don't really have the inclination to. From what I know Leica offer top draw lens. Lens last, as they can used by different bodies. So that's where I see the advantage of Leica. The best lens cost money on any system as the market for those lens is smaller so you're not going to be able 'stack'em high, knock'em cheap'.

Eric Hensel:

Unless you're referring the the Sigmas, I've used the Zeiss and SonyZeiss lenses for this Nex system, and they're just very good, not extraordinary, so unlike the best from Samsung and Olympus.

And the better Fuji lenses also best these various Zeisses.

Now what's not possible is to mount the Nex SonyZeiss 24mm f1.8 on say an NX30 or XT1 and see how well the lens does using different sensor conditions.

And no, the 55mm f1.8 SonyZeiss is just very good, not spectacular.

So again, unless the Sigmas hide some magic, there be problems with the native Sony Nex lenses if you want extraordinary image quality.

That Sony A mount FF 85mm f/1.4 lens is amazing, but not exactly native.

Thanks everyone. I have my lenses, so all I'd need are new adapters (and a kit lens, I suppose). I’m aware of Sony’s intended upgrade path, but was hoping to go upmarket, not downmarket. The NEX-7 was the top model, yet mine started playing up intermittently after a year and now has a couple of issues. I know I’m not alone with that problem. There's the A7, but is it built any better?
Cameras are different to hi fis and TV sets. A camera is an extension of our vision and bodies, and one likes a long-term relationship to build familiarity and style.
Hence I'm looking at this Leica, but in all the blurb and discussion there’s no mention of the No. 1 reason to buy Leica – they survive wars! Some photogs have developed their styles and conducted their careers with one familiar camera body. We forget that there were lots of forgettable Leica imitators.

Can't Leica claim longevity anymore, now that a camera can only last as long as the first diode that burns out inside it? Leica doesn’t make diodes. I’m mostly a Nikon DX and Canon full frame user, and I’ve enjoyed cameras that last pretty well. I’d like a mirrorless body to complement them. But until Canikon wake up and provide a serious mirrorless solution to complement their SLRs, it’s a bit frustrating.
So the unanswered question here for me: With this camera that seems nothing special in IQ and handling, what does that red dot mean? Is it just snob value, or are we still buying a camera that we can grow old with?

EcoPix:

One buys Leica digital for the lenses. (Albeit the S series is cheaper than a Hasselblad MF digital body.)

In the film era there were reasons to buy Leica bodies.

You have adapters for this T system? There's more than an M adapter available? Or do you mean you have M lenses, and can therefore use M lenses, with an adapter?

The Fuji XT1 and Olympus EM1 are probably the best thought out and executed mirrorless--short of the FF Sony A7S. However Samsung has some extraordinary lenses, shaming pretty much anything but the best Leica M, or Zeiss FF, lenses for optical quality.

Or yes, if you'll focus manually, the Sony A6000 is a good APSC mirrorless body. Many of the native lenses are the problem.

This Leica T is a perfectly promising first step, however I was not wowed by the T23mm lens, it's very good by most standards, but it's not very good for a Leica. I've not used the zoom--it's not "kit"; it costs extra.

Thanks H, that puts it in perspective. Re your adapter question, I'm confident there's a Chinese CAD engineer preparing a pattern as we speak.
Yes, I think if you're into unfolding camera history this is worth playing with, but personally I've stopped considering it. I don't think Leica imagined it for working pros.
I'm even considering throwing good money after bad and risking getting the NEX-7 fixed, and living with its interface. Maybe I'm crazy.
But we all eventually benefit from the smaller, agile and courageous boutique camera makers and the monied beta testers they need, so best wishes for Leica's T.

B2:

Are you shooting the T with the EVF?

white shadow:

Decent AF is not as old as you think. 20 years would be pushing it. And a dozen years ago few cameras had really good AF. So up to that time one had to know how to focus manually.

We got the point, no fairness required. It was obviously a slam against Leica, who must not have come across with any favors. Michael Reichmann (a real photographer) loves the T.

dale thorn:

Reichmann hasn't fully reviewed the T yet.

A:

I had to ask about playback, but the rest was easy enough. Never did try re-assigning the wheels though.

M lenses on an A7 will have vignetting problems.

That's true of ultrawides on an A7R, certainly. On a standard A7 or an A7S, less so. And certainly not with anything longer than about a 35mm. Anyway, it's better than wasting half the imaging circle of your £2500 lens, whichever way you look at it. But nobody said you had to have an A7. There's always the a6000 or various Samsung NX bodies if you want a better featured APS-C body for 1/3 the price (and the a6k comes with an EVF!) - okay, it's not hewn from a single block of aluminium, but if you've ever seen an Apple device that's been dropped, it's not the best of ideas anyway.

