Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
The camera of three years ago… six months from now when you are #1 on a waiting list.
Dante
Dante
MCTuomey
Veteran
Beautiful device-wear, and it's likely got more than enough imaging capability. GLWS, Leica.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sounds similar to the Sony A7. I'm actually not sure about the Olympus E-M1. I've not tried hooking up either via WiFi to anything but my iPad or iPhone. Both will transfer full sized JPEGs to the mobile devices via wifi but not RAW files.
G
Archiver
Veteran
The comments on the soundimageplus blog bring up an illogical argument against the T that I have seen on other forums.
On one hand they are saying that the T is aimed at, and will be bought by, people who want to pay a lot of money for an expensive status symbol, and not photographers. The T's target market is the conspicuous consumption group, so they say.
On the other hand they say, 'what happens when they find out that other cameras take significantly better pictures for much less cost?'
But hang on, this supposed target market cares more about personal image than photographic image, and therefore does not care/would not know that other cameras take better images. In the same breath, people talk about Rolex and Mercedes. Isn't this target market supposedly more concerned about image than performance? So how would they know/care?
Besides, the initial reports about the T places its performance and image quality squarely in the middle of current mirrorless cameras. Certainly, image quality seems better than current micro four thirds offerings, and is at least competitive with other aps-c mirrorless cameras. They are generally not 'considerably better'. Image quality from aps-c mirrorless cameras, and by extension the T, is more than enough for any purported conspicuous consumption market.
After all, they only care about how THEY look, not how their PHOTOS look, right? Or so the argument goes.
On one hand they are saying that the T is aimed at, and will be bought by, people who want to pay a lot of money for an expensive status symbol, and not photographers. The T's target market is the conspicuous consumption group, so they say.
On the other hand they say, 'what happens when they find out that other cameras take significantly better pictures for much less cost?'
But hang on, this supposed target market cares more about personal image than photographic image, and therefore does not care/would not know that other cameras take better images. In the same breath, people talk about Rolex and Mercedes. Isn't this target market supposedly more concerned about image than performance? So how would they know/care?
Besides, the initial reports about the T places its performance and image quality squarely in the middle of current mirrorless cameras. Certainly, image quality seems better than current micro four thirds offerings, and is at least competitive with other aps-c mirrorless cameras. They are generally not 'considerably better'. Image quality from aps-c mirrorless cameras, and by extension the T, is more than enough for any purported conspicuous consumption market.
After all, they only care about how THEY look, not how their PHOTOS look, right? Or so the argument goes.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I found the comment on that blog that said Leica owners are going to be jealous of Fuji owners because Fuji cameras "take better pictures".
I'm skeptical that one camera can "take a better picture" than another. The Fuji IQ is very nice and in some people's eyes may surpass the Leica, but image quality doesn't make a picture. The picture is the sum of many parts and the image quality is but one small piece of the puzzle.
One thing is for sure, after perusing the blog author's Google+ page and looking at his photographs, I could take a better picture with my iPhone than he could with the newest Fuji and their most expensive lens. The situation is that this is a person who writes a blog and has little talent in making compelling images.
I think this dude forgets that cameras don't take pictures. Photographers take pictures.
Image quality is more than a clean high ISO or a sharp image from corner to corner. It's subject matter and composition that really matters and if you have the best camera in the world it's not a substitute for talent.
I'm skeptical that one camera can "take a better picture" than another. The Fuji IQ is very nice and in some people's eyes may surpass the Leica, but image quality doesn't make a picture. The picture is the sum of many parts and the image quality is but one small piece of the puzzle.
One thing is for sure, after perusing the blog author's Google+ page and looking at his photographs, I could take a better picture with my iPhone than he could with the newest Fuji and their most expensive lens. The situation is that this is a person who writes a blog and has little talent in making compelling images.
I think this dude forgets that cameras don't take pictures. Photographers take pictures.
Image quality is more than a clean high ISO or a sharp image from corner to corner. It's subject matter and composition that really matters and if you have the best camera in the world it's not a substitute for talent.
Archiver
Veteran
Soundimageplus has said in his blog that the Leica X Vario had the best image quality he ever came across for his purposes and beat his X-E1. Yet, you have to pixel peep to see the difference between the X Vario and the Fuji X-E1 in his photos. And the T has IQ about on par with the X Vario. So how exactly do these other cameras 'take better pictures'?
