Leica CL vs Sony A6000 (6300, 6500)

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The nex 6 (and the 5n) apparently have a thinner sensor stack than other Sonys, particularly the 24mp nex 7 for instance. My nex 6 gives better edge performance with 'difficult' lenses such as the 15mm Heliar vers 1, 21mm Skopar and 35mm Summicron asph than my Xpro2. And miles better than the Sony A7 I used to have where those three lenses were unusable. Its the only reason I still have it as the Fuji is better in every respect otherwise.

 

Gerry

WOW, I didn't know about Nex6 having thinner sensor. I went back and checked my old test shots and even at f4.5, CV 15 II is kind of ok in the corners (and fully acceptable on the edges) on Nex6. No wonder I could use my 50 lux successfully on it.  

[gyoung]

No plans to get a CL, its too late, waited and waited. Its so similar to the nex 6 which I have had for more than 4 years.

Experience with the nex 6 and A7 led to 2 decisions:

Adapting lenses designed for film was unlikely to get as good results as using lenses designed for the digital era.

I didn't want to give up optical viewfinders for outdoor photography.

 

The Fuji X-Pro2 gives me a good optical viewfinder, and Fuji gives me excellent compact prime lenses (and reasonably fast zooms) which no other system short of Leica has.

Replacing my older lenses with a nice set of Summilux primes and buying an M9 even secondhand was well beyond my income, not to mention negotiation ppwers wiiyh partner! I am very happy with the Fuji stuff I have, particularly the Xpro2.

I'm 73 years old, can't wait for ever for Leica to get its act together, or even Nikon which I also use, where the weight around your neck has got more than I want to do.

 

Gerry

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

The focus peaking on the CL is far too strong on lenses with high micro-contrast, like the optically 'perfect' 50mm APO-M. In this case, the evf is more red than showing the scene... On less 'perfect' optics, or on very long lenses with shallow focus, focus peaking may work. But in my case, I have turned off the peaking on the CL altogether, relying on the (good) evf and, if in doubt, focus magnification. On the SL, I guess I use focus peaking less than 20% of the time.

 

I have no experience with the SL but peaking level is too high on the CL to the point that i turn it off most of the time. True on contrasty lenses like 50/2 apo but also on softer ones like 35/1.4 v2 at f/2.8 and above. On my Sony and Fuji cameras, peaking level can be set to Low, Mid and High. Why not on Leicas? 

[Keith (M)]

I have no experience with the SL but peaking level is too high on the CL to the point that i turn it off most of the time. True on contrasty lenses like 50/2 apo but also on softer ones like 35/1.4 v2 at f/2.8 and above. On my Sony and Fuji cameras, peaking level can be set to Low, Mid and High. Why not on Leicas? 

 

I use focus peaking on my M240 + EVF and the sensitivity is excellent. On the A6500 even on 'low' one has to try and judge when the peaking is at maximum as it is much less refined (if I can put it that way).  

[Keith (M)]

Another rainy day - so some more indoor testing of lenses on my A6500. Below is one with my 50mm Summilux-ASPH.  This lens cost me circa £2300 from Leica Mayfair in 2015.  Last week I bought a 30mm f1.4 Sigma DC DN (45mm equiv) which cost me £269.  Examples of it on the A6500 here.  Now I am not a pixel-peeper and what I am about to write will bring me more brick-bats than bouquets but at the moment I am struggling to see the difference between the two that justifies the virtually ten-fold price differential.  Admittedly early days yet, with more testing and some A3 prints required.  A test in Amateur Photographer of the Sigma 30mm gave a very positive review.

 

Whilst I was playing- about, sorry testing this morning I also put my 50mm ZM Sonnar f1.5 on the A6500 for a similar set of photos. Can be seen here.

 

My main reason (as expressed in other posts on the forum) to buy an APS-C camera was to reduce weight & bulk for touristy type activities.  The A6500 came with the Sony/Zeiss E 16-70 f4 ZA OSS (24-105mm equiv) and together weigh 758g.  The 30mm Sigma adds a mere 265g. Camera and both lenses fit snugly into my small ThinkTank Retrospective 5 bag and give me an outfit with an ideal zoom range plus a wide-aperture prime for street-type photos.  Oh, and the camera has IBIS for when I use my other M & R lenses, should it be needed.

 

OK, standing by for incoming fire...

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sblitz]

Another rainy day - so some more indoor testing of lenses on my A6500. Below is one with my 50mm Summilux-ASPH.  This lens cost me circa £2300 from Leica Mayfair in 2015.  Last week I bought a 30mm f1.4 Sigma DC DN (45mm equiv) which cost me £269.  Examples of it on the A6500 here.  Now I am not a pixel-peeper and what I am about to write will bring me more brick-bats than bouquets but at the moment I am struggling to see the difference between the two that justifies the virtually ten-fold price differential.  Admittedly early days yet, with more testing and some A3 prints required.  A test in Amateur Photographer of the Sigma 30mm gave a very positive review.

 

Whilst I was playing- about, sorry testing this morning I also put my 50mm ZM Sonnar f1.5 on the A6500 for a similar set of photos. Can be seen here.

