Please Leica DONT let the T dye!

[ashwinrao1]

, I am curious if there actually is a way around the size matter. Leica has accompished this with the M series (small, RF lenses, and a sensor capable of handling the light ray angle issue through microlenses and some software correction). The fact that my Sony A7s can also handle the majority of my M lenses (save the 28 cron, which is a ghastly performer on non M bodies) suggests that there may be an option for compact full frame bodies in the same vein, with the proper sensor (and algorithithms/6 bit coding adjustments). I would love Leica to design a "T" type camera or Q type camera with a full frame sensor, and the appropriate sensor and algorithms to handle M lenses. An update of the Tri-elmar (either as a true zoom or step zoom) would be fantastic and compact....especially given today's cameras high ISO capacity.

With the Q now availabe as a demonstration of Leica's technical prowess, and with a lens that isn't too large, why not extend the concept into the T. I see cost as a primary deterrent, and if the T system is to be sucessful, it needs its lenses to be priced accordingly. That, or move to a full frame design, with the relative cost expectations of a full frame body.


In my mind, Leica can now really harness their tech and relationships with other manufacturers to design a full frame body with compact full frame lenses. Maybe rebadge the current M lenses with AF technology used in the Q's 28 mm lens...this may be eventually with the M system turns into, with lenses capable of both MF and AF (if a digital RF can be appropriately designed and close to the optical version, which seems reasonable givne the pixel count and quality of the Q's EVF)....

 

[D&A]

I'm not sure which direction Leica will take in the near future but onservatively if I had to venture a guess, it will develope either a successor to the M240 with built in hybrid OVF/ EVF finder or more likely diverge the M line into two distinct digital rangefinders.

The first would be the successor to the M240 that first and formost keep its trditional optical rangefinder and manual focus lenses but incorporate advances in the body as they have always done with each successive generation. The 2nd digital M would be as Ashwin has suggested, a new body incorporating AF capabilty with a new line of interchangeable M mount AF lenses, a built in hybrid rangefinder, and a host of modern day electronics and metering to round out the package.

Just as the Leica film M bodies continue to be produced along with the current digital M bodies, so would these two digital M rangefinder lines. As long as both sell in sufficient numbers, each line will continue to be developed.

In the interm, I could first see the Q line developing into am interchangeable af lens system but with its own line of non M lenses but with optional adapter for MF M lenses that can be used with this model of Q body. Onviously this line of Q would be more compact than the M rangefinders mentioned above. Unfortunately I see the T eventually being discontinued. Oh look, my crystal ball is beginning to fog up .

Dave (D&A)

 

[Photon42]

[...] I see the T eventually being discontinued. Oh look, my crystal ball is beginning to fog up .

Dave (D&A)

No problem. Everybody has one :grin: I can see the Q evolving into a fully digital M. The T in the present state needs strong updates in the usability department and the lens selection. Great that Karbe goes for perfect quality over max aperture. Not that I don't understand, where he is coming from, but the broad market success of that idea was already demonstrated with the Vario.

 

[iiiNelson]

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 . . .

Not going to make this a Sony v. Leica thing at all but the problem Leica has with the T is the same problem Hasselblad has with the "Celestial" cameras. Pushing the luxury factor above the image quality - that I don't doubt is decent for a walk around lens but not great in terms of a professionally priced zoom. As for Sony FE zooms... I've owned a couple and didn't like any of them except the 70-200 so you won't get a pro Sony FE zoom argument from me at all (although they are ranked as well as the Canon and Nikon pro f/4 offerings.) As for the Full Frame primes most are decently sized (save the 35 Distagon FE which is physically large but not heavy) and excellently balanced. Sony's lens lineup is growing and the sensor technology is second to none... I don't see why anyone would choose a Leica T over this personally. Some people poke at the Sony FE for lack of lenses but the Leica T has 3 slow zooms and a prime AFAIK... Not very reassuring to invest in that for the price they're asking.

