Please Leica DONT let the T dye!

[Speedgraphic]

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).

Sometimes manufacturers bring things to market that are literally tests of various features. This honestly could have been a test of the touch screen interface for future cameras like the M or now Q. There is just so much else about this camera that made it not make sense. A $2000 dollar 18-55/3.5-5.6 isn't going to excite anyone considering that kind of zoom has been associate with Canon Rebels for the last decade. Which is why Fuji was praised for their version, which managed good construction AND 2.8-4.0.

 

[iiiNelson]

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).

Price and value are huge dealbreakers. The T needs to be prices in line or slightly above the competition so sub $2000 body (check) and lenses in the $800-2500 price range and not much higher. My exact reaction (in my head) to the price of the 18-55 kit zoom was "F*** YOU!!!"

I get it Leica has rich photographic heritage and it's almost acceptable on the M simply because it's the ONLY digital rangefinder out there. There are plenty of mirrorless cameras so you need to set yourself apart. Nothing wrong with the Leica T menu - it was decent but photographers are resistant to change. That's something that Leica could've learned from Sony with the NEX menus. I personally didn't find them to be difficult but there were enough complaints that they went Alpha menus (which I find less intuitive than the NEX ones but thankfully I only need to go in them to turn off WiFi or format SD cards) for all cameras.

Maybe Zeiss waters down their image somewhat by licensing their coatings/names to Sony but they do remind us that they still are a premium lens designer when they make Otus, Batis, ZF.2/ZE and other premium lenses.

 

[JorisV]

Price and value are huge dealbreakers. The T needs to be prices in line or slightly above the competition so sub $2000 body (check) and lenses in the $800-2500 price range and not much higher. My exact reaction (in my head) to the price of the 18-55 kit zoom was "F*** YOU!!!"

I get it Leica has rich photographic heritage and it's almost acceptable on the M simply because it's the ONLY digital rangefinder out there. There are plenty of mirrorless cameras so you need to set yourself apart. Nothing wrong with the Leica T menu - it was decent but photographers are resistant to change. That's something that Leica could've learned from Sony with the NEX menus. I personally didn't find them to be difficult but there were enough complaints that they went Alpha menus (which I find less intuitive than the NEX ones but thankfully I only need to go in them to turn off WiFi or format SD cards) for all cameras.

Maybe Zeiss waters down their image somewhat by licensing their coatings/names to Sony but they do remind us that they still are a premium lens designer when they make Otus, Batis, ZF.2/ZE and other premium lenses.

Two things matter to me:

1) the handling of the camera. Do I like using it? Does it make me want to go out and take pictures?
2) image quality

The Leica T ticks both boxes for me.

I also have the Fuji X-T1 and (and X-Pro1) APS-C cameras. The X-T1 with 23mm comes in at $1,900, significantly cheaper than the T, less than half with EVF included.

Different cameras, different experiences, I am OK with both.

Personally I feel that the body and the 23mm lens (I rarely use zooms) are not overpriced. The EVF is another matter, it should have been built-in and lag less...

About Sony, I tried the A7s, very good camera but in the end not for me, I sold the A7s and kept the T.

The A7rII looks fabulous though and I might go for one, that is after trying the Leica Q...

 

[Paratom]

Sometimes manufacturers bring things to market that are literally tests of various features. This honestly could have been a test of the touch screen interface for future cameras like the M or now Q. There is just so much else about this camera that made it not make sense. A $2000 dollar 18-55/3.5-5.6 isn't going to excite anyone considering that kind of zoom has been associate with Canon Rebels for the last decade. Which is why Fuji was praised for their version, which managed good construction AND 2.8-4.0.

The problem is people dont see the difference between a slow standard zoom from Leica which is sharp through all f-stops vs a cheapo standard kit zoom (from Canon/Sony/Nikon) which needs to be stopped down even further to start delivering acceptable results.
For example the T wide angle zoom in the 28-35mm FOV range beats the Sony 16-35 FE lens easily.
But many people look at specs when comparing lenses.

 

[ptomsu]

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.

I do agree on the fact that a APS-C sensor size has lots of advantages if you look into the overall size of a system - at least up to a certain amount of focal length.

Anyway as nice and intriguing as the T system is, it is still APSC. Which means it is not FF. And just continuing to spin that thought, it is much better and CHEAPER to go for a great APSC system like the Nikon D7200 with some selected glass. Especially if one takes into account how good NEF files and Nikkor lenses are handled with todays RAW converters like LR6 or C1Pro8.

