Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About jay968

  • Rank
    Neuer Benutzer

Profile Information

  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have on many occasions compared APS-C printed images with full frame (and medium format) images. What I have seen time and again is that images blown up from smaller sensors lack one thing that not too many people are aware of nor very often even capable of detecting without being pointed out to them. That is dimensionality (or volume) to subject matter. It's difficult to actually explain, and is not even able to be seen online but it exists. Take photos of an object with both an APS-C camera and with a full frame camera, blow them both up to at least an 11X17 print and look at the contours of that object, especially if it is rounded and/or has depth to it. The larger sensor will appear to show that object with a bit more apparent dimensionality, to its contours (at least as much as a 2 dimensional print can show it). Go to a medium format sensor, do the same and the result will appear to have even more apparent dimensionality to the object. Another way to put it is that a smaller sensor may show subject matter looking a bit flatter than a larger sensor will. I recently did some shots with my M10 and 50mm summilux and compared same sized prints having been shot with my CL and 35mm summilux TL. To most people I think the results would look identical. To my eye though (and no I do not presume to see in any special way, I am just looking for something very specific), I can pick out the M10 prints close to 100% of the time. Yes I know the field of view is different and the depth-of-field may be different, but that is not what I am talking about nor looking at when I do this. I am looking specifically at that apparent dimensionality or volume to objects that I tried to explain above. It is subtle, it is hardly noticeable when comparing full frame with APS-C but it IS there and if you look specifically for it, you will see it. Compare images shot with the Q and images shot with the CL and if you look at prints and know what to look for you WILL see a difference. So while I feel that sensor technology has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past few years, there is still and always will be an advantage to larger sensors. As I said earlier, most people will not recognize it nor care about it especially if they only view their images online. I myself have owned cameras with sensors ranging from micro 4/3 to medium format and currently am using APS-C more than anything. But if I compare images done with that sensor to one done with a medium format (or even a full frame) sensor, no...they are just not the same.
  2. Well, I'd never seen a camera which randomly didn't shoot photos when the shutter release was pressed, until I owned one (a Nikon F3), and I'd never seen a Hasselblad that randomly refused to respond when its main control dial was turned, until I owned one ( X1D). I have even owned Leicas that had problems straight out of the box (a couple of R5 bodies that I owned back in the 80s...the electronics in BOTH of them gave me fits). So I am honestly bewildered by the skepticism concerning a faulty CL. For what it's worth, same settings on my current CL produce better image quality than did those settings on my original CL. Thinking it over, I am fairly confident that the first one had some sensor defect (not 100% sure but it sure seems that way), however I would NOT hesitate to purchase nor recommend one of these based on that alone. They are good cameras (as are the F3, X1D and R5 cameras). Sometimes stuff just happens. If memory serves me, the only way to get the Q into total silent mode is by using it as you do in "extend" mode where it automatically reverts to silent at the highest shutter speeds. Bottom line is both the Q and CL are great cameras and both are extremely fun to use. I think the biggest thing to consider is whether or not the single lens on the Q is what you want (and do you want 28mm), or do you want interchangeable lenses. Yes the Q can be cropped but so can any camera. Keep in mind that doing so, brings the sensor down to a 15mp one using the 35mm setting and an 8mp one when using the 50mm setting. I found the 35mm setting to be somewhat useful but I did not like the results at the 50mm setting. The CL will produce 24mp images no matter what lens you use. And maybe one more thing to consider might be the fact that the Q senor is now what, 4 years old? There seem to be advances in sensor technology every few months no less every 4 years. Just something else to think about. Leica CL / TL / TL2 / T Forum
  3. I had both at the same time for a couple of weeks. I found that I just was not using the Q, so I sold it. Yes the Q shutter is quieter, but I think the CL is quiet too. It is not a loud shutter at all.
  4. Yes I think my first CL had a sensor issue, not sure. Photos lacked contrast bigtime. They were just not acceptable. As soon as I shot with the second, I saw a major improvement.
  5. I've owned both (I own only the CL now along with an M10). Here are some thoughts; When I first tried the CL, I was horrified by the results. I complained but eventually tried another and the results are pretty darn good to be honest. Q - nice that it is full frame but the sensor in the CL is so good that it is very close. The Q (and I had owned a couple of them) always gave me fits with certain kinds of subject matter. There is a tendency for moire to rear its ugly head. I THINK it may have to do with the lens out resolving the sensor. I think that camera really needs a 30+ mp sensor for its lens. 28mm takes some getting used to if you normally use a 35mm, and you just may never like it. Some do, some don't. I got used to it when I owned the Q but to be honest I would much rather that the Q had a 35 instead. I never really loved the EVF in the Q. It may have been ground breaking in its time but now, it has been surpassed and frankly the CL EVF is much better. The Q is also a bit big for what it is, especially if you are used to the Sony. Positive for the Q is its manual focusing, probably the best by far of any mirrorless camera out there. CL - Just cannot be replaced by the Q in terms of changing lenses. You may not think you need nor want ithat, but once you have it, you won't want to go back. Plus, it plays extremely well with an adapter and some Nikon lenses (I have the 55 micro and the 180 F2.8, both superb on the CL). The CL is a very nice size, even with the grip which I highly recommend and can be carried in a coat pocket if only the 18 is on it. Can't do that with the Q. The one fairly large drawback to the CL the way I see it is that the zoom lens max apertures are kind've slow. But I suppose that is why I own the 2 primes that I do. I did a comparison with the 35mm F1.4 TL lens and the 50mm summilux on my M10. With 11x17 prints I really see very little if any difference. Both lenses are superb when shot wide open. I also own the 11-23TL, 23TL and 55-135TL. No complaints about any of them, and I am very finicky when it comes to lens performance. Aside from the 50 summilux, I also own the 35 summilux and 21 SEM for my M10. I struggled with my original decision to go to the CL and sell my Q, and at first I regretted it. But once I tried a second CL body and got used to it, I have not looked back. If I were to do it all over again, I would not even consider the Q. The CL is just too versatile.
  6. jay968

