lonleyppl wrote:It's incredible to see a Leica made in Germany at that price point. The build quality looks phenomenal, and I love the rendering of Leica lenses.
Though the IQ is (fantastic and far) better than the APS-C cameras from Fuji, Oly and Sony, I wonder how it compares to the a7 and a7R. Seems like it might be a bit sharper, and have slightly better colors, at the expense of high ISO performance and the FF field of view. I think I'd prefer the ergonomics of the Sony FF, as I like physical controls and the Leica body looks a bit slippery, but it's amazing to see how the market has grown in the past year.
PenGun wrote: Wow. Really? You understand it's a Sony sensor I hope. So it's an an expensive take on a NEX 3n which sells for $400 and comes with a lens.
It's another Blad Lunar, eh'.
Airmantharp wrote:To summarize my perspective on Leica, in Steve Huff's words: "A camera is so much more than IQ and results."
$1900 buys you an A7R, onto which you can adapt M lenses as well, and use the full available image circle, with more resolution and dynamic range than Leica can offer .
lonleyppl wrote:But maybe with the Leica you don't get shutter shake issues? You also definitely get the name, which is important to some.
PenGun wrote:'Steve Huff's words: "A camera is so much more than IQ and results."'
No. That's exactly what a camera is. Results are all that matter. Steve Huff is a maroon.
Airmantharp wrote:It's believed that Canon puts Sony sensors in some of their compacts, and that some X-Trans sensors are actually manufactured by Sony as well. Panasonic makes the current m4/3 sensors for both companies, and they compete well with Sony's offerings.
As for the Leica T vs. the A6000, well, it's only a fair comparison if you search out the very best glass for the Sony camera. Their kit lenses are trash, might as well be marked 'toy' lenses compared to similar designs from Fuji, Canon, or Nikon, and yet those all pale in comparison to what Leica built for the T. Think of Leica's 18-56 lens as a modern range-finder-sized Canikon 24-70/2.8 optically. Being slow keeps it small, and that's okay; it's an amazing optic.
I compare the Leica T more to the EOS-M than anything else; they created a small, simple, well-built camera with a great touch interface that can be adapted to use the best glass on the market, in Leica's case the M-mount lenses, and likely R-series and S-series as well. And like the EOS-M, the T-series is a great introductory camera with great initial lenses that needs to be refreshed with a better sensor and a slightly more refined body with better manual controls in order to come into it's own, but the potential of course is there!
cynan wrote:The fact of the matter is that the a6000 is such a better value proposition (better sensor, better functionality, EVF, etc) for the body insofar as what you can get out of the camera, that I think the lens situation would be more than worth the trade-off for most.
cynan wrote:Slightly off topic, but does anyone have, or have seen, Leica lenses made in Canada? I just discovered that Leica had a plant in Midland, Ontario (opened by Walter Mandler) that designed and built both cameras (such as the M4-2) and lenses (such as the Summicron 50, f1.0 Noctilux) between the mid 1950s and sometime in the 1980s (I think).
So yeah. Leica. built and designed in both Germany and Canada... Who knew?
Airmantharp wrote:I'm primarily highlighting the sheer quality of Leica's lenses- they quite literally make the best, and they charge for it.
PenGun wrote: This is a jewel, I thought it was gone from the web, I have a copy:
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests