A Leica T Review(minimallyminimal.com)
minimallyminimal.com
A Leica T Review
http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/leica-t
103 comments
In the film days, it really made a difference. You can use a Leica M4 or 6, yeah it'd cost you a little more but your camera took amazing photos at 1/4 the weight and size of say, a Nikon F3, with a shutter that is whisper quiet. You can go closer and shoot more unobtrusively; while a given Nikon has equal optics, if different characteristics, it couldn't go where a Leica could. At least that's my take on it.
Granted, you could get the same effect from, say, a Canonet or a Yashica but still...
Nowadays, though - I am assuming mechanical precision and design is a more commoditized skill amongst companies whereas EE design - semiconductors, sensors, etc is more of a differentiator. In the age of tiny mirrorless Fuji's and Sony's, Leica's value proposition is more or less destroyed.
I think it's the classic story of an original innovator sitting on their asses while a disruptive tsunami -- modern electronics and computer science -- passed them by. Granted, they sat on their asses for arguably 4 full decades, so they had plenty of time to go "oh shit" and adapt, and the fact that they didn't leaves me with little sympathy.
Them and Eastman Kodak.
Granted, you could get the same effect from, say, a Canonet or a Yashica but still...
Nowadays, though - I am assuming mechanical precision and design is a more commoditized skill amongst companies whereas EE design - semiconductors, sensors, etc is more of a differentiator. In the age of tiny mirrorless Fuji's and Sony's, Leica's value proposition is more or less destroyed.
I think it's the classic story of an original innovator sitting on their asses while a disruptive tsunami -- modern electronics and computer science -- passed them by. Granted, they sat on their asses for arguably 4 full decades, so they had plenty of time to go "oh shit" and adapt, and the fact that they didn't leaves me with little sympathy.
Them and Eastman Kodak.
I agree with your general point, though I disagree with the history.
Japanese SLRs wiped the floor with Leica - Leica's competition wasn't originally with SLRs, it was with more cumbersome "portable" cameras of their time - TLRs. Leica was the first major 35mm player to actually make the cameras usable with the featureset professionals wanted.
Leica's Golden Age was in an era where 35mm SLRs didn't exist. SLRs like the Nikon F3 were in fact the cameras that ultimately toppled Leica from their throne.
People loved the WYSIWYG SLRs, they were cheaper to manufacture, and had lower maintenance requirements (rangefinders drift over time/use). Even pros practically completely switched over by the 80s - look at the cameras being used by journalists in the 50s vs. the 80s and you'll see a complete collapse of Leica.
Yeah, Leica was an original innovator who sat on their asses and got disrupted - but the SLR was the disruptor, not really electronics/CS.
That said, the electronics/CS component of it did contribute. After all, the M cameras didn't get an aperture priority mode until 2002. I'm not sure when Av mode was invented, but the Canon AE-1P brought it to the mainstream in 1981. Leica was literally 20 years late.
Japanese SLRs wiped the floor with Leica - Leica's competition wasn't originally with SLRs, it was with more cumbersome "portable" cameras of their time - TLRs. Leica was the first major 35mm player to actually make the cameras usable with the featureset professionals wanted.
Leica's Golden Age was in an era where 35mm SLRs didn't exist. SLRs like the Nikon F3 were in fact the cameras that ultimately toppled Leica from their throne.
People loved the WYSIWYG SLRs, they were cheaper to manufacture, and had lower maintenance requirements (rangefinders drift over time/use). Even pros practically completely switched over by the 80s - look at the cameras being used by journalists in the 50s vs. the 80s and you'll see a complete collapse of Leica.
Yeah, Leica was an original innovator who sat on their asses and got disrupted - but the SLR was the disruptor, not really electronics/CS.
That said, the electronics/CS component of it did contribute. After all, the M cameras didn't get an aperture priority mode until 2002. I'm not sure when Av mode was invented, but the Canon AE-1P brought it to the mainstream in 1981. Leica was literally 20 years late.
Leica definitely was at a disadvantage in the marketing arena vs. SLRs. But the arguments that M rangefinder still had photographic advantages to SLR's in a number of situations still held weight. Sadly, I think even that selling point has been erased in this day and age.
Them and Eastman Kodak
The first digital Leicas used Kodak sensors.
The first digital Leicas used Kodak sensors.
Yes I think thats fair. In fact you had to go closer, as you would normally use a 35mm or 50mm lens (there are longer ones but hardly anyone used them). There are also some other differences, like the viewfinder not going black when you take the picture, so you see what you took, and the fact that you see beyond the frame in the viewfinder.
I shoot a 5DMII with a variety of pricy glass. I'm not very good yet, but good enough for people to offer to pay me and to incorporate into the work we do at Venn. I've even been hired to do some video stuff by the CBC (web only, of course). I think most non-photographers can tell when a photo is "pro" but they have a harder time distinguishing how good things are at the top part of the photography spectrum.
For fun, I'll sometimes go on "photo walks" around Toronto with my friend that owns a super pricey Leica and has been into photography for way longer than I have. The primary advantage he has beyond just being a better photographer than I am is that when he takes a street photo people don't notice he is there until he already has the shot, whereas I look like a paparazzi.
I've lost so many shots because people see the militaristic look of my camera / lens combination. It also can sometimes lead to arguments on the street over the finer points of the legality of photography in public in Canada. Whereas Leica cameras never really illicit this response.
Not that I'm ever going to shoot Leica, I find Canon's cameras much more usable and ergonomically designed.
For fun, I'll sometimes go on "photo walks" around Toronto with my friend that owns a super pricey Leica and has been into photography for way longer than I have. The primary advantage he has beyond just being a better photographer than I am is that when he takes a street photo people don't notice he is there until he already has the shot, whereas I look like a paparazzi.
I've lost so many shots because people see the militaristic look of my camera / lens combination. It also can sometimes lead to arguments on the street over the finer points of the legality of photography in public in Canada. Whereas Leica cameras never really illicit this response.
Not that I'm ever going to shoot Leica, I find Canon's cameras much more usable and ergonomically designed.
This is where the super-premium compact cameras make sense; I use a Panasonic (~Leica) LX5 for that kind of stuff now, but S110, RX100, etc. are great. Obviously not in the same league on sensor size or glass speed, but pretty good, and subtle.
> I want to suggest that the success of the Go programming language is about aesthetics at this point.
Or rather the lack of them, it least in my case (just look at the site).
There is so much emphasis nowadays placed on the form and the looks that many tech products end up being praised for their design, but once you start digging, the insides make you cringe because of the sloppy work and lack of substance it tries to cover.
It's become so bad that I automatically go into a "tread lightly" mode whenever I have to approach a piece of technology with a stunning and trendy design.
Maybe that's why I was immediately drawn to Go when I saw its web site :)
Or rather the lack of them, it least in my case (just look at the site).
