CL compared to Panasonic GX8

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, just wondering what everyone thinks of the comparison of the CL to Panasonic's GX8. The GX8 has a similar body shape, an EVF that can flip up, ( very useful, I compare that to the Visoflex 020 the function of which I like on my M10 for instance ), a very handy orientable LCD, IS internal that can be supplemented with IS lenses when mounted, 4K video, and a wide range and availability of MFT lenses including Leica designed glass and the MFT mount is very adaptable to other mounts including M mount......Plus the GX8 is about a third of the price of the CL I think.

Of course the GX8's MFT sensor is a little smaller, but does that really matter?

I don't own either camera, though I do have the GH4 that has a EVF that I have always thought was as good as the SL's and the GH5's and the GX8's EVF is supposed to be an improvement on the GH4's.

I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts if anyone's has done "real life" direct comparisons.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Guest

[Advertisement]

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

[Etruscello]

Because I own a GX8 and have all the Penny Leica fast primes for it, I do not plan to buy a CL. I am exceptionally pleased with image results. My blow-ups to 12”x18” of day light landscapes have the quality (and better) of my work with Nikon DX. My available light work to ISO 2500 is also as good and better than Nikon DX (D300) with careful post-processing (RAW, Adobe). My recent acquisition of the Penny Leica 12-60mm f2.8-4 zoom has been very rewarding — it procduced one of my favorite landscape ever during a recent trip to Italy.

I have not done direct comparisons with a CL, but the point is I don’t feel I need to — the GX8 plus Penny Leica is a superb set of tools: fine micro and macro contrast, excellent color fidelity and saturation, noise control that does not smear image details and at worst produces film-grain-like shadow noise.

Now comparing the GX8 to the M is another, and unfair, story. But the GX8 would show superiority to the M also on matters of compactness and long range work. The GX8 with Panny Leica reaches to 800mm (equivalent) with more keepers at this range than Nikon FX provides!

Tom

[jmahto]

Because I own a GX8 and have all the Penny Leica fast primes for it, I do not plan to buy a CL. I am exceptionally pleased with image results. My blow-ups to 12”x18” of day light landscapes have the quality (and better) of my work with Nikon DX. My available light work to ISO 2500 is also as good and better than Nikon DX (D300) with careful post-processing (RAW, Adobe). My recent acquisition of the Penny Leica 12-60mm f2.8-4 zoom has been very rewarding — it procduced one of my favorite landscape ever during a recent trip to Italy.

I have not done direct comparisons with a CL, but the point is I don’t feel I need to — the GX8 plus Penny Leica is a superb set of tools: fine micro and macro contrast, excellent color fidelity and saturation, noise control that does not smear image details and at worst produces film-grain-like shadow noise.

Now comparing the GX8 to the M is another, and unfair, story. But the GX8 would show superiority to the M also on matters of compactness and long range work. The GX8 with Panny Leica reaches to 800mm (equivalent) with more keepers at this range than Nikon FX provides!

Tom

Highlight mine... (agree with rest)

 

M can be surprisingly compact for FF with careful selection of lens. Not exactly apples to apples comparison due to different lens selection but just to show how compact M is compared to even M4/3

 

660g M10

175g 28mm Elmarit ASPH

---------

835g

 

 

487g GX8

320g  Penny Leica 12-60mm

------

807g

[jaapv]

I own and use the GX8 with "Leica" lenses and even if the CL has AF, I will not use that aspect. The CL will be used with M and R lenses for the image quality - Much as I like the Panasonic results, I think it cannot reach the IQ level of the M (or X cameras for that matter) , and the GX8 will be used where it shines: Stabilized long lenses, low light stabilized with IBIS, high-speed 4K bursts, post focus, etc. To me the two systems will complement each other.

The CL will replace the travel camera capabilities of the M240 and be a bridge between the Leica systems. Another big plus of the CL will be the vastly reduced number of buttons.

[jaapv]

 

Highlight mine... (agree with rest)

 

M can be surprisingly compact for FF with careful selection of lens. Not exactly apples to apples comparison due to different lens selection but just to show how compact M is compared to even M4/3

 

660g M10

175g 28mm Elmarit ASPH

---------

835g

 

 

487g GX8

320g  Penny Leica 12-60mm

------

807g

 

Wrong lens. It should be the DG 15 Summilux: 115 grams, total: 602 grams...

[Mr.Q]

Interesting topic because I just sold my GX8 along with a couple of lenses to fund the CL.

 

The strength of the m43 system I feel is the 1) ultrasonic single-AF speed and 2) the size of the zooms (particularly the super and telephoto zooms) I ended up with a GX8 along with the 42.5/1.2 Nocticron and P14-140mm that took full advantage of these attributes. (after trying out a few overly complicated Olympus bodies and their PRO zooms) The Nocticron was exceptional as a portrait lens and the P14-140 was super versatile. In the end though, just like there is a "fullframe look" I felt there was a "MFT look" to the images. The images just felt flatter than what I was achieving with my Leica and Fuji systems. And honestly I never got used to the 4:3 format (though it is brilliant for portrait orientation)

 

I'm gonna miss all the features like IBIS and the tilt screen, but I think I will be happier with the IQ and simplicity of the CL.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mr.Q

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wrong lens. It should be the DG 15 Summilux: 115 grams, total: 602 grams...