I 'get' the appeal of the M - I wouldn't buy one, since shooting with rangefinders isn't my cup of tea, but at least it has some unique and compelling features which somewhat justify its high ticket price. The T is just overpriced high-fashion jewellery. They can try and get me on board once they've put some proper buttons on it, added peaking, brought out a range of lenses and made the UI far more logical.

Azurael:

Right, there are indeed better APSC bodies than this Leica T.

I thought the T easy enough to use, it's not a body I'd buy because high ISO sensor performance is better with Samsung NX30 or Sony A5000. And the Leica T 23mm lens is not optically stunning, as it should be. While Samsung does have stunning NX lenses.

The Sony A6000 doesn't have a good EVF, unlike the excellent EVF on the Fuji XT1 or the just good EVF on the Samsung NX30. The Leica's EVF is very good, albeit one can't switch the camera so it's only using the EVF.

Never seen a new MacBook Pro dropped, and those are the only Apple products with chassis hewn out of aluminum blocks.

out

ProfHandkD:

Sockets (the part of the wrench doing the driving) are also usually chrome plated, and do indeed slip out of one's hand. Also wrenches, the ratcheting drivers, are indeed used for hours at a time. Adjustable wrenches, Crescents, plated in chrome are much less common than chrome plated ratchets and sockets.

Back to this Leica body:

Again, I've used this Leica and it does NOT slip out of one's hands. It is easy to grip. I've used it outdoors on a hot day.

I agree with JD and How...there are very valid criticisms about the T but it slipping from one's hands is not one of them. Grippy as a pine-tarred bat? No. Going to fly out of your hands at every turn? No.

Wrench handles are small bars which allow the user wrap their entire hand and fingers around the handle, hardly a suitable analogy for defending the ergonomics of a camera, which one has to pinch with a semi-open hand. They do make nicer wrenches with rubberized grips, as well.

My original comment was more about the shape than the material.

Since you ask, what I usually need is some horizontal texture or compressible surface. I have a lot of trouble holding cameras that don't have that.

ProHankD:

I've used the body, and for most people, perhaps not you because of your above claims, it is easy to hold.

@JDThomas:

That's a straw man. He doesn't mention the word "aluminum" in his original post, nor does he use the word "automatically". You clearly are defending the ergonomics of the camera. He posted a statement criticizing it; you posted a response refuting his statement: thereby you are defending the camera. That's what defending means.

@beaver:

he says, and I quote, "doesn't it proceed to slide out of your hand when you try to pick it up?"

This infers that when you pick up the camera it immediately slides out of your hand. Try reading for comprehension and not trying to defend his post by using semantics.

I'm not defending a camera. It's simply dumb to assume that you can't pick up a camera because it will proceed to slide out of your hand if you even TRY.

If he said that about ANY camera on the market I'd make the same comment.

@ JDThomas

The goal is to try to read for correct comprehension. Proceeding is a matter of sequence. Immediacy is a matter of speed. They are unrelated words. He sees that the camera is less than ideal to grip due to a combination of both the shape and the material. There is a range of ergonomics from absolutely terrible to extremely good. He is saying that this camera falls on the less desirable side of the spectrum. He is not implying that the camera will fall out of your hand literally within one second.

It is a sunny and humid day; you are sweaty; during the second half of a long shooting day, you begin to find it difficult to grip the camera. You find that your hands are strained due to the extra effort you need to exert in order to hold on to a shiny block of aluminum with sweaty fingers. You wish you had a substantial rubber grip, such as on the Olympus EM-1. That would have made your life much easier.

Part 2 follows below.

So no, he doesn't mean you will drop the camera to the ground the moment you pick it up. You are extending his argument to absurdity and then attacking that. It's called a straw man. I'm not sure why the fallacy in your understanding is so unapparent to you. It also doesn't help when you accuse others of poor reading comprehension and stupidity, when you clearly need so much work in these areas yourself. What's stupid is the fact that I just had to write three paragraphs to explain to you what should have been understood automatically and immediately.

I find it amusing that you repeatedly state that you are not defending the camera. Now you are trying to disassociate yourself from the brand by saying that you would defend any other camera. If you disagree with someone about a certain aspect of a camera you like, then by all means defend it. There's no shame in that, even if it's a Leica. No need to pussy around so much.

Didn't read that. Too long. Sorry.

@ JDThomas

Says the guy who advocates for reading comprehension.

BeaverTerror:

I'll defend the Leica T's grippiness. And I used it on a warm sunny, reasonably humid day: It's easy to grip.