Regarding the Fuji lenses I gotta say that they are pretty damn good and the bodies are constantly being improved. The cameras and lenses are priced decently. They possibly have the best quality of lenses across the board in mirrorless IMO but the sensors don't play as well with RAW converters as Bayer sensors. Outside of this fact I don't see why one would choose the Leica T over the Fuji XT-1 or the rumored X-Pro 2. As for Micro 4/3 they have the most complete lens lineup and the most mature bodies as it applies to functionality. I don't see why anyone would choose the Leica T over this option.

We are comparing apples to oranges when compared against Leica M primes and Leica T zooms to Sony FE though. One doesn't have autofocus and the other isn't Full Frame. I don't think that the Leica T is bad I just don't know where it fits in the market. Leica needs to choose to do luxury systems that truly compete in their segments (S, X, Q, or rumored interchangeable lens mount Q) or offer something completely different (like the M.) Crop sensors are always going to be compared to the cropped competition and technology is at a point to where it's just not enough that it's a Leica (unless it's a M that offers heritage and "the rangefinder experience.")

Just my opinion though although I might be in the minority in this discussion. It wasn't just the sluggish speed for me like many suggest. It was the entire concept and execution of the product that soured me on the Leica T when I handled it. I realize that I'm probably not the market they are after though. I realized that outside the M line (not the M240 though) and the S nothing else that Leica produces interests me in any serious manner... I don't know that they will make anything that does for a competitive price to the competition either in the 35mm world...

 

[jonoslack]

Just my opinion though although I might be in the minority in this discussion. It wasn't just the sluggish speed for me like many suggest. It was the entire concept and execution of the product that soured me on the Leica T when I handled it. I realize that I'm probably not the market they are after though. I realized that outside the M line (not the M240 though) and the S nothing else that Leica produces interests me in any serious manner... I don't know that they will make anything that does for a competitive price to the competition either in the 35mm world...

Well Tre - anyone looking for cost/performance benefits really isn't going to look at Leica (any more than they will look at Audi or BMW for their car). Of course, if you don't like the concept and execution of the T, then there isn't any redemption. But I still reckon the lenses (and IQ) are really excellent - and definitely competitive with Fuji, and obviously better than the Sony APSc lenses - and the image quality of the T really is better than any of the µ43 cameras/lenses. So I still think it hinges around the camera performance (and in terms of AF and shot to shot times the T definitely is not up with the competition).

But it does make great images - and in the spirit of the OP - I hope the T system carries on, with a body which makes the most of those excellent lenses.

best

 

[Paratom]

Lets forget about the polishing thing and about the sensor size. Lets say just take a Leica T and shoot and then look at images.
I bet many people would be surprised about the IQ.
By the way I dont find the current T that slow. Also, if you look through the T viewfinder and then through the Q viewfinder you might be surprized, one of the too gives you a bigger/wider view, and it is not the one of the Q. (I still would prefer the integrated viewfinder)

 

[JorisV]

Well Tre - anyone looking for cost/performance benefits really isn't going to look at Leica (any more than they will look at Audi or BMW for their car). Of course, if you don't like the concept and execution of the T, then there isn't any redemption. But I still reckon the lenses (and IQ) are really excellent - and definitely competitive with Fuji, and obviously better than the Sony APSc lenses - and the image quality of the T really is better than any of the µ43 cameras/lenses. So I still think it hinges around the camera performance (and in terms of AF and shot to shot times the T definitely is not up with the competition).

But it does make great images - and in the spirit of the OP - I hope the T system carries on, with a body which makes the most of those excellent lenses.

best

+1. What Jono said

 

[iiiNelson]

Well Tre - anyone looking for cost/performance benefits really isn't going to look at Leica (any more than they will look at Audi or BMW for their car). Of course, if you don't like the concept and execution of the T, then there isn't any redemption. But I still reckon the lenses (and IQ) are really excellent - and definitely competitive with Fuji, and obviously better than the Sony APSc lenses - and the image quality of the T really is better than any of the µ43 cameras/lenses. So I still think it hinges around the camera performance (and in terms of AF and shot to shot times the T definitely is not up with the competition).

But it does make great images - and in the spirit of the OP - I hope the T system carries on, with a body which makes the most of those excellent lenses.

best

if we are being honest though there aren't many system cameras that don't have excellent IQ. I don't deny that the T isn't capable of this as well but no product that isn't a commercial success is going to be continued or invested in long term.

