Hey TL2 owners ... How many of you are going to get the CL? (Why / why not?)

[Learner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Staying with TL2 or jumping to the CL?

 

(I assume that there's a bigger gulf twixt the T and TL2 than there is twixt the TL2 and the CL)

[aminderoui]

TL2 is a better camera. Leica is trying to increase their sales for the holidays. Would never trade a TL2 for a CL.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

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

[ropo54]

TL2 is a better camera. Leica is trying to increase their sales for the holidays. Would never trade a TL2 for a CL.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's a bold statement.

Upon what do you base your opinion? 

[IkarusJohn]

That's a bold statement.

Upon what do you base your opinion? 

 

I guess "better" is subjective.

 

However, based on features and functions, the TL2 has:

• a different body, CNC'd from a single billet, yada yada yada
• touch screen
• better menu structure
• in camera USB charging
• USB-C & HDMI connectivity
• higher resolution EVF

to name but  a few features.  The CL has a different body (some like it, others don't which means Leica probably has it about right), both have the 24MP APS-C sensor, same Maestro II processor, AND the CL has a built in EVF (of lower resolution).

 

It all comes down to the subjective assessment of whether or not you prefer the look of one over the other, and you want the EVF built in.  But, the TL2 is more fully functioned.

 

Better?  Up to you.

[Learner]

I have read that auto focus of prime lenses is snappier on the CL than on the TL2

[ropo54]

I guess "better" is subjective.

 

However, based on features and functions, the TL2 has:

• a different body, CNC'd from a single billet, yada yada yada
• touch screen
• better menu structure
• in camera USB charging
• USB-C & HDMI connectivity
• higher resolution EVF

to name but  a few features.  The CL has a different body (some like it, others don't which means Leica probably has it about right), both have the 24MP APS-C sensor, same Maestro II processor, AND the CL has a built in EVF (of lower resolution).

 

It all comes down to the subjective assessment of whether or not you prefer the look of one over the other, and you want the EVF built in.  But, the TL2 is more fully functioned.

 

Better?  Up to you.

 

To the contrary, I have heard that the EVF on the CL is better/ brighter.  And, as Learner posted, I have heard the the AF is definitely faster, with much improved focus speed for the 35 1.4 and 60 2.8 macro.  

I'd love to hear users' comments on these issues, which would be  overriding factors for me as to which is "better".

Rob

Edited December 5, 2017 by ropo54

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve heard a lot about the CL as well. Not much of it based in fact. I get it when people get excited about a new Leica. It’s all shiny. Meanwhile, the 3 month old version still functions perfectly, and the latest firmware upgrade seems to have done something good.

 

You want bad? That would be the first verson.

[LocalHero1953]

I traded in my TL2 for the CL. Built-in EVF for essentially the same size body, and better AF. I have two regrets:

- I wish Leica had brought out the TL2 and CL together. Obviously I lost money over this (but had fun with the TL2 in the mean time).

- I like the touchscreen icon-based menu of the TL2 much better than using buttons to scroll through a list.

[LocalHero1953]

I guess "better" is subjective.

 

However, based on features and functions, the TL2 has:

• a different body, CNC'd from a single billet, yada yada yada
• touch screen
• better menu structure
• in camera USB charging
• USB-C & HDMI connectivity
• higher resolution EVF

.......................................................

VF020 resolution: 2.4 mp

Leica CL EVF resolution: 2.36 mp

Whether one of these is really higher than the other may depend on whether you are a mathematician or an engineer.

 

I say they have the same resolution, but IMO the Leica CL's EVF is faster: less flicker with movement, shows a more immediate (less lag) view.

 

I no longer have the two EVFs to compare side by side: perhaps others can say whether one is larger (more magnified) than the other, and how the colours compare.

 

The CL's EVF can also show horizon, blown highlights, histogram and grid on one screen - which the SL cannot. I don't think the TL2 can either, but my recollection may be faulty.

Edited December 5, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Steve Lane]

As an original T owner and user, I will be looking at a new body in the next year or two. If the CL is released with chrome coloured top and bottom plates I may go with one. Will have to wait and see and, as I still adore using my 'old' T, am not in any hurry.

[Belle123]

Still have my two Ts, one regular and other converted to infrared. Waiting for good buy on used TL2! The CL doesn’t tempt me as these aren’t my primary cameras. And prefer the design of the T. Plus have two nice Arte Di Mano cases for them that won’t fit the CL. I am invested in the T for longer term and no reason to change platforms. Those of you dropping your TL2 so quickly, am waiting to buy yours somewhere for a steal of a deal.

[WinnowingFan]

Still have my two Ts, one regular and other converted to infrared. Waiting for good buy on used TL2! The CL doesn’t tempt me as these aren’t my primary cameras. And prefer the design of the T. Plus have two nice Arte Di Mano cases for them that won’t fit the CL. I am invested in the T for longer term and no reason to change platforms. Those of you dropping your TL2 so quickly, am waiting to buy yours somewhere for a steal of a deal.

