Compelling case for CL (or not) *replacing* M

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been reading CL discussions with interest. Being digital M user (M9 and now M240) for last 5 years, I can see how CL can complement it very well. That is no-brianer.

 

However, what about replacing FF M with CL? I see that someone in this forum did replace his M10 in this forum and not missing image quality at all with TL zooms on CL. Can I also replace my M240 and shave substantial travel weight?

 

I have been mulling this question for last one week. And now it seems I have found my answer. It seems that if I do shoot my normal to wides (28 to 50) at widest aperture (28 f/2 and 50 f/1.4 in my case) then there is no equivalence in CL right now, from the perspective of subject separation for these FOVs. But if I only use narrow apertures for these FOVs on my M then CL makes a very compelling substitute.

 

Therefore to justify my M use, I will have to start shooting at f/1.4 and f/2 more. For now CL can be a possible companion for long lens.

 

Just thinking aloud.

[Tobers]

I'm that guy who swapped his M10 for a CL. I had the same thoughts, and being a proud owner of the wonderful 24 Summilux I was similarly concerned about not having a wide angle wide aperture lens.

 

The 24 Summilux is AMAZING, but the number of times I used it at f/1.4 was minimal. I mainly used it for landscaping (where, being a Summilux, it is astounding in terms of clarity, sharpness and colour). Psychologically, I am going to miss a 16mm f/1.4 (24mm equivalent) wide angle wide aperture lens. However in reality the 24 lux is a massive indulgence. I know I'll be able to take the majority of the same shots (and wider) with the 11-23. 

 

I think that I'll be fine with the 18mm 2.8 as an extremely compact walkaround lens. And I've also been eyeing up the 23mm (35mm equiv) f2 as an interesting piece of kit which is still pretty small.

 

I imagine a 16mm f/1.4 CL lens will be a fairly substantial thing that would reduce the advantages you get from using the CL. And there's a 35mm (50mm equiv) 1.4 already that you can play with.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tobers

[Advertisement]

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

[jmahto]

I'm that guy who swapped his M10 for a CL. I had the same thoughts, and being a proud owner of the wonderful 24 Summilux I was similarly concerned about not having a wide angle wide aperture lens.

 

The 24 Summilux is AMAZING, but the number of times I used it at f/1.4 was minimal. I mainly used it for landscaping (where, being a Summilux, it is astounding in terms of clarity, sharpness and colour). Psychologically, I am going to miss a 16mm f/1.4 (24mm equivalent) wide angle wide aperture lens. However in reality the 24 lux is a massive indulgence. I know I'll be able to take the majority of the same shots (and wider) with the 11-23. 

 

I think that I'll be fine with the 18mm 2.8 as an extremely compact walkaround lens. And I've also been eyeing up the 23mm (35mm equiv) f2 as an interesting piece of kit which is still pretty small.

 

I imagine a 16mm f/1.4 CL lens will be a fairly substantial thing that would reduce the advantages you get from using the CL. And there's a 35mm (50mm equiv) 1.4 already that you can play with.

Highlight mine....

35mm on CL has to be a nocti in order to give same DOF as 50lux on FF M. Which CL lens are you referring to?

[Tobers]

Highlight mine....

35mm on CL has to be a nocti in order to give same DOF as 50lux on FF M. Which CL lens are you referring to?

I was literally counting the seconds before someone came back with this reply. If you want light gathering, then 1.4 is 1.4. If you want equivalent DoF then 1.4 is approx 2.1 on the APS-C sensor. The lens I was referring to was the Summilux-TL 35mm which obviously gets you the aperture but not the equivalent DoF. Did you actually think that I was referring to an as-yet-unannounced 35 f/1.0 L-fit lens????

[jmahto]

I was literally counting the seconds before someone came back with this reply. If you want light gathering, then 1.4 is 1.4. If you want equivalent DoF then 1.4 is approx 2.1 on the APS-C sensor. The lens I was referring to was the Summilux-TL 35mm which obviously gets you the aperture but not the equivalent DoF. Did you actually think that I was referring to an as-yet-unannounced 35 f/1.0 L-fit lens????

Understood. That's why I had nocti comment.

[rrdiaz30]

I'm that guy who swapped his M10 for a CL...

 

Your images with M glass around the piano were impressive!  Well done.

 

Cheers...Rick

Edited December 18, 2017 by rrdiaz30

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having used all the available TL zooms for years .... with very modest wide apertures.....  I can't think of a single situation where I thought 'I wish I had an f1.4 lens' .... particularly at the wider end from the point of view of DOF. 

