Jump to content
LUF Admin

Leica CL Announced - Mirrorless APS-C Camera with EVF

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

And for jaapv: Look at the CL Firmware and menus und you will see, that the CL has the same DNA as the Q. The CL looks from outside like a modern X, but the inner values of the CL are far away from the X line.

The CL was developed in cooperation with panasonic as the Q, no difference.

 

 

I hope you are right. I am very much impressed by Panasonic technology.  My GX8 makes me wish there were a Leica version with a Leica-type UI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that, if any "real" Leica camera can be said to be a Panasonic derivate, it would be the Q. Open it up and you will see "Panasonic" plastered over just about every component. (Not my observation, but of a top-level Leica expert) - certainly not a bad thing, either.

The X-series, which appears to have donated quite a bit of its DNA to the CL, is considerably more a Leica in-house design.

There is no such thing as a Panasonic derivate except the Panaleicas, and these are actually just Panasonic cameras bearing a Leica label. Since then, the cooperation between Leica and Panasonic has changed a lot. Starting with the X range there have been many models that for all intents and purposes are Leica cameras but that clearly show the influence of Panasonic. There haven’t been Panasonic versions of these models and in all likelihood there never will be, but if you know where to look the Panasonic DNA is quite obvious. In any case the overall concept is unmistakeably Leica’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it irks a lot of Leica fans that a heap of the  DNA is Panasonic, they just are better at digital/electronics/software  etc than Leica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would never change my Q for a CL with the 18mm F2.8 pancake lens.

 

................................

And for jaapv: Look at the CL Firmware and menus und you will see, that the CL has the same DNA as the Q. The CL looks from outside like a modern X, but the inner values of the CL are far away from the X line.

The CL was developed in cooperation with panasonic as the Q, no difference.

 

 

........................."

 

Isn't that great, a fusion of Leica's unmatched UI, build quality and design coupled with state of the art electronics (know how) from Japan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This puritan approach is strange to me. Who cares if Panasonic is involved? The CL is Leica through and through - try one out and you will see. But a small company like Leica would be idiotic if it relied entirely on internal resources for R&D. They couldn't afford it. Look at Aston Martin's decision to use a Mercedes engine. The purists hate it of course but if it means that Aston keeps going I would rather that than it runs out of cash because of a misguided attempt to stay pure. It's called Reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it irks a lot of Leica fans that a heap of the  DNA is Panasonic, they just are better at digital/electronics/software  etc than Leica

 

 ....errr ..... rubbish .....

 

Leica is a small company that initially was forced to use bought in components (which to some extent dictated the design) for its first few digital cameras.

 

As time has passed the percentage of custom components and design has increased to the point where current offerings are in reality all 'Leica ... made in Germany' unless otherwise stated. Like every other product they use components that, if suitable, are bought in off the shelf .... but that doesn't make them any less Leica than a Jaguar with Michelin tyres .....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would never change my Q for a CL with the 18mm F2.8 pancake lens.

 

The CL is missing a 35mm full frame sensor, the aperture ring, the fixed shutter speed dial and fixed exposure correction dial which never change function in relation to the camera mode as with the CL, the built in image stabilizer, the higher resolution viewfinder and the ultra short flash synchronisation.

 

The 18mm F2.8 pancake isn't as good as the Q-Summilux (reviews of the 18mm are online now and more will follow) and will only look like a full frame 28mm F4 in terms of depth of field. With this 18mm F2.8 I need a higher ISO setting at a low light level with a sensor which is more noise prone because it´s APS-C (compare the Sony APS-C vs. Q sensor at DPReview with high ISO)  and even more high ISO, because of the need of a shorter shutter speed because of the missing image stabilizer. 

 

Why should I pay the same prize for a worse solution?

 

The CL will not cut the Q sales. Two different concepts for different customers. The CL can be a supplement to the Q, but never a replacement.

 

And for jaapv: Look at the CL Firmware and menus und you will see, that the CL has the same DNA as the Q. The CL looks from outside like a modern X, but the inner values of the CL are far away from the X line.

The CL was developed in cooperation with panasonic as the Q, no difference.

 

 

 

If so, Leica would not have just released a new version of the Q.

 

Thankyou ! 

 

Having a new Q sat in its box for a week and going backwards and forwards, should I keep, should I get the CL instead (although the pancake lens wouldn't appeal), you list some reasons which is why I bought the Q in the first place... so I think I will break her out of the box the weekend !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou ! 