There is so much emphasis nowadays placed on the form and the looks that many tech products end up being praised for their design, but once you start digging, the insides make you cringe because of the sloppy work and lack of substance it tries to cover.
It's become so bad that I automatically go into a "tread lightly" mode whenever I have to approach a piece of technology with a stunning and trendy design.
Maybe that's why I was immediately drawn to Go when I saw its web site :)
You're absolutely right that a Leica takes technically equivalent (inferior, if you're pushing the sensor) photos. However, that's not really what they're about.
I owned a Leica M9 for 3 months last year. My "keeper" rate was 36% higher on the M9 than on previous (or subsequent) digital cameras[1]. I sold the M9 due to its limitations, but you shouldn't underestimate the value of a form factor.
[1] I use lightroom, which lets me get pretty good stats. For reference, my "non-M9" keeper rate is 5.5%, my M9 keeper rate was 7.5%. My film keeper rate is 19%.
I owned a Leica M9 for 3 months last year. My "keeper" rate was 36% higher on the M9 than on previous (or subsequent) digital cameras[1]. I sold the M9 due to its limitations, but you shouldn't underestimate the value of a form factor.
[1] I use lightroom, which lets me get pretty good stats. For reference, my "non-M9" keeper rate is 5.5%, my M9 keeper rate was 7.5%. My film keeper rate is 19%.
I made perhaps a rough comment earlier so I looked for somewhere to agree with you. Not only is Go quite an aesthetically pleasing language, but the description of the draw of Leica cameras could probably be swapped word-for-word with Macbook laptops.
I definitely get what you say...quite frankly, that's probably how I feel about Apple hardware...I feel way more comfortable typing away at a standard Mac keyboard, even though it's likely a comparably-priced keyboard from a keyboard-manufacturer would have more bells and whistles and be better constructed.
I consider myself a decent amateur photographer...and reading the OP makes me think that, with some tweaking, there's a foundation here for a good Portlandia sketch. I get that beauty is in the eye of the photographer, but I made a mental snort reading the OP's amazement at how good he felt his pics came from right out the camera...(I also think it's a bit silly to prize the just-out-of-the-camera quality, as if it were the difference between fresh-from-the-farm and factory chicken eggs). But what really turns me off is that I associate Leica with great hardware...it sounds like they've sacrificed precise controls with an imprecise touchscreen...I thought the point of a Leica was to give a skilled photographer a full-range of control and depth? To reduce the physical controls so that the camera comes out as a more pure slab of aluminum seems like a move toward superficiality than of craftsmanship.
I consider myself a decent amateur photographer...and reading the OP makes me think that, with some tweaking, there's a foundation here for a good Portlandia sketch. I get that beauty is in the eye of the photographer, but I made a mental snort reading the OP's amazement at how good he felt his pics came from right out the camera...(I also think it's a bit silly to prize the just-out-of-the-camera quality, as if it were the difference between fresh-from-the-farm and factory chicken eggs). But what really turns me off is that I associate Leica with great hardware...it sounds like they've sacrificed precise controls with an imprecise touchscreen...I thought the point of a Leica was to give a skilled photographer a full-range of control and depth? To reduce the physical controls so that the camera comes out as a more pure slab of aluminum seems like a move toward superficiality than of craftsmanship.
Oh, Good news!.
I love photography but I hate so much having to carry enormous cameras just because analog were so voluminous and they put a digital sensor on an old analog case.
I bought different Sony NEX cameras for this reason and I use those a lot.
Good news to see other camera makers(canon,leica) listening.
I love photography but I hate so much having to carry enormous cameras just because analog were so voluminous and they put a digital sensor on an old analog case.
I bought different Sony NEX cameras for this reason and I use those a lot.
Good news to see other camera makers(canon,leica) listening.
Fuji's X cameras are also great in this regard. I ditched my DSLR setup for the X system and haven't regretted it for a second.
Yeah, I really love the X system - I have the X-Pro1 and the X100S. Unfortunately I use them much less after the birth of my daughter, the autofocus is too slow and the video is really annoying. We ended up buying a Sony Alpha6000 which is the perfect child camera IMO. For still images I still love my Fujis though.
Looks like X-T1 got much faster autofocus. I have it and now impatiently waiting for X-T2 so it would be "even better" :) Also, Fuji, ship these new zooms finally!!!
I recently got a Panasonic GX-7 for the same reason and am very happy with it! More performant than my Nikon D5100 and much smaller/lighter.
How did this make it into "Hacker News" ?
I suspect that it appeals to hackers who have an appreciation for visual aesthetics. You know how dogs can hear sounds that humans can't? Well, some people can "hear" and appreciate the language of design in ways that maybe aren't apparent to everyone. I sometimes strain to hear this sort of thing and I can appreciate that perhaps some people don't "hear" it at all.
I see some people have down-voted you. I'm going it up-vote you because I believe it was a valid question, if maybe inelegantly put.
A reader liked it and posted it. And apparently enough members if this community liked it as we'll so their upvoting made it to the front page. That׳s how.
[deleted]
Alt. title: "Hipster News".
But seriously, good question. I like stuff like this, but I have no idea how it fits the content of this site.
But seriously, good question. I like stuff like this, but I have no idea how it fits the content of this site.
> The T costs $1850 and the Sunmmicron-T 2/23 ASPH $1950. Yes, the Leica isn’t exactly a bargain.
I'm surprised it's that cheap. The M8 did cost somewhere around $4500 (without a lens) when it was introduced.
I'm surprised it's that cheap. The M8 did cost somewhere around $4500 (without a lens) when it was introduced.
It's this cheap because it's a Point and Shoot and not a Rangefinder.
I don't think "Point and Shoot" is the correct term. Those refer to cameras with fixed zoom lenses.
This has interchangeable lenses and therefore is within the "mirrorless" category.
This has interchangeable lenses and therefore is within the "mirrorless" category.
For the less money, I'd go buy a cannon fixed lens point and shoot - or for about the same money I'd go get two real cameras, and EOS-1 Film, and a EOS-5D with a 50mm f/1.8 to share among them.
Leica makes a very pretty camera - but not one I'd purchase for the task of making pictures.
Leica makes a very pretty camera - but not one I'd purchase for the task of making pictures.
Yea. Leica makes jewelry. They are great cameras. But they are also jewelry.
Unlike the M series, which remains unique in many ways, this seems unimpressive compared to some other interchangeable-lens cameras.
A 16MP APS-C sensor was available in the NEX-5 several years ago, and the tiny magnesium body of the NEX-5 is sexy as hell.
I would look at the Sony and Samsung compact interchangeable lens cameras if you want the best sensors, lens choice, and UI. The Sony a6000 is an awesome camera by any measure. Some of the new Samsungs have a "Google logo" Android complete with Google's suite of proprietary apps, and Google is doing some interesting things with the camera APIs.
A 16MP APS-C sensor was available in the NEX-5 several years ago, and the tiny magnesium body of the NEX-5 is sexy as hell.
