LocalHero1953 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #801 Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 My thought when seeing them in the flesh side by side was how the CL looked smaller than the TL2! The CL body is a couple of mm shorter side to side, excluding the CL's lugs (the TL2 has none), and its basic body height (excluding bumps, buttons and dials) is less. The CL's EVF eyepiece ring tops the TL2's shutter button by a couple of millimetres. The narrowest part of the TL2's body thickness is less than the CL, but IIRC TL2's battery grip is slightly thicker (it is level with the TL2's lens mount, while the CL's mount stands proud). Of course they share the same L register from mount to sensor, so a significant difference in thickness would not be expected. My subjective in-the-hand opinion was that the CL felt slightly smaller. It was this that changed my mind and convinced me to trade in my TL2 for the CL. Others may feel it differently. Edited November 23, 2017 by LocalHero1953 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Hi LocalHero1953, Take a look here Code Name "Clooney". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 23, 2017 Share #802 Posted November 23, 2017 The thing that most improves AF is speed, and both viewfinder blackout (reduced) and have been noticed as CL improvements over the TL. So the first question is "Can the TL2 be made even faster?" If there are no new electronic components in the processing path that differentiate the CL then the difference is a decision to let the camera heat up more, and perhaps that decision could be taken with the TL2 as well, since it has good thermal properties. (And for the folks who are concerned about using a camera with gloves on, it could serve as a hand-warmer.) Operating characteristics of CDAF differ from PDAF in that contrast detection, once lost, has to "hunt" to find the optimum again -- it has no idea in which direction the correct answer lies and may go to the extreme limits of the lens to be sure that it doesn't miss it. Incidentally, when my SL gets lost and heads of on a hunt, I press the joystick a second time, and it will reverse direction to go the right way. PDAF when reasonably close to the correct focus has a signal that tells which way to go and roughly how far away the answer is. CDAF can try to reproduce some of that intelligence through memory tricks in firmware. You would have to get to know a camera for a while to guess whether that is going on. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 23, 2017 Share #803 Posted November 23, 2017 On tilting screens and viewfinders, I appreciate both. I have a shelf-full of Olympus equipment, and the piece most likely to never be disposed of is an old E-P5 (Pen family) with a VF-2 tilting viewfinder of a bit less than 020 quality, and a tilting LCD. I use it with the Olympus 60mm AF macro. It's almost exactly the size of the new CL, BTW, but the lenses are even smaller. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPP1 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #804 Posted November 23, 2017 The narrowest part of the TL2's body thickness is less than the CL, but IIRC TL2's battery grip is slightly thicker (it is level with the TL2's lens mount, while the CL's mount stands proud). Of course they share the same L register from mount to sensor, so a significant difference in thickness would not be expected. My subjective in-the-hand opinion was that the CL felt slightly smaller. It was this that changed my mind and convinced me to trade in my TL2 for the CL. Others may feel it differently. Hi Paul, Sorry, but I disagree. The TL2 has a front bump meaning it extends in the same direction as the lens which is a way to have a smaller total depth. Put any lens on those two bodies and you will end up with a total depth difference of 15mm in favor of the TL2. And that's really what matters if you want to slide it in a coat pocket with the pancake attached. (At least without the Viso). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2017 Share #805 Posted November 23, 2017 That depends entirely on the distance between the sensor and the back of the camera. The distance of the lens flange to the sensor is always the same. It is beyond belief that the sensor-back distance of the TL2 is 15 mm less than the CL. If you measure the flange-back size of both cameras (as one should) they will be approximately the same depth. The rest is just shaping of the body and grip. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #806 Posted November 23, 2017 Hi Paul, Sorry, but I disagree. The TL2 has a front bump meaning it extends in the same direction as the lens which is a way to have a smaller total depth. Put any lens on those two bodies and you will end up with a total depth difference of 15mm in favor of the TL2. And that's really what matters if you want to slide it in a coat pocket with the pancake attached. (At least without the Viso). You may disagree with me, but I don't disagree with you! Sure, take the total dimensions, and the CL is bigger. But it depends what is important to you. The basic body of the CL is smaller than the basic body of the TL2. With all the protrusions, the CL is bigger. They are both similarly pocketable - it depends how your pockets cope with the EVF protrusion on the CL - it is only one part of the package, and shouldn't stop the CL slipping into a pocket. I repeat, my subjective opinion is that the CL felt