Please Leica DONT let the T dye!

[Paratom]

With all respect for the new Q camera - I do hope that Leica will use some of its technology (fast AF/IS/fast response) and put it in a new T body.

I understand the T has not been very succesfull despite I believe it is still not a bad camera and the lenses are excellent as is the IQ.
I think one of the biggest faults was the marketing focusing too much on the luxury factor and not enough on the simple user interface and excellent lenses. Also the first firmware was too slow.

I would still not want to exchange my T+lenses for a Q, because I enjoy the flexibility a lot to either use the fast Summicron 23mm, or the UWA-Zoom , or the standard zoom, or even Tele if needed.

Now we could hope for an version with interchangable lenses based on the Q, but how big would these become? I think the should not give up the dx-sensor based line beside their FF products.

 

[Speedgraphic]

I'd advise you to jump ship, or enjoy the camera you have as it is. I think the T was a statement of design and creativity rather than a serious product venture. Leica didn't sell very many Ts, but even if they had I think they wanted it to be a brand building type of thing for a certain kind of enthusiast. Not something like the Sony or Fuji systems which are built out in the traditional way.

Respectfully, if you're looking for an APS-C solution that exists as a true system, which will be the subject of upgrades and enhancements for years to come...I can't help but point out that Fuji cameras are incredibly mature. Same too with Pentax DSLRs, which are very compact and have truly fantastic features, optics, and sensors. This is of course, speaking of APS-C system cameras.

Worst case here is that you have a camera you really like, which ain't half bad as far am I'm concerned.

 

[turtle]

I think Fuji is a great option if you are not averse to the X-Trans sensor (which I do not like at all).

I also think the T desperately needs either a new (more sensible) body or to be dropped. It was too edgy and missed the mark by a mile for most users.

If an interchangeable lens Q comes out, it may be possible to use the T lenses, but with a crop, perhaps?

 

[msadat]

i don't think t will die. per usual the first release is not good just like the x1, then they fix the issues and release x2/t2 and all is well. leica is not a small company anymore and they need lots of products.

 

[rayyan]

The T should have been selling like there was nothing better.

This, I deduce, from a search of this forum when it was announced.

Some dealers even were reported to have a backlog of 20,000 units at one stage.

Oh well..here today, gone tomorrow. Just like all of us.

 

[Vivek]

Sorry, Tom. They should have killed it in the conception stage. Would have saved a lot of metal work, electricity and helped the environment.

 

[JorisV]

Sorry, Tom. They should have killed it in the conception stage.

Just out of curiosity why such strong feelings of negativity?

It is a good camera and all flaws could be addressed through firmware upgrades I feel... provided Leica would be willing to do so...

 

[iiiNelson]

Sorry, Tom. They should have killed it in the conception stage. Would have saved a lot of metal work, electricity and helped the environment.

Would've save a lot of time from chronicling the "life" of a single block of aluminum as well.

 

[iiiNelson]

Just out of curiosity why such strong feelings of negativity?

It is a good camera and all flaws could be addressed through firmware upgrades I feel... provided Leica would be willing to do so...

I won't speak for Vivek's reasons but I echo the statement that it wasn't the right camera for the right time.

Leica has a heritage problem that many other brands have - they insist on a legacy/heritage product remaining the halo for a brand where technology has advanced. That's not to say that the M isn't a fine camera because it is but what it's not is cutting edge. There are cameras that Leica will intentionally cripple to remain below the M. Some people would like a rangerfinder with a built in EVF/OVF hybrid ala Fuji X-Pro 1. Some just want a more svelte body.

An interchangeable lens Q in place of the T would been the right camera at the right time - in fact I'd go so far to say that had the T been an interchangeable lens Q instead then I'd still be firmly in Leica's camp and not in Sony's.

I already had the M lenses (.I still have a few actually.) I just wanted a backup body and added versatility for telephoto when needed. Leica not producing this led me to find it elsewhere but the trouble was that I didn't know that I'd like the FE system as much as I do.

Sony FE is not perfect - no system is but it gets the job done for me.

 

[biglouis]

I have been round in circles several times thinking about the T. Must admit it is the Leica glass. Prices have dropped which also makes it attractive.

What tends to put me off in the end is two things. Firstly, the sensor is the same as in my Ricoh GR. I have got to know that sensor very well and it is fantastic for a p&s. But it has limitations in terms of file size and quality at higher iso. Secondly, the ergonomics.

As soon as I saw the back of the Q, with the integrated EVF I just knew it was right and the T is now definitely not for me. Not sure the Q is either - although I am very tempted - but maybe Leica will finally put us all out of our misery and finally make a Q2 with interchangeable lenses.

LouisB

 

[Paratom]

I think one problem of the T is the touch screen interface. People think it just handles like a smartphone and therefore would not work for real photography.

And just the fact that a product looks good/has a new design does not automatically mean and works less functional.

If you try it you find out that the interface works quite well and the simplicity is refreshing. (At least my experience) For example the auto iso implementation is much better than that of the Sony A series, so set auto iso, longest exposure time, set one dial to f-stop and one to exp compensation, use A. Works very good.
For me more intuitive than the user interface of my A7II.
I still understand the interface is not for every body. But they could also offer another T-body with an X-like user interface additionally for those. I also would love the EVF to be integrated in the camera like the Q.

Regarding Fuji...the x-trans sensor is not for me. I tried it for some time and find the images a little flat and the colors not to my taste.

I will keep the T right now, besides maybe a fast 50mm euqivalent I have all lenses/focal length I need for such a system.