 

Having a new Q sat in its box for a week and going backwards and forwards, should I keep, should I get the CL instead (although the pancake lens wouldn't appeal), you list some reasons which is why I bought the Q in the first place... so I think I will break her out of the box the weekend !!

 

 

You will not regret it.
 
The CL is a very good camera, I can't say anything bad about the CL. But it is not a replacement for the Q.
 
Have fun with your Q!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

I would hope the CL would have the same sensor auto-clean facility that the SL does. I did not expect a lot from the SL but its sensor stays amazingly clean. I have only had to clean mine twice in the two years (and three days) that I have had the camera. Of course with the 24-90, I change lenses a lot less frequently than I do when using an M.

 

Wilson

The CL doesn't have any sensor cleaning unfortunately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CL doesn't have any sensor cleaning unfortunately

 

If that is definite, it is a very sad omission on a modern interchangeable lens mirrorless camera and close to inexcusable. Having already put self cleaning successfully in the SL, it is a very retrograde and plain stupid decision to omit it from the CL. I think I am correct in saying that all the competitors from other major camera manufacturers, Sony, Fuji, Olympus etc. have this facility. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never change my Q for a CL with the 18mm F2.8 pancake lens.

 

The CL is missing a 35mm full frame sensor, the aperture ring, the fixed shutter speed dial and fixed exposure correction dial which never change function in relation to the camera mode as with the CL, the built in image stabilizer, the higher resolution viewfinder and the ultra short flash synchronisation.

 

The 18mm F2.8 pancake isn't as good as the Q-Summilux (reviews of the 18mm are online now and more will follow) and will only look like a full frame 28mm F4 in terms of depth of field. With this 18mm F2.8 I need a higher ISO setting at a low light level with a sensor which is more noise prone because it´s APS-C (compare the Sony APS-C vs. Q sensor at DPReview with high ISO)  and even more high ISO, because of the need of a shorter shutter speed because of the missing image stabilizer. 

 

Why should I pay the same prize for a worse solution?

 

The CL will not cut the Q sales. Two different concepts for different customers. The CL can be a supplement to the Q, but never a replacement.

 

And for jaapv: Look at the CL Firmware and menus und you will see, that the CL has the same DNA as the Q. The CL looks from outside like a modern X, but the inner values of the CL are far away from the X line.

The CL was developed in cooperation with panasonic as the Q, no difference.

 

 

 

If so, Leica would not have just released a new version of the Q.

 

I think for anybody who is happy with "just" 28mm FOV and who likes wideangle in combination with shallow DOF (at least for close subjects) I totally agree with you.

For me the flexibility of interchangable lenses is important. With the 18mm or 23mm it is a very compact camera, with the 35/1.4 or 60/2.8 or 55-135 it is nice for portrait and images of my kids with or without shallow DOF, with the 12-23 it is a very nice sharp ultrawide to normal-wide camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for anybody who is happy with "just" 28mm FOV and who likes wideangle in combination with shallow DOF (at least for close subjects) I totally agree with you.

For me the flexibility of interchangable lenses is important. With the 18mm or 23mm it is a very compact camera, with the 35/1.4 or 60/2.8 or 55-135 it is nice for portrait and images of my kids with or without shallow DOF, with the 12-23 it is a very nice sharp ultrawide to normal-wide camera.

 

 

No contradiction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A higher-res Q may temporarily differentiate the Q from the CL, but then the new Q needs to be out sooner than later, and certainly well before the next incarnation of the CL...

With the T, CL and SL systems sharing the same mount and to some degree software, and serving a good chunk of various photogr groups, it's hard to see that the Q - irrespective of it's popularity up to now - can offer something truely unique compared to the L-systems.

With the well received M10, the next systems for Leica to upgrade are possibly the S and SL, not the Q. It will be very interesting to see what Leica thinks about the S (sensor resolution, optical/electronic VF, mirror/mirrorless, etc). This in contrast to the SL2 where we can expect more/larger/quicker/etc compared to the existing system.

The next Leica for sure will be... the S.

With the new Maestro III Processor and many new up to date components that will be used in the rest of the line, like SL II; Q II, M11 and the future TL and CL.

The strategy is clear: always the newest S Model will tell the future of the Leica-Camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou !

 

Having a new Q sat in its box for a week and going backwards and forwards, should I keep, should I get the CL instead (although the pancake lens wouldn't appeal), you list some reasons which is why I bought the Q in the first place... so I think I will break her out of the box the weekend !!

