Jump to content
tonyniev

Leica CL vs Sony A6000 (6300, 6500)

Recommended Posts

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

....

 

 

I don't think that today there is a really demonstrable reason to choose between many of the best cameras in terms of image quality, resolution, colour rendering etc.  Many of the variations are personal preferences and alterable in post processing and the general performance quality level is very comparable.

 

So I've been wondering why I still want to use Leica cameras when they do cost more.  I think that for me it boils down to a handful of things:

  • Quality of the hardware in terms of feel and durability
  • The design of the cameras and lenses
  • The simple user interfaces (now plural!)
  • An attachment to the brand - my first camera was a IIIg that was bought by my father in the 1950's and it still works, though it needs servicing.
  • Finally, the fact that I'm fortunate that I can afford it.

But in terms of getting purely getting a good quality photographic result, I know I've got excellent results from the Fujifilm X series and once I got used to the cameras I would get good results from Sony etc as well.  At this point though I find myself thinking (and sometimes saying) that the main problem is that then I'd have to use a Sony camera.

 

Not that's just prejudice I guess.

 

- Vikas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rationalizing a digital Leica body is quite easy for those who want to use the best compact lenses in the world. Besides retired bodies like Epson R-D1 or Ricoh GXR and current full frame Sony's modded by Kolari or same, Leicas are the only digital bodies fitting M lenses from 12 to 35mm w/o suffering, or suffering too much, from smearing and/or color shifts in borders and corners of the frame. The Leica CL is not perfect from this viewpoint but aside from Leica T/TL i have no experience with, the only crop cameras doing better there are Leica M8 and M8.2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone doesn't have any M lens and starting afresh, then CL will be hard to justify. But then it is same with M as well for starting afresh. Why not buy A9 and excellent lens in comparison for high priced M10+M lens ? The same logic (or impulse/passion) that drives people to buy M10 will be in works here. It is a combination of performance, red dot and mythology.

 

I am sure Leica is not trying to sell same volume as Sony with A6500 to new entrants, but for existing Leica users, CL is more attractive than A6500.

 

I see your argument ok, but as an M9/Sony A7II owner I see a world of difference between these two in almost every aspect of their design and use, but far less of a difference between the A6XXX and CL (I used to own a T too) although the Sonys do have an awful UI!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your argument ok, but as an M9/Sony A7II owner I see a world of difference between these two in almost every aspect of their design and use, but far less of a difference between the A6XXX and CL (I used to own a T too) although the Sonys do have an awful UI!

A CL user can use wide M lens with better performance. It can use all L mount AF lens. It is better for people who already have Leica lenses due to lens compatibility. But if this is your first camera then you can argue that difference is less compared to A6500.

 

On your M9/A7II example, I agree about difference. Mainly because one is mirrorless and M9 is not. There is almost no lens compatibility (M wides suffer on Sony and legacy teles can't be used on M9). The difference becomes less as you stack M240/M10 against Sony (for M and legacy glass owners). It is understandable that a body designed around Leica glass will be more useful to users already Leica glass irrespective of cost.

 

My guess is that (from my own Nex-6 experience) Leica user's venture into other systems reluctantly and only to cover for the weak spots in Leica system. They don't treat these other systems as primary systems. I keep using the terms "complimentary" vs "alternate" systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the Las Vegas Leica store to test the CL vs the A7R , stepping in the sidewalk and clicking on the CL with 11-23 mm lens and Sony A7R 1with 16-35 mm Aperture priority F8, here are the snaphots in this link: 

https://tonyniev.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-CL-vs-Sony-A7R

 

Edited by tonyniev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On HF sensor M lenses SHOULD not be that much of difference. Same thing cannot be said on FF sensor. For example, wider than 50mm, my Sony A7RII is horrible by Leica M

Standard.

 

I say SHOULD, because the interpretation on the color rendering of a camera also plays an important role. The color rendering of Sony makes me sick. YMMV.

 

The other factors in this comparison is beyond the M lens. It is possible that you might want to use TL/CL native lenses. For this, you are comparing the total package of the camera systems, the lens is essential. You have to judge for yourself how they suit you.

 

Stick with your choice. You don't have to look over the other side of the fence. If you do, it might be a sign you want the other system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I'm on my phone and can't see the full images. How do you feel they compare, tonyniev? 

in my view it is a match, some images the cL is better in colors, but the A7R is better in depth of field,  however as Einst_Stein posted I had to make WB correction on the Sony,I simply use the pen to clisck on a white and then sync all,  the AWB is always off, the Leica came out perfect WB. I always carry a gray card and use it when I can to set the wb on the Sony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On HF sensor M lenses SHOULD not be that much of difference. Same thing cannot be said on FF sensor. For example, wider than 50mm, my Sony A7RII is horrible by Leica M

Standard.

 

I say SHOULD, because the interpretation on the color rendering of a camera also plays an important role. The color rendering of Sony makes me sick. YMMV.

 

The other factors in this comparison is beyond the M lens. It is possible that you might want to use TL/CL native lenses. For this, you are comparing the total package of the camera systems, the lens is essential. You have to judge for yourself how they suit you.

 

Stick with your choice. You don't have to look over the other side of the fence. If you do, it might be a sign you want the other system.

I often use Capture One to get best colors off the Sony A7R, but to get even better rendering I use the M lenses :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

in my view it is a match, some images the cL is better in colors, but the A7R is better in depth of field,  however as Einst_Stein posted I had to make WB correction on the Sony,I simply use the pen to clisck on a white and then sync all,  the AWB is always off, the Leica came out perfect WB. I always carry a gray card and use it when I can to set the wb on the Sony.

 

 

Thanks, I can tell that the colors are great even on my small Huawei LCD. Man, that 11-23 sure is tempting 

 

 

I can't sell my F2.8 workhorse zooms so I guess I have to save up a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun facts.

 

Weight in g    Cam+lens combo
------------   ------------
 639            Q
 775            CL + 11-23
 834            M10 + 28 Elmarit ASPH
1175            Sony A7RIII + FE 16-35 f/4
 
 
Edit: and the party spoiler A6500+16-50 (kit lens) is 569g. Of course kit lens performance can't be compared with TL 11-23 but for manual focus long lenses it has IBIS.
Disclaimer: The above comparison is based on my usage. Sometimes I get obsessed by weight.
 
I was excited about CL first but I am keeping my Nex6 for now since I can still use it for photos like this with long lens. Money saved will go to some other M lens.
Edited by jmahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my analysis, and comparing this camera with the Sony A7R which was my second camera to the M10 in my recent travels.

 

1. For light travel camera the Leica CL is the clear winner.  It is light nice to hold, easy simple button (but I found looking at the small top lcd display to be difficult, cannot read the small size settings, maybe but I did not try one can see in the view finder which is how I change with the A7R) as stated above it is as light as the A6000 and A6500 but delivers sooc, good images with "Leica" color rendering. When I downloaded the first test shot image on the iMac 27, I told my wife no doubt the CL is a sure winner.

 

2. I pre ordered with the kit lens 18- 58, (27- 82 mm) with the savings of $300 for the bundle  but find the 11-23 (16.5- 33.5)  to be a better coverage, I have been shooting 17-40 mm on the Canon, and use the same on the Sony A7R before I got the 16-35 mm. With the 11-23 lens bring the price to over $4700.

 

3. The Sony A7R, is bigger and heavier, has several faults that I first discovered 4 years ago when I got delivery- bad AWB, ( I shoot raw, use LR , so I do sync for WB adjystment, a true pain in processing;  horrible bustton settings that can switch , like the iso button, which I solved by disabling the buton and doing iso changes by menu, slow speed on Aperture priority so consciously have steadier hand or change to manual when shutter blur is expected. it shoots 1/40 on 55 mm lens. During the recent travels, it delivered good images, a bit less than the M10, but with zoom and AF more snapshots captured. 

 

 

4. Sony A7R Color rendering to get Leica type color rendering when required I use  a) Capture One and

Leica M lenses. Sharing some of the first images I took on the A7R

55 mm F2.2 Sony - Capture One post

 F8 55 mm 

with Elmarit 28 on the Sony A7R

 

Still ambivalent but keeping the preorder at this time.

 

Thanks for sharing my quandary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .....

I do not think that is true - for comparison, it has always been trickier to build 135 format lenses than medium format ones, for the simple reason that the lesser magnification of MF shows aberrations to a  lesser extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for helping me decide on the Leica CL, after a hands on test at the Leica store I have decided to cancel my pre order with the 16-58 mm kit lens, I may reorder body only and look for 11-23mm whch to my surprise a Walmart online vendor is selling for $500 less, this was just a cursory window shopping.

 

In the meantime I will continue with the Sony A7R as the back up travel camera taking full advantage of  usingg my other Sony lenses and and other lens with adapters for Leica M, Canon EF and FD. 

 

The Black Rapid sling will have to carry the 400 gms added weight over the CL.

 

size compare

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that is true - for comparison, it has always been trickier to build 135 format lenses than medium format ones, for the simple reason that the lesser magnification of MF shows aberrations to a  lesser extent.

 

Today we have the the added advantage of software correction. Times are changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that is true - for comparison, it has always been trickier to build 135 format lenses than medium format ones, for the simple reason that the lesser magnification of MF shows aberrations to a  lesser extent.

If you are right, tell me why HF is usually cheaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively, sell everything and get a Q.

 

Funny you should say this.  I was out shooting the M9 and 28mm Elmarit on the weekend.  In the bag, I had the 50mm Summicron and the Panasonic LX7 (Leica D-Lux 6).  I didn't touch the Summicron, and something faster than f2.8 would have been nice.  It occurred to me that the Q could probably replace the M9 with 28 Elmarit, not to mention the LX7 for video.  Am I game enough to sell everything for a Q?  Probably not, because I love gear and a bit of variety.  But the Q could definitely fill the M9's shoes for my 28mm needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today we have the the added advantage of software correction. Times are changing.

Yes- and an useful addition it is. It does not change the basics, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After munching through various posts in this excellent forum, I finally placed an order for Sony A6500 instead. It will be my Nex6 upgrade. I was hoping CL to be the candidate but Sony was better fit for my usage.

 

For me it was better because:

- IBIS with long lens. Lately I have been very fond of 180APO3.4 + X2APO (optional) on Nex6. Only limiting factor was low light in the evening. I hope to handhold at 1/125 for this combo. Gain of around 3 stops with IBIS. If not then A6500 is going back.

- I do like the 16-50zoom kit lens that I use sometime with Nex6. Although it is a cheap lens, it is excellent in many situations when I need a grab shot and iPhone quality is not sufficient. This lens is so small/light and collapses in pancake that I simply throw it in my backpack. My house/car keys weigh more.

- Sensor quality seems to be on par (or better) than CL. I am not planning to use it with anything wider than 50mm M lens, therefore corner sharpness should be fine. I have shot excellent landscapes with my Nex6+50lux stopped down at 5.6. I will use it with my 50lux, 90macro-elmarM, 180APO and 400Telyt

- Lastly, even if not a deal breaker, I make use of tilt screen of Nex6 on tripod for focusing my long lens. On CL, I would have needed to use iPhone app with some attachment. Kind of kludgy. Many a times I use the tilt screen to get ground level shot. Like below (Nex6+28Cron ASPH)

 

Now I can take a break reading this forum. Never say never though, I may be back soon.

Edited by jmahto

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...