    M10-P Shutter Sound Comparison

    I don't deny that there is a noticeable difference and I suppose a final determination needs to be done by handling and shooting both cameras, but I am not convinced that the difference is worth selling the M10 and upgrading to the M10-P. At least from the comparison videos, saying that the new shutter is as quiet as the Q shutter is nonsense, and I DID see this claim made someplace.
  7. The M10-P seems to me to be a bit of a disappointment. I was very excited to read about the quieter shutter, but after listening to the posted comparisons between it and the regular M10, I am not convinced the difference is worth much. I was hoping when I read about a level gauge that it would be one that could be seen through the optical viewfinder, but you can't. The touch screen means absolutely nothing to me. Lastly, I think the black dots sold by DAG look better on an M camera than the screw on the P versions. So, on a positive note, I suppose that if I had neither camera I would opt for the P, but on the other hand, I get to save some money by not worrying about doing an upgrade.
  8. jay968

    M10-P Shutter Sound Comparison

    After reading on one site that the new shutter is as quiet as the one in the Q, and then hearing the comparison here, I have to laugh. Yes, it's a bit quieter than the M10 shutter, but I see no reason to upgrade.
  9. Btw, when I say the images from the M10 are head and shoulders above the CL, I am talking about printing 16 inch prints.
  10. jay968

    Camera case for CL

    The Artisan & Artist case looks very nice, but does anyone know if you can still use the Leica Thumb Grip with it? It looks like they may interfere with each other.
  11. I've got an M10 with 21SEM, 35 1.4 FE ASPH and 50 1.4 ASPH. I've also got a CL with 23TL, 35TL, 11-23TL, 55-135TL, adapted Nikon 55 F2.8 micro and Nikon 180 F2.8. As far as image quality goes, my honest opinion is nothing I own beats the M10 and the lenses that I have, especially the 21 and 50 which I also find do very well when adapted to the CL. I'd pick the adapted 21, 50, Nikon 55micro and the 11-23TL as my best lenses for use on the CL. I also find the 55-135TL to be pretty good. After that, I find the 23TL and 35TL pretty similar actually, both pretty good but not in the same league as my M lenses. Not sure if I have a dud 35TL but unless I am shooting wide open (where it shines), I don't find it very interesting. The Nikon 180 while a decent lens just serves the purpose of a long telephoto for me and is nothing exciting really. At any rate, there is no way I would pick the CL over the M10 unless all I ever did was shoot for web or screen viewing. Here I don't see a big difference. However, once I print, the M10 is head and shoulders above the CL. No comparison. On the other hand, the versatility of the CL makes it very attractive. I can shoot with the long Nikon lens, or with the Nikon micro and not have to rely on the external EVF of the M10. The EVF on the CL is probably its greatest feature. I also like the CL's handling, size and the fact that I can shoot silently in a pinch if I have to. It took me awhile to get a handle on how to get the most image quality out of the CL, but I have. Still prefer the IQ of the M10 though when I print. So, I'd say for a fun camera with lots of versatility, the CL is a great choice. But for pure image quality, I'd go with the M10. This is why I own both.
  12. jay968

    CL + handgrip?

    I usually don't use a handgrip as I don't really like the extra bulk but the CL handgrip is an exception. The base is so thin that I find it wonderful on the CL. I just wish it had a cutout to allow opening of the battery door without having to take it off the camera. Sometimes when using the 23, I prefer that the camera be as small as possible so that I can be able to fit it into a jacket pocket, so I purchased the Leica thumb support to use in those instances, instead of the handgrip. What happened is that I have ended up keep both on the camera 90% percent of the time. Both together make the camera very ergonomic and a pleasure to use.
  13. jay968

    Talk me out of selling my M10...

    I did the opposite. Sold an X1D to fund an M10. While the X1D has some really nice things about it (small, very well balanced, ergonomic camera that produced absolutely stunning images) it was probably the most buggy camera that I have ever owned. Not sure if it's been improved since I owned mine ( last summer) but the thing was honestly like a beta product maybe a year or two away from being polished. Dials wouldn't always work as intended, AF would keep trying to focus at times even after I lifted my finger off the shutter button, Battery compartment would heat up to the point of being uncomfortable to hold the camera, flash white balance was just an estimate, no electronic or otherwise release, noisy lens focusing....get the picture? I ended up selling it and going with a Fuji GFX and an M10 (Fuji lenses are huge in comparison) and haven't looked back. Perhaps one day when the X1D (or X2D, whatever) matures, I will revisit. But for now, no thanks.
  14. If anyone is interested, I just got the SF60 and the wireless trigger for it last week. It's actually very nice. I used to own the Nissin version for my Nikon and the Leica one actually exposes better. I highly recommend it.