Perhaps gripping it would be harder if I were really exerting myself and sweating.

This review is good.

I read a lot of negative reviews about Leica's X1 and still bought one. Excellent camera, poor auto focus; if it had great autofocus, it'd be a great camera.

Jim,

Yeah, I got that it was a joke, but it's a silly one that's oft repeated by people who can't see a reason to buy a Leica.

The marketing position of Leica is far from a joke. It's a sad joke that optically Canikon just can't touch Leica lenses after 50 years.

Whereas there are other companies doing lenses optically a lot closer to Leica than Canikon.

Jim:

Nope.

SonyZeiss lenses are made (likely designed too) by Sony to some Zeiss specs. Some are very good, some aren't. That FF 85mm 1.4 is extraordinary.

Zeiss has Cosina make Zeiss MF lenses in Japan with things like Schott glass, and most of those are extraordinary. Leica is doing something similar with a Japanese lens maker--unidentified.

The 24mm SonyZeiss ($1000) is a good lens, but it's only good not extraordinary. $1600 is not 1/5 of $4000.

Software correction is perfectly normal for pretty much all digital camera lenses--including Leica M lenses.

If you want an APSC body with optically better lenses, at least better than the Leica T 23mm, try the Samsung NX30. And yes the good Samsung NX lenses are optically better than Sony Zeiss lenses for the Nex APSC system.

W:

And cameras (Leicas, Sonys, etc) are meant to be used. And even in box perfectly preserved in 40 years this camera won't likely be real valuable--unlike a Darth Vader action figure from 1977 in a never opened box.

Daniel:

Well done Leica lenses are extraordinarily better than all Canon lenses.

Albeit it remains to be seen how well all of the T lenses are done.

The Sony A7 is incredibly audible. Also it's a FF sensor, so better at higher ISOs. In fact with a good lens, I suspect the Sony does do better image quality, but it's not exactly cheap. And Leica may fix the T lens (I can only speak to the 23mm.)

Daniel:

I'll look magazine review, but sharpness isn't a problem with the 23mm T lens.

And the T23 does a lot better color than most Canon lenses.

When checking samples use DNGs.

Daniel:

That PCMag thing is not hard evidence.

The hard evidence that I have for this 23mm lens being sharp are the DNGs I shot.

Now, nowhere have I said this T23mm lens is optically extraordinary like it should be for the price. So you've made an addition to my argument not there.

The fact remains that optically Canikon lenses lag behind good lenses and the T23mm lens is plenty good, just not extraordinary.

GuyAF:

Not exactly, I think Canikon engineers don't understand some things about light that Sigma, Samsung (Optron), Leica, and Zeiss engineers understand. (Olympus too and on a good day Fuji and Panasonic.)

Where did I say "Japanese"? Also I said "Canikon" not "Sigma".

Leica hasn't made 35mm SLR lenses in a while, and there's only one sort of zoom for the M system.

The fact remains that optically Canikon can't touch a good Leica lens. It's mostly about lacking good color for the Canikon lenses. (Both Nikon and Canon appear to be waking up a bit and showing some promise.)

I made no claims about Nissan (irony owned by a French company) engineers not being up to those from Porsche, but with car engineering there aren't as many secrets. Given the choice I'd pick a GTR over almost any Porsche.

Your DNGs...which nobody else has or can reproduce...are not hard evidence.

Imatest...which is an open, reproducible, scientific optical testing suite...is hard evidence.

"Now, nowhere have I said this T23mm lens is optically extraordinary like it should be for the price. So you've made an addition to my argument not there."

I never made any such addition.

"The fact remains that optically Canikon lenses lag behind good lenses..."

The latest Nikon 200 f/2 holds the record for sharpest lens ever tested at DxO. In the 2000's photodo found the Canon 200 f/1.8 was the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm format up until that time.

So much for "lagging behind."

Daniel:

My DNGs remain hard evidence, as would other DNGs, that's the point. I didn't say I was going to share my DNGs.

Your whole argument assumes I think this T23mm lens very special, and I don't.

Nikon can indeed make sharp lenses, sharpness is far far far from the only important quality of a decent lens. And the fact that you bring up sharpness suggests you don't know much about good camera lenses.

Likely the sharpest 35mm lens ever made is the Leica M f2.0 APO, but that's new in the last couple of years.

DXO lens scoring can only say if a lens is good, but it can't really distinguish a good lens from an extraordinary lens.

Now, I'm sure that both those 200mm lenses are good, but I'll bet neither has great color.

I didn't see the lens review listed at Imatest when I searched that website.

Anyhow that kind of "testing" is often very misleading.

