The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Please Leica DONT let the T dye!
- Thread starter Paratom
- Start date
Sure, it could be an endless discussion about sensor size/resolution/etc.
I find the difference between m43 and dx much bigger than between dx and ff. it also has a lot to do if one is more a shallow DOF lover or more someone who likes some depth of field in his images.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Have you tried the X-Trans files in Capture One? Don't let LightRooms poor rendition scare you off that sensor. I shoot weddings with a X-Pro 1 and Phase One back (which I mention because it gives a point of comparison of what my quality expectations are), and in C1 those X Pro are really nice.
2 years ago when I had a x-pro 1 I also was not that happy with that sensor. The camera itself and specially the hybrid viewfinder I found an excellent solution.
More and more I am not 100% happy with LR any more. Also the Leica T files seem to look better in C1 vs LR.
If it was possible to have a propper profile for the Leica S006 in C1 then I would switch all to C1, but I guess capture one does see the S too much as a competitive product. Too bad, I think it wouldnt have an influence on the decision between S and phase one. Nobody buys a phase one instead of a Leica S just because of the software, I think the decisions are based on other factors (do you want a more compact and faster pace MF system or a more flexible digital back)
How was the X Vario a joke product? Leica spent real money developing it and when considered for what it is, it is a very good camera. At 28mm it isn't even all that slow (half stop off the 28 Elmarit), while it is exceptionally sharp at ALL focal lengths, apertures and distances.
I've paired the X Vario with my M Monochrom for over a year now and am always delighted with the results. I do admit to using the X Vario a lot less since I bought the X113 though.
The X-Vario-IMO- clearly is not a joke. Its is a good camera.
Same with the T, on paper the Sony A7II looks better, but in reality I use the T much more often and the IQ results are impressive.
It is a joke in the sense that they are not what Leica is all about. Leica is about fast lenses that work great wide open and putting the camera to one's eye to capture fleeting moments. So a Leica camera without a viewfinder is a joke IMHO. Does not mean it is worthless but man there is a HUGE difference in user experience/sensation from composing with the rear screen with the camera extended out infront of you (ala iPhone etc) to putting the camera to your eye and making images. Of course YMMV.
Leica is not about fast lenses, they are about excellent lenses. R and M series always had lenses in many speed classes, but got their start with SMALL lenses. Elmarits and Elmars have been in the lineup for decades and still are today. The 24/3.8 Elmar ASPH is one of the most respected lenses in the M system. The Tri-Elmars remain popular and excellent at f/4.
As for viewfinders, attaching them to the shoe is also very traditional Leica. The first Barnaks didn't have frame lines, and even today external viewfinders are often used for 135mm telephoto and for anything wider than 28mm. The EVF for the X Vario Isn't cutting edge, but it's entirely adequate and with it attached the XV is a delight to use.
I look forward to spending to spending the weekend with mine.
For me Leica is about excellent IQ, lenses where the fastest f-stop is already excellent (and not lenses which look fast on paper but you have to stop down 3 steps until IQ gets acceptable), its also about relatively small and unobtrusive cameras. Thats also the reason why I still have and love the X2. IMO still the most pockable camera with relatively large sensor. And Leica is about simple and intuitive user interface.
However we agree that anybody has to decide on its own if a camera works well for him/her or not.
Leica for me is about simplicity, minimalism, image quality, build quality, well balanced size and weight of body and lenses.
There are fast and slow lenses, so reducing Leica to fast lenses only is not accurate IMO.
I am certainly no fan of an external viewfinder and would like to see a built-in one but at the end of the day it works.
A Leica Q with an M mount (interchangeable lens capability) would be awesome, at the same or lower price. If one wants an optical viewfinder (or both) there is the Leica M. But the EVF in the Q seems excellent and a great option for those who want a more "modern" take on the traditional rangefinder camera.
Fuji has been right on with their X series in that respect. It is putting out products that, unsurprisingly, Leica fans also love. Great glass, well made bodies, small size and simple designs but with great technology behind it.
