Jump to content
tonyniev

Leica CL vs Sony A6000 (6300, 6500)

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lately many reviews have been posted in the review section of CL Forum, one was comparing the CL with the A6500, and then outside of the forum, there are many A6000 vs A6500 comparison and last week there were new CL vs A6000 compare. the A6000 today cost $481, I bought more three years ago at $548 with the kit lens 16-50 mm... 

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/sony-a6000-vs-leica-cl">Sony A6000 vs Leica CL Comparison Review

 

I pre ordered the CL but all these reviews is making me revisit my decision... can you help me decide, why do I need a CL when I have a small walk around to go with my Leica M10 and A7R.  I can also use my A7R lenses on the A6000, (and I have adapters for Leica M lenses, Canon FD and Canon EOS ) which always has on a 19 mm (27 mm eq) Sigma Art F2.8 lens, I post below a couple of snapshots with the A6000 and Sigma 19, I have used this too for street photography, and was my other camera with the A7R before I got theM 10

 

here is hand held F6.3, resting on a rail of a pedestrian rail (the top part smudge is  the chain link)... 

 

Dusk shot at F4

Edited by tonyniev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit too much tint for my taste in the two you posted.

My bad in post processing

 

This one is with the kit lens converted to B&W with silver efex, 

 

 

This one with the $250 zoom 55-210 mm 

 

with Sigma 19 mm lens

Edited by tonyniev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You answered your own question I think. You don’t need a CL.

Doesn’t mean you can’t want one, though

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

all depends on what lenses you have and will use on your daily use cameras

for the A6000 the sigma 19 and Sony Zeiss 16-35 mm zoom

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A casual observer will be unable to differentiate between pictures taken with an A6000 and a CL. Most seasoned photographers will also be hard pressed to do so. 

 

The real difference is in the way that you use the camera, the interface, dials and so on. Personally I absolutely hate Sony cameras because they are so confusing and complex. They are fine image creation devices, but lack any human "empathy". The Cl feels more like an M10 in its usability, which I much prefer.

 

If you only had $500 then get the Sony. If you have a bunch more $$$ that you are happy to pay in order to get a more satisfying experience, then get the CL. The images will be remarkably similar whichever you use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

A casual observer will be unable to differentiate between pictures taken with an A6000 and a CL. Most seasoned photographers will also be hard pressed to do so. 

 

The real difference is in the way that you use the camera, the interface, dials and so on. Personally I absolutely hate Sony cameras because they are so confusing and complex. They are fine image creation devices, but lack any human "empathy". The Cl feels more like an M10 in its usability, which I much prefer.

 

If you only had $500 then get the Sony. If you have a bunch more $$$ that you are happy to pay in order to get a more satisfying experience, then get the CL. The images will be remarkably similar whichever you use.

 

I have been using the A7R now for 4 years and A6000 for 3 years and very familiar with the interfaces and all the customizable function buttons, like  back button focusing, I came from Canon DSLRs, (I still use them for widefield astro, eclipse and solar and airshows), before Sony and used to shoot Nikon and Lecia M3 films... $ comes in not from affordability but value for additional $. 

 

I understand the issues with Sony , I removed for example the iso function button...and so on. I also dont like the auto WB, so I carry a gray card... I love my M10 and preordered the CL hoping the IQ will be as pronounced vs the Sony, but reviews and sample images dont show such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the classic dilemma of someone with a mixture of system cameras and lenses.

 

There is little to differentiate the better cameras in each sensor category in terms of output quality these days...... with lenses you get what you pay for, generally speaking.

 

The choices then come down to what suits your way of working and your wallet.

 

Despite the cost I decided many years ago to dump all my non Leica gear and stick to one system wherever possible (with the occasional lens with no Leica equivalent) ..... makes life a lot simpler and avoids the sort of situation you are now in ....  

 

You need to decide whether you are going to drift further towards Leica or stick to Sony ....... and soon you will have more cameras than you need and some will have to go ..... decisions, decisions ..... 

