Leica T (Typ 701) Serious Colour

image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg

Somebody mentioned to me the other day that the Leica T (Typ 701) had the same sensor as the Sony NEX 6. Just goes to show that the sensor is only part of the image quality equation. Because I had a NEX 6 and the pictures that came out of that camera looked nothing like what the Leica turns out. I've written many times about the colour depth the T has and above are some examples of that. Those rich deep saturated colours turned a shoot that was blighted by the sun disappearing into a colourful celebration of early autumn. 

I did in fact think I would publish the whole conversation form Google+ because Alan makes some legitimate and relevant points that many might raise. See Below:-

    • Alan Paone 2 days ago

      I think the T isn't well marketed, and it doesn't appeal to what a lot of photographers think we need. If you weren't a stock photographer, serial camera collector and a bit of a leica fanboy, would you sit through the pitch for any other camera that costs thousands of pounds and pairs the sensor from an nex-6 with a handful of slow zooms? Of course the lenses and incredibly sharp, the raw files are noticeably better and the body is apparently as tough as it is beautiful, but by the time you get to hearing about that, the rest of the photographic internet have tuned out. Buying a T is an expensive way to admit you don't need anything more than a flawless version of the kit you can buy for $400, saying "i don't print enough to need 50Mpx, I don't take enough portraits to need that 1.2 tele, I don't shoot in the dark enough to need a 2.8 zoom" because they aren't there. That self-delusion is the main reason i didn't buy one (okay and also the price). If they released a noctilux for this system, nobody would need it and only a few would buy it, but all these naysayers would post about how they need to talk themselves out of selling a kidney to get one. 

    • Soundimageplus 2 days ago

      It depends what you want. I rate lens quality over lens speed, ease of use over lots of menu options and a small footprint (it isn't a big camera, which often doesn't come across in photographs) plus if Sony could ever get their sensor and lenses to perform anyway close to the T, I'd still own my NEX 6.

      The main point of the article is about how, for whatever reason, this camera seems to attract more 'misinformation' than any other. Like many others you mention the above points, but why does nobody mention the class leading live view screen, the class leading EVF (in daylight) the superb design and ergonomics that actually enhance the picture taking experience rather than make it difficult. The fact that it will last for years, the fact that the proportionate resale value (even though it is a 'failed' camera) will far exceed that of a NEX 6 and after buying and selling one could actually end up with it 'costing' less than a Sony. The fact that it has a one year no quibble any damage anywhere anyhow guarantee, the fact that the 'normal' warranty is three years, not one, the fact that the software included for the raw files is Lightroom and the fact that Leica will protect your 'investment' by not rushing out a marginally upgraded new model after a few months and won't slash the price, make a quick buck and forget about it. (And you)

      I am constantly trying to redress some of the bias that, again for whatever reason, seems to follow the T around. For example why were there rave reviews for the Sony RX1? A camera that had a ridiculous asking price when announced and can now be bought new for half that. It was way more expensive than the T.

      People can choose to buy in to the Leica way of doing things or not. That's not the issue for me. All I'm asking is that the people who are supposed to give us an objective view of the gear on the market provide just that. But then I guess they make more money pushing and talking up Sony products. 

      Finally I would mention that it's about the same price as a new Panasonic GX8 and about 50% of what a Sony FE camera costs. So if you want one, your kidneys are safe

      Just to follow up on some of the points in my reply. When the Sony RX1 first arrived, there was a lot of admiring approval. This 'full-frame' fixed lens compact got a lot of talking up. But boy was it expensive. The body plus lens cost £3000+ on release. When the Leice T (Typ 701) was released the body plus 23mm f/2 body cost £2700. And yes the Sony had more pixels and a bigger sensor, but this is hardly the exaggerated difference that many ascribe to Leica. So what's the current price? Well the Leica combination is much the same, though you can get some discounted deals buying via eBay. The Sony on eBay is now just over around £1000 new. So in terms of owning either of these cameras over a period of time, choosing the Sony 'costs' a lot more. I make this point again and again with Leica. I've often recounted the story of my Leica M9. I owned it for two years. And yes I get tax breaks non professionals don't, but when I sold the camera on eBay, in real terms over the two years, the M9 had 'cost' me £79. 

      Now again as I stated in my reply, you can buy into the Leica way (quite literally) or not, we all have those choices. But how often do all the facts get presented in reviews. There are always comments about cost, but when was the last time you saw any information regarding potential long term use, probable depreciation and any serious examination of what it's like to work with a camera? We don't of course get any of this, because everything has to have a quick turnaround and we have to move on the next big thing. Dpreview are pretty much the only site that take some significant time to assess a camera, but everybody else pretty much lashes up a review after only using a camera and / or lens for a few days and in many cases I suspect probably only a few hours.

      Sure everybody isn't going to wait for me, this post being yet another chapter in my 'review' of the Leica T isn't particularly useful for prospective buyers of new cameras. But for those who don't rush into things this can be useful. There are a few sites that write articles about using cameras they actually own, my friends at Mirrorlessons being one. But for the most part the Techradars and other such sites spend so little time with gear and come to ill thought out and often inaccurate conclusions, that I doubt that they are in fact any use whatsoever. But then these are the verdicts that get passed around the photographic Internet and repeated ad infinitum. I've often thought that manufactures would be a lot better off not sending out pre-production models to the 'usual suspects' and just let photographers who actually buy and use the cameras create the reviews. But the I guess that's open to just as much abuse as those assessments made by the sites who gave been on the 'gravy train' of the international camera announcement Vol-au-vent circuit for years and who are reluctant to give it up.

      And pretty much that is the point of this blog. To write about using gear over a long term basis. To find what works and what doesn't and to see which much hyped feature is 'fluff' and which is actually useful and works like it's supposed to.  

      So, getting in a bit of advertising, if you have an interest in one of the new Canon 50 megapixel monsters, the 5Ds and you are prepared to wait a while to see what it's really like in the real world, then mine arrives on Tuesday. You can then add my thoughts and experiences to those of others who actually spend some time with the gear and make your own judgement. Apart from anything else it might save you the embarrassment and financial disadvantage of buying something that flatters to deceive. Something that has happened to me more times than I would like. But then I do need some stuff like that to bring down my tax bill. And if you believe that..............................