 

My main reason (as expressed in other posts on the forum) to buy an APS-C camera was to reduce weight & bulk for touristy type activities.  The A6500 came with the Sony/Zeiss E 16-70 f4 ZA OSS (24-105mm equiv) and together weigh 758g.  The 30mm Sigma adds a mere 265g. Camera and both lenses fit snugly into my small ThinkTank Retrospective 5 bag and give me an outfit with an ideal zoom range plus a wide-aperture prime for street-type photos.  Oh, and the camera has IBIS for when I use my other M & R lenses, should it be needed.

 

OK, standing by for incoming fire...

 

I suppose the issue in the quality of picture using M and/or R lenses on the Sony vs Leica. Have read a number of varying responses on this point, but I think that is the point. Only so much room in the cupboard for lenses, don't need to many systems

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to agree ....... I have been down the 'mix and match' road and although it saves cash in the short term and can have marginal performance benefits, I think long term compatibility  (with lenses) and a unified system where everything is designed to work together has a lot to say for it. 

 

As has been often correctly pointed out on the forum the image quality of most of the cameras we are discussing exceeds the needs of 90% of us 90% of the time, so choice comes down to other factors. 

[Keith (M)]

Or, to use a hackneyed phrase - "horses for courses"!  

 

PS - This particular pack-horse is keen to shed some of the load...  

[jmahto]

Another rainy day - so some more indoor testing of lenses on my A6500. Below is one with my 50mm Summilux-ASPH.  This lens cost me circa £2300 from Leica Mayfair in 2015.  Last week I bought a 30mm f1.4 Sigma DC DN (45mm equiv) which cost me £269.  Examples of it on the A6500 here.  Now I am not a pixel-peeper and what I am about to write will bring me more brick-bats than bouquets but at the moment I am struggling to see the difference between the two that justifies the virtually ten-fold price differential.  Admittedly early days yet, with more testing and some A3 prints required.  A test in Amateur Photographer of the Sigma 30mm gave a very positive review.

 

Whilst I was playing- about, sorry testing this morning I also put my 50mm ZM Sonnar f1.5 on the A6500 for a similar set of photos. Can be seen here.

 

My main reason (as expressed in other posts on the forum) to buy an APS-C camera was to reduce weight & bulk for touristy type activities.  The A6500 came with the Sony/Zeiss E 16-70 f4 ZA OSS (24-105mm equiv) and together weigh 758g.  The 30mm Sigma adds a mere 265g. Camera and both lenses fit snugly into my small ThinkTank Retrospective 5 bag and give me an outfit with an ideal zoom range plus a wide-aperture prime for street-type photos.  Oh, and the camera has IBIS for when I use my other M & R lenses, should it be needed.

 

OK, standing by for incoming fire...

Keith,

 

I am not surprised that A6500 with system lenses will give good results. However comparing lenses this way will not tell you why one costs 10X while the other looks good to you. I also have many cheap lenses that can come close (or indistinguishable at small size at certain aperture) on Sony. One of my favorite is Konica 57mm Hexanon 1.4. It's bokeh is almost same as 50lux. The difference is in wide open sharpness/pop/color. It is less than $100 now and couple of years ago it was less than $50.

 

But whenever I use 50lux on M240, I grin like a Cheshire Cat. Why? Because it is so easy for me to pickup the camera and shoot effortlessly and get great results. "Effortlessly" and "great" are the key words. If some one wants to be technical then you have to test like Sean Reid does and pay careful attention to aperture/sharpness/center-vs-corner etc. etc. Most of us do the testing for ourselves and have our own acceptance criteria. Take A6500 sensor output for example. I rejected it after my own testing (post #89 and #93) while it seems to be fine for you. This is because our acceptance criteria is different and testing method is also different.

 

This is a quick impromptu shot of my cat during Christmas break. He was playing next to me and I simply picked up my M240+50lux and shot. With any other system I would have fiddled more and would have lost the moment.

(BTW, I continue to use 50lux in stopped down mode on Nex6 with great results. Therefore I have nothing against Sony cameras).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Lonescapes]

The CL is the least full-featured, most expensive camera in its class. That said, it does a superb job with adapted M glass, so it's appealing to me for the same reason the T, TL and TL2 are: Throw it in your bag for little added weight cost and use it as either a backup to your digital M body, or as an alternative if you decide you want to use a good EVF with peaking/magnification for a while.

 

I think the L-mount ecosystem is getting nicer all the time. But the M system is still a superior stills shooter, and if you want live view you can get a used 240 for not much more than the CL costs new. I am someone who does video from time to time, but doesn't need the video to be fantastic. In theory, something like the CL--which doesn't require me to embrace the goofy body shape and tumor-like attachable EVF of the TL2--should be just right for me.

 

But the fact that the video doesn't even offer manual exposure control means that the only usable hybrid camera in the L-mount ecosystem remains the SL, which is just too pricey and big to bring along as a backup or alternative. It could work as a primary camera, but as I'd mostly be shooting adapted M glass, anyway, I might as well stick with the Ms for now.

[Alberti]

Interesting thread. I have seen several criteria based on quality. Some whishes (I wish I knew what an IBIS inside a CL is..).

 

I like to add a decisive one: the Leica service quality. If anything goes wrong, you will be able to have it repaired. If anything goes astry, you can find help.

This results in a longer usefull lifespan. Calculate in years.

That should count as an insurance and is a value of maybe 30% of the total price.

You might retort that that eztra 30% would buy you another 6500 - being a more disposable/throw-away camera (= shorter life span). But I like to hang on to things for quite a time.

 

By the way. I like Tobins test. Very convincing.