Code Name "Clooney"

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[...] Is it possile to fully control exposure and having access to focus magnification without removing the eye from the body?

 

I suspect it is in auto image magnification mode which works with coded M lenses according to Sean Reid. I have no experience with the CL though.

[lct]

I suspect it is in auto image magnification mode which works with coded M lenses according to Sean Reid. I have no experience with the CL though.

 

No sorry i was mistaken here. With M lenses, the top right dial must be turned to trigger image magnification.

[LocalHero1953]

It appears that the CL is not weather sealed and lacks back button focusing. One reviewer noted that his nose kept repositioning focus due to the touch screen interface. I don't know if he was missing some more effective setting or feature.

 

If only the SL had some smaller, lighter native zoom options. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd gladly sacrifice AF and accept a more narrow focal length zoom range to accomplish that.

 

Jeff

This would only be a problem if you focus with your left eye and if you have touch AF set. Even if you have to do the first, you can avoid the second.

[jaapv]

I use my right eye and I have touch-screen focusing  switched off on all my cameras that have it. I find it annoying in the extreme when the focus point disappears to some obscure corner of the frame by inadvertently touching the LCD.

[Stephen white]

Does anyone have details of the diopter adjustment on the CL ? Is the range the same as on the SL ?...Leica website says +- 4 for the CL but +2 -4 on the SL...or have I misunderstood?

[thighslapper]

everything says +4 to -4 ....... and hopefully the mechanism is better than the crappy one on the Q which I had to wedge bits of plastic under to stop it moving.

 

It is still allegedly 'EyeRes' which presumably refers to the optics that give an image comparable to that of a direct visual viewfinder. 

 

Although the SL EVF is 4+mpx it is in fact magnified up to a fairly enormous size....... presumably the lower 2.4mpx CL EVF being smaller is magnified up proportionately less but gives a comparable image in terms of clarity.  

 

Really need one to play with alongside the SL to compare. 

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

everything says +4 to -4 ....... and hopefully the mechanism is better than the crappy one on the Q which I had to wedge bits of plastic under to stop it moving.

It has a locked-in adjustment dial.

 

It is still allegedly 'EyeRes' which presumably refers to the optics that give an image comparable to that of a direct visual viewfinder. 

 

Although the SL EVF is 4+mpx it is in fact magnified up to a fairly enormous size....... presumably the lower 2.4mpx CL EVF being smaller is magnified up proportionately less but gives a comparable image in terms of clarity.  

 

Really need one to play with alongside the SL to compare. 

Well stated. Thank you. Ingo Cordes in his review here (it's in German) https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-aktuell/2017/11/leica-cl-test/ thought the EVF was extremely good and that it seemed to be clearer than the EVF of the Q. He didn’t know its resolution at the time he wrote the review.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Chaemono

[jaapv]

Which just goes to prove that resolution is not the parameter that determines EVF quality - as long as it exceeds the human eye.

[Ingo]

 

 

Well stated. Thank you. Ingo Cordes in his review here (it's in German) https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-aktuell/2017/11/leica-cl-test/ thought the EVF was extremely good and that it seemed to be clearer than the EVF of the Q. He didn’t know its resolution at the time he wrote the review.

The review is also available in english: https://www.ingo-cordes.de/en/leica-en/leica-cl-test-report

 

[thighslapper]

The review is also available in english: https://www.ingo-cordes.de/en/leica-en/leica-cl-test-report

 

 thanks ..... really nice photos as well .... 

[Guest VVJ]

I suspect there will be an initial flood of TL2s hit the market, causing prices to take a big hit.

 

I don't see people who only shoot M-glass (or other manual focus legacy glass) dump their TL2 that easily, unless they want the ability to use flash.

 

People who mainly shoot autofocus TL-lenses on the other hand... 

[IkarusJohn]

I think people dumping their new TL2 cameras for the CL will be a minority (and a vocal one here at that).  The reason?  Well, you get the TL concept, or you don't.  I'm not talking about the rather facile references to the "cellphone generation" (though there is truth in that I'm sure).

 

No, the point is more understanding and getting to grips with the design concept.  I like the touch screen approach, and the sleek simplicity of the camera body; I like that with a small M lens mounted, I can put this in my pocket.  Whether I use an M lens, one of the two TL AF lenses I have or (in extremis) an SL lens isn't really the point.  I could do exactly the same with the CL.  No, the point for me is I get the TL concept, and I don't particularly like the CL concept - the black one looks better than the earlier photos, I agree, but the TL has better functionality (better removable and tiltable  EVF, GPS, in camera charging using the USB C connection) for the same sensor, same processor and image quality.

 

Essentially, the CL is a reborn X camera, which I never particularly warmed to either (my daughter has one).  So, it seems to me that you either get the TL or the CL concept - both are good, both have the same potential for image quality, but they are different.

[vikasmg]

I think people dumping their new TL2 cameras for the CL will be a minority (and a vocal one here at that).  The reason?  Well, you get the TL concept, or you don't.  I'm not talking about the rather facile references to the "cellphone generation" (though there is truth in that I'm sure).

 

No, the point is more understanding and getting to grips with the design concept.  I like the touch screen approach, and the sleek simplicity of the camera body; I like that with a small M lens mounted, I can put this in my pocket.  Whether I use an M lens, one of the two TL AF lenses I have or (in extremis) an SL lens isn't really the point.  I could do exactly the same with the CL.  No, the point for me is I get the TL concept, and I don't particularly like the CL concept - the black one looks better than the earlier photos, I agree, but the TL has better functionality (better removable and tiltable  EVF, GPS, in camera charging using the USB C connection) for the same sensor, same processor and image quality.

 

Essentially, the CL is a reborn X camera, which I never particularly warmed to either (my daughter has one).  So, it seems to me that you either get the TL or the CL concept - both are good, both have the same potential for image quality, but they are different.

You are right and I may be tempted to keep my TL2. However I have two issues with it. One is the lack of a viewfinder. Although the tilt-up ability of the Visoflex is more useful than I had thought it would be, the added lump on top is problematic. The second reservation is that while the tough sensitivity is MUCH better than the T, its still not as fluid and easy as a smartphone - relative to the TL2 my iPhone feels much more a natural and intuitive extension because the screen is so unobtrusively sensitive.

 

- Vikas

[Guest VVJ]

I think people dumping their new TL2 cameras for the CL will be a minority (and a vocal one here at that).  The reason?  Well, you get the TL concept, or you don't.  I'm not talking about the rather facile references to the "cellphone generation" (though there is truth in that I'm sure).

 

No, the point is more understanding and getting to grips with the design concept.  I like the touch screen approach, and the sleek simplicity of the camera body; I like that with a small M lens mounted, I can put this in my pocket.  Whether I use an M lens, one of the two TL AF lenses I have or (in extremis) an SL lens isn't really the point.  I could do exactly the same with the CL.  No, the point for me is I get the TL concept, and I don't particularly like the CL concept - the black one looks better than the earlier photos, I agree, but the TL has better functionality (better removable and tiltable  EVF, GPS, in camera charging using the USB C connection) for the same sensor, same processor and image quality.

 

Essentially, the CL is a reborn X camera, which I never particularly warmed to either (my daughter has one).  So, it seems to me that you either get the TL or the CL concept - both are good, both have the same potential for image quality, but they are different.

 

John,

 

The autofocus of the TL2 simply doesn't cut it for 2017...

 

If you manually focus or have a very deliberate style of shooting all of that does not matter.  If you want a faster camera the TL2 falls short despite having truly a lot of other things going for it.  Besides the glass and the sensor the design, simplicity and minimalism is indeed brilliant.

 

The concept is what it is.  I love the touch screen approach for the menus (I wish the CL would have kept that).  I dislike it though for changing focus, way too slow.

 

I can see how holding the camera at arm's length can be useful at times but most of the time I am not interested in doing so.  I use the EVF 99% of the time and I wish it was built-in, not so clunky and not so ugly.  