On the other hand a FF Leica AF system based on today's Q with interchangeable lenses would appeal at least for me to jump in again to Leica. Especially if prices stay in the same relation to the M system as the current Q is positioned.

 

[JorisV]

Worth reading:
http://www.soundimageplus.com/sound...leica-t-typ-701-the-recreational-photographer

 

[Paratom]

Worth reading:
http://www.soundimageplus.com/sound...leica-t-typ-701-the-recreational-photographer

Thanks for the link, at least I dont feel alone anymore with my relatively positive opinion about the T.

 

[4season]

Enjoy your Leica T for what it is, and for as long as it lasts? Everything gets discontinued eventually.

I agree that it's one of the freshest designs from Leica in a long time. But clearly they are playing the luxury-products game with seemingly arbitrary prices, emphasizing how good I'm supposed to feel if I own one, while downplaying actual performance. And that's okay if you're into that sort of thing, but I've been there before, and for the most part come away no happier than if I carefully selected more value-priced goods. I'd say Apple delivers pretty good value overall; Rolex, not so much.

 

[jonoslack]

The problem is people dont see the difference between a slow standard zoom from Leica which is sharp through all f-stops vs a cheapo standard kit zoom (from Canon/Sony/Nikon) which needs to be stopped down even further to start delivering acceptable results.
For example the T wide angle zoom in the 28-35mm FOV range beats the Sony 16-35 FE lens easily.
But many people look at specs when comparing lenses.

Hi Tom. I quite agree, tragic isn't it, and the wide zoom is really one of the best such lenses I've ever used. Whereas Leica have used relatively slow variable apertures to maximise the performance in a small lens others use it to make cheap lenses.

However, I still feel that the REAL problem with the T is that it simply isn't responsive enough: black out times in the viewfinder, start up time, AF performance. If the camera behaved like the Q in these respects, I'm sure that people would have fallen in love with it and then others would join in as well.

You and I both know that the interface is great when you get used to it. But the speed of the camera is really irritating when compared with the competition.

I'd like to see a built in EVF but I feel that a really responsive body would still be enough to resurrect interest.

 

[Gbealnz]

And that "responsive body" could be done via a firmware update? Yes?
Hope so, as I am quite happy with mine right now, but would be happier still if it got "better".
I do dislike the Viso-EVF, it is a pain sticking up like it does. But it is what it is. If I wasn't solely manual M lenses with mine I could possibly use it in "tourist mode", sans EVF, but with the manual lenses I find I need it.
Gary

 

[Paratom]

I think the responsiveness has been improved a lot allready.
It is not fast like the EM1 but with the standardzoom and 23mm iits not bad either.
With the Telezoom.... not so great I admit.

 

[Vivek]

Whereas Leica have used relatively slow variable apertures to maximise the performance in a small lens others use it to make cheap lenses.

I thought every maker do it for the same reason that Leica purportedly made it, no?

The original Panasonic G1 kit zoom set the ball rolling in terms of standards, I think.

 

[Paratom]

I thought every maker do it for the same reason that Leica purportedly made it, no?

The original Panasonic G1 kit zoom set the ball rolling in terms of standards, I think.

The original 14-45 was pretty good, the following 14-42 not so much.

 

[jonoslack]

I thought every maker do it for the same reason that Leica purportedly made it, no?

The original Panasonic G1 kit zoom set the ball rolling in terms of standards, I think.

Hi Vivek
Not complaining about some great kit lenses (Olympus make some as well).

I had an interesting discussion with Peter Karbe about the philosophy with these T lenses (and the summarits as well) The idea being to make NO sacrifices in terms of image or build quality, but some in terms of maximum/variable aperture. He made in interesting comment about Constant Aperture zoom lenses, to the effect that you ended up throwing away aperture at the wide end.

All the best

 

[Vivek]

Thanks for the clarification, Jono.

Yes that makes sense (you should feel free to post such info- there are not even pretend optical experts here as in some other sites. ).

 

[JorisV]

Hi Tom. I quite agree, tragic isn't it, and the wide zoom is really one of the best such lenses I've ever used. Whereas Leica have used relatively slow variable apertures to maximise the performance in a small lens others use it to make cheap lenses.