I would look at the Sony and Samsung compact interchangeable lens cameras if you want the best sensors, lens choice, and UI. The Sony a6000 is an awesome camera by any measure. Some of the new Samsungs have a "Google logo" Android complete with Google's suite of proprietary apps, and Google is doing some interesting things with the camera APIs.
The M series is Leica's defining camera series. These offshoots are just more revenue streams.
Sony has really come out strong. I still shoot film but if I made my way back to digital I would go with a A7.
Sony has really come out strong. I still shoot film but if I made my way back to digital I would go with a A7.
Nice design. Still, I prefer a viewfinder (as a built-in EVF/OVF, not as a $600 accessory)
I apologize for my ignorance, but does anyone know the brand and model of that unusual watch about a third of the way down the page?
Not quite so expensive. €249.00 (but currently out of stock) here:
http://www.seriouswatches.com/brands/issey-miyake/issey-miya...
http://www.seriouswatches.com/brands/issey-miyake/issey-miya...
Ah, thanks! I tried a reverse image search, and Googling various versions of "watch with chrome face", and looked around the site, but nothing.
I often see watches (mostly in movies) and I kind of wish there was a good site to get wardrobe info from.
Include the female wardrobe information; and affiliate links.
A quick search shows the desire for this kind of site, but nothing that does it well.
Include the female wardrobe information; and affiliate links.
A quick search shows the desire for this kind of site, but nothing that does it well.
For a somewhat similar look, try the Eone Bradley watch ($275, titanium quartz).
[1] http://eone-time.com/
[2] http://shopna.eone-time.com/
[1] http://eone-time.com/
[2] http://shopna.eone-time.com/
Looking at the archives of this blog is amazing. It's the ultimate Connoisseur Consumer in action. Every new product differs in only the minutest details from the previous, bit it's all oh so important. Until the new version arrives and obsoletes the previous one...
For some reason, every time I read "as a designer" and appeals to some magical designer "auctoritee", I cringe. If I can't tell you're a designer from the terms you're using and the points you focus on, well, don't club me over the head with it. As a pedant, I notice details like this.
As for the camera, two programmable knobs seems like a nice feature.
As for the camera, two programmable knobs seems like a nice feature.
I think there's too much focus these days on what you can get for the money, and not what you can get.
You have one life, why fill it with particle board and Chinese plastic smell? Why not save up and buy things that last. That bring joy to your life and enrich it. Why buy a three dollar Chinese screwdriver with an imprecisely cut point that strips every fifth screw, when for ten dollars you can get a precision cut, tempered, and coated american made screwdriver that feels weighty and good in your hands. That doesn't strip those screws and makes your job a little more joyful.
America needs to bring back the craftsman and the appreciation for craftsmanship. The LVL1 hackerspace in Louisville just moved into an old factory and I am constantly stunned by the workmanship that went into that old building. The architect filled the place with light using angled windows, but it doesn't get hot. Even the wood floors are beautifully made (and this was for factory work).
Surrounding yourself with crafted things allows you to think on a higher plane. You know what is possible because you are surrounded with it.
If you surround yourself with cheap replaceable junk you become capable of crafting and expecting only cheap replaceable junk. That's why I can buy so much expensive furniture off craigslist for pennies. People have lost the ability to tell that that slightly scuffed up dresser couldn't be purchased for under eight grand new.
You have one life, why fill it with particle board and Chinese plastic smell? Why not save up and buy things that last. That bring joy to your life and enrich it. Why buy a three dollar Chinese screwdriver with an imprecisely cut point that strips every fifth screw, when for ten dollars you can get a precision cut, tempered, and coated american made screwdriver that feels weighty and good in your hands. That doesn't strip those screws and makes your job a little more joyful.
America needs to bring back the craftsman and the appreciation for craftsmanship. The LVL1 hackerspace in Louisville just moved into an old factory and I am constantly stunned by the workmanship that went into that old building. The architect filled the place with light using angled windows, but it doesn't get hot. Even the wood floors are beautifully made (and this was for factory work).
Surrounding yourself with crafted things allows you to think on a higher plane. You know what is possible because you are surrounded with it.
If you surround yourself with cheap replaceable junk you become capable of crafting and expecting only cheap replaceable junk. That's why I can buy so much expensive furniture off craigslist for pennies. People have lost the ability to tell that that slightly scuffed up dresser couldn't be purchased for under eight grand new.
> "I think there's too much focus these days on what you can get for the money, and not what you can get."
Agree, but with the Leica T you're not really getting much either. Even if it was priced at the same level as the prosumer Sony/Olympus/Fuji cameras it's still a dud.
The body itself is immaculately crafted, that's to be certain - I've actually held one and it feels great.
But the software sucks, the controls are awkward, the screen is mediocre, and basic functions of a camera like autofocus are slow. It's a showpiece, not a workhorse, regardless of the price.
This isn't the Ferrari everyone likes to compare Leicas to, it's paying $300K for a Lada encrusted with diamonds.
I'm not above paying for good design and manufacturing, but it needs to hit the baseline of being a good camera first. I'd buy a Leica M (well, if I had more money) but there's no way I'd touch either the T or the even-more-cash-grabby X-Vario.
For another example of style-over-substance camera (or really just style-without-substance), see the Hasselblad Lunar.
Agree, but with the Leica T you're not really getting much either. Even if it was priced at the same level as the prosumer Sony/Olympus/Fuji cameras it's still a dud.
The body itself is immaculately crafted, that's to be certain - I've actually held one and it feels great.
But the software sucks, the controls are awkward, the screen is mediocre, and basic functions of a camera like autofocus are slow. It's a showpiece, not a workhorse, regardless of the price.
This isn't the Ferrari everyone likes to compare Leicas to, it's paying $300K for a Lada encrusted with diamonds.
I'm not above paying for good design and manufacturing, but it needs to hit the baseline of being a good camera first. I'd buy a Leica M (well, if I had more money) but there's no way I'd touch either the T or the even-more-cash-grabby X-Vario.
For another example of style-over-substance camera (or really just style-without-substance), see the Hasselblad Lunar.
I don't disagree with your main premise - in fact I very much agree with it. Beautiful tools are inspiring to work with.
But this doesn't actually seem to be that good of camera no matter how you look at it and looking at other serious reviews it doesn't seem to be all that well crafted either.
There's a difference between good, but sometimes funky, craftsmanship and gimmicks. The T seems to be more on the gimmick side of things.
But this doesn't actually seem to be that good of camera no matter how you look at it and looking at other serious reviews it doesn't seem to be all that well crafted either.
There's a difference between good, but sometimes funky, craftsmanship and gimmicks. The T seems to be more on the gimmick side of things.
I agree, but, have you looked at the cars today? I can honestly not tell the difference in silhouette between a mustang and an acura these days. You can stick as much chrome on the outside of the thing you want in different patterns, but they are the same car.
It's not that I don't know that the Leica isn't a super great camera, but the fact that they tried to make something to a higher design goal than, "it should just work" carries some weight. Just working is very important, but you can go past it. There were tons of mp3 players that just worked before the ipod. Arguably my rio mp3 player worked and sounded better than the ipod. however, the ipod was something that resonated with people. When you put soul into something your soul responds. I hate saying metaphysical junk like that, but anyone who has experienced a truly well designed object or seen a to a perfectly executed musical performance knows this feeling.
I mean, design these days is boring and unenriching. Go to amazon and search for water filtering pitchers. Do any of those inspire you? Are any of them beautiful? Are any of them even nice to use? If you read the reviews they are full of, "it filters water alright, but": the lid is awkward, the handle cracks off after a few months, the old version had more thought in it, the edges of the plastic are sharp, etc.
Something can fully and completely fulfill it's primary purpose and still be poorly designed. Still be a joyless disposable object.
It's not that I don't know that the Leica isn't a super great camera, but the fact that they tried to make something to a higher design goal than, "it should just work" carries some weight. Just working is very important, but you can go past it. There were tons of mp3 players that just worked before the ipod. Arguably my rio mp3 player worked and sounded better than the ipod. however, the ipod was something that resonated with people. When you put soul into something your soul responds. I hate saying metaphysical junk like that, but anyone who has experienced a truly well designed object or seen a to a perfectly executed musical performance knows this feeling.
I mean, design these days is boring and unenriching. Go to amazon and search for water filtering pitchers. Do any of those inspire you? Are any of them beautiful? Are any of them even nice to use? If you read the reviews they are full of, "it filters water alright, but": the lid is awkward, the handle cracks off after a few months, the old version had more thought in it, the edges of the plastic are sharp, etc.
Something can fully and completely fulfill it's primary purpose and still be poorly designed. Still be a joyless disposable object.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. It's like getting into an old MG Roadster. Not very fast, unreliable, noisy. But damn if it isn't fun and beautiful to get around in. It's inspiring and it does what it's designed to do, give you a dramatic, noisy, wind blown time out in the country.
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mg/b/1673922.html
But this camera seems more like something people buy who want to be seen with it, a fashion-vanity item. And I think that's an important distinction to make.
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mg/b/1673922.html
But this camera seems more like something people buy who want to be seen with it, a fashion-vanity item. And I think that's an important distinction to make.
At this rate, beautiful things are also made in China...the expertise is there, you just have to put together the right specs in your order...
With all the manufacturing experience over there, one can argue the best craftsmanship and knowhow are located in Shenzhen at this time.
"Are you kidding, Doc? All the best stuff is 'Made in Japan'!" "Astounding!"
With all the manufacturing experience over there, one can argue the best craftsmanship and knowhow are located in Shenzhen at this time.
"Are you kidding, Doc? All the best stuff is 'Made in Japan'!" "Astounding!"
"Why not save up and buy things that last."
Camera bodies are pretty much the last thing I want to spend extra on so they "will last"; there's still so much more room for rapid improvement (just look at how Sony is killing it right now with sensor tech compared to nearly everyone else). When it comes to lenses and other stuff (camera and non-camera), I'd agree somewhat with your premise, but any camera body I buy currently I expect to have for only about 2-3 years before I upgrade.
Camera bodies are pretty much the last thing I want to spend extra on so they "will last"; there's still so much more room for rapid improvement (just look at how Sony is killing it right now with sensor tech compared to nearly everyone else). When it comes to lenses and other stuff (camera and non-camera), I'd agree somewhat with your premise, but any camera body I buy currently I expect to have for only about 2-3 years before I upgrade.
> You have one life, why fill it with particle board and Chinese plastic smell?
Because custom furniture and hardware made from a single block of aluminium would mean not having enough money for food and shelter.
Because custom furniture and hardware made from a single block of aluminium would mean not having enough money for food and shelter.
The Leica T is simply a rebranded Sony in a tighter package. If you look around at these guys, you'll see its even a Sony sensor and guts. Hassleblad does the same thing - simply look at the Lunar series. It's basically a Sony RX100 and NEX-7 w/ a wood handle. (http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/). Don't be impressed by this, from a technology perspective. Be impressed by its machining and "re"-design of the Sony consumer brands (by now well under 1,000$ USD). I think they are junk, but when you have two lambos you want bling at the party.
Nikon also uses Sony chips, even in their flagship cameras. The value added by the brand is presumably the lens mount/lens compatibility, controls etc. I continue to use Nikon products because they have maintained some consistency with their physical UI. The Leica T controls don't appeal to me though, so I wouldn't consider it even at a much lower price point. Its disappointing, considering that I might be interested in a lower priced M.
> "re"-design of the Sony consumer brands (by now well under 1,000$ USD)
The review is comparing it to the Sony RX1[1]
[1] http://store.sony.ca/cyber-shot-rx1-digital-camera-zid31-DSC...
The review is comparing it to the Sony RX1[1]
[1] http://store.sony.ca/cyber-shot-rx1-digital-camera-zid31-DSC...
Compact Leicas are usually rebranded Panasonic's. This one isn't, it has it's own mount and dedicaded Leica lenses. It's not a rebrand and price-hike like the compact Leica's and the Lunar.
I dunno, I've thought about getting a Leica every once in a while, then I see reviews like this with pictures from the camera and I'm always so "meh" about how they look. Everything looks like there's a 2-5% grey filter on it, and anything with any kind of luminescence always looks blown out. Most of the sample galleries I've seen on the have the added minus of all looking just slightly out of focus.
There's a definite "Leica look" for certain, I'm just not sure I've ever liked how it looks.
On the other hand, the B&W photos I've seen taken with it look fantastic.
Looking at other reviews, this is a heavy camera and really slow and clumsy to work with. If I'm going to lug around this much, I may as well just lug around a regular old DSLR and a decent lens.
Online reviews are pretty scathing for something in this price range
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5755088/leica-t-mirrorless...
http://reframe.gizmodo.com/leica-t-review-a-camera-should-no...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2460584,00.asp Some more sample galleries
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/leica...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5764700/leica-t-sample-pho...
http://www.gizmag.com/leica-t-review-sample-images/31990/
It seems like this is something people buy only because they want to be seen with a Leica, not because they like photography.
edit I shoot mostly with a now ancient and well worn D60 that appears to outperform this Leica in almost every measure despite being 7 years old.
There's a definite "Leica look" for certain, I'm just not sure I've ever liked how it looks.
On the other hand, the B&W photos I've seen taken with it look fantastic.
Looking at other reviews, this is a heavy camera and really slow and clumsy to work with. If I'm going to lug around this much, I may as well just lug around a regular old DSLR and a decent lens.
