Leica's new APS-C Interchangeable lens camera

[ptomsu]

I think it is only a matter of time till Leica will bring something like a fast 50 lens for the T. Although this might be long time as we are dealing with Leica, but who knows ....

Meanwhile I will use either my M 1.4/50 ASPH or my 1.4/75 which I still own. Or my Noctilux 1.0/50. Using some of my M glass was one of the reasons I ordered the T, although I finally would prefer AF lenses in the end.

 

[jlm]

when you say 50mm lens, do you mean 50mm equivalent?

 

[cam]

when you say 50mm lens, do you mean 50mm equivalent?

Yes… my bad.

 

[Godfrey]

when you say 50mm lens, do you mean 50mm equivalent?

That was what I assumed was meant.

G

 

[lambert]

Yes, indeed, but not quite the same, as it has no AA sensor . . . worth mentioning (as I just realise Godfrey has too ) also that this sensor was also used in:
Ricoh GR
Nikon D7000
Pentax K5 IIs
and other excellent cameras.

All depends how you put it doesn't it?

It's a fine sensor. (although there are more recent 24mp models - which might or might not be an advantage).

I agree, those cameras were and still are excellent but that sensor has been around for several years (the D7000 was released in 2010) and is really showing it's age.

 

[Godfrey]

I agree, those cameras were and still are excellent but that sensor has been around for several years (the D7000 was released in 2010) and is really showing it's age.

In what way? The photos it makes seem just as crisp, fully detailed as ever. The DR is very good, the sensitivity/noise is great all the way to ISO 6400 and beyond. What's not to like?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I agree, those cameras were and still are excellent but that sensor has been around for several years (the D7000 was released in 2010) and is really showing it's age.

I am showing my age too, as are all of my cameras except one. Doesn't seem to affect my photos in a negative way though

 

[lambert]

In what way? The photos it makes seem just as crisp, fully detailed as ever. The DR is very good, the sensitivity/noise is great all the way to ISO 6400 and beyond. What's not to like?

This sensor is perfectly adequate for stills but not for video. A current generation sensor would have allowed Leica to offer far more comprehensive video capabilities.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't why you'd go all out with a state of the art body and touch interface and, for the most important element, fit a 4 year old sensor. And then, omit image stabilization as well as self cleaning sensor smarts.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Lambert
Good points all (and I agree). I suspect that the answer is that Leica are not a huge company, and they don't hold patents for IBIS, and don't want to get stuck with other peoples tech. Added to which, introducing a new product is expensive.
On the other hand, the camera IS great for shooting stills, I've not had a dirty sensor issue.

 

[Steve P.]

It has more to do with Leica's choice of sensor. The T deploys Sony's entry level sensor, as used in a $300 NEX. And it doesn't even incorporate the sensor cleaning smarts.

So you meant this just for video performance? I see. I thought you were generalising.

 

[lambert]

Hi Lambert
Good points all (and I agree). I suspect that the answer is that Leica are not a huge company, and they don't hold patents for IBIS, and don't want to get stuck with other peoples tech. Added to which, introducing a new product is expensive.
On the other hand, the camera IS great for shooting stills, I've not had a dirty sensor issue.

Hi Jono, I appreciate there are complexities with IBIS, but why not lens based IS, which would have been very achievable?

 

[lambert]

So you meant this just for video performance? I see. I thought you were generalising.

More so for video than stills. Perhaps I'm just the odd one out, but fitting a state of the art body with 4 year old sensor tech just seems so jabberwocky, particularly when you consider that the body with (slow/non image stabilized) kit zoom and EVF will sell for over $5k (Aussie dollars).

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, I appreciate there are complexities with IBIS, but why not lens based IS, which would have been very achievable?

I think that's because it inevitably makes the lenses quite a bit bigger, and let's face it, it's not really necessary for a mid range zoom (and doesn't work all that well either).

I would guess that if this camera is a success, then they will do something later on.

On the other hand, it's interesting that we all feel we need these aids (focus peaking and IBIS being the most obvious omissions on the T). But shooting with a camera with useable 6400 ISO I've had no problems either focusing (without focus peaking) or with camera shake (without IBIS) - in this instance I think the very gentle shutter and the substantial body have an effect.

Certainly though - if one buys cameras on the basis of box ticking then you wouldn't buy this one . . . and of course, the useful things about the camera:
1. lovely quiet shutter
2. minimal and interesting interface
3. fine small AF lenses
4. Original design
don't really have boxes to be ticked against them.

 

[Paratom]

More so for video than stills. Perhaps I'm just the odd one out, but fitting a state of the art body with 4 year old sensor tech just seems so jabberwocky, particularly when you consider that the body with (slow/non image stabilized) kit zoom and EVF will sell for over $5k (Aussie dollars).

So which particular sensor would you have preferred?
I know the sensor of the x2/X-Vario and of the K5iis all deliver very good IQ.
I think the em1 sensor is maybe? newer, I cant see the real benefit (of course its hard to compare because its different sizes).
I would think lenses and user interface are much more important here.