How is the infrared conversion working out? Have you been using it much?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest VVJ]

Ordered the CL but will probably keep the TL2 as well...

 

Reasons: built-in EVF, D-pad to quickly change focus point and faster AF.

 

For what it is worth though, the Leica APS-C camera I really want also has a joystick (instead of D-pad), GPS and image stabilization.

Edited December 5, 2017 by JorisV

[IkarusJohn]

Following the latest upgrade to the TL2 firmware, can anyone provide empirical evidence that the AF on the CL is actually faster than the TL2?

 

The reason I ask is, both cameras use the same lenses, both cameras were released within 6 months of each other - I can see no logical reason why the AF on the CL should be any different from AF on the TL2.  It makes no sense.  It might be true, but so far all I've read is rumour and speculation; and anecdotal comment, to be fair.

 

Cheers

John

[Belle123]

How is the infrared conversion working out? Have you been using it much?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for asking. I picked up a second T used and had it converted to infrared by LifePixel. They did a terrific job. Some lenses are better than others. I use a very old Summilux 35mm M lens that isn’t worth anything due to cementing issues ie would cost more to fix than worth, but the images I get with it in infrared are really nice. With the T lenses, just kind of Ho hum in infrared. I use it as often as time allows, which isn’t enough lately.

[Guest VVJ]

Following the latest upgrade to the TL2 firmware, can anyone provide empirical evidence that the AF on the CL is actually faster than the TL2?

 

The reason I ask is, both cameras use the same lenses, both cameras were released within 6 months of each other - I can see no logical reason why the AF on the CL should be any different from AF on the TL2.  It makes no sense.  It might be true, but so far all I've read is rumour and speculation; and anecdotal comment, to be fair.

 

Cheers

John

 

Most people seem to agree on the fact that the CL is snappier than the TL2...

 

So far I really have heard nobody say the contrary... or even that they are very similar...

 

That being said whether firmware 1.2 has narrowed the gap is a good question and why there is/was even a difference at all an even better one...

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks, Joris.  The reason I ask is that most of the comments about the AF being faster pre-dated the release of the camera.

 

With the same lens, the same sensor and the same processor, I can't quite understand why this would be true.  It is curiosity on my part.  I have no issue with the AF on the TL (using only the 11-23 zoom and 35 Summilux).  I seem to recall that the last firmware upgrade on the SL also improved AF performance. 

 

I guess at some stage, we will see something which is actually fact based.  Have you found the AF slow on the TL2?

[Guest VVJ]

I am reasonably OK with the speed, less so with the ability to lock focus (hunting) and low light performance.

 

I would expect AF to be as good as on the SL (with 24-90mm) and the Q and it isn't.

 

I am also very curious.  I thought it was related to the lenses, eg. on the SL also the 50mm (which I don't own) gets a lot of criticism.

 

But then I also can't quite understand why AF would be significantly faster on the CL...

[LocalHero1953]

Following the latest upgrade to the TL2 firmware, can anyone provide empirical evidence that the AF on the CL is actually faster than the TL2?

 

The reason I ask is, both cameras use the same lenses, both cameras were released within 6 months of each other - I can see no logical reason why the AF on the CL should be any different from AF on the TL2.  It makes no sense.  It might be true, but so far all I've read is rumour and speculation; and anecdotal comment, to be fair.

 

Cheers

John

I compared the TL2 with the CL at the launch event with the 23mm and 60mm lenses. I tested them in the alley outside Leica Mayfair after dark. Since then I have not had the two together to compare. I have also sold my 23mm, so only have the 60mm for checking.

 

I am absolutely certain that the focus mechanism of the 60 is moving far faster than with the TL2 - I think Jono called it the end-to-end focus speed. So, when it hunts, it hunts quickly. This seems like a night and day difference.

 

It was also clear to me at the launch that the CL was locking on to focus more easily than the TL2. I poked them both into dark doorways for comparison. This is a bit more subjective, so I can't tell how much better the CL is than the TL2, but I was confident it was better.

 

That said, I had the CL+60 out last night and it had trouble locking on to a small lit window 30m away in a dark wall in either spot or field mode. Multi-field worked, though. Moments later, it locked on with ease to some reflections of lights in rippling water.

 

I see no reason why the TL2 should not be made to work with the same performance as the CL. The only reason I can think it might be different is if they are operating the Maestro II processor at a higher clock speed, or are using an upgraded variant of the processor. And perhaps they can do this because they have managed heat dissipation better in the CL. I'm guessing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

It would be interesting to know, particularly with the new firmware on the TL2 (which I assume came after your test, Paul).

 

At this stage, I’m sticking with the TL2. I’m having no issues with the AF, so far. But if it is slower and can’t be improved with firmware, I’d be interested to know why.