"The fact remains that optically Canikon can't touch a good Leica lens."

This is a ridiculous statement in light of the fact that you've called the T 23mm a "plenty good" lens yet it falls well short of a $120 Canon pancake "kit" lens.

But no matter. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Since you have no evidence for your blanket statements about Leica and Canon/Nikon lenses...

Canon and Nikon engineers can make any lens you could want to own, but engineers alone don't make decisions, especially not in giants like Canon and Nikon.
German engineers don't have a magic book about designing lenses somewhere hidden in the German woods.
Nissan is in a partnership with Renault, it is not owned by Renault.

Daniel:

The T23mm lens is a good lens, it is not good for a Leica lens. Thought that was obvious.

You can get ahold of DNGs shot with a good Leica M lens and see for yourself.

To be complete one should also state that it is easier to make an M-lens than a (D)SLR lens.

GuyAF:

Sigma, Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic are not German companies.

If Canikon engineers knew the magic I don't doubt for a second that they could build optically better lenses.

Renault controls Nissan; it is far from a partnership. Now Renault may not own all of or even a majority stake in Nissan.

Don't care if an M lens is easier to make. Leica made extraordinary R lenses too.

"My DNGs remain hard evidence..."

You honestly expect people to accept your testimony regarding your DNGs as "hard evidence"?

Really?

"And the fact that you bring up sharpness suggests you don't know much about good camera lenses."

Way to show everyone that Leica users are not snobs.

"Now, I'm sure that both those 200mm lenses are good, but I'll bet neither has great color."

You've never touched a Canon or Nikon pro telephoto, have you? I have access to examples from both lines...though not those particular 200mm primes...and you would lose that bet. Before you even bring it up...you would lose the bet on bokeh and microcontrast as well. Canon and Nikon dominate pro sports and wildlife photography for a reason.

Although betting on lens color biases is kind of pointless considering that your choice of RAW converter, camera/lens profile, RAW settings, post processing steps...heck, even printer and paper...all have a greater impact on final color.

"If Canikon engineers knew the magic I don't doubt for a second that they could build optically better lenses."

If you can shoot with an 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L, or 17mm T/S and not find "magic"...then you're doing something wrong.

Daniel:

They can accept my claim and also get their own DNGs/raws from whatever body.

Haven't really used a Leica in years.

I've touched Nikon pro lenses, though not that one. And they're not impressive for color.

I won't go so far as to say those are bad 200mm lenses. I'm even sure they're pretty good, and fast, and AF.

Your entire last paragraph suggests you don't know much about color, almost none of what I'm talking can be added in post processing or by using better paper/printers.

It's either there for expression or not, even in 8bit files.

I'm not familiar with the Canon f/1.2 85, I know the Nikon f1.4 85 and it lacks.

"Your entire last paragraph suggests you don't know much about color, almost none of what I'm talking can be added in post processing or by using better paper/printers."

I would ask for evidence but we all know what your response is going to be.

"It's either there for expression or not, even in 8bit files."

Yes...there's magical lens color that's visible at the 8 bit level (16m colors) but cannot be manipulated or altered in any way by software and processes operating at the level of billions of colors (10/12/16 bit).

Microsoft bought Anders Hejlsberg from Borland back in the days and the rest is history.

Ever wondered why Leitz engineers are not bought by Nikon or Canon. Think they cannot afford them?

Any Nikon or Canon optical engineer can make the best lens you could wish for.

Ever wondered how come Nikon and Canon's actual flagship cameras are infinitely superior to any Leica digital camera and hardly cost more. Not the same brains that are used perhaps?

GuyAF:

I made no claims about Leica digital cameras here. And agree that Canon and Nikon make extraordinary DSLR bodies.

The point stands that Leica and Zeiss lenses, when done well, are optically superior to lenses from Canon and Nikon.

I suspect that Nikon and Canon are under the false impression that their engineers understand colour. So would not seek out the necessary philosophy to better work with colour.

My guess is that few Leica engineers know these secrets either, and are instead working from a set of principles which are given to them without the reasoning behind the principles being provided.

Samsung NX lenses, when done well, are also stunningly better than Canon and Nikon lenses.

I don't think it an accident that Sigma's lenses so vastly improved after Sigma bought Foveon.

Daniel:

And you misread: I never said the special colour can't be manipulated, I said it can't be added after the fact of shooting.

More data is often not the answer, whereas better data is.

HowaboutRAW - You are appealing to magical properties which do not exist. There is no 'special' understanding of color, and there are no 'color secrets' privy only to a few wizards in Germany and Samsung. Human perception of color is a science rooted in well understood properties of physics.