IMO the T is quite a good addition an M system. You can use it with the 23mm is not too big, you can put either a UWA-Zoom, a nice standard zoom or even a Telezoom on it depending on the needs.

If I think about the Q or a Q with interchangable lenses, I would see it more as a replacement for a M system, specially considering the price tags and the size.
And as soons as lenses should be fast and have AF and be exchangable, I asume they will become quite a bit bigger than those of the M. Look at the Sony 35/1.4 FE for example.

So IMO there is room for a dx based system, which allows better tonality and more room for shallow DOF than a m43-system, but allows smaller sized lenses, weight and lower price than FF.

 

[Vivek]

The NEX-5N had all these features (and more). What is so special about the T (other the monoblock bodice) that commands such a price?

 

[Paratom]

The NEX-5N had all these features (and more). What is so special about the T (other the monoblock bodice) that commands such a price?

The native lenses are better. The EVF is better. The colors (specially skin tone) I prefer over Sony (even if it is maybe comparable sensor). Auto ISO implementation is better. I also prefer the user interface with 2 wheels and few/nearly no buttons.

No question the price-value ratio is not better. We do have to pay premium if we choose Leica. But beside functionality I also dont mind a good looking and feeling design. I see some similarities with apple here.

 

[Vivek]

So, there are some changes. While I understand that you would prefer the aesthetics and such, there is no comparison to Apple. They are in an ever expanding market while digital cameras are a shrinking market. Huge difference.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

It reminds me a bit of the Porsche 924, the undermotorised Porsche that neither looked nor drove like the real thing. Still, it ended its live as the 968, a very competent sports car that pushed most of the right buttons.

I love the concept of the T, but the lack of viewfinder, the lack of prime lenses, the lack of peaking for manual focus and the wrongly shaped grip makes it difficult to love other than as a showpiece. Correct the shortcomings and I think it can become the camera that the Lunar was not; a high quality piece of photographic gear that one can also carry as a piece of jewelry. Nothing wrong with that

 

[Paratom]

So, there are some changes. While I understand that you would prefer the aesthetics and such, there is no comparison to Apple. They are in an ever expanding market while digital cameras are a shrinking market. Huge difference.

I was meaning the comparison in regards of offering a product which combines functionality and a nice solid desgin and taking premium money for it.

 

[Paratom]

What I mean: I hope they wont give up about the whole thing just based on the missing success of the first body (which does have some room for improvement).
The lenses are very very nice and not even overpriced IMO.

It reminds me a bit of the Porsche 924, the undermotorised Porsche that neither looked nor drove like the real thing. Still, it ended its live as the 968, a very competent sports car that pushed most of the right buttons.

I love the concept of the T, but the lack of viewfinder, the lack of prime lenses, the lack of peaking for manual focus and the wrongly shaped grip makes it difficult to love other than as a showpiece. Correct the shortcomings and I think it can become the camera that the Lunar was not; a high quality piece of photographic gear that one can also carry as a piece of jewelry. Nothing wrong with that

 

[iiiNelson]

What I mean: I hope they wont give up about the whole thing just based on the missing success of the first body (which does have some room for improvement).
The lenses are very very nice and not even overpriced IMO.

I think that's the thing I think the lenses are overpriced and surprisingly the body was sold at a respectable price initially in my mind. If the T were FFI would give it a slight pass for the lens prices but as a crop sensor people are going to crossshop this with Micro 4/3 (with an excellent lens lineup,) all of the APS-C cameras, and the mirrorless FF cameras. $3500 for a APS-C camera and a prime/kit zoom just isn't going to fly off the shelves. A FF version may have some commercial success at that price but a crop sensor wouldn't get looked at twice by me when I could get close to the same performance for half that money.

There lies the problem with the Leica T. It wasn't developed in the right time period or for the correct market - sort of like the celestial "Hasselblad" cameras (that we all joke about) that they're giving away at their fire sale prices. I sort of view the Leica T in the same train of thought - a boutique camera disaster in spite of the capable performance. They are price out of relevancy for most that would be interested in them... oh an OVF/EVF is a must in any camera... especially a system camera.

 

[Vivek]

Tre, you are very eloquent.

 

[Paratom]

I think that's the thing I think the lenses are overpriced and surprisingly the body was sold at a respectable price initially in my mind. If the T were FFI would give it a slight pass for the lens prices but as a crop sensor people are going to crossshop this with Micro 4/3 (with an excellent lens lineup,) all of the APS-C cameras, and the mirrorless FF cameras. $3500 for a APS-C camera and a prime/kit zoom just isn't going to fly off the shelves. A FF version may have some commercial success at that price but a crop sensor wouldn't get looked at twice by me when I could get close to the same performance for half that money.

Yes, maybe price is one of the dealbreakers here. Maybe people who pay premium rather pay even more premium and go fullframe.
Even though the better m43 lenses are not cheap either.

I am still impressed how good those T-lenses are.

Wrong time for the T... I think Leica really tried to bring something new and innovative (in regards of the UI) and I feel it works astonishingly good, but the market seems to come to a different conclusion. Or maybe it is priced to high for the target market.

I for now, when I grab for a mirrorless its most of the time the T over the EM1 and A7II. They are all good.

But who knows, maybe one day I will own a FF Q-system with 5 lenses instead of all of them including the M. At the moment I dont think I will, because I like optical viewfinders way too much and I do see EVF mostly usefull for cameras, where an optical viewfinder doesnt fit in (meaning smaller sized cameras).