The Q is of huge significance to Leica, at least in the eyes of a lot of Leica fans. The X-Vario and the T were/are really good products but really do not generate the passion that the M and now the Q does. The T might a little due to its really nice build and cool user interface. But I tested the Vario (Leica loaned one to me) and honestly was confused by it a bit and really did not like it all for street shooting in New York City. Lens too slow, screen ok, no built in Viewfinder. Image quality was decent but nothing amazing. I found the Fuji X-T10 with the 18-55 f2.8-4 kit zoom much nicer to use (a bit more confusing though due to all the options/settings) with an awesome EVF. The look of the files with the different on board presets were also very very nice on the Fuji.
Again I am sure the x-vario can be used to make some amazing images but it is a forgettable product from Leica. The T, not so much and of course the Q is a landmark product IMHO.
Fuji has been right on with their X series in that respect. It is putting out products that, unsurprisingly, Leica fans also love. Great glass, well made bodies, small size and simple designs but with great technology behind it.
The Q is of huge significance to Leica, at least in the eyes of a lot of Leica fans. The X-Vario and the T were/are really good products but really do not generate the passion that the M and now the Q does. The T might a little due to its really nice build and cool user interface. But I tested the Vario (Leica loaned one to me) and honestly was confused by it a bit and really did not like it all for street shooting in New York City. Lens too slow, screen ok, no built in Viewfinder. Image quality was decent but nothing amazing. I found the Fuji X-T10 with the 18-55 f2.8-4 kit zoom much nicer to use (a bit more confusing though due to all the options/settings) with an awesome EVF. The look of the files with the different on board presets were also very very nice on the Fuji.
Again I am sure the x-vario can be used to make some amazing images but it is a forgettable product from Leica. The T, not so much and of course the Q is a landmark product IMHO.
The Mighty Internet has spoken once more.... No offense Ken but anybody with a minimum of Google skills and not knowing anything about photography can come up with exactly the same opinion in less than 10 minutes by endlessly repeating what other people have already repeated from other people who purely looked at the specs... If you haven't used the cameras why even bother pretending you know all IMHO...
This is true for the X-Pro1 and the X-E1-2 IMO. To a much lesser extent for the X-T1 and the X-T10 where they abandoned the simplicity and more started making cameras like Sony and Olympus. To their credit the market seems to love it though.
True, I have yet to use the Q. And next time I get a chance to play with the T il make sure it has a fast lens and the external evf.
off all of my cameras, X Vario and X 113 are my best street shooters, better than my M-E or M Monochrom. APS-C lends itself to street due to the increased depth of field. X Vario would be even better than X due to the 28mm lens, but X is a handier and less obtrusive size due to the smaller lens. Both are outstanding.
I used the T for a day and in the end it had no appeal for me and was very glad to get back to using my M's.
I am not stating what the internet says, I am stating my opinion. I do not read much into internet traffic as it is also others opinions and to me, my hands on use is REAL information to me. Real usage comments help the most, opinions the least.
Now that I have had the Q for many weeks, I like the feel and how it gets out of my , external EVF or not. Woukd I like the next M to be like the Q-no. Some features might aid M users like a better/faster processor and better ISO capabilities and with perhaps an external EVF with Q like quality, switchability like how my RX-1 external EVF works.
I am not stating what the internet says, I am stating my opinion. I do not read much into internet traffic as it is also others opinions and to me, my hands on use is REAL information to me. Real usage comments help the most, opinions the least.
Now that I have had the Q for many weeks, I like the feel and how it gets out of my , external EVF or not. Woukd I like the next M to be like the Q-no. Some features might aid M users like a better/faster processor and better ISO capabilities and with perhaps an external EVF with Q like quality, switchability like how my RX-1 external EVF works.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Hello... I'm happy that you like the X-Vario and I've stated my own personal reasons for calling it a "joke product" in the quote that you used. It doesn't only have to do just with the slow lens although that doesn't help it's case. It has to do with how the product was marketed as a "Mini M" and it is not in any sense of reality. It also has to do with it's lack of usefulness in my camera bags. It's a large sensor, relatively large sized, P&S camera with a slow zoom that has limited range on it.