smaller in the hand, because the basic body is smaller. YMMV - that's what subjective opinions are about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #807 Posted November 23, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Of course, for the CL (and TL2) to be really pocketable, it needs a soft leather pouch designed specifically for the body plus 18mm, to keep grit and hard objects causing mayhem in the pocket. I once had one made in Cambodia for my M2 + 50mm collapsible - all long gone, sadly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 23, 2017 Share #808 Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) The review is also available in english: https://www.ingo-cordes.de/en/leica-en/leica-cl-test-report I think Leica chose very well with Jono Slack and Ingo Cordes as their late summer camera beta tester/reviewers. Ingo C's positioning of the camera is perfect: He opens with the CL on a Stammtisch tabletop, its bare wood carved with the club shield and the founding drinkers' names. I found Cordes' review very readable and informative. He misses back-button focusing, which I have come to use with the SL and AF lenses. Why can't this be done with the 4-way button that the CL has? Edited November 23, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 23, 2017 Share #809 Posted November 23, 2017 That depends entirely on the distance between the sensor and the back of the camera. The distance of the lens flange to the sensor is always the same. It is beyond belief that the sensor-back distance of the TL2 is 15 mm less than the CL. If you measure the flange-back size of both cameras (as one should) they will be approximately the same depth. The rest is just shaping of the body and grip. I think there is a puzzle here. The distance from front of the flange to back of the camera seems much greater in the CL than in the TL. We need Mark Norton again, to do a CL teardown and let those of us with inexhaustible curiosity see what is inside -- what's behind the sensor, how the viewfinder is squeezed alongside, how the pull-out diopter and the control wheels with buttons inside them all work... It was Mark, with an electronics business that he has since retired from, who explained how the mechanics of the M8 drove the 6-bit painted lens code on M lenses into an internal 8 bits of information that the firmware could use. This could add greatly to Roger Cicala's teardown of a 24-90 SL lens to feed the information needs of those of us who can't help being engineers as well as photographers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Posted November 23, 2017 Share #810 Posted November 23, 2017 I think Leica chose very well with Jono Slack and Ingo Cordes as their late summer camera beta tester/reviewers. Ingo C's positioning of the camera is perfect: He opens with the CL on a Stammtisch tabletop, its bare wood carved with the club shield and the founding drinkers' names. I found Cordes' review very readable and informative. He misses back-button focusing, which I have come to use with the SL and AF lenses. Why can't this be done with the 4-way button that the CL has? Thanks for your feeback. The missing back-button focus capability was my very first feedback to Leica. Unfortunately it doesn't seems to be part of the "Das Wesentliche"-philosophy. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #811 Posted November 23, 2017 I think there is a puzzle here. The distance from front of the flange to back of the camera seems much greater in the CL than in the TL. We need Mark Norton again, to do a CL teardown and let those of us with inexhaustible curiosity see what is inside -- what's behind the sensor, how the viewfinder is squeezed alongside, how the pull-out diopter and the control wheels with buttons inside them all work... It was Mark, with an electronics business that he has since retired from, who explained how the mechanics of the M8 drove the 6-bit painted lens code on M lenses into an internal 8 bits of information that the firmware could use. This could add greatly to Roger Cicala's teardown of a 24-90 SL lens to feed the information needs of those of us who can't help being engineers as well as photographers. Remember that the quoted dimensions include the EVF protrusion, upwards and backwards, and, on the TL2, the battery bump sticks out a millimetre beyond the lens mount. There are all sorts of ways to look at the size of a camera in practical terms, depending whether you want to hold it in your hands, slide it into a flexible pocket, fit it into a rigid bag, put a half case on it etc. I had the CL and TL2 side by side on the table for comparison - I can only suggest others do the same when they get the opportunity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #812 Posted November 23, 2017 You may disagree with me, but I don't disagree with you! Sure, take the total dimensions, and the CL is bigger. But it depends what is important to you. The basic body of the CL is smaller than the basic body of the TL2. With all the protrusions, the CL is bigger. They are both similarly pocketable - it depends how your pockets cope with the EVF protrusion on the CL - it is only one part of the package, and shouldn't stop the CL slipping into a pocket. I repeat, my subjective opinion is that the CL felt smaller in the hand, because the basic body is smaller. YMMV - that's what subjective opinions are about. I have used both bodies and find that size without EVF is not a big difference. A few mm here or there maybe, but both are not pocket cameras, and both are not huge cameras. As soon as you want an EVF the TL2 is somewhat less compact though. On the other side I find the TL2 feels more solid in the hand with its grip design. To achieve the same you might need to add a handgrip to the CL. (My feeling I might want the grip as soon as I use larger lenses like the 35,60,55-135 etc.) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted November 23, 2017 Share #813 Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) I have used both bodies and find that size without EVF is not a big difference. A few mm here or there maybe, but both are not pocket cameras, and both are not huge cameras. As soon as you want an EVF the TL2 is somewhat less compact though. On the other side I find the TL2 feels more solid in the hand with its grip design. To achieve the same you might need to add a handgrip to the CL. (My feeling I might want the grip as soon as I use larger lenses like the 35,60,55-135 etc.) Although attractive from a visual/design point of view, I find the T body somewhat 'slippy' and hard to hand-hold over time. The holding of the CL body is better, but I am quite sure that I will include a handgrip to the body. Edited November 23, 2017 by helged Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #814 Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) I have used both bodies and find that size without EVF is not a big difference. A few mm here or there maybe, but both are not pocket cameras, and both are not huge cameras. As soon as you want an EVF the TL2 is somewhat less compact though. On the other side I find the TL2 feels more solid in the hand with its grip design. To achieve the same you might need to add a handgrip to the CL. (My feeling I might want the grip as soon as I use larger lenses like the 35,60,55-135 etc.) It depends on your pockets, of course. Not trouser pockets, but both would go in my jacket/coat pocket with the 18mm Edited November 23, 2017 by LocalHero1953 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPP1 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #815 Posted November 23, 2017 It is beyond belief that the sensor-back distance of the TL2 is 15 mm less than the CL. OK, 15mm was a rough estimate. More likely 13mm. But still a difference. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Drawings set at same scale, alignment on the flange. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Drawings set at same scale, alignment on the flange. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/275404-code-name-clooney/?do=findComment&comment=3401872'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2017 Share #816 Posted November 23, 2017 Disregarding the ocular of the EVF, it looks more like 5 mm. The sensor being in the same plane, it seems there is some extra electronics behind it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timde Posted November 23, 2017 Share #817 Posted November 23, 2017 Disregarding the ocular of the EVF, it looks more like 5 mm. The sensor being in the same plane, it seems there is some extra electronics behind it. Keep in mind that the TL handgrip is the same depth as the CL body, and that is where the Battery and Flash card go. Since both cameras probably have the same battery, its likely that the body width of the CL, is, to some degree, dictated by the battery dimensions. And since Leica decided to style the camera the way they did ... there is probably a fair amount of empty space in the CL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 23, 2017 Share #818 Posted November 23, 2017 Keep in mind that the TL handgrip is the same depth as the CL body, and that is where the Battery and Flash card go. Since both cameras probably have the same battery, its likely that the body width of the CL, is, to some degree, dictated by the battery dimensions. And since Leica decided to style the camera the way they did ... there is probably a fair amount of empty space in the CL. Sadly, the batteries are not the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2017 Share #819 Posted November 23, 2017 The batteries are the same as a number of Panasonic models. There are excellent third-party batteries on the market (for instance Jupio) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikasmg Posted November 24, 2017 Share #820 Posted November 24, 2017 My thought when seeing them in the flesh side by side was how the CL looked smaller than the TL2! The CL body is a couple of mm shorter side to side, excluding the CL's lugs (the TL2 has none), and its basic body height (excluding bumps, buttons and dials) is less. The CL's EVF eyepiece ring tops the TL2's shutter button by a couple of millimetres. The narrowest part of the TL2's body thickness is less than the CL, but IIRC TL2's battery grip is slightly thicker (it is level with the TL2's lens mount, while the CL's mount stands proud). Of course they share the same L register from mount to sensor, so a significant difference in thickness would not be expected. My subjective in-the-hand opinion was that the CL felt slightly smaller. It was this that changed my mind and convinced me to trade in my TL2 for the CL. Others may feel it differently. That's interesting and good to hear. I have not seen them side-by-side physically. With the EVF mounted on the TL2 of course the CL is so much more convenient. - Vikas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.