Edited by thighslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only echo Steve. It is all about the lenses, ergonomics and user interface these days, not about the sensor... Back to the era of film - the "sensor" was always the same, yet we did buy our Leicas in preference to the  Asahi Pentaxes of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only echo Steve. It is all about the lenses, ergonomics and user interface these days, not about the sensor.

 

Sony produce some very good lenses although QC (de-centering especially) seems to be something of an issue. The user interface is a complete shambles though. That sad the A6000 (my wife has one) with the 28/2 Sony is ergonomic enough for sure: light but well balanced. I'd struggle to want to replace the A6000 with a CL to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm - in terms of bangs for bucks the Sony A6000 does make you think!

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-alpha-a6000-digital-camera-with-16-50mm-power-zoom-lens-black-1548999/

 

However, the latest iteration is more in frame cost wise with the CL + this one comes with the better kit lens:

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-alpha-a6500-with-16-70mm-f4-za-lens-1609412/

 

In the end it's going to come down to the glass rather than anything else.  The question there will be are the Leica lenses the best APS-C optics you can get?  If yes, then despite the absence of IBIS it's likely to be worth it.  If the lenses aren't significantly better than Sony or Fuji etc, then the value of CL is more in question...

Edited by chris_tribble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end it's going to come down to the glass rather than anything else.  The question there will be are the Leica lenses the best APS-C optics you can get?  If yes, then despite the absence of IBIS it's likely to be worth it.  If the lenses aren't significantly better than Sony or Fuji etc, then the value of CL is more in question...

 

Interesting because although I've used and still do use APS-C cameras I've never seen their lenses in the same light as full frame lenses (no pun intended) and have always thought that as they cover a smaller area, they should be easier to build to 'high quality'. Add in software correction and I suspect that the differences between those on offer will be less significant than those of full-frame (and the gap is closing here too). Its a tricky one for Leica - their APS system has to be great (which I think it is) - but at the same time it faces very strong competition indeed. The CL is not for me as I've said, and I hope it does well, but in a saturated market it has to stand well above other offerings to sell at a substantially higher price. The A6000 is a surprisingly good image creator used well .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real strength of the CL is the way it is integrated in the whole spectrum of Leica cameras. It can function as the central camera for somebody owning all three systems ( excluding the S), or it can complement either of the other systems. Also it supplements its sibling the TL, being aimed at a more traditional photographically inclined customer group, the T being more of a sleek image-making machine.

Seen on its own, it does indeed face tough competition, both from other APS-sized cameras, and even from MTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Fuji X-E2 owner i was interested in the Sony as well but both suffer from a thick sensor stack so the use of M wides is not advised on them. If you intend to use your M lenses on some APS-C camera you could well be tempted by the CL the same way as i am then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real strength of the CL is the way it is integrated in the whole spectrum of Leica cameras.

 

Yes, I'd say that with an adapter (M available and who knows whether a TL to Sony might appear from somewhere) the Sony could fulfil the same role but no, its user interface is not up to it. After nearly a year I'm still trying to get the A7 configured to as I want it. Even when it seems ok I find that I have to delve into the menu to set things appropriately which loses me images. Sony need some photographers in their development teams!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really...on Sony's, just like the Leica T, once you setup what you need from the dials then its pretty smooth sailing...one rarely has to dive into the menus.

 

the OP is not using leica lenses..

 

so in my opinion he doesn't  need a CL or even a TL...the a6500 with his lenses should be fine

 

 

Sony produce some very good lenses although QC (de-centering especially) seems to be something of an issue. The user interface is a complete shambles though. That sad the A6000 (my wife has one) with the 28/2 Sony is ergonomic enough for sure: light but well balanced. I'd struggle to want to replace the A6000 with a CL to be honest.

Edited by frame-it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm having doubts myself.

I'd have to sell my GX8 to get the CL, but the Nocticron and 14-140 are 2 lenses that are not available in the Leica world.

 

I wonder how often I'd use my M lenses on the CL, because I think I prefer shooting my M lenses with a rangefinder.

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy