True, but I don't want to accumulate another set of prime lenses, rather get good zooms and use my M's in which I've already invested.
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!
T or X, which would you choose as a 2nd body?
- Thread starter woodleica
- Start date
Brad, I didn't realize the new D-lux was a M4/3rd size sensor and I hadn't quite caught up on Leica ( and pansonics ) newer compact offerings. It's definitely worth looking at as a pocketable solution. I may just get one to have in my pocket separately from what I'm looking for in my original query. It looks like the best pocketable thing out there.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Between the X and the T I'd probably go A7s which actually DOES play well with M mount lenses as a back up to your M. One comment of importance for those that shoot wide angle lenses is that going the A7s route will also keeps your wide lenses as wides as it's FF. You wouldn't need to bother with an external viewfinder for lenses wider than 28mm. I don't know if 12megapixels is enough for you and that's something to consider as well. It's the one major reason I DON'T own an A7s.
Between the Fuji X and the Leica T an important thing to ask yourself is do you want/need an EVF. The Fuji comes with it and it's an accessory for the T. I'd assume that the Leica T was natively better with M lenses but I've only handled both in store. I've never lived with either of them.
Between the Fuji X and the Leica T an important thing to ask yourself is do you want/need an EVF. The Fuji comes with it and it's an accessory for the T. I'd assume that the Leica T was natively better with M lenses but I've only handled both in store. I've never lived with either of them.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Depends on the lens.
I found that my Leica branded aspherical lenses tend to do worse on the Sony bodies as there aren't the built in corrections and they have thicker sensor glass I'm told. Never really had much issue with my Voigtlander 21 or 35 (even on the A7 or A7R with the 35/1.2.)
The Sonys look great - are innovative and seem to have stellar image quality. WA issues withstanding, my concern is that the native zooms seem big, large and heavy. My original need to have leica was to go light and small and I'd ideally like a complementary solution that's light and small and if I've to sacrifice ff that's fine bc I still have ff with the M.
The A7s is an amazing camera. But I find the resolution lacking for my applications and am more enticed by the A7ii. However, one reason I really enjoy the M ( besides liking RF ) is the lightweight nature of the kit. Looking at the specs, the A7 series don't seem to have too many zoom lens to choose from and the zooms seem quite heavy and large. But I did notice that there is a new 24-240 and something like that paired with some M's might make a good travel kit if I can sacrifice WA. I want to use my M primes I've already invested in, so my interest in any new kit would be the zooms.
I am concerned about the T perhaps being a dead end solution from leica. It doesn't seem to be selling that well and it's APS-C. On the other hand, Fuji is doing really well. The advantage of APS-C is the smaller and lighter lens that go with it as compared to what you have with the A7 series.
I've to admit, I've not looked in that direction at all other than occasionally/cursorily looking at OM-D and GH reviews. My brain always leads me towards the largest possible sensor with the constraints I have and APS-c fits that. I really do also like the Leica T, and I'm sure I would enjoy shooting with it, cost being the only consideration. But I'm now evaluating tradeoff against the sony as well, something I hadn't seriously considered. I had written sony off based on my past experiences with Nex, but the A7's do seem to be in a different league.
jonoslack
Active member
HI There
The Sony cameras are great, but if you're going to use your M glass on them a lot you should be aware that they aren't fantastic in the corners for lenses wider than 50mm - especially at infinity. This seems to be as a result of the thicker cover glass on the Sony sensors. If you want to use telephoto lenses, then the lenses will be pretty much the same size as the full frame lenses from Canon or Nikon.
The T on the other hand seems to behave very well with all the M lenses (with the added benefit that the lens is recorded in the exif information).
With respect to µ43 - IF you like the 4:3 aspect ratio better than 3:2, then the difference in sensor size really isn't that great (13mm high as opposed to 15.5mm in APSc). The image quality is great, and the E-M5ii particularly is a great camera - lots of excellent and small lenses too.
V
Vivek
Guest
Fair summary of the current state of things. 
Godfrey
Well-known member
Well, since I have Leica FF (M-P), Leica APS-C (X), and Olympus mFT (E-M1 and E-PL7), I find that all three have their strengths and weaknesses as cameras ... and all three produce superb image quality.
I use the E-M1 as my "technical, must get the shot" camera. It's fast, outrageously full-featured, solid as a rock, and there are some amazing lenses for it. It's a great format for longish FoV zoom lenses as they can be much smaller and lighter than the same FoV for APS-C or FF. The image stabilization is amazing too ... It's so much easier to hand-hold the the E-M1 with an effective 300mm FoV at f/5.6 than it is to hand-hold the Sony A7 or Leica M-P with a 180mm f/4 fitted.
