Hacker News Reader

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.

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' ;)

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...

^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

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.

Ken Rockwell has an amusing satirical essay on this subject:

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.