Online reviews are pretty scathing for something in this price range
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5755088/leica-t-mirrorless...
http://reframe.gizmodo.com/leica-t-review-a-camera-should-no...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2460584,00.asp Some more sample galleries
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/leica...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5764700/leica-t-sample-pho...
http://www.gizmag.com/leica-t-review-sample-images/31990/
It seems like this is something people buy only because they want to be seen with a Leica, not because they like photography.
edit I shoot mostly with a now ancient and well worn D60 that appears to outperform this Leica in almost every measure despite being 7 years old.
If money were no object and I were to buy a Leica for B&W it would be the M Monochrom. A true monochrome sensor and a lot more choice in lenses.
http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-Monoc...
http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-Monoc...
Or stash up on a lifetime supply of M6 Classics and a freezer full of Tri-X and x-tol (or ascorbic acid) developer solution...I'm not sure what the going price of a M Monochrom is but I'd bet you'd be able to get at least 5 M6's for that price. Spare parts!
True, but that assumes I'd want to do all the chemical processing that comes with film photography. I used to do some of that, but it's not anything I'd want to get back into.
You can still generally get negs+contact sheet+scans for ok prices. I do negs+contact sheet at a pro lab, and then shoot them with my D800 on a lightbox, and import into Lightroom. With the proper curve and adjustment presets, they're higher quality than my best film scanner scans.
the review was nicely written, but after seeing the sample photos it steered me more towards the Sony RX1
I'm really not trying to be negative but it was very poorly written and more of a love letter than anything else.
"...the most hyped and anticipated camera I’ve ever seen" "...Leica partnered with Audi Design and the result is inarguably stunning." "...typical Leica. Simple and elegant."
Simply put Leica digital cameras are not representative of value and are luxury goods, if that is what your after well you found your camera. Otherwise there is a whole world of choices that offer better quality, function and price.
"...the most hyped and anticipated camera I’ve ever seen" "...Leica partnered with Audi Design and the result is inarguably stunning." "...typical Leica. Simple and elegant."
Simply put Leica digital cameras are not representative of value and are luxury goods, if that is what your after well you found your camera. Otherwise there is a whole world of choices that offer better quality, function and price.
Meanwhile, the important elements in the review, like image quality and results, tended to be along the lines of well, the RX1 is better, but... this is Leica!.
And taking some of the pieces of the review together makes it seem even more ridiculously hagiographic:
The T may be painting with a smaller canvas than my
previous camera, the Sony RX1, but it’s still managing
to paint beautiful ones.
Yes, the Sony RX1 does a superior job at capturing detail, but the Leica seems to have pretty good noise performance and renders images with wonderfully calm color.
it does seem to suffer from inaccurate auto focus in
poor light. I haven’t been too bothered as I’m coming
from the Sony RX1 and the Fuji X100 before that; both
known to lack in this department.
And taking some of the pieces of the review together makes it seem even more ridiculously hagiographic:
The T refuses to battle in the megapixel wars or
*include gimmicky features.* Everything about the
T is about removing the extraneous and getting the
best performance out of the materials at hand.
The T even has built-in Wi-Fi and can connect with an
iOS device using the Leica T app. [really!?]
Turning the power switch beyond the on position will
eject the *built-in flash.* [a small, P&S popup flash...]
The strap connects to the camera using a *proprietary
locking pin* that simply clicks into the camera.
As you may know, the Leica T is *hand polished for 45
minutes* before the final finishing stages.
Right, it's like instead of a camera I could actually use and has things I need, like a viewfinder, all that was traded for a useless camera strap pin and an app that doesn't even work on the platform of smartphone I'm using.
If they dumped money into paying Audi for the design rather than improving the function of the camera, guess what you, the consumer, are paying for in its purchase price....
good point, it did get preachy in the end.
by nicely written i meant more about the way thesis was layed out, and images supporting each point + blog design.
The big bugaboo on the wall is: is it any better than the Fuji X100S....
Is that Seattle/Bellevue? But then there's a porsche with Eurpoean plates below :)
All of the park photos were taken at Downtown Park in Bellevue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellevue_Downtown_Park
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellevue_Downtown_Park
The first batch of photos are from Seattle (around the market). I don't recognize the second city, but it appears to be somewhere in Europe.
Second city is Bellevue.
Shots inside the building - Seattle Public Library.
Then Public Market in Seattle.
Shots with greens to skyscrapers - Bellevue Downtown Park.
Shot across highway to two white skyscrapers - Capitol Hill across I-5 with Queen Anne in background (Facebook Seattle rents few floors in one of these buildings)
Interior shots - his own apartment.
Mercedes - his car?
Porsches - looks like some Porsche exhibit (and this might explain euro plate on one of them?)
Neighbourhood/street shots - one of them looks like Bellevue (intersection against the sun), rest - Seattle.
The review was well-written, but the photographs are simply beautiful—especially the desaturated color and serene feeling of the imagery.
The Leica T ($1850) + Summicron T 32mm ($1950) = $3800
The Sony A7 ($1499) + Zeiss 55m f1.8 Sonnar ($999) = $2498
Thats a differential of $1302
Now lets get a few things out of the way -- Yes the Leica is a 35mm equivalent and the Sony is a 55 mm equivalent. But I wanted to compare the best prime lens in each setup (in Leica T system, that is the only prime lens available so far) - The 55mm is arguably currently the Sony FE mount best lens. Also, I will address the "Leica Way" later in this post.
So what are you getting in the Leica that is much better then the Sony? NOTHING. The Sony is a FAR superior as a camera.
Sony:
- Full sensor vs Crop. This has been debated to death, but everyone will agree --> bigger sensor = better image IQ - Faster Autofocus - Better LCD display - Better EVF - Better build (weather sealed) - Better control (Two dials + exposure compensation)
And the most important quality --- - BETTER IMAGE QUALITY
Now before you guys go ranting about how Leica has a quieter shutter, better ergonomics, helps me slow down, is a photographic style. Please.
That all applied in the film days -- I have a Leica MP with a Leica 50mm f1.4 and that is the greatest film camera every made. It is worth every penny. But those were the film days.
The playing ground is completely different in the digital world. Leica does not make its own sensors, and their for will never offer "the best image quality".
What it is selling today is a reputation it has earned during the film days and fashion icon for the rich hipsters out there.
Nothing wrong with that, and if you have the money and you value the aesthetics and the feature set, great. Go buy one and enjoy it!
But please, stop with the how the Leica is the pinnacle of photography. It is simply not true in the digital landscape.
Thats a differential of $1302
Now lets get a few things out of the way -- Yes the Leica is a 35mm equivalent and the Sony is a 55 mm equivalent. But I wanted to compare the best prime lens in each setup (in Leica T system, that is the only prime lens available so far) - The 55mm is arguably currently the Sony FE mount best lens. Also, I will address the "Leica Way" later in this post.
So what are you getting in the Leica that is much better then the Sony? NOTHING. The Sony is a FAR superior as a camera.