The mind boggles.
The mind boggles.
Kevcaster
Well-known
Yes very interesting Bill, could be a marketing set piece in MBA classes. One thing I know from these posts is that I am not the market anymore.
As a life long fan of Alfa Romeo I am disappointed in the modern offerings, but they sell in vast numbers to people who have never seen or heard a Type 33 at full tilt. I am not the market and I suspect for I am not the market for the new ranges of digital cameras. If I had £7k to spare I would buy a new M (240) with Noctilux, but I don't because I am trying to protect my wealth in anticipation of retirement, if I was 23 and had aspirations to be a photo blogger I might.
I ride a bike that was made in 1994 from steel, it is light and very responsive, it is reliable and even has some components that have carbon fibre in them. It is everything I need and more. On a recent visit to Canary Wharf I was stunned by the bike shop arranging their wares in price brackets - up to £8000 where I am clearly not the market for these either but that is the point - they do not want MY dollars.
Leica are marketing a brand and it appeals to the people they are targeting in the geography that will pay the price. The bar is set by the S2 about which almost nothing (comparatively) is written, it is under the consumer radar but sits as the modern version of the M3 - a professionals choice, trailing the brand and maintaining the mystique. Good luck, there will not be an affordable film 'M' any time soon so no point lamenting that.
My guess is that the T will be rapidly improved as Fuji and Sony take market share at the price point below the Leica, but for every 5 Fuji sold at $200 margins there will be 2 Leicas at $500 margins and that will be the marketing gamble. Not for me and not for me in the future, I am still shooting film and have the potential to scan at values beyond any of these modern offerings if I need to - I don't need to.
On a final note. My children love pictures, they do not care about photography - they do not even use the word. A camera for them is a phone, their pictures are precious to them and are part of an ecosystem of fun, information and banter. As willie 901's post describes - this is an investment house making brand decisions not technical people addressing the needs of travelling photo-journalists at the dawn of an era.
Thanks for listening if you did so, not often that happens!!
As a life long fan of Alfa Romeo I am disappointed in the modern offerings, but they sell in vast numbers to people who have never seen or heard a Type 33 at full tilt. I am not the market and I suspect for I am not the market for the new ranges of digital cameras. If I had £7k to spare I would buy a new M (240) with Noctilux, but I don't because I am trying to protect my wealth in anticipation of retirement, if I was 23 and had aspirations to be a photo blogger I might.
I ride a bike that was made in 1994 from steel, it is light and very responsive, it is reliable and even has some components that have carbon fibre in them. It is everything I need and more. On a recent visit to Canary Wharf I was stunned by the bike shop arranging their wares in price brackets - up to £8000 where I am clearly not the market for these either but that is the point - they do not want MY dollars.
Leica are marketing a brand and it appeals to the people they are targeting in the geography that will pay the price. The bar is set by the S2 about which almost nothing (comparatively) is written, it is under the consumer radar but sits as the modern version of the M3 - a professionals choice, trailing the brand and maintaining the mystique. Good luck, there will not be an affordable film 'M' any time soon so no point lamenting that.
My guess is that the T will be rapidly improved as Fuji and Sony take market share at the price point below the Leica, but for every 5 Fuji sold at $200 margins there will be 2 Leicas at $500 margins and that will be the marketing gamble. Not for me and not for me in the future, I am still shooting film and have the potential to scan at values beyond any of these modern offerings if I need to - I don't need to.
On a final note. My children love pictures, they do not care about photography - they do not even use the word. A camera for them is a phone, their pictures are precious to them and are part of an ecosystem of fun, information and banter. As willie 901's post describes - this is an investment house making brand decisions not technical people addressing the needs of travelling photo-journalists at the dawn of an era.
Thanks for listening if you did so, not often that happens!!
Aristophanes
Well-known
I doubt that the Fuji to Leica sales ratio for APS-C is 2:5.
It's more like 30:1. And I am being conservative favouring Leica here.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
right there is the problem with "todays" photographers.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Word. I wish I had a time machine and the ability to drop some of the current crop of "photographers" back thirty years with a few rolls of Tri-X and instructions to come back with printable results at E.I. 1600. Heh.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Those interested in the leica T may find this interesting. I have not found non optical correction of a lens to be a problem on the new APS C and smaller camera. I am disturbed if Leitz has misrepresented the T. An interesting read.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701/6
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701/6
Godfrey
somewhat colored
What's so disturbing? That a marketing guy made statements at odds with the realities of the lenses? Marketing people are not engineers...