 

I do however miss the ability to lower ISO sometimes ...... and if only Leica had combined these lenses with OIS in some form (in camera or lens) then there would be fewer grumbles about the system as a whole. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by thighslapper

[Jared]

Could the CL replace an 'M'?  Sure, depending on what you like to photograph and how you use those pictures.  Here are the differences you would need to think about:

- No question an 'M' sensor gives you better signal-to-noise; that's inherent in full frame

- Better high ISO performance out of the 'M'

- Wider angles at a given focal length with the 'M'

- True rangefinder experience, with all its pros and cons, with the 'M'

- Faster manual focusing between 28mm and 50mm with the 'M'

- Wider array of native lenses in the 'M' (though the CL can use most of/all of the 'M' lenses quite effectively)

- More comfortable to hold the 'M', in my opinion 

- 'M' is likely a bit more weather sealed, though neither camera is sealed at the lens mount

- Traditional controls on the 'M' with a more elegant menu

- Manual focus with 'M' lenses, whether on the CL or the 'M', is a much more pleasant experience than focus by wire with the CL lenses

 

- CL gives you Autofocus including touch AF

- CL is smaller and lighter

- Crop factor uses the "sweet spot" of most 'M' lenses, so should have good corner performance even with the thicker filter stack of the CL

- CL has the ability to use SL lenses for OIS and additional reach

- CL has matrix metering as its default mode which will often be more accurate if you are using auto exposure (though the 'M' is, at least, predictable, so this is minor

  for an experienced photographer)

- CL does not require an external finder for ultrawides or for accurate focus on 90mm+ lenses or for very fast lenses

- CL and its lenses are significantly less expensive than the 'M' and its lenses

 

 

Basically, for most of the things an 'M' is intended for, I think a CL is a viable replacement.  You'd be giving up a bit of image quality (in the form of signal-to-noise ratio and high ISO performance, not necessarily any difference in resolution) if you went with the CL, but it's not huge difference and it's unlikely to be noticeable for web images (even up to 4K) or for prints up to 13" x 19" as long as you can keep the ISO below 6400.  Dynamic range is similar at base ISO.  

 

Honestly, I'd say it's more about how you photograph than it is about what the final results will look like.  For a landscape photograph where I have plenty of time for focus, exposure decisions, perhaps a tripod, minute changes to composition, etc.. I'd take the full frame camera--the 'M'--over the CL.  For vacation, travel, family, and even street photography I'd rather have the CL.  For the pure pleasure of using the camera I'd take the 'M'.  For most sports, I'd avoid either one.  For studio work I'd probably take the 'M', but neither camera is particularly well suited to this type of thing; the SL would be a better choice than either one, and even there you'd have to know what you were getting into as far as strobes.  For event photography, I'd probably take the CL for the convenience of AF when I wanted it, but, again, the SL is a better choice than either of them.  

[Ecaton]

Could the CL replace an 'M'?  Sure, depending on what you like to photograph and how you use those pictures.  Here are the differences you would need to think about:

- No question an 'M' sensor gives you better signal-to-noise; that's inherent in full frame

- Better high ISO performance out of the 'M'

- 

 

Mmmh, something must be wrong with mine. The tiny CL beats my M9 in high iso performance. Maybe my M9 sensor needs replacement.............

Edited December 19, 2017 by Ecaton

[jaapv]

CMOS vs. CCD...

[Alistairm]

Fantastic summary Jared. 

 

I'm torn. I'm in the process of packing a bag for Japan. At first blush, the CL meant I was carrying an extra camera - instead of just taking the M10 I was going to take M10 and my CL... and I kept loading in my favourite M lenses. This seemed somewhat to defeat the purpose of the CL though. 

 

I have "rationalised" and have decided to commit to the CL as a stand alone body for this trip. I will take 18 Elmarit and the 11-23 and 18-56 zooms. I will take my M 35 Summilux ASPH so that I have a fast normal lens. In my bag, this kit is tiny, yet the lenses are stunning, especially the zooms and the M Summilux. It is an astonishgly small pack for a pancake, two "pro" zooms and a fast normal lens. 

 

I am currently tossing up whether to take the 75 Summicron APO, which I love the redering on and which works very nicely on the CL with the Macro adapter M. Indeed, the CL is vastly better for macro photographry than the M camera (and the dedicated 60 macro that I demoed was a treat). 

 

The CL really is a mini SL. Jared's summed it up above. For me, having come to Leica from Nikon due to the lens quality and portability of the M240 system, then getting into the SL, the CL gives me that great flexibility and IQ of an SLR style sytem in a really small package... with the ability to use all of my Leica optics. I used to take the M because it was compact and use the SL for at home or "serious" photography. The CL is smaller than the M and has almost all of the SL capability... so is highly compelling to pick up. 

 

But all that said, there is something about an M. I absolutely love shooting mine... but I suspect with the CL in the stable now the M will become increasingly a case of nostalgia. 