Sony:
- Full sensor vs Crop. This has been debated to death, but everyone will agree --> bigger sensor = better image IQ - Faster Autofocus - Better LCD display - Better EVF - Better build (weather sealed) - Better control (Two dials + exposure compensation)
And the most important quality --- - BETTER IMAGE QUALITY
Now before you guys go ranting about how Leica has a quieter shutter, better ergonomics, helps me slow down, is a photographic style. Please.
That all applied in the film days -- I have a Leica MP with a Leica 50mm f1.4 and that is the greatest film camera every made. It is worth every penny. But those were the film days.
The playing ground is completely different in the digital world. Leica does not make its own sensors, and their for will never offer "the best image quality".
What it is selling today is a reputation it has earned during the film days and fashion icon for the rich hipsters out there.
Nothing wrong with that, and if you have the money and you value the aesthetics and the feature set, great. Go buy one and enjoy it!
But please, stop with the how the Leica is the pinnacle of photography. It is simply not true in the digital landscape.
Agreed across the board with the one caveat that the T does have the A7 beat on size (the leica is a bit longer, but thinner and more pocketable) and weight, though the A7 is quite small as well and the fact that it is as small as it is and has a full-frame sensor is still pretty incredible to me.
Sony has almost completely converted me to being a Sony shooter (previously I had almost all Canon gear).
I still use the Canon body I have when I need superfast phase detect autofocus, but if the next A7-alike has autofocus speed similar to the A6000 I might be all-Sony on bodies very soon. (I still have a lot of Canon lenses I like and use them on the Sony A7 with adapter, along with native FE 55mm, 35mm and the kit 28-70mm zoom, a bunch of old Olympus OM Zuiko glass, some Minoltas, Canon FD, etc.
Sony has almost completely converted me to being a Sony shooter (previously I had almost all Canon gear).
I still use the Canon body I have when I need superfast phase detect autofocus, but if the next A7-alike has autofocus speed similar to the A6000 I might be all-Sony on bodies very soon. (I still have a lot of Canon lenses I like and use them on the Sony A7 with adapter, along with native FE 55mm, 35mm and the kit 28-70mm zoom, a bunch of old Olympus OM Zuiko glass, some Minoltas, Canon FD, etc.
When discussing image quality, I found this paragraph hilarious:
"The Sony is a brilliant camera with incredible clarity but lacks soul and comes off as being purely engineering driven. There’s nothing wrong with these things, it’s what makes Sony great."
I can understand people who enjoy beautiful design, but when it comes to taking pictures, everything is literally engineering.
"The Sony is a brilliant camera with incredible clarity but lacks soul and comes off as being purely engineering driven. There’s nothing wrong with these things, it’s what makes Sony great."
I can understand people who enjoy beautiful design, but when it comes to taking pictures, everything is literally engineering.
Allow me to preface this by saying that I currently own four cameras, two digital and two film.
My digital cameras are a Fuji X100s and a Fuji X-T1 (I used to have a Canon 5D Mk II, but decided to go all in on mirrorless digital cameras).
My film cameras are a Leica M6, and a Hasselblad 501C/M.
I use all four cameras on a regular basis, and have made photos with each one within the last week.
I love my Leica M6. It's really a thing of beauty, and is impeccably designed. That said, the amount of unthinking worship I see Leica given makes me roll my eyes.
My digital cameras are a Fuji X100s and a Fuji X-T1 (I used to have a Canon 5D Mk II, but decided to go all in on mirrorless digital cameras).
My film cameras are a Leica M6, and a Hasselblad 501C/M.
I use all four cameras on a regular basis, and have made photos with each one within the last week.
I love my Leica M6. It's really a thing of beauty, and is impeccably designed. That said, the amount of unthinking worship I see Leica given makes me roll my eyes.
Leica has always been a brand of
uncompromised quality and craftsmanship.
The reason Leica’s products are expensive
isn’t because of a deliberate attempt to
overcharge for the products. It’s a side
effect of making a beautiful object of desire.
To truly understand the T, you have to fit
into the type of photographer that the
camera really aimed at. You have to know
what you’re doing but the camera is also
going to be underpowered for a pro. It’s
a niche product for a specific consumer
but also aesthetic preference.
Not to mention Leicas were far more accessible in their heyday than they are now - there is a widespread misbelief that Leica has always been crazy-expensive, as a justification for their current prices.
The Leica M3 was $288 USD in 1955. That's $2560 in today's dollars. New Leica bodies are $7000.
The original pricing of the Leica, before they became a piece of jewelry, is in line with modern prosumer cameras, not the $7000 neurosurgeon wrist-decorations they are today.
Oh, and the 50mm f/2 Summicron was $159 in 1955 ($1400 today). They are now between $2400 and $8200.
I shoot a M6 also and have some pretty great, old glass. But modern Leicas are status items that are vastly overpriced for what they are.
The Leica M3 was $288 USD in 1955. That's $2560 in today's dollars. New Leica bodies are $7000.
The original pricing of the Leica, before they became a piece of jewelry, is in line with modern prosumer cameras, not the $7000 neurosurgeon wrist-decorations they are today.
Oh, and the 50mm f/2 Summicron was $159 in 1955 ($1400 today). They are now between $2400 and $8200.
I shoot a M6 also and have some pretty great, old glass. But modern Leicas are status items that are vastly overpriced for what they are.
^All of this.
As a stalwart Leica shooter of 10 years, it's not bitterness or jealousy I feel, but sadness at their having moved on from making tools to what amounts to more or less "just another camera," albeit of a rarified form.
The key moment for me was the M7, when they reversed the direction the shutter speed dial rotates. Though it seems rather innocuous, but as a daily "lugger" with 2 other older bodies, it basically said "Goodbye, we don't care about your type any longer."
That they couldn't really keep up with the immense digital R&D budgets of more mainstream camera companies was not entirely surprising, and I accepted long ago that a Leica purchase would consist of high cost, and performance (though not necessarily image quality) that equals a generation or two back as compared to Canon/Nikon.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this camera was immensely successful for them. The avant-garde design (as compared to the current retro-schtick) has cachet, <2K is a more reasonable price-point than the M models, it apparently performs adequately, and a new lens mount gives it plenty of "retail therapy" potential. This really is a page out of the Apple playbook.
Leica has been, for many years, not a single monolithic philosophy as manifested in equipment, but a company navigating a rapidly changing market. For a time they found a sizable market that echoed my wants, but no longer. Such is life, and Leica is not alone. Plaubel-Makina and numerous other companies were less fortunate or capable.
My "cred": 15+ years shooting/Leica CL/M3/M6/M7/M9:Canon/AE-1/D30/D60:Nikon/FM-3/F100/D90/D700/D3/D800:Fuji/X100S
The key moment for me was the M7, when they reversed the direction the shutter speed dial rotates. Though it seems rather innocuous, but as a daily "lugger" with 2 other older bodies, it basically said "Goodbye, we don't care about your type any longer."
