Is the CL a mini M?

[mustafasoleiman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CL is the mini R/mini SL.

 

Perhaps... But it sure looks like a mini M (or III), and M lenses seem a better fit than either R or SL ones.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Not really - it looks more like a maxi-X

[Tobers]

The menu UI is just like the M10. 3 buttons on the back plus a direction controller just like the M10. As an M10 user it felt immediately familiar during my two extended "fact finding missions". 

 

Very solid in the hand. Nice dials. Amazing viewfinder. Use autofocus lenses or stick your M lenses on. It's a beautiful camera for sure.

 

This size comparison tool is pretty cool: http://camerasize.com/compare/#702,726

 

Things that aren't very "M-like" - no rangefinder (dur!!), no physical dial markings for aperture, ISO, shutter speed, though they do show in the little top screen which is nice. 

[jip]

It's not an M since it's not a rangefinder, period. 

 

M = Messsucher = rangefinder, the CL is non of those.

[Herr Barnack]

$4K USD! 

I can't for the life of me fathom why one would spend the money on this instead of a Sony or Fuji except for the 'snob' appeal. Heck, get 2 fujis and a few lenses. 

 

I still get it with the M...to a degree, because it offers something nothing else does. M lenses and digital mirrorless rangefinder focusing...which this doesn't seem like to me. The Fuji X100 / X pro series seems more in spirit with the M than this. 

 

If Leica doesn't start competing on something other than brand cachet and a rangefinder focusing mechanism....well...I guess at this point they don't mind being a luxury brand. I miss the days when they were a camera brand, known for no nonsense, functional but quality tools. 

 

Leica lenses have a unique fingerprint - the end photograph has a different look from that produced by Sony or Fuji lenses.  This may not matter much for those who never make prints but it does matter for those who make exhibit quality fine prints.  So-called snob appeal does not enter in to the equation, at least not for me.

 

No Leica camera will ever be crowned a Consumer Reports best buy but Leica is still a camera brand known for no nonsense functional but quality tools.

[pgh]

Leica lenses have a unique fingerprint - the end photograph has a different look from that produced by Sony or Fuji lenses.  This may not matter much for those who never make prints but it does matter for those who make exhibit quality fine prints.  So-called snob appeal does not enter in to the equation, at least not for me.

 

No Leica camera will ever be crowned a Consumer Reports best buy but Leica is still a camera brand known for no nonsense functional but quality tools.

Making prints and shooting for magazines is the bulk of my work - so actually the print is the point of comparison that I come to this with. I usually shoot with Sony when I'm printing larger specifically because the resolution and file is better. Leica lenses have a unique footprint yes, but at this point they're no better or worse - just different. And they fall apart more quickly at print sizes larger than 24" - one may not like Zeiss glass on a Sony, but in terms of IQ, I think it's pretty easy to see - when I'm comparing prints - that those lenses + sensor yield a better final result. And it costs a lot less than my M10 - which is still my favorite to use in the field. Shame it doesn't produce results as good as my almost 3 year old Sony though. I think Leica's brand - aside from the M - has entered in to a period of tools that get away from that philosophy of 'no nonsense and function' - personally - because the results don't hold up to generally current standards and you pay twice as much for them. That's not very functional, and is nonsensical imo.  

Edited December 13, 2017 by pgh