[Chaemono]

Well stated by Jared and Alistairm above. The CL goes wherever I can’t take the M10. I like the low light performance and the inconspicuous look with the 23 Summicron-TL. I usually don’t carry the M10 with me at night. But for me, it’s not just giving up a little bit of IQ. The M10 sensor is so good (only Sony α7R II/III is better) that I will always prefer it as a travel camera and during the day to capture the colors and tones. I will try to do some comparisons, CL + 23 Summicron-TL/35 Summilux-TL vs. M10 + 35 Summicron-M/Noctilux. Hopefully, I’ll find time to do daylight and low light comparisons.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Chaemono

[Mr.Q]

I bought the CL but it can never replace the M.

 

Because it's not a rangefinder.

[Jared]

Well stated by Jared and Alistairm above. The CL goes wherever I can’t take the M10. I like the low light performance and the inconspicuous look with the 23 Summicron-TL. I usually don’t carry the M10 with me at night. But for me, it’s not just giving up a little bit of IQ. The M10 sensor is so good (only Sony α7R II/III is better) that I will always prefer it as a travel camera and during the day to capture the colors and tones. I will try to do some comparisons, CL + 23 Summicron-TL/35 Summilux-TL vs. M10 + 35 Summicron-M/Noctilux. Hopefully, I’ll find time to do daylight and low light comparisons.

 

 

Interesting.  Now that Adobe has released the CL profile for Lightroom and ACR I find I can get very similar color performance out of the two.  The IQ is definitely better in the M10 as I would expect from a full frame camera--you simply get better SNR out of the larger aperture lenses, and even at base ISO this matters if you are doing more than just some very light post processing.  Still, aside from that and the better high ISO performance on the M10 I don't see all that much difference.  For large prints I would care.  For night scapes I would care.  Plus, with static subjects the 'M' is just a joy to shoot with in a way that the CL can't match.  For travel, though?  That's exactly where I would take the CL over the 'M'.  Interesting that you are seeing such a difference in colors and tones.  I'll go back and take a look.  I've mostly been running comparisons between the CL and the SL as I try to learn the new camera, and those two I find quite similar with manually set white balance.

[jmahto]

I am still not sure that I need CL as travel camera if I already have M. With fast lenses, even M240 is pretty good in the low light.

 

This one was shot in Rome in the night using M240. Handheld shot, wide open f/2 28 cron ASPH at ISO1600. Sharp enough to read the small signs in 1:1 zoom.

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!

[jaapv]

I sold my M240 as being redundant when getting the CL... I think it was the right decision . The Monochrom1 and M9 are irreplacable.

[chris_tribble]

Certainly the improved LR profile's colour rendering - especially in artificial light - makes a huge difference.  I'm much happier with that aspect of the camera.  However, I also agree with others on IQ of the M10 compared with the CL.  I suppose the difference will be that perhaps I'll be more likely to have a CL with me for more of the time than I would the M10 - though the CL + 23 f2 is larger than the M10 + 35 summicron - even with the shades removed.  Lighter, yes, a little lower, but definitely bulkier.

 

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!

 

 

 

[Chaemono]

Interesting that you are seeing such a difference in colors and tones.

Not so fast I didn’t say that I’ve compared them side by side, yet. I just got away for the holidays and have both cameras and the lenses I mentioned with me. Hopefully, they’ll let me have enough time to compare them. But I’m so impressed with the IQ of the M10 and the way it captures the tones that I assumed the CL can’t match it. Here is one example of what I’m talking about https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-McwTX9/ These are heavily cropped and then upsized. Of course, it could be just the way contrast increases when the Noctilux is stopped down that accounts for how nicely the differences in tones are captured. I’ll try to take these, again, with both cameras but each camera with its native lenses, i.e., I won’t use the Noctilux on the CL, at least not this time. My M-Adapter-T is a bit bent and I didn’t bring it along.

[jaapv]

Your assumption may be very wrong.

I prefer the CL tones to the M240 and IQ is close  - with less post-processing.

As the IQ difference between the M240, TL2, SL and M10 is small in real life (mainly small differences in DR and colour) I think that it is irrelevant to differentiate the present 24 MP cameras in Leica's lineup by sensor rendering.

 

Even if the full-frame sensor of the M10 will be slightly ahead of the APS-C of the CL -it should be-  I think the CL will outperform APS-sized crops from the M10.

Somebody owning both cameras could compare.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

If you are using LR and Adobe has a profile for the camera (which it now has for the CL) the actual colour rendering from RAW should be almost identical ...... which after all is the whole point of the Adobe profile anyway 

 

Like Jaap, I have given up bothering about this as Leica now has very uniform output from all its recent digital cameras...... which is currently very naturalistic and a good base for further processing to your taste.