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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Porsche wide open - love the color sensitivity of the M10. Nice color balance with the Adobe Standard profile once WB is corrected, CL requires customized profiles IMO.

 

Uncompressed files here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

CL + Noctilux Exposure +1.15, WB adjusted to try to remove tint  and match the M10

Porsche CL_wide_open_lufv.jpg

ISO 100 f/0.95 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + Noctilux WB adjusted to remove tint

Porsche M10_wide_open_lufv.jpg

ISO 200 f/0.95 @1/125 sec.

 

As soon as the weather breaks I will do a custom profile. I yet have to see a new camera that did not need some colour tweaking to get it just to my taste. For the time being I reduce saturation on the reds and boost the oranges a bit.

[Chaemono]

On thing I noticed earlier about the M10 besides the low noise at high ISO is how well it maintains color sensitivity as ISO increases. I compared the M10 to the Sony α7R II at ISO 10000. Had posted a link here. The M10 captures the different tones so effortlessly as ISO increases. Look at the Christmas ball ornaments in the store, for example.

 

Here, it's only at ISO 1000 but I can do some at ISO 6400 if anyone is interested. In low light and if one crops a bit the M10 pulls ahead. Plus, I'm still struggling to remove tint in some CL pictures. I went all the way down to +3 (+12 was AWB by the CL). If I go beyond this the CL picture becomes too greenish IMO. Also, a bit more purple fringing with the CL when one looks at the lights in the store. Remember, same lens at f/4.0. But it's so little that it's very easy to deal with, of course. I just didn't bother for demonstration purposes.

 

I'm done using the Noctilux on both cameras for now. The different field of view slows me down too much. I'll do CL + 35 Summilux-TL vs. M10 + Noctilux next. 

 

In the link here, I also included a CL crop with Red -10, Orange 10, Pink -10, Magenta -10. It removes tint a bit. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

 

CL + Noctilux WB adjusted to try to match M10, Highlights -13, Shadows +60, Clarity +10

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!

ISO 800 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10 + Noctilux WB adjusted to remove tint, Highlights -13, Shadows +60, Clarity +10

ISO 1000 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

And here the crops

 

CL

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!

 

M10

[Chaemono]

With some fast lenses, it's interesting to see how contrast changes when stopping them down. Some become very sharp as contrast increases (Noctilux, 55 Otus), others are at their best already wide open (50 Summilux-SL, 50 Apo Summicron-M). The 35 Summilux-TL, although quite sharp wide open, becomes a stunning performer when stopped down a bit.

 

Uncompressed files here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

CL + 35 Summilux-TL WB adj. to try to match M10, Exposure + 0.50, Shadows +20, Clarity +10, NR +10

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!

ISO 800 f/5.6 @1/100 sec.

 

 

M10 + Noctilux WB adj., Clarity +10, NR +10

ISO 1000 f/5.6 @1/90 sec.

[Chaemono]

And two more

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

 

CL + 35 Summilux-TL WB adj. to try to match M10, Exposure + 0.40, Shadows +10, Clarity +10, NR +10

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!

ISO 800 f/5.6 @1/100 sec.

 

 

M10 + Noctilux WB adj., Exposure -0.05, Shadows +10, Clarity +10, NR +10

ISO 1000 f/5.6 @1/90 sec.

[ramarren]

"Could a CL replace an M?" is not actually my question. "Could I replace the SL with the CL?" is really more of what's on my mind.

 

I've been walking with my M-D on this holiday trip with either the 35mm or the 50mm fitted, and of that, mostly the 50mm. I'm enjoying my quick peeks at the photos I'm making with it ... I have no interest in selling it. What disturbs me is that I have used the SL so infrequently for the past seven to eight months, and mostly because it is simply bulkier than what I want to carry on the bicycle or motorcycle. But the best long lens I've ever owned ... the SL90-280 ... and all of my R lens equipment is brought to lift on the SL.

 

The CL would use all of my M lenses, all of my R lenses, the SL90-280 lens, and all my macro equipment. It would give me the 24 Mpixel files for my negative copy work that I've come to like from the SL. It would extend the SL90-280 to a 150-400 range lens, and retain the OIS and fast AF. And fitted with the 'Lux 35 in a small bag with the WATE and Summitar-M 75—or teensy M-Rokkor 90—it would be an even smaller, lighter, more versatile kit for the bicycle or motorcycle than the M-D.

 

Since I retired last year, I haven't really felt the joy needed to want to carry my bulkier equipment much. My photography is changing and I appreciate more and more carrying as very little as possible, in terms of how much that equipment weighs and the space it takes up. I feel like I have a wonderful professional-grade kit with the SL that I'm wasting because I just closed the business.

 

So I mull this possibility over as I wait until I get home to head to the store and actually handle the CL. I might not even like it when I pick it up... might.

 

Meanwhile, Happy Christmas for those who celebrate it! Had a lovely walk in the winter festival in Cork this evening, snapped a few photos, really enjoyed myself. Moving light and enjoying the scene I'm in is more important than what equipment I'm carrying, ultimately.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Could a CL replace an M?" is not actually my question. "Could I replace the SL with the CL?" is really more of what's on my mind.