Nearly any compact zoom lens of this type, regardless of who designs it, needs corrections. I would be more irritated if I bought the lens and it didn't have corrections included to help solve these problems.
G
Scrambler
Well-known
What is irritating is that the "marketing guy" owns the company.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
He's still a marketing guy. I find this kind of stuff completely irrelevant. What's important is the product, not the marketing spin.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
I'm still relatively new to this. How is this different from the lens profiles I have to punch up on the Monochrom (because I'm too cheap to have my "old" lenses 6-bit coded)?
Lss
Well-known
I don't know the extent of corrections in Monochrom files, but I assume some vignetting correction is applied and the EXIF info is added. That is generally pretty minor, and your "old" lenses were designed before the digital M line. If you look at the report by DPReview, it seems clear that software corrections were an integral part of the lens design for the Leica T. Now, all manufacturers do this and most users are happy in most cases. But Leica has claimed they went to great lengths in optical design — or so I have read in many posts and reviews — thus removing the need for software corrections. Obviously this was seen as one reason for the high price of the lenses and this slowish zoom lens in particular.
I'm not at all surprised that there is some software correction. It would be stupid not to allow it. But a quick look suggests this particular lens is not that special in some respects.
Edit. I did not find a source where Leica actually makes such a claim. Looks like internet talk to me.
Last edited:
rbelyell
Well-known
lying is not 'spin'. this is an abject lie from a leica exec about a material fact that goes to the heart of what ive called leicas illusion of superior build quality, or THE focal point of what they 'sell' themselves as providing. but if the fact that this company released a $4000 camera that couldnt render black and knowingly withheld that info didnt turn the apologists off, certainly this won't either. its either a global anti leica cabal or we're just too stupid to inderstand whats really important. that the dottering red-dotters did something worthy of ridicule is simply not an option.
I have to admit, I really love looking at the T. It is beautiful. However, when being practical, I just could not buy it because my cash would be better off spent on something different.
willie_901
Veteran
Leica wants it both ways.
They need to attract wealthy customers in new markets. This requires a certain product design strategy combined with marketing programs that leverage the brand's perception. Thus the WiFi, connectivity, iOS/Android style GUI, color-full body skins along with a hand finished uni-body.
The same time the brand perception must be reinforced. Potential Leica buyers must not be allowed to forget the decades of excellence with film bodies. Correcting optical compromises (no matter how rational those compromises might be) via software is dangerous because it implies taking a shortcut. What? Leica takes shortcuts? Does Rolex (or (fill in the blank for your favorite luxury brand) take short cuts? Why am I paying a luxury price for a compromise?
The contradiction is obvious. On one hand the body is lovingly polished to perfection by a craftsman. Yet the the lens does not deserve the same no-compromise-for-the-sake-of-perfection treatment. And the lens is more important to the final result.
Oops.
Contradiction causes stress. People under stress make bad decisions.
They need to attract wealthy customers in new markets. This requires a certain product design strategy combined with marketing programs that leverage the brand's perception. Thus the WiFi, connectivity, iOS/Android style GUI, color-full body skins along with a hand finished uni-body.
The same time the brand perception must be reinforced. Potential Leica buyers must not be allowed to forget the decades of excellence with film bodies. Correcting optical compromises (no matter how rational those compromises might be) via software is dangerous because it implies taking a shortcut. What? Leica takes shortcuts? Does Rolex (or (fill in the blank for your favorite luxury brand) take short cuts? Why am I paying a luxury price for a compromise?
The contradiction is obvious. On one hand the body is lovingly polished to perfection by a craftsman. Yet the the lens does not deserve the same no-compromise-for-the-sake-of-perfection treatment. And the lens is more important to the final result.
Oops.
Contradiction causes stress. People under stress make bad decisions.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Did you ever think that perhaps they know what they're doing? That leaving a lot of simple barrel distortion in place for software correction to remove allows them to correct more difficult aberrations, because simple barrel distortion correction is one of the easiest corrections to make?
G
G