That they couldn't really keep up with the immense digital R&D budgets of more mainstream camera companies was not entirely surprising, and I accepted long ago that a Leica purchase would consist of high cost, and performance (though not necessarily image quality) that equals a generation or two back as compared to Canon/Nikon.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this camera was immensely successful for them. The avant-garde design (as compared to the current retro-schtick) has cachet, <2K is a more reasonable price-point than the M models, it apparently performs adequately, and a new lens mount gives it plenty of "retail therapy" potential. This really is a page out of the Apple playbook.
Leica has been, for many years, not a single monolithic philosophy as manifested in equipment, but a company navigating a rapidly changing market. For a time they found a sizable market that echoed my wants, but no longer. Such is life, and Leica is not alone. Plaubel-Makina and numerous other companies were less fortunate or capable.
My "cred": 15+ years shooting/Leica CL/M3/M6/M7/M9:Canon/AE-1/D30/D60:Nikon/FM-3/F100/D90/D700/D3/D800:Fuji/X100S
After reading the reviews linked below, I take back any positive prediction for this thing. Looks like Leica missed an opportunity to make a camera that's competitive with other current models in respect to usability and speed. C'est la vie.
Reminds me of this article on the price of Rolex watches and how they have increased as Rolex watches have evolved from a professional tool to a luxury item.
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revea...
Thanks for digging up those numbers. I was going to make a point about that, but couldn't find the original prices and didn't want to make any hand-wavy statements about how it used to be back in the 'old days' ;)
Ken Rockwell has an amusing satirical essay on this subject:
The Leica Man: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm
The Leica Man: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm
That article might be tongue-in-cheek, but he's not exactly rational when it comes to Leica: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/recommended-lenses.htm
Nor is he a particularly reliable source.
Nor is he a particularly reliable source.
Ken Rockwell has a lot of things to say about photography for someone who does very little of it.
Though, to be fair, so do most of the famous professional photography bloggers: Steve Huff comes to mind.
The only prolific gear blogger I can recall having a solid body of work is Ming Thein.
Though, to be fair, so do most of the famous professional photography bloggers: Steve Huff comes to mind.
The only prolific gear blogger I can recall having a solid body of work is Ming Thein.
> Ken Rockwell has a lot of things to say about photography for someone who does very little of it. Though, to be fair, so do most of the famous professional photography bloggers.
That seems to be the norm for most professional endeavors.
That seems to be the norm for most professional endeavors.
> So basically, you have to have more money than sense to want to own this camera. I get it.
That seems less fair as a judgement on the T than the M*s, though. As lips said https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8187669 , the much lower price point probably makes a significant difference. There have to be a significant number of amateurs who a) genuinely love taking photos, b) can afford to spend about $2k on a camera that is a pleasure to use and makes them look stylish, and c) don't really need the very best DSLR performance that that money could buy. If buying an M7 is like a trust-fund playboy buying an F350 for the occasional weekend joyride, buying a T is possibly more like a professional buying an Audi for his regular commuting: certainly not the most cost-efficient solution, but still a reasonable answer to a practical need.
That seems less fair as a judgement on the T than the M*s, though. As lips said https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8187669 , the much lower price point probably makes a significant difference. There have to be a significant number of amateurs who a) genuinely love taking photos, b) can afford to spend about $2k on a camera that is a pleasure to use and makes them look stylish, and c) don't really need the very best DSLR performance that that money could buy. If buying an M7 is like a trust-fund playboy buying an F350 for the occasional weekend joyride, buying a T is possibly more like a professional buying an Audi for his regular commuting: certainly not the most cost-efficient solution, but still a reasonable answer to a practical need.
This. My father had a Leica camera (one of their newer digital ones). Piece of junk.
He sold it and got a Nikon D5300 and is a lot happier even though its a consumer spec body.
He was a successful pro photographer for 30 years (Bronica, Nikon, film stuff, our entire house was a studio/darkroom) so knows his stuff.
He sold it and got a Nikon D5300 and is a lot happier even though its a consumer spec body.
He was a successful pro photographer for 30 years (Bronica, Nikon, film stuff, our entire house was a studio/darkroom) so knows his stuff.
Spot on. Leica has made, and still makes, top notch prodcuts and I'm probably what you could call 'a fan', but some of the other Leica owners I speak to really seem to have lost all sense - remember those scenes where you have Donald Duck getting dollar signs in his eyes? Well imagine that, but with Leica signs instead :]
It does take some amazing images though. I can't think of any similarly portable alternative that can match it.
The Leica T has an outdated Sony sensor they used in one of their lower end mirrorless cameras (NEX 5). The NEX 5 was even more portable and you can use a large number of first party lenses and use many other brands via converters.
It's not clear that the Leica T's image quality is any better than an NEX 5, and I would expect the more recent Sony cameras to be better image wise. The Sony A7 would give you a newer, larger sensor for less.
It's not clear that the Leica T's image quality is any better than an NEX 5, and I would expect the more recent Sony cameras to be better image wise. The Sony A7 would give you a newer, larger sensor for less.
That is good to know.
To go automotive analogy, a bit like a deluxe sportscar manufacturer, e.g. Lotus, that have a good looking product that goes nicely, handles great, has heritage yet has some Toyota engine inside...
For this reason I think I would want to give the Sony product a try. Sony make the whole thing from lens to screen for stills, video and film. Their products seem more about being part of that whole thing rather than some guy spending ages hand polishing aluminium. For me Leica are doing it wrong but they know their market and they don't have the capability of a Sony to develop their own sensors.
To go automotive analogy, a bit like a deluxe sportscar manufacturer, e.g. Lotus, that have a good looking product that goes nicely, handles great, has heritage yet has some Toyota engine inside...
For this reason I think I would want to give the Sony product a try. Sony make the whole thing from lens to screen for stills, video and film. Their products seem more about being part of that whole thing rather than some guy spending ages hand polishing aluminium. For me Leica are doing it wrong but they know their market and they don't have the capability of a Sony to develop their own sensors.
I'd rather have less MP if it means a better noise profile, and AFAIK there is a a fair amount of parameters affecting image quality other than the sensor itself.
These samples from the A7 don't seem to come close in color reproduction or dynamic range: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7/sample_image...
I don't own either so this is just armchair judgement.
These samples from the A7 don't seem to come close in color reproduction or dynamic range: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7/sample_image...
I don't own either so this is just armchair judgement.
> I'd rather have less MP if it means a better noise profile
In that case, you want the A7s. For some reason, there are three variants of the A7: the standard A7, with a 24 megapixel sensor, the A7R, with a 36 megapixel sensor (the R is for resolution, you see), and the A7s, with a 12 megapixel sensor, but better signal-to-noise ratio, and so low-light performance (the s is for sensitivity, you see - no idea why it's lowercase when the R is uppercase).
> and AFAIK there is a a fair amount of parameters affecting image quality other than the sensor itself.
I suppose the biggest one is the lens. The A7 doesn't have a big range of lenses yet, but there are a few made by Zeiss that are apparently very good.