As I said before, there are a bazillion ways that work...
G
I use the E-M1 as my "technical, must get the shot" camera. It's fast, outrageously full-featured, solid as a rock, and there are some amazing lenses for it. It's a great format for longish FoV zoom lenses as they can be much smaller and lighter than the same FoV for APS-C or FF. The image stabilization is amazing too ... It's so much easier to hand-hold the the E-M1 with an effective 300mm FoV at f/5.6 than it is to hand-hold the Sony A7 or Leica M-P with a 180mm f/4 fitted.
As I said before, there are a bazillion ways that work...
G
Thanks for summary Jono. That's probably the current state of photography summarized in the fewest and most eloquent words possible.
Yes, I'm aware of the foibles of the sony system. The only one I know little about is m4/3rds.
Yes, I'm aware of the foibles of the sony system. The only one I know little about is m4/3rds.
Thanks Godfrey, I'll definitely take a look at the E-M1.
Well, since I have Leica FF (M-P), Leica APS-C (X), and Olympus mFT (E-M1 and E-PL7), I find that all three have their strengths and weaknesses as cameras ... and all three produce superb image quality.
I use the E-M1 as my "technical, must get the shot" camera. It's fast, outrageously full-featured, solid as a rock, and there are some amazing lenses for it. It's a great format for longish FoV zoom lenses as they can be much smaller and lighter than the same FoV for APS-C or FF. The image stabilization is amazing too ... It's so much easier to hand-hold the the E-M1 with an effective 300mm FoV at f/5.6 than it is to hand-hold the Sony A7 or Leica M-P with a 180mm f/4 fitted.
As I said before, there are a bazillion ways that work...
G
My take, as a user of those systems:
Technically (meaning features and functions) the EM1 and Sony A7-series are ahead of the T.
The T is still very interesting and I use it more often than the other 2 at the moment, because:
-I believe the lenses are a very good compromise between speed and size, and they are very good.
-its a good compromise in regards of sensor size; To my eye the IQ is smoother than the sharp and punchy m43 images.
-For me the simple user interface can be a joy to use;
The EM1 and Sony A7II offer some advantages like faster AF and a big advantage for Tele: Image stabilization.
Between the Oly and the A7II I would say the difference is smaller lenses for the Oly, but with less capability for shallow DOF. Specially when you use the Zooms.
For the A7II there are some very nice lenses, like the 35/2.8FE and the 55/1.8FE, the 24-70/4.0 (I like my sample, the opinion on this lens is mixed), the 70200/4.0 are axcellent lenses. You can do more subject isolation with those compared to f2.8 lenses on the Oly.
In the end you can take good images with all of them. For some reason I feel the most attached to the T, the Sony I find very good but leaves me a little cold,
The EM1 is great for the small size, weatherproof, etc.
I can only recommend to handle all 3 and make the decision not only based on technical data but also see which fits you.
For example as a user of different camera systems I dont like function buttons. I never remember which function on which button. So I prefer less flexibility but clearly labeled buttons.
Technically (meaning features and functions) the EM1 and Sony A7-series are ahead of the T.
The T is still very interesting and I use it more often than the other 2 at the moment, because:
-I believe the lenses are a very good compromise between speed and size, and they are very good.
-its a good compromise in regards of sensor size; To my eye the IQ is smoother than the sharp and punchy m43 images.
-For me the simple user interface can be a joy to use;
The EM1 and Sony A7II offer some advantages like faster AF and a big advantage for Tele: Image stabilization.
Between the Oly and the A7II I would say the difference is smaller lenses for the Oly, but with less capability for shallow DOF. Specially when you use the Zooms.
For the A7II there are some very nice lenses, like the 35/2.8FE and the 55/1.8FE, the 24-70/4.0 (I like my sample, the opinion on this lens is mixed), the 70200/4.0 are axcellent lenses. You can do more subject isolation with those compared to f2.8 lenses on the Oly.
In the end you can take good images with all of them. For some reason I feel the most attached to the T, the Sony I find very good but leaves me a little cold,
The EM1 is great for the small size, weatherproof, etc.
I can only recommend to handle all 3 and make the decision not only based on technical data but also see which fits you.
For example as a user of different camera systems I dont like function buttons. I never remember which function on which button. So I prefer less flexibility but clearly labeled buttons.
rayyan
Well-known member
I do not own the Leica T or the EM-5 mark II. I have tried them both.
Sony A7xxx...I have not bothered with.