The differences in color imparted by modern lenses is several orders of magnitude less significant then the other influences in the chain, including the vast array of user preferences while converting and processing files.

Put another way: if you were handed unlabeled prints you couldn't tell us which lenses produced which prints based on color to save your life. That's not one of the properties that typically survives processing because it's so infinitesimally small.

Canon and Nikon make some of the finest lenses in the world. So does Leica. Which is better depends on the lenses in question because each has lenses the other has not matched yet.

"The point stands that Leica and Zeiss lenses, when done well, are optically superior to lenses from Canon and Nikon."

Head on over to The Digital Picture and compare the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T to the Canon 50mm f/1.2L. Or the Sigma 50 f/1.4. Or the Sigma 50 f/1.4 ART. (Ouch.) Or even the Canon 50 f/1.4. (Hmmm.) Or the Nikon 50 f/1.8 AF-S (oh wow). Or...wait, WAIT! I found a 50mm lens that the $725 Zeiss is superior to: the $120 Canon 50 f/1.8 "nifty fifty."

Not the $120 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2...that's better then the Zeiss to :-)

Stop pretending that label matters. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji, Zeiss, Leica, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Rokinon...who am I missing?...oh yeah...Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung...all have examples of bad lenses, good lenses, and legendary lenses. A badge does not automatically mean that one is always or even usually better. Look at the individual lens in question, not the badge.

Daniel:

There most certainly is a better understanding of colour. And companies like Adobe+Epson apprehend some of this.

That you suggest I look at a website with a lens comparometer tells me you're not real interested in camera lenses.

My claims are based on using lenses. albeit I'm not a Canon user, but no one says Canon L lenses are much better than Nikon ED lenses.

The label doesn't matter too much, there are not great to just good Zeiss, Leica and Sigma lenses. (However the Canon and Nikon labels tell of lessor optical performance.)

Well done Sigma, Samsung, Olympus, Zeiss, Leica, Fuji, and Schneider lenses are optically better than Canon and Nikon lenses.

And Rokinon (Samyang) lenses are also pretty consistently better optically than Nikon and Canon FF dslr lenses.

That 50mm Zeiss you mention above has beautiful colour but can be distractingly unsharp when wide open--why I was willing to sell my copy.

I think the inexpensive kit 50mm from the Nikon Df promising.

"That 50mm Zeiss you mention above has beautiful colour but can be distractingly unsharp when wide open"

The 50 f/1.2L and Zeiss are both reviewed at photozone. Looking at the studio bokeh shot the color differences are minor, but if I had to choose the Canon is more pleasing. But the tiny difference in color is a) trivial to equalize in PS, and b) may not actually be caused by the lenses in the first place.

So...off to Flickr, where I opened two browser tabs and searched for each lens. Guess what I found? The shots with good lighting (and likely good processing) had beautiful color from both. The shots with crummy lighting had...flat colors from both.

The very first shot I saw for the Zeiss actually really impressed me. For a split second I thought "could he be right?" Then I scrolled down the page and saw a Canon shot of a very similar scene with pretty much identical lighting...and color.

So much for that.

Daniel:

It's not really possible to make color judgments based on jpegs alone.

Yes, you can say a lens is good for color based on a jpeg, but you need raws to see what various lenses can do.

The jpegs I've seen from that Canon f1.2 50 look good, but then one needs to test things like high ISOs, where better optical quality really shows. (Example, shooting Zeiss lenses extend the useful ISO range of cameras like the D3s.)

"It's not really possible to make color judgments based on jpegs alone."

Didn't you say this earlier: "It's either there for expression or not, even in 8bit files."

Hmmm...

"...but then one needs to test things like high ISOs, where better optical quality really shows. (Example, shooting Zeiss lenses extend the useful ISO range of cameras like the D3s.)"

LOL no. Just...no.

Daniel:

I didn't actually say "8 bit jpegs". So try again.

It's still best to avoid jogs when making color judgements about a lens.

It's well established that higher ISO shooting is helped by optically better lenses.

HowaboutRAW - it is...painfully clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Have a nice life believing in magic colors and lenses that boost ISO.

Actually gold and uranium are heavy like hell. But titanium is absolutely not unrealistic. Bicycle frames are also made of it.

A camera made from same material as *bicycles*? That's so pedestrian!
(badabum)

stevens37y:

Titanium is hard to work and when smooth feels oily to the touch. Apple tried it for a laptop and failed.

Yeah Boris, I want a camera that'll have me positively glowing after years of use.

J:

What part of this camera is made in China?

SeeRoy,

The big draw of Leicas is usually the lenses.

I think you never handle a Leica in your life, a little education would be good for you.