I have no issues with the sensor or ability of the camera in daylight but few buy Leica's specifically for the f/4 or slower lenses. They may buy f/4 or slower lenses for their Leica but when people think Leica they think Noctilux, Summilux, Summicron, and Elmarit to a lesser degree. I refuse to believe that most would rather take a X-Vario over a M camera as well ESPECIALLY for street. If you do well I would say you are in the minority of Leica Camera owners (current or past.)
Again this is from my limited experience (not internet fluff) with the T and the X, X-Vario. I haven't tried the Q yet but I like the results of what I see from it although I'm not a huge fan of the 28mm focal length. It is what it is though no harm or foul to those that like the T... Enjoy it. We all have our preferences. I won't attempt to talk you into my own as every camera system has SOME issues. It's all a matter of what you're willing to live with.
Well I'm back off into Sony, Sony Zeiss, Sony G, Loxia, and Zeiss Batis land. I've long sold my Leica cameras but I retain a small stock of M mount lenses just in case something catches my attention seriously.
using all 3 systems T/M/Q my personal rating/conclusion is as follows.
My long term and continuesly proven system specially for 35 and 50mm is the Leica M. I really like the OVF/rangefinder, the lenses and also the IQ I get from the sensor.
The T for my use is a good addition because:
-It allows me to use Tele and Zooms
-I can use it with M lenses as a backup
-with the 23/2.0 its still not too big and it has a small flash
The Q is great as well but for me the flexibility of the T and M in regards of focal lengths etc. is more important for me than the advantages of the Q.
As a fixed focal length camera my favorite would be still the X2 without additional viewfinder because it is considerably smaller than all those other cameras.
But overall my opinion its all so much a matter of taste and personal preferences that everbody has to find out himself what works for him.
Some cameras/systems look great on paper and later I found out I dont get connected to it, and with some others it was the other way around.
Best, Tom
My long term and continuesly proven system specially for 35 and 50mm is the Leica M. I really like the OVF/rangefinder, the lenses and also the IQ I get from the sensor.
The T for my use is a good addition because:
-It allows me to use Tele and Zooms
-I can use it with M lenses as a backup
-with the 23/2.0 its still not too big and it has a small flash
The Q is great as well but for me the flexibility of the T and M in regards of focal lengths etc. is more important for me than the advantages of the Q.
As a fixed focal length camera my favorite would be still the X2 without additional viewfinder because it is considerably smaller than all those other cameras.
But overall my opinion its all so much a matter of taste and personal preferences that everbody has to find out himself what works for him.
Some cameras/systems look great on paper and later I found out I dont get connected to it, and with some others it was the other way around.
Best, Tom
jaapv
Subscriber Member
Which, for the M (and most likely the Q), Sony was unable to supply...
Sony makes great sensors, but their development is obviously geared to their own needs, and maybe Nikon's, but they will certainly not put their resources towards developing products for somebody else's niche markets.
It is the common Internet misconception that there is such a thing as "the best" sensor for all types of camera.
I think it is interesting how even the opinion about sensors differ.
If I look at output of the M and T and X I do find the color pretty good, I even go so far and say I often prefer it over the color I get from my Sony A7II, where skin sometimes looks a little "dead" for my taste.
I cant say how much comes from the lens and how much from the sensors, but I find Leica achieves often to get saturated colors without looking artificial.
I have to say though that specially for the Leica T I know prefer C1 colors over LR colors when doing raw conversion.
For me LR has become a little disappointing over the last 1-2 years in regards of color profiles.
I know there are other things like DR, banding when pushing shadows etc., but IMO color is overseen often.
If I look at output of the M and T and X I do find the color pretty good, I even go so far and say I often prefer it over the color I get from my Sony A7II, where skin sometimes looks a little "dead" for my taste.
I cant say how much comes from the lens and how much from the sensors, but I find Leica achieves often to get saturated colors without looking artificial.
I have to say though that specially for the Leica T I know prefer C1 colors over LR colors when doing raw conversion.
For me LR has become a little disappointing over the last 1-2 years in regards of color profiles.
I know there are other things like DR, banding when pushing shadows etc., but IMO color is overseen often.