Jump to content
sblitz

Would you trade a Q for the CL / CL vs Q {merged}

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, this is what I will do. Because of size advantage (depending on the lens mounted) and because of versatility. I expect the CL to be a good and compact aps-c system and M9 backup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Q is a keeper, definitely. The camera under pressure in my line-up is my M9 or SL601. The size of the CL is very tempting, I am assuming it is basically a TL2 in a new jacket + evf, I wonder what the EVF quality is like compared to Q or SL?

 

It certainly has my tastebuds tingling with Xmas looming..... hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way but you can get the CL and 18mm kit lens for about £400 less than the Q so I suppose if you don't need FF, and f1.7 it could be a good alternative. The q is the only Leica camera I have left and I wouldn't be without it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way but you can get the CL and 18mm kit lens for about £400 less than the Q so I suppose if you don't need FF, and f1.7 it could be a good alternative. The q is the only Leica camera I have left and I wouldn't be without it

A pity it is 28mm  not a dedicated 35mm or 50mm camera others love the 28mm lens format

Edited by imants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving up full frame great quality images that you can crop for a smaller sensor but ability to use all Leica lenses?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, never, not in a million years.

 

First, the Q has that great 1.7 ‘lux and the light it lets in and the bokeh it creates

Second, the ability to give me a ff image which when cropped to eff 35 fov/fl gives me the same fov as the aps-c 35mm and a very usuable 50 fov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving up full frame great quality images that you can crop for a smaller sensor but ability to use all Leica lenses?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Since the CL has a 1.5x crop factor, attach a 50mm Noctilux and you end up with the much lusted after 75mm Noctilux - or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the CL has a 1.5x crop factor, attach a 50mm Noctilux and you end up with the much lusted after 75mm Noctilux - or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

This is kind of my thought. If I am always cropping my Q pics then isn't it better to have the longer lens on in the first place and not crop? Mathematically a 28 on the CL and cropping the Q to a 35 pic is about the same thing. Above that there are more mps on the CL because I am using a longer lens. I am of course assuming that the IQ of the CL sensor etc is on par with the Q which is great. Not one complaInt. And I have had the Q since it first came out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just pre-ordered a CL with the 18-56.  Now I'm second guessing myself and thinking I should spend an extra $400 and get a Q.  I have owned an M8 with a 28 summicron, an X vario, and Currently a Type 109.

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always been an advocate of cropping in the viewfinder before pressing the shutter release, not afterwords in post processing. 

 

IMHO, cropping out large chunks of the image in post defeats the purpose of having a full frame sensor - particularly if you want to make exhibit quality prints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35/1.4 wide open can show some more CA than the 50 APO.

I also feel overall the 50 APO to produce a slightly more "transparent" look with slightly stronger contrast and saturation, and the 35/1.4 more a little more smooth look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the CL has a 1.5x crop factor, attach a 50mm Noctilux and you end up with the much lusted after 75mm Noctilux - or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Not quite - the real 75/1.4 on full frame would have a more narrow DOF. And is that not the reason for the wish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with others that nothing can replace the Q. The Q is already a classic. However, the CL is near perfect as a complimentary camera to the Q,  Love that it shares the same battery.  I'm interested in the 11-23 and maybe the 55-135.  Too bad there's no native portrait lens though. I guess I could use my 50 lux-m but I'd prefer a native AF lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with others that nothing can replace the Q. The Q is already a classic. However, the CL is near perfect as a complimentary camera to the Q,  Love that it shares the same battery.  I'm interested in the 11-23 and maybe the 55-135.  Too bad there's no native portrait lens though. I guess I could use my 50 lux-m but I'd prefer a native AF lens.

 

The TL lenses, 35 1.4 and 60mm 2.8 macro, work quite nicely as a portrait lenses, giving one 50mm and 90mm. 

Edited by ropo54

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...