 

The fact that it is tiltable doesn't do anything for me.  I believe I used the tilting screen of my Fuji exactly twice at the time.

 

I wish the CL would have kept the GPS though.  It is kind of awkward that they removed the GPS function from a camera that is being labeled as a travel camera...

 

Best, Joris.

[IkarusJohn]

... The autofocus of the TL2 simply doesn't cut it for 2017...

 

 

 

Please excuse the selective clip.  This hasn't been my experience, I'd have to say; but perhaps that is because I use the wide zoom (and fast or slow AF is pretty much irrelevant to a wide zoom for me), the 28 Summaron (which is MF, obviously) and the 35 Summilux-TL for which I take a fairly deliberate approach as it is a fast prime (there's a lot going on anyway).  So, I hadn't noticed the AF as being anything more than other AF for me - irritating, to say the least.  On the SL, I use MF, and hit the joystick when I need AF.

 

I must say I have read the rumour and speculation (nothing more than that) of the CL having "blindingly fast" AF or better AF than the TL2 with some suspicion - what's it based on?  An 18mm pancake isn't going to need fast or particularly accurate AF, when compared to the Summilux-SL 50 which must be accurate if it is to work.  The depth of field on the f/2.8 pancake will mean that AF can be fast for what it's worth.  For that matter I almost don't need to focus the 28 Summaron ...

 

More to the point, why would the CL (released only months after the TL2) have better AF?  Is this something which has been established, or is it a repetition of the rumour?  I ask, not because I care or doubt you, but out of interest.  I'm quite sure if the AF on the CL is improved, it will follow pretty damn quick with a firmware upgrade on the TL2 ...

Edited November 23, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Guest VVJ]

With regards to the autofocus I have exactly the same questions as you.  Right now I am blindly believing Jono...:

 

I tended to stick with the zoom lenses with the TL2 (because they focused so much faster). However, with the CL I’ve been using the prime lenses much more as Leica seem to have performed something of a miracle with the AF on them.  This is excellent news as it means that the hunting issues with these lenses can be cured through firmware.

 

The autofocus is really good – in terms of actually locking on to a focus point it may be the same speed as the Leica TL2, but it hunts much less, especially with the larger fixed focal length lenses like the 35 summilux and the 60 macro. It is also much faster moving from infinity to minimum focus. There have been occasions when I have needed to press the focus button twice to get proper focus, but I had the same issue with the TL2.

 

If the autofocus is indeed so much better it would be very interesting to know why Leica could not get this in the TL2 at the time of release... and whether it eventually will still make its way to the TL2...

 

BTW, I am not selling my TL2, I will keep both...   

[LocalHero1953]

AF was what I concentrated on when I had a CL in my hands on Tuesday, and I'd brought my 23 and 60 with me. The CL was definitely faster with both - I tested it in dark doorways at night. The 60 in particular hunted much less than on the TL2 (I could still force it to hunt on a plain wall in the gloom) and the focus action was much faster - though how you do that without changing the motor I have no idea.

 

The 60mm's firmware was updated by attaching it to the CL, but I have not yet checked if the improvements have carried back to use on the TL2.

[IkarusJohn]

Sounds like a firmware improvement. As the focus motor is in the lens, I’m not sure how the same lens could be faster on one camera than another with the same processor.

[vikasmg]

The review is also available in english: https://www.ingo-cordes.de/en/leica-en/leica-cl-test-report

 

His review shows side-by-side pictures of the CL,and TL (among others). I thought it remarkable how much smaller and thinner the TL is.

 

- Vikas

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

It will be interesting to see if Leica will offer a FW update to make the TL2 as snappy as the CL. Jono also felt that the CL focused faster than the X-T2. IMO the only way Leica could achieve this is if they licensed in an updated version of Panasonic‘s AF technology. This means they probably pay a royalty fee (usually a percentage of the sales price) to Panasonic. If the TL2 doesn’t get upgraded to bring it up to speed with the CL, the only plausible explanation will then be that they simply can’t make the numbers work, i.e. reaching their target margin.