I used OP's lens for comparison. Yes, one could go primes but not a first choice in outside M world IMHO.

[FrozenInTime]

I used OP's lens for comparison. Yes, one could go primes but not a first choice in outside M world IMHO.

Micro 4/3 has a fantastic range of prime lenses ; people must be buying them given the increasing number of choices each year.

12/2, 15/1.7, 25/1.4, 30/2.8, 42.5/1.7 and GX80 make up my very compact CL like system.

 

My question is how does Leica persuade me to move to a TL/CL system from that.

Perhaps it’s more difficult having a full M system as well ; as a newcomer a CL system might make more sense than m4/3 plus M.

[jmahto]

Micro 4/3 has a fantastic range of prime lenses ; people must be buying them given the increasing number of choices each year.

12/2, 15/1.7, 25/1.4, 30/2.8, 42.5/1.7 and GX80 make up my very compact CL like system.

 

My question is how does Leica persuade me to move to a TL/CL system from that.

Perhaps it’s more difficult having a full M system as well ; as a newcomer a CL system might make more sense than m4/3 plus M.

Each M43 lens is down 2 stops for equivalent DOF to FF. Means 25/1.4 on M43 is like 50/2.8 on FF. On M, 50 Elmar-M (a f/2.8) is only 167g.

 

This is why I don't care for M43 primes as long as I have FF M. Only for long teles M43 makes sense to me.

Edited December 10, 2017 by jmahto

[FrozenInTime]

Each M43 lens is down 2 stops for equivalent DOF to FF. Means 25/1.4 on M43 is like 50/2.8 on FF. On M, 50 Elmar-M (a f/2.8) is only 167g.

 

This is why I don't care for M43 primes as long as I have FF M. Only for long teles M43 makes sense to me.

I agree m43 is heading into diminishing returns trying to compete on a depth of field basis - the systems f/1.2 lenses are large.

Not to mention for light gathering, the fast f/1.2 lenses are really T/1.7 lenses as they have so many elements ( 25/1.4 is also T/1.7 )

But for a compact travel system a bunch of modestly fast light primes seems a good compromise.

[Guest]

Interesting reading, thank you everyone for the responses to my post.

 

For the record, I wasn't fishing here to justify buying a CL or an attack of GAS, it's not the camera for me because my GH4 fills that slot nicely, ( not for stills so much, more as a "B" or "C" camera in video productions, and for audio reasons the GX8 doesn't cut it in that regard as an replacement for the GH4, the GH5 being a much better bet should I want to change up later ).

However I do applaud Leica for bringing the CL back in this form. For what it is it's expensive of course, nothing new there but it does seem to check quite a few boxes for many.

 

I find that the M series cameras work very nicely for me in regards to having a camera that's easy to port around and quick to use, granted it's not as compact as the CL and they are missing AF but with a compact lens onboard like one of my favourite 35/28/25/21 CV Color Skopars the M is almost pocketable and the FF output is good to have. 

[jaapv]

I used OP's lens for comparison. Yes, one could go primes but not a first choice in outside M world IMHO.

I only have primes for the GX8, except the long zoom. I do think they are first choice.

[ramarren]

I worked with FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras for a good few years and have never had anything bad to say about the format or the quality of the photos these cameras make. They're excellent cameras and both Panasonic and Olympus have good systems and excellent lenses on offer for them. I even still have an E-PL7 floating around here somewhere, or did I loan it to a friend? I think the latter. 

 

Between mFT and APS-C is a small difference in sensor size so I agree that's not much of a discriminator, given reasonably close pixel count. I don't see the CL's advantages as being feature driven at all, because both Panasonic and Olympus pack their cameras with TONS of features. Leica works from a different philosophical base in their camera designs.

 

What makes the CL interesting/attractive to me is the fact that it's a small body I can use with all my existing Leica lenses. The smaller than FF format nets a nice little 24 MPixel tele boost for my SL zooms, with outstanding image stabilization, and I have a full range of primes in Leica M and R that are 100% supported by the CL, with image optimization using the lens profiles that Leica provides. My Leica lenses don't adapt to the Olympus or Panasonic bodies anywhere near as well.

 

I like the CL's typical spare Leica control ergonomics too, quite a lot really.

 

I don't really need/want a CL, and I'm ambivalent about the purchase on that basis. It would be a nice travel camera utilizing the lenses I have already. I put my name on my favorite dealer's mailing list to see if one might come in before my holiday trip. I'll be happy to take it along for the trip if it does; if it doesn't, I'll re-evaluate whether I want it when I return. I'm really pretty darn happy with the SL and the M-D...

Edited December 11, 2017 by ramarren