A Leica T Review

Agree, but with the Leica T you're not really getting much either. Even if it was priced at the same level as the prosumer Sony/Olympus/Fuji cameras it's still a dud.

The body itself is immaculately crafted, that's to be certain - I've actually held one and it feels great.

But the software sucks, the controls are awkward, the screen is mediocre, and basic functions of a camera like autofocus are slow. It's a showpiece, not a workhorse, regardless of the price.

This isn't the Ferrari everyone likes to compare Leicas to, it's paying $300K for a Lada encrusted with diamonds.

I'm not above paying for good design and manufacturing, but it needs to hit the baseline of being a good camera first. I'd buy a Leica M (well, if I had more money) but there's no way I'd touch either the T or the even-more-cash-grabby X-Vario.

For another example of style-over-substance camera (or really just style-without-substance), see the Hasselblad Lunar.

Granted, you could get the same effect from, say, a Canonet or a Yashica but still...

Nowadays, though - I am assuming mechanical precision and design is a more commoditized skill amongst companies whereas EE design - semiconductors, sensors, etc is more of a differentiator. In the age of tiny mirrorless Fuji's and Sony's, Leica's value proposition is more or less destroyed.

I think it's the classic story of an original innovator sitting on their asses while a disruptive tsunami -- modern electronics and computer science -- passed them by. Granted, they sat on their asses for arguably 4 full decades, so they had plenty of time to go "oh shit" and adapt, and the fact that they didn't leaves me with little sympathy.

Them and Eastman Kodak.

For fun, I'll sometimes go on "photo walks" around Toronto with my friend that owns a super pricey Leica and has been into photography for way longer than I have. The primary advantage he has beyond just being a better photographer than I am is that when he takes a street photo people don't notice he is there until he already has the shot, whereas I look like a paparazzi.

I've lost so many shots because people see the militaristic look of my camera / lens combination. It also can sometimes lead to arguments on the street over the finer points of the legality of photography in public in Canada. Whereas Leica cameras never really illicit this response.

Not that I'm ever going to shoot Leica, I find Canon's cameras much more usable and ergonomically designed.

I consider myself a decent amateur photographer...and reading the OP makes me think that, with some tweaking, there's a foundation here for a good Portlandia sketch. I get that beauty is in the eye of the photographer, but I made a mental snort reading the OP's amazement at how good he felt his pics came from right out the camera...(I also think it's a bit silly to prize the just-out-of-the-camera quality, as if it were the difference between fresh-from-the-farm and factory chicken eggs). But what really turns me off is that I associate Leica with great hardware...it sounds like they've sacrificed precise controls with an imprecise touchscreen...I thought the point of a Leica was to give a skilled photographer a full-range of control and depth? To reduce the physical controls so that the camera comes out as a more pure slab of aluminum seems like a move toward superficiality than of craftsmanship.