 

[ptomsu]

More so for video than stills. Perhaps I'm just the odd one out, but fitting a state of the art body with 4 year old sensor tech just seems so jabberwocky, particularly when you consider that the body with (slow/non image stabilized) kit zoom and EVF will sell for over $5k (Aussie dollars).

I always keep wondering why you say 4 year old sensor? Are you really sure? I for myself am sure that even the sensor from the D7000 (2010) got an update in the meantime. And if this update is only to remove AA filter, which I doubt is the only one.

But even leaving this consideration out - if you want newest, latest, state of the art technology then Leica is sure not the vendor to go with, they always have been conservative. Not that I would not sometimes like even more innovation, but keeping complaining will not change anything. Only solution for you is no longer to look at a Leica T.

 

[ptomsu]

I think that's because it inevitably makes the lenses quite a bit bigger, and let's face it, it's not really necessary for a mid range zoom (and doesn't work all that well either).

I would guess that if this camera is a success, then they will do something later on.

On the other hand, it's interesting that we all feel we need these aids (focus peaking and IBIS being the most obvious omissions on the T). But shooting with a camera with useable 6400 ISO I've had no problems either focusing (without focus peaking) or with camera shake (without IBIS) - in this instance I think the very gentle shutter and the substantial body have an effect.

Certainly though - if one buys cameras on the basis of box ticking then you wouldn't buy this one . . . and of course, the useful things about the camera:
1. lovely quiet shutter
2. minimal and interesting interface
3. fine small AF lenses
4. Original design
don't really have boxes to be ticked against them.

Jono,

fully agree! And maybe we should have boxes to tick for what is really great with the Leica T? Maybe then others would get problems?

Just my 5c.....

 

[fotografz]

The T is what it is.

However, I think implying IBIS is a marginal feature in defense of this camera is pushing it a wee bit.

If the camera is intended for those less involved with photography, IBIS goes a good distance toward helping the user produce better IQ … and isn't that what Leica professes to be all about? The next cell phones are said to have IS for that very reason.

Most people the T seems to be aimed at may not have good lens changing habits like many of us … so sensor cleaning aids would have been nice.

- Marc

 

[retow]

- if you want newest, latest, state of the art technology then Leica is sure not the vendor to go with, they always have been conservative.

The first FF MILC, the first jacket pocket size aps-c sensor camera (the Sigma DP1 was first but had a slightly smaller sensor) sounds pretty innovative to me. I ordered both the day of the announcement, literally within minutes.
But that was 2009.
In 2014 Leica stands for emotional luxury products. Nothing wrong about that, but such products are never cutting edge technology.

 

[Paratom]

The first FF MILC, the first jacket pocket size aps-c sensor camera (the Sigma DP1 was first but had a slightly smaller sensor) sounds pretty innovative to me. I ordered both the day of the announcement, literally within minutes.
But that was 2009.
In 2014 Leica stands for emotional luxury products. Nothing wrong about that, but such products are never cutting edge technology.

I have mixed feelings. I do NOT disagree that for some part Leica is going for the emotional luxury factor.
On the other side their cameras are still all designed in a way that they are made to be used.
Very good and simple in regards of user interface.
And in regards of lenses Leica usually reachs very high standards. Plus if you look at the newer high quality lenses from Nikon/Canon/Zeiss Leica lenses do not seem as overpriced anymore.
Pretty impressive how good some 20 year old Leica M lenses work on high resolution sensors.

Making the camera out of one piece of alluminium and polishing it...well, I don't need something like that, but if you see the success and price of iphones I don't blame Leica that they also jump on that trend.
I am surprised all the time what people pay for their smartphones and how often they do replace it.

 

[Godfrey]

More so for video than stills. Perhaps I'm just the odd one out, but fitting a state of the art body with 4 year old sensor tech just seems so jabberwocky, particularly when you consider that the body with (slow/non image stabilized) kit zoom and EVF will sell for over $5k (Aussie dollars).

I think it's much more important that you fit a fine camera body with a solid, proven sensor, a quiet, vibrationless shutter, and top notch controls that perform beautifully than always push the envelope with the latest fandangled sensor.

- Many could care less about video, or use it only for occasional clip captures. This sensor does fine with that.

- The lack of IS is not an issue for most uses. I haven't missed it a bit with the X2, M9, GXR, or A7, for instance. Having it in the E-M1 is wonderful, for sure. IS has its issues too; many complain that IS cuts the edge off imaging quality. It's a not a panacea, nor does it imply the level of quality of a body. The more expensive Leica M doesn't have it either, and no one's complaining about it far as I've heard.

The only one of your points that I do miss is the lack of automatic sensor cleaning, like the Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony A7 have. But the M9, M, and GXR don't have it either, and to be honest I haven't found its lack a problem at all. That has nothing to do with the sensor, it's a body feature.

So the T is not for you. Such it is. I'm not sure yet that it's for me, but I like it a lot. I also still like my 2003 Olympus E-1...

G