It's just my opinion but Leica missed the commercial mark with the price point of the lenses. If that means they need to design them in Germany and manufacture them in Asia then that's what they should do to hit a target market price and be commercially successful. The body price was spot on IMO and to my surprise being priced in line with FF mirror less. The glass pricing is waaaaay off. No matter the premium optics used in manufacture kit lens specs at premium lens price is a hard sell.

Look at the Sony 55FE... The only saving grace was the Zeiss like look (and label) to the lens but everyone was comparing it to the nifty 50's of Canon/Nikon in relationship to specs and price. That's not to say I don't expect a Leica premium but $2000 for a kit zoom is asinine... Even for Leica.

 

[D&A]

One of the reasons I don't see the T system evolving into a future M (as suggested in a previous post), is simply that the system and lenses are designed for APS size sensors. The Q system on the other hand is full frame and can easily become an interchangeable AF M mount system that could also accept manual focus M lenses.

Even if the mount has to be different than a M mount on a interchangeable Q lens AF system, it still seems possible traditional M lenses can easily be adapted for use by 1st mounting an adapter. Although immediate modela of the Q will probably be fixed lens, I suspect somesort of interchamgeable mount system will evolve from it at some point.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Ken_R]

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.

Leicas without a viewfinder make no sense to me. The APS-C sized sensor is/was ok but the slow and expensive lenses coupled with the lack of an OVF or EVF make cameras like the T and X-Vario forgetable.

The Q seems like an instant legend.

 

[barjohn]

Unfortunately, no company has unlimited resources so products that are not successful in the marketplace are usually destined to die. I suspect Leica will take the lessons learned from the X, T and XV and incorporate those lessons in future cameras but won't put much in the way of resources in the former going forward. Unfortunately, Leica is still behind in the sensor area and it will be hard for anyone to match or beat Sony given their resources and knowledge in sensor development. I think that at some point they would be wise to use Sony sensors tailored to meet their specific needs.

 

[JorisV]

Leicas without a viewfinder make no sense to me. The APS-C sized sensor is/was ok but the slow and expensive lenses coupled with the lack of an OVF or EVF make cameras like the T and X-Vario forgetable.

The Q seems like an instant legend.

No offense but it seems like people without any experience with the gear in question endlessly keep on repeating the same absolute "wisdom" they find on the internet...

I don't own an X-Vario but all people who own one seem to be unanimously pleased with it... That to me mean means a lot more than a bunch of internet professors endlessly repeating what they have read somewhere...

The same goes for the T...

 

[barjohn]

I'm not sure you have any basis for your statement. There are plenty of people that were not satisfied the the T or XV. I'm one of those and I Owned both. Additionally, the market has spoken loud and clear. If you think not, go buy one and then try and sell it. In other words, put your money behind your words. The Q ticks most of the boxes the X, XV or T failed to tick off. FF, fast lens, fast AF, built in EVF, better high ISO performance and reasonable size.

 

[iiiNelson]

No offense but it seems like people without any experience with the gear in question endlessly keep on repeating the same absolute "wisdom" they find on the internet...

I don't own an X-Vario but all people who own one seem to be unanimously pleased with it... That to me mean means a lot more than a bunch of internet professors endlessly repeating what they have read somewhere...

The same goes for the T...

Or it could be people voicing their contrary opinions of why they didn't buy... It's not that everyone is just opposed to Leica there are legitimate deal breakers for some bit it lack of built in OVF/EVF or the operating system that is an issue with the T for SOME owners. For me it was an issue of pricing and target which leads to cross shopping the competition. I find the competition comparable at a much better price (APS-C mirrorless/Micro 4/3) or superior in technology/versatility at a similar price (FF Mirrorless/Entry level to mid level DSLR) but that's just me.

As for the X-Vario... It was sort of a "joke product" to me because most were screaming for an interchangeable lens backup camera for the M. It could've been crop sensor then because the X has a decent sensor.

 

[JorisV]

The Q ticks most of the boxes the X, XV or T failed to tick off. FF, fast lens, fast AF, built in EVF, better high ISO performance and reasonable size.

