Contax T3 vs Leica CM

[jsmisc]

I don't know if this is the right thread. I couldn't find one which fitted exactly so I hope this is OK.
What I wondered is how people feel the new Leica CM compares to the T3. The CM looks pretty attractive to me. I have a T2 which I think I prefer to the T3 and I have felt no inclination to change but the CM could tempt me.
Any thoughts?
John

 

[dirk]

So here are my first thoughts. I have had the chance to look at a CM and I used a T3 for over a year.

1. I prefer in general for a "always with you" camera the focal lenght of 40mm vs. the 35 of the T3. The difference is very small, but if I would like to change somthing on my T3, it is to have less wide angle on it.

2. The Leica CM is a significant improvement over the old Leica Minilux. They have the same lens, but the coating of the CM is a lot better (that is what they told me at least). The viewfinder is bigger, with more information in it. That was my major complaint about the Minilux in the past.

3. I have not taken pictures yet with the CM, so I can not judge in this area.

4. The Leica CM is, same as the Minilux, not really a compact P&S. Compared to the T3 it is huge. It is more like a shrinked M6

5. Leica changed also some technical data (shutterspeed etc.) of the CM vs. the Minilux, but I do not have the details here.

 

[jsmisc]

Thanks Dirk, that's very helpful. One of the things which causes the T2 to retain my loyalty is the 38mm lens as opposed to the 35mm on the T3. Again a small difference but the 38mm just gets you in that little bit closer and I have a 35mm for my G2. I noticed that the CM had a 40mm lens and that appealed. Another tiny difference I know but it ads up. There is some vignetting on the T2 but it isn't really a problem and can even enhance a picture. Maybe the CM is better on that? Cheers,
John

 

[jsmisc]

I have attached a couple of pictures of St.David's Cathedral in South Wales to illustrate what I take to be vignetting on the T2.
This is the first time I have attempted this and I have made the files much smaller to fit in with the rules. They look very fuzzy on my screen so I hope that they "come out" OK on the site.
John

 

[jeanclaude]

CM main characteristics :
40 mm instead of 35 mm on T3
F2.4 instead of F2.8
Easier and more reliable manual focusing with devoted dial wheel plus focusing assistance
Viewfinder with more information (indication of speed and aperture)
More powerful flash (NG 14 instead of 8 on T3) plus external flash shoe
I hope true 1/1000 instead of 1/1200 working only with f16 aperture on T3
Plus a built in data back for those who likes it

T3 still retain the advantage of
Size
Very clear viewfinder
Separate focus lock

For more info
http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/compact/cm/index_e.html

 

[davidfung]

When I first saw this camera some time ago, I was thinking to myself, I know what I will buy next! However, it turns out I since bought a Hasselblad, and two Contax bodies... Anyway. As much as I enjoy SLR and RF, compact type P&S has always intrigued me. I own a Ricoh GR1s and a Contax T3. The quality of the T3 is impressive. Though the feel is more 'boutique' then the GR1s, which is more 'practical' so to speak. I am considering adding the CM to my P&S outfit, to make 28, 35, and 40. Hopefully, I can also add the GR21... Anyway, I wonder if someone who owns both the CM and T3 could provide us some practical pointers. Apart from the size and bulk and lens (focal length) difference, how do they compare? Reliability? Optics? Workmanship? Build? Are there MTF graphs for CM? I know that they publish them for the M and R lenses, what about the CM? I heard some rumours that the lens design is quite old, and that it isn't using the latest Leica optics (looks like a double gauss lens design) and technology. Not sure about the truth to that. But any opinions, info? How fast is the shutter lag? Auto focus?

 

[jsmisc]

Thanks for the link Jean-Claude. It does look an attractive camera although as Dirk pointed out too, perhaps a little large for general carrying around.

I think that David's general "challenge" could produce some interesting answers if anyone has tried both cameras. The comment about the lens maybe not being the latest technology is a little off putting. Perhaps we ough to ask Leitz about that.

Incidentally, does the T3 suffer from vignetting?
John

 

[davidfung]

To further clarify, my statement about the lens design being old is based on purely rumours. Maybe I heard it from someone or I read it somewhere. But, it is unsubstantiated. Further to the point, I believe that there isn't anything wrong with old designs. Take a look at the Tessar? Many of the C/Y MM lenses date back to the seventies, the 28/2.8 being from 1978. And the 28/2.8 is still a highly regarded lens. From my understanding, the standard lenses (in the 50 range) has reached a stage where there doesn't seem to much more improvement that can be found, especially for symmetrical designs for use without a mirror camera. As pointed out before, they seemed to have improved the coating. I will ask a Leica trained technician about the CM when I get around to it.

 

[niki]

The CM is Leica's answer to the Contax T3. The changes made obviously show that Leica used the T3 as the benchmark... faster shutter speeds, better software, larger and brighter viewfinder, new "multi-coating", electronic release cable, hot shoe, and hopefully "real" titanium body instead of titanium "finish". But it appears that they forgot about the filters! Leica seems to make a big point that the CM is "Made in Germany" and the "preliminary" price clarifies it proudly: $995. The M-look is very clever and will make Leica aficionados all "warm and fuzzy".

As for the lens, Summarit has been around for quite a while and it was used in the Minilux. Here's Erwin Puts' report: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/magazine/minilux.html

In fact, most lenses we see today are improvements on older formulas. The biggest improvement is "coating" or "multi-coating", which I believe, was pioneered by Zeiss.



David Fung wrote:

To further clarify, my statement about the lens design being old is based on purely rumours. Maybe I heard it from someone or I read it somewhere. But, it is unsubstantiated. Further to the point, I believe that there isn't anything wrong with old designs. Take a look at the Tessar? Many of the C/Y MM lenses date back to the seventies, the 28/2.8 being from 1978. And the 28/2.8 is still a highly regarded lens. From my understanding, the standard lenses (in the 50 range) has reached a stage where there doesn't seem to much more improvement that can be found, especially for symmetrical designs for use without a mirror camera. As pointed out before, they seemed to have improved the coating. I will ask a Leica trained technician about the CM when I get around to it.

 

[jsmisc]

I agree about there being nothing intrinsically wrong with older designs. Sometimes they can be better than newer designs which can be change for changes sake but I do think that the latest technology can be applied to existing designs as appears to be in the case here i.e the latest coatings although everything has always to be made to a price. Maybe newly discovered glass types can be used too.
Erwin Puts' report is encouraging too, thanks for that, but I think I will stay with my T2 after all as I don't think that the advantages of changing would outweigh the not inconsiderable cost which would be involved.
John