4 ms·

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 s

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/ 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.

pyre 12y ago
> "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-DSCRX1/cat-31-catid-All-Cyber-shot-Cameras http://store.sony.ca/cyber-shot-rx1-digital-camera-zid31-DSC...
caycep 12y ago
I think this is a function of how dependent cameras are on semiconductor and sensor design, and in this day and age, the pillars of expertise have shifted first to Japan, and now to Taiwan/Korea...and possibly in the future to China. Leica was amazing when machining and optical precision were the key factors in how good your camera is; but in this day and age, that's a solved problem...anyone can set up a factory that equals that sort of precision. But I think Canon, Sony, Samsung and others saw where things were headed strategically a decade or so ago, and dumped money into the R&D needed for chip fabs and EE design teams.
galago 12y ago
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.
pedrocr 12y ago
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.

pyre 12y ago

> "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-DSCRX1/cat-31-catid-All-Cyber-shot-Cameras http://store.sony.ca/cyber-shot-rx1-digital-camera-zid31-DSC...

caycep 12y ago

I think this is a function of how dependent cameras are on semiconductor and sensor design, and in this day and age, the pillars of expertise have shifted first to Japan, and now to Taiwan/Korea...and possibly in the future to China. Leica was amazing when machining and optical precision were the key factors in how good your camera is; but in this day and age, that's a solved problem...anyone can set up a factory that equals that sort of precision. But I think Canon, Sony, Samsung and others saw where things were headed strategically a decade or so ago, and dumped money into the R&D needed for chip fabs and EE design teams.

galago 12y ago

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.

pedrocr 12y ago

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.