In that case, you want the A7s. For some reason, there are three variants of the A7: the standard A7, with a 24 megapixel sensor, the A7R, with a 36 megapixel sensor (the R is for resolution, you see), and the A7s, with a 12 megapixel sensor, but better signal-to-noise ratio, and so low-light performance (the s is for sensitivity, you see - no idea why it's lowercase when the R is uppercase).
> and AFAIK there is a a fair amount of parameters affecting image quality other than the sensor itself.
I suppose the biggest one is the lens. The A7 doesn't have a big range of lenses yet, but there are a few made by Zeiss that are apparently very good.
> decided to go all in on mirrorless digital cameras
Something I have always wondered: Is dust/dirt on the sensor a particular problem with mirrorless cameras? Taking the lens off and seeing the sensor just sitting there exposed would always worry me.
Something I have always wondered: Is dust/dirt on the sensor a particular problem with mirrorless cameras? Taking the lens off and seeing the sensor just sitting there exposed would always worry me.
Yeah, this freaked me out too. It hasn't been an issue yet, and I have a rocket blower. Hopefully it won't ever be a problem...
I haven't seen the problem with a Fujifilm and I speak as someone who found sensor dust a constant annoyance on the original Canon EOS 5D. The camera manufacturers seem to have figured out how to build in some pretty decent sensor self-cleaning tech.
The M6 is cheaper too (I have one I use a lot too), and a better camera probably.
i realize you're not saying this, but in my view the writing, and the site in general, has an aesthetic which could only be described as 'digital hipster' aka insufferable elitism disguised by / given a pass by being young and pretty.
i counted at least 3 times the author was trying to rationalize deficiencies in the product, which is considerably more expensive than a macbook air. the author clearly holds apple as the bar, and this product doesn't even get near that bar.
i have a ton of audio/video/computer electronics and the only single piece of gear i've ever spent $2k on is a mac pro i bought in 2009 for work that i still use today and will probably use for 10 years. my huge plasma tv wasn't even that expensive. a pro-sumer camera (not a professional, working unit) will deliver nowhere NEAR that level of utility, even if it lasts 10 years.
cameras are also giant targets for theft, that's something to keep in mind as well.
having said all that, it sure does look awesome. that's probably good enough for a lot of people to buy it.
i counted at least 3 times the author was trying to rationalize deficiencies in the product, which is considerably more expensive than a macbook air. the author clearly holds apple as the bar, and this product doesn't even get near that bar.
i have a ton of audio/video/computer electronics and the only single piece of gear i've ever spent $2k on is a mac pro i bought in 2009 for work that i still use today and will probably use for 10 years. my huge plasma tv wasn't even that expensive. a pro-sumer camera (not a professional, working unit) will deliver nowhere NEAR that level of utility, even if it lasts 10 years.
cameras are also giant targets for theft, that's something to keep in mind as well.
having said all that, it sure does look awesome. that's probably good enough for a lot of people to buy it.
I have always lusted over Leica cameras and lenses. All of my favorite photographers have used them at some point or another.
I finally got a great deal on M6 with a 50mm Summicron. Now I have a M9P.
For a while, Leica was the only camera company to produce cameras with the same ergonomics of older film cameras. It may have been stubbornness on their part, but I loved the fact that I could have a digital camera that allowed me to control aperture with my left hand, change shutter speed with my right, and have all lenses have focus markings on the top.
I feel that Leica is in danger due to companies such as Fuji, who are creating cameras that have even more options for control than ever before.
Want manual focus markings? There are lots of new lenses from Fuji and Olympus that allow you to shoot with auto focus, then pull the barrel back and enter manual mode so you can do things like zone and hyperfocal focus.
Want to change aperture on the lens and shutter speed on the top? The xt1 and x100s both have it.
Sorry for hating, but if Leica's answer to cameras such as the Fuji xt1 is to throw up a camera resembling a Sony NEX 3 with a "better touch screen" is kind of a joke really. They're coming from totally left field with this one.
They can try and hold on to their legacy of amazing lenses such as the Noctilux, but Zeiss(sony) and Sigma are doing a lot of innovation on fast glass, and will soon probably come out with a 50mm f/.95 or faster lens just to shove it to Leica.
You can view my photos at "moarbokeh" on flickr if you're curious.
I finally got a great deal on M6 with a 50mm Summicron. Now I have a M9P.
For a while, Leica was the only camera company to produce cameras with the same ergonomics of older film cameras. It may have been stubbornness on their part, but I loved the fact that I could have a digital camera that allowed me to control aperture with my left hand, change shutter speed with my right, and have all lenses have focus markings on the top.
I feel that Leica is in danger due to companies such as Fuji, who are creating cameras that have even more options for control than ever before.
Want manual focus markings? There are lots of new lenses from Fuji and Olympus that allow you to shoot with auto focus, then pull the barrel back and enter manual mode so you can do things like zone and hyperfocal focus.
Want to change aperture on the lens and shutter speed on the top? The xt1 and x100s both have it.
Sorry for hating, but if Leica's answer to cameras such as the Fuji xt1 is to throw up a camera resembling a Sony NEX 3 with a "better touch screen" is kind of a joke really. They're coming from totally left field with this one.
They can try and hold on to their legacy of amazing lenses such as the Noctilux, but Zeiss(sony) and Sigma are doing a lot of innovation on fast glass, and will soon probably come out with a 50mm f/.95 or faster lens just to shove it to Leica.
You can view my photos at "moarbokeh" on flickr if you're curious.
For film cameras at least, the best bang for the buck brand is Cosina Voigtländer. I own a Bessa R4A with a Cosina Voigtländer Color Skopar 21mm f/4.0 Pancake and seriously, what a great camera package for around $1000.
Just the fact that some photographers know they have a Leica in their hand, makes them feel more liberated and ... how shall I say it ... "photographery".
I think it cannot be denied that with a suitable picture style, you could shoot JPEGs on a 5D MkIII that look similar to what a Leica produces without processing. I bet you most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the JPEGs with their naked eye, and even fewer would be able to pick out which one was from the Leica, and which from the 5DMkIII.
Leicas remind me of French Wine. Everyone waxes poetic about them until they are asked to pick out the Leica photos from a lineup in a double blind test.
At that point everyone then says the Leica is about intangible things like "superior UI".
In the end, I think the Leica is a brand first, and then a camera with certain characteristics next.
A camera made from a solid carved piece of aluminum is just damn attractive. But people feel the need to imbue the Leica with more qualities than it actually has, because maybe they feel embarrassed to have chosen the tool of their trade based on its looks, rather than its utility.
I for one think designers should not apologize for choosing a camera just because it looks good. Design is their whole trade, and they need to surround themselves with inspiration to get into their creative space.
I look at Leica as the cost of doing business for a designer. That is the way their brains work.
And lest programmers develop some superiority complex about their rationality ... I want to suggest that the success of the Go programming language is about aesthetics at this point.