 

 

 

.... and the next bit of the question is 'permanently' or 'some of the time'........ ?

 

I have to say that under the same conditions image quality from the SL is definitely better ....... but as usual that is predicated by 'what are you going to do with the images'.

 

I've posted a few nice images with the CL + series lenses ...... but the images at 100% are not as crisp and defined as I would get from the SL.

 

I intend to keep a full stable of SL gear (plus the new 75 and 16-35 zoom ... whenever they appear ... ) for 'proper' photography and the CL plus the baby lenses for walks with the dog and occasions where I take a camera 'just in case'. 

 

The one item I vowed not to part with ..... the Q, is now looking worried as I can't see me using it much. Would still be a wrench to part with though ......

 

Makes a difference to be really spoiled for choice ..... 

 

Merry Xmas .... only half an hour to go before the day of 'cooking insanity' is upon us .....

[ramarren]

I may have to rent a CL, if possible, and do some testing. I would likely not buy any of the L compact lenses, would most likely use my M/R/SL lenses with the body, and I would like to be sure the lenses work as well on the CL as on the M-D and SL.

[chris_tribble]

Try it. I’m still evaluating. One dilemma is how good the M10 is, and how compact it is with the 35 cron. If the CL were full frame and no bigger than the M10 body it would work for me with long lenses. I think what I want is the iq you get with full frame. Ok, there’s the SL. But I had one and was never happy with it - it was just too big and heavy to ever be a companion, and I couldn’t bring myself to ante up for the SL lenses. A manual EVF M sized camera to use with longer lenses + my M10s for the rest of the time would be great. CL? When the weather gets better I’ll use it more and make some decisions.

Edited December 25, 2017 by chris_tribble

[scott kirkpatrick]

I may have to rent a CL, if possible, and do some testing. I would likely not buy any of the L compact lenses, would most likely use my M/R/SL lenses with the body, and I would like to be sure the lenses work as well on the CL as on the M-D and SL.

This sounds rather like the way you got into the SL, as a platform for your R lenses.  With the CL you should consider the 11-23 TL, an excellent, relatively small lens which would get you back into your wide square format space...

[Chaemono]

After using the M10 and the CL side by side for the last couple of days including mounting the Noctilux on the CL, I realized how good the M10 is with the M lenses. Even though the CL with the 23 Summicron-TL is very good, I still prefer the M10 with the 35 Summicron-M. But for the last two days I used the M10 + Noctilux and the CL + 35 Summilux-TL and I'm very impressed how good that combo is. Stopped down the 35 Summilux-TL is stunning. Colors, resolution of detail is similar to the M10 with the Noctilux stopped down. And with slow shutter speeds it's easier to get a clean shot with the CL combo in low light, especially when holding the camera vertically. The M10 with the Noctilux is so front heavy that shots at 1/60 sec. are good but with the CL + 35 Summilux-TL at 1/50 sec. they are better. Here is one example: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-MZHNVJ/. I have the exact same shot with the M10 and the Noctilux. I didn't upload it. It looks identical except that the CL file is better when one zooms in. It was just a lot harder to get the shot with the M10 and the Noctilux.  

Edited December 25, 2017 by Chaemono

[ramarren]

This sounds rather like the way you got into the SL, as a platform for your R lenses.  With the CL you should consider the 11-23 TL, an excellent, relatively small lens which would get you back into your wide square format space...

Indeed: It is the same business again. Going with the TL zoom is one option ... another is just adding the Voigtländer 10mm to my M kit, which would then be an ultra-ultra wide squares performer on the M-D too (and less expensive to boot). I'm not so concerned about AF and the size. For the CL, I could consider selling the Super-Elmar-R 15 as well, since I have the WATE which provides a very very similar focal length.

[rob_w]

What about other aspects of CL versus M?  In particular, the responsiveness of the CL once the shutter button is pressed.

 

I have been following this thread with great interest.  It has concentrated on image quality and lenses thus far, with many interesting (and re-assuring) comments.  Great to know that the Leica quality has not been compromised, at least not beyond the bounds of the physics involved.

 

Moving from an M, or using an autofocus camera as a companion to an M, is always going to be different.  With the M, I am used to seeing the subject uninterrupted throughout the shooting process and capturing the instant that I want.  Someone leaping?  No problem.  Someone talking, again, no problem.

 

When taking candid shots of people I can see exactly when their expression assumes the look I want and capture it with near-instantaneous response.  The uninterrupted RF view means I can usually see if the subject blinked or something changed at the last moment.  I have never been able to do the same with autofocus cameras in the past because there is always a pause after the button is pressed, while the camera confirms focus.

 

How do my fellow M photographers cope with the differences autofocus brings?  Has the technology evolved to the point where the speed and reliability of focus makes it a non-problem?

Edited December 26, 2017 by rob_w

[jaapv]

There probably is a measurable shutter delay on the CL. However, in daily use I haven’t noticed it, not even once. Irrelevant I would say. The delay from your eye to your brain to your finger is a magnitude longer.