Where the CL will not match the Q is that the Q’s lens and sensor are perfectly matched. For a given sensor and lens, an interchangeable system will never match this. Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is definite, it is a very sad omission on a modern interchangeable lens mirrorless camera and close to inexcusable. Having already put self cleaning successfully in the SL, it is a very retrograde and plain stupid decision to omit it from the CL. I think I am correct in saying that all the competitors from other major camera manufacturers, Sony, Fuji, Olympus etc. have this facility.

 

Wilson

It was one of my criticisms of the T/TL/2, and the lack of any kind of IS, especially given the type of customer they aimed the camera at.

 

I recall some claimed that the T couldn't include sensor cleaning as Leica wanted to keep the body as slim as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was one of my criticisms of the T/TL/2, and the lack of any kind of IS, especially given the type of customer they aimed the camera at.

 

I recall some claimed that the T couldn't include sensor cleaning as Leica wanted to keep the body as slim as possible.

 

James, 

 

Leica seems to be rather burying their collective heads in the sand over this. There is also no dust detection in the menu and no mention of sensor cleaning in the manual. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 ....errr ..... rubbish .....

 

Leica is a small company that initially was forced to use bought in components (which to some extent dictated the design) for its first few digital cameras.

 

As time has passed the percentage of custom components and design has increased to the point where current offerings are in reality all 'Leica ... made in Germany' unless otherwise stated. Like every other product they use components that, if suitable, are bought in off the shelf .... but that doesn't make them any less Leica than a Jaguar with Michelin tyres .....  

 Yep Panasonic is the manufacturer of many a part and development and that is something that Leica is happy to do ...collaborate with others  unlike the Leica fanboy mentality

pps the Leica probably shares some DNA with a washing machine but that is nothing to frown on

Edited by imants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yep Panasonic is the manufacturer of many a part and development and that is something that Leica is happy to do ...collaborate with others  unlike the Leica fanboy mentality

 

 

You seem to be the only person who keeps going on about the Panasonic connection. It's really boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never change my Q for a CL with the 18mm F2.8 pancake lens.

 

The CL is missing a 35mm full frame sensor, the aperture ring, the fixed shutter speed dial and fixed exposure correction dial which never change function in relation to the camera mode as with the CL, the built in image stabilizer, the higher resolution viewfinder and the ultra short flash synchronisation.

 

The 18mm F2.8 pancake isn't as good as the Q-Summilux (reviews of the 18mm are online now and more will follow) and will only look like a full frame 28mm F4 in terms of depth of field. With this 18mm F2.8 I need a higher ISO setting at a low light level with a sensor which is more noise prone because it´s APS-C (compare the Sony APS-C vs. Q sensor at DPReview with high ISO)  and even more high ISO, because of the need of a shorter shutter speed because of the missing image stabilizer. 

 

Why should I pay the same prize for a worse solution?

 

The CL will not cut the Q sales. Two different concepts for different customers. The CL can be a supplement to the Q, but never a replacement.

 

And for jaapv: Look at the CL Firmware and menus und you will see, that the CL has the same DNA as the Q. The CL looks from outside like a modern X, but the inner values of the CL are far away from the X line.

The CL was developed in cooperation with panasonic as the Q, no difference.

 

 

 

If so, Leica would not have just released a new version of the Q.

Err.. firmware and menus say little about the provenance of the cameras. Leica has always depended heavily on outside firms to write their firmware (for instance Jenoptik for the M8 and M9)

 

Concerning the technical cooperation with Panasonic, it has been strengthened considerably over the last few years. As Leica (as about every firm manufacturing technical goods) is heavily dependent on sourcing the most suitable components and expertise, it is only a good thing that they are consolidating a reliable and versatile provider.  The camera DNA is in the design and component choice, not in the soldering of the transistors or writing the menus on the LCD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

There is no such thing as a Panasonic derivate except the Panaleicas, and these are actually just Panasonic cameras bearing a Leica label. Since then, the cooperation between Leica and Panasonic has changed a lot. Starting with the X range there have been many models that for all intents and purposes are Leica cameras but that clearly show the influence of Panasonic. There haven’t been Panasonic versions of these models and in all likelihood there never will be, but if you know where to look the Panasonic DNA is quite obvious. In any case the overall concept is unmistakeably Leica’s.

 

Where is the influence of Panasonic in any of the Leica X cameras? Not at all,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...