I own and have used the fuji XT-1 extensively.
Amongst the mirrorless ( non RF ), I found the Olympus to have the fastest AF.
Wonderful lenses. Excellent size and weather sealings.
The Leica T did not give me the feeling to pick up and run out of the door with it.
I do not like touch screens. Bar the mFT and the Fuji X series, the native lens offerings is a work in progress.
The XT-1 has a very full complement of superb lenses...with more to come.
Just have a look at what is available right now...
With the v3 firmware upgrade, the XT-1 is a very matured machine. Weather sealed too.. With weather sealed lenses, it is a system unto itself.
The ergonomics suits me to a ' T '.
I prefer to use native lenses on any camera. I do not purchase cameras to use other non- native mount lenses and spend untold hours testing, experimenting, or writing about the Odessy on forums.
In a pinch, the Fuji m mount adapter allows me to use any m lens ( or Nikon..the 2 systems I own ) above and including 50mm without any issue.
The relatively inexpensive kit zoom is the only one I used for more than a month
In tropical places. I did not find any merit in Internet talk about mushy foliage, and various other issues referred to in such discussions.
No mirrorless ( non RF ) system currently can compete with a dslr for lag, af and focus tracking. That aside, the XT-1 checks all the boxes for me. Oh, except the video.
Do not forget a manufacturer's providing users with firmware upgrades on a regular basis. That keeps my machine working longer..rather than introducing new machines with minor upgrades and charging more for it.
The machine, the native lenses, the on-going and frequent firmware updates and
adapters to use other mount lenses...
The Fuji XT-1 for me is the one.
Sony A7xxx...I have not bothered with.
I own and have used the fuji XT-1 extensively.
Amongst the mirrorless ( non RF ), I found the Olympus to have the fastest AF.
Wonderful lenses. Excellent size and weather sealings.
The Leica T did not give me the feeling to pick up and run out of the door with it.
I do not like touch screens. Bar the mFT and the Fuji X series, the native lens offerings is a work in progress.
The XT-1 has a very full complement of superb lenses...with more to come.
Just have a look at what is available right now...
With the v3 firmware upgrade, the XT-1 is a very matured machine. Weather sealed too.. With weather sealed lenses, it is a system unto itself.
The ergonomics suits me to a ' T '.
I prefer to use native lenses on any camera. I do not purchase cameras to use other non- native mount lenses and spend untold hours testing, experimenting, or writing about the Odessy on forums.
In a pinch, the Fuji m mount adapter allows me to use any m lens ( or Nikon..the 2 systems I own ) above and including 50mm without any issue.
The relatively inexpensive kit zoom is the only one I used for more than a month
In tropical places. I did not find any merit in Internet talk about mushy foliage, and various other issues referred to in such discussions.
No mirrorless ( non RF ) system currently can compete with a dslr for lag, af and focus tracking. That aside, the XT-1 checks all the boxes for me. Oh, except the video.
Do not forget a manufacturer's providing users with firmware upgrades on a regular basis. That keeps my machine working longer..rather than introducing new machines with minor upgrades and charging more for it.
The machine, the native lenses, the on-going and frequent firmware updates and
adapters to use other mount lenses...
The Fuji XT-1 for me is the one.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Ray
Whilst I agree with you absolutely about tracking, I don't think you're right about eiither lag (the dslr has to hoick the mirror up first) or AF (single shot is faster on some mirrorless cameras).
Good stuff on the Fuji (although I'm still worried about RAW support for the X-Trans in the future - especially if Fuji turn to organic sensors) it's patchy enough now, but what will it be like in 10 years if they change in 2? Mind you, the jpgs are pretty good - the green issue is an issue - but perhaps only in green places
I use Iridient Developer and there is really nothing patchy about its support for the X-Trans sensor at all.
I can definitely see the appeal of the Leica T. They are beautiful, I really would like one myself and the images I have seen are beautiful...
but so are the Fuji ones and the X-T1 with 4 primes (14mm, 23mm, 35mm and 56mm) costs less than the Leica T with the 23mm and the EVF.
On top of that the Fuji lenses are excellent as well and the native lens line-up more complete.
Either way, I believe you make a good choice
I can definitely see the appeal of the Leica T. They are beautiful, I really would like one myself and the images I have seen are beautiful...
but so are the Fuji ones and the X-T1 with 4 primes (14mm, 23mm, 35mm and 56mm) costs less than the Leica T with the 23mm and the EVF.
On top of that the Fuji lenses are excellent as well and the native lens line-up more complete.
Either way, I believe you make a good choice