[LocalHero1953]

It was one of the first things I noticed after swapping the CL for my TL2: I found myself over-anticipating the shooting moment. I was used to a slight (but acceptable) delay in the TL2's EVF, that wasn't there with the CL. I also found wake-up from sleep to be quicker: quick enough not to miss a shot, far quicker than my M240, which I understand is similar to the M10; the CL is about the same as the M9.

 

Every camera embodies compromises, and we just have to pick one that has the fewest compromises that annoy us. For me:

- the CL as a replacement for the TL2 was a no brainer: similar size but feels a bit smaller in the hand, and has built in EVF. I prefer the TL2's interface, but I can live without it.

- the CL as a replacement for my M240: no, because I would never get round the inherent compromise of the crop sensor, which limits any composition that relies on DOF control. I'm not sure I could replace the simple, discreet manual operation through the OVF for travel (in principle putting M lenses on the CL would do the same, but I'm not yet convinced). Everything else has its workaround.

- the CL as a replacement for the SL: no, for the same DOF reason as the M240, and because the SL and its zooms are a great match for portraiture and events.

Edited December 26, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[ramarren]

Interesting thoughts.

 

The one stop difference in DoF between the CL or either the SL or M would mean little to me with 'wide to normal' range lenses since I so rarely use wide open aperture anyway. It's actually a plus with longer lenses since I get the little more DoF I need with more light getting through to the sensor for a lower ISO or faster shutter speed. There isn't much difference between my 'Lux 35mm f/1.4 lens fitted to the CL and the 'Cron 50mm f/2 lens fitted to the M-D anyway, partcularly since I tend to shoot with them at f/2.8 and f/4 respectively because I like their rendering qualities at those apertures.

 

I've worked with RF and SLR cameras in the last five decades—and EVF cameras enough now in the past two decades—to be able to say with some confidence that their differences, for me, simply pose different kinds of advantages in use. I like having both, which is why I wouldn't let go of the M and consider only whether the different form factor and format of the CL would pose an advantage over the SL. AF is of very little value or importance to me ... in use, I often tend to find it allows me to be sloppier than should be and my hit rate declines ... so I tend not to use it much.

 

My concern is simply whether I'd miss the full-frame, pro-grade SL body much if I sold it. What I'm really striving to do is to minimize my equipment load to the greatest degree possible without giving up the capabilities I use, particularly the edge cases that I only use infrequently. The SL has become mostly my technical camera for those edge cases ... when I need extra long or macro lens capabilities. And I'm thinking that the CL might take those duties in stride without giving up much except for capabilities I use even less often.

 

The biggest thing I'd be giving up is the SL's more extensive video and tethering capabilities ... but I still haven't found myself using them anyway.

 

So I consider to mull this question over. There's absolutely no need for me to rush into any equipment change... !

[Tobers]

I find that there are compromises with the CL as with any other camera.

 

I’d LOVE it to be full frame for use with M lenses and AF lenses, but I know the AF lenses would be big (SL lenses as an example). But you could be happy with using M lenses for compactness and larger AF lenses when you needed to.

 

The M also has compromises. The most significant one of which is being able to reliably get an image in focus when shooting with wide apertures. This means that, while you can have beautiful lenses, if you spoil shots with critical focus being off then those lovely lenses are going to waste. Stopping down the aperture to get more reliable focus means you might as well shoot a crop sensor camera.

 

Having had an M9, M240 and M10, and practiced and practiced, as well as using M cameras for professional shoots, I found that I simply could not rely on it for critical images. And for non-critical ones, family shots and the like, I kept getting annoyed with wide aperture shots being out of focus. For me, the convenience of a WYSIWYG viewfinder, magnifiable manual focus, and small autofocus lenses if needed, meant that the CL compromises more suited my current shooting than the M. Add in the smaller size, and the M-like menu, plus the lovely quality, meant that I was happy to do the swap. If I had the cash I’d keep the M10.

 

Each to their own. I made my decision based on my own reasons and experiences. Your mileage may differ - it doesn’t make my decision wrong if you decide to do something different. Just use the camera you want to use.

[NZDavid]

Porsche wide open - love the color sensitivity of the M10....

 

 

"Weinpolizei!" Was ist denn das!? 

 

A very interesting thread that may help me decide what to buy. I can't help notice that outdoor shots seem to all be from the northern hemisphere and are therefore wintry and lower contrast. I wonder how various camera and lens combos would handle brighter more contrasty light.

[meerec]

"Weinpolizei!" Was ist denn das!? 

 

A very interesting thread that may help me decide what to buy. I can't help notice that outdoor shots seem to all be from the northern hemisphere and are therefore wintry and lower contrast. I wonder how various camera and lens combos would handle brighter more contrasty light.

 

 

Here one from down under at late afternoon.

Another fleeting moment this afternoon with the sun’s last rays finding way through the tree canopy to get me interested again. Always a pleasure to be disturbed by anything like it and have a camera handy.

 

CL with summarit-M 35 f2.4 ASPH

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Tobers]

Have a watch of this. It sums up my thoughts on the "full frame v crop frame" debate precisely. And....it's really quite a funny video.

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Tobers