I can see Leica’s point. I am not sure how much this strategy is being understood and appreciated by the market though. As ISO performance improves perhaps also the appreciation for these lenses will increase?

However, I still feel that the REAL problem with the T is that it simply isn't responsive enough: black out times in the viewfinder, start up time, AF performance. If the camera behaved like the Q in these respects, I'm sure that people would have fallen in love with it and then others would join in as well.

I have a different view on this. Just like the X Vario it is the marketing IMO that killed the T. It was positioned in a wrong way and once the harm is done it is difficult to change the perception of the general audience. I personally am OK with the startup time. Much better than eg. a Sony. The AF speed is sufficient for most of my needs as well. I have more issues with the AF not locking focus. As far as the EVF goes, it is an eyesore, very invonvenient when putting your camera in a bag, it has black outs, it lags, etc. Using it is just not a very satisfying experience. Hopefully new models of the T and the X also get a built-in viewfinder just like the Q.

 

[Paratom]

I can see Leica’s point. I am not sure how much this strategy is being understood and appreciated by the market though. As ISO performance improves perhaps also the appreciation for these lenses will increase?



I have a different view on this. Just like the X Vario it is the marketing IMO that killed the T. It was positioned in a wrong way and once the harm is done it is difficult to change the perception of the general audience. I personally am OK with the startup time. Much better than eg. a Sony. The AF speed is sufficient for most of my needs as well. I have more issues with the AF not locking focus. As far as the EVF goes, it is an eyesore, very invonvenient when putting your camera in a bag, it has black outs, it lags, etc. Using it is just not a very satisfying experience. Hopefully new models of the T and the X also get a built-in viewfinder just like the Q.

I find the EVF of the T quite good, much better than the VF2 which I never like that much.
A built in viewfinder would be great though.

 

[UHDR]

for me, the T grab my attention with the wrong reason. the moment they start putting audi-design / porshce-design, i cross the camera straight off my list....

EDITED: sorry in advance if i offended any T supporters.

 

[Paratom]

for me, the T grab my attention with the wrong reason. the moment they start putting audi-design / porshce-design, i cross the camera straight off my list....

EDITED: sorry in advance if i offended any T supporters.

does that mean you mainly choose a camera depending on the brand who did the design?

But I think I see your point and I agree that Leica is marketing too much the luxury factor instead of the funtion and the optical quality.

 

[jonoslack]

Price and value are huge dealbreakers. The T needs to be prices in line or slightly above the competition so sub $2000 body (check) and lenses in the $800-2500 price range and not much higher. My exact reaction (in my head) to the price of the 18-55 kit zoom was "F*** YOU!!!"

HI Tre
I've just found this thread, and I really sympathise with Tom's point of view

The lenses are really good - much better than the kit lenses of either Fuji or µ43 - and also much better than (for instance) the SZ 'kit lens' for the Sony A7. As Tom says - the interface is simple and with thought to the configuration it works really well.

A full frame camera with equivalent lenses is going to be MUCH bigger - there isn't a way around this - it's becoming increasingly clear when we see the sizes of the Sony Zoom lenses - and they aren't that great anyway. the 11-23 lens is really stunning - right up with the Olympus pro class zooms (but much smaller)

Actually, I don't believe that the T experiment is over - so I hope and believe that Tom will get is wish of a much faster body - like him I'd like to see weather sealing and a built in EVF - but I hope they keep the interface - it works, and when you get used to it it's surprisingly intuitive.

The PROBLEM with the T was that it's too damned slow - I really believe this to have been the only reason it wasn't embraced by photographers - the black out time with the EVF, the shot to shot times with the internal memory - the AF speed - THESE are the reasons it's been unpopular (incidentally, firmware improvements have helped with some of these issues, but it's still too slow).

It's noticeable that the Q has been welcomed with open arms, despite being fixed lens and much more expensive, partly perhaps because it's full frame, but quite honestly I think it's because it's a combination of decent IQ and excellent performance.

I reckon a T body with equivalent performance and a 24mp sensor would do really well . . . and this time the lenses do exist and the firmware is more mature.

Looking back through the images I've taken with it over the last couple of years . . . they hold up really well, and they really are nicer than the µ43 images.

Full Frame is all the rage at the moment (for obvious reasons) - but I'm not convinced it'll stay that way as sensor technology improves - For the size and weight of a Nikon D750 and a 28-70 f2.8 I can carry a complete T outfit . . .