I don't tick boxes... I had a Sony A7s which also ticked all of those boxes and in the end it left me completely cold and didn't inspire me to go out and take pictures...

I like the simplicity of the T, the image quality, its handling, the design, the weight, the size, etc.

I am sorry it didn't work out for you, I hope the Q does.

 

[D&A]

I think when it came to the XV, the initial disappointment came from the marketing of the product prior to release. Leica sort of implied it was to be a mini M and thus most like myself assumed an interchangeable lens camera that could take M lenses and maybe be used along side a M rangefinder.

I find the CV a bit of egnima. Lens we all know is slow. Af speed is passable for non demanding situations. Contols and layout are not all that different than a Q. Lens is a zoom lens which many like in a all in one travel related camera. Finially we have the optical quality. In a word impecable. Sharp at every aperture ans focal length (and yes some will say becuase its a slow lens). It does everything OK, has a good zoom range and great lens performance wise. Of course external EVF and APS sensor. A camera like this in a full frame Q line with Q performance would cost at least 2x as much or more.

So price wise if optical perfomance is ultimate goal with very good high ISO performance, its a good camera. For those that also want a fast zoom lens, full frame and state of the art performance in othet areas, then significant costs are involved. Two entirely different markets.

Dave (D&A)

 

[algrove]

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.

The T was introduced with a bit too much fanfare about the alu block, etc. Then introducing it with just 2 lenses killed for many of us and now after what 2 years they come out with 2 more lenses making 4 lenses not enough to get serious. They introduce it as an APS-C at a time the Sony FF 24 and 36Mp cameras are out and running. Too little, too late. Even the Q is too late when comparing it to RX-1.

As for an addition to the M system, I do not buy it.

 

[JorisV]

The T was introduced with a bit too much fanfare about the alu block, etc.

Just about everybody and their mother agrees on this...

Then introducing it with just 2 lenses killed for many of us and now after what 2 years they come out with 2 more lenses making 4 lenses not enough to get serious.

The T was announced in April 2014... so 4 lenses within a year is really not too bad, it would be extremely nice though if there was a lens roadmap a la Fuji, Fuji has really set the standard there!

They introduce it as an APS-C at a time the Sony FF 24 and 36Mp cameras are out and running. Too little, too late.

I completely do not get your point here. Sony was also releasing 24 and even 12 MP APS-C and FF cameras when the 36MP D800 was already out....

Even the Q is too late when comparing it to RX-1.

I does seem like that one even has the measurabators and box tickers convinced...

As for an addition to the M system, I do not buy it.

For me it is, I either shoot with the S2 or with the T. Since I bought the T the M is gathering dust...

 

[Paratom]

The T was introduced with a bit too much fanfare about the alu block, etc. Then introducing it with just 2 lenses killed for many of us and now after what 2 years they come out with 2 more lenses making 4 lenses not enough to get serious. They introduce it as an APS-C at a time the Sony FF 24 and 36Mp cameras are out and running. Too little, too late. Even the Q is too late when comparing it to RX-1.

As for an addition to the M system, I do not buy it.

I am not sure if the goal of the T system is to offer 30 lenses.
I saw it more like a combination of a Leica x2 with a Leica X-vario in the beginning.
Either use the standard zoom (I have yet to see a better standard zoom in such size) or if light gets low put the 23/2.0 on it.
Now with the UWA and the Telezoom the range is extended, but 90% I bring just the T with 23mm or T with standard zoom and 23mm.
No quesion a fast 50mm equivalent or a fast portrait lens would complete the system.

Regarding full frame or not - for me is a question of lens size and print size. Do you need 24mp or 36mp for the size of your prints, and are you willing to carry bigger lenses, get full frame.
Do you prefer smaller lenses and still want decent IQ but dont need to print super big, dx seems like a very good compromise.
For example IMO there is still no real full frame camera which can be seen as pockable, while there are the x1/x2/sigma dp.../Nikon A and Ricoh GR.

 

[Paratom]

bye the way. Sorry to all for the wrong spelling in the title of the thread.