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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me, it all comes down to the functionality, ergonomics whether a camera "fits" a photographer. All the rest we can take for granted. Ain't life great?

[Chaemono]

Quite possible that the previous posters are right. Took some first shots with the 23 Summicron-TL and the 35 Summicron-M on the CL and M10, respectively. Too early to tell but the CL is very good. I also got a hold of the new M-Adapter-L since my older M-Adapter-T is a bit bent to use the Noctilux, with handgrip, on the CL and compare.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

Don't laugh. This is just to warm up. I was still trying to figure out the correct settings to use for comparisons. I used slightly slower shutter speed on the M10 here to try match exposure at identical ISO. I don't know if this has to do with different base ISO (M10 around 200). I often used both lenses wide open ignoring the FF factor on the M10. The reason is, you stop down the 35 Summicron-M to 2.8 and a bit more and it becomes insanely sharp. I have a few at f/2.8 and you'll see what I mean. There are many more from today. Will post them later. The LUF pictures posted here are crops. Opened in LR, adjusted WB to try to match, Clarity +10, zero NR, Adobe Standard profiles used. There is something sweet about the M10 tones, especially around the face.

 

Uncompressed and not cropped JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL

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 1600 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M

ISO 1600 f/2.0 @1/125 sec.

[Ko.Fe.]

Could EVF replace RF? If it could.. then, highly possible, any EVF camera could replace CL, Plenty of them are made. And price, service are better. Like Pen D. But no RF.

RF is vision and technique of shooting. And it is the curse. If you get into it, no EVF could do. Also for some of us M is on digital and on film.

Sorry for ignorance and honest opinion, I hope, I didn't brake forum rules.

I have chance for M only. And if I'll get another chance, I'd rather get better Leica M lens. For compactness here is M with colllapsible 50 lens, btw.

[Jared]

Don't laugh. This is just to warm up. I was still trying to figure out the correct settings to use for comparisons. I used slightly slower shutter speed on the M10 here to try match exposure at identical ISO. I don't know if this has to do with different base ISO (M10 around 200). I often used both lenses wide open ignoring the FF factor on the M10. The reason is, you stop down the 35 Summicron-M to 2.8 and a bit more and it becomes insanely sharp. I have a few at f/2.8 and you'll see what I mean. There are many more from today. Will post them later. The LUF pictures posted here are crops. Opened in LR, adjusted WB to try to match, Clarity +10, zero NR, Adobe Standard profiles used. There is something sweet about the M10 tones, especially around the face.

 

Uncompressed and not cropped JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL

Santa Claus_CL_lufv.jpg

ISO 1600 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M

Santa Claus__M10_lufv.jpg

ISO 1600 f/2.0 @1/125 sec.

 

Yeah, that's about what I would expect.  Obviously, better signal-to-noise out of the M10 at ISO 1600 (due to the larger physical aperture letting in more light) and narrower depth of field at a given aperture, but otherwise very similar in terms of color, resolution, and contrast.  At least to my eye they are very similar.  

 

I agree with KoFe that the real question is not whether the CL could replace the M in terms of image quality, but whether it is the preferred way for you to work.  Do you like using an EVF or a range finder?  Is having the option of autofocus important or not?  How fast do you need your lenses to be, either for low light or for DOF control?  These are going to have a much bigger impact on your imaging than actual IQ.  At this point, all cameras are capable of absolutely stellar results from base ISO to at least 1600 with plenty of resolution for moderate cropping.  Seriously.  Look at other features when making your decision.  

[Jared]

I have chance for M only. And if I'll get another chance, I'd rather get better Leica M lens. For compactness here is M with colllapsible 50 lens, btw.

 

I would argue a little bit with regard to 'better Leica M lens'.  There is nothing shabby about the optical quality of the current crop of TL lenses.  They are every bit as good as anything in the 'M' lineup.  For example, at the center of the field the Summilux TL clearly out resolves my 24 megapixel CL (based on the amount of moire visible on high-contrast details from f/2 to f/5.6), and it also out-resolves my 35mm Summilux-M FLE at like apertures.  Leica's own MTF charts back this up.  Look at any of the MTF charts for the TL lenses and you will find that they are cutting edge.  I am particularly impressed with the 35 and the 11-23.  Heck, even the 18-56 is amazingly good (if slow).  My 11-23 is every bit the equal of my SEM 21 and it's better than my WATE in the corners.

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with KoFe that the real question is not whether the CL could replace the M in terms of image quality, but whether it is the preferred way for you to work. Do you like using an EVF or a range finder? Is having the option of autofocus important or not? How fast do you need your lenses to be, either for low light or for DOF control? These are going to have a much bigger impact on your imaging than actual IQ. At this point, all cameras are capable of absolutely stellar results from base ISO to at least 1600 with plenty of resolution for moderate cropping. Seriously. Look at other features when making your decision.

Can’t argue against it based on what I’ve seen today. I have many more where one couldn’t tell the difference. I have some where one could only tell the difference at pixel peeping level but it’s so insignificant for the overall IQ. To some highly sensitive eyes, the minuscule difference in tones will be evident. though. I’ll do Noctilux on both, the CL and M10, for the next couple of days. Let’s see how this goes. Will post them here.

[jaapv]

Another argument is of course the preferred focal length - Do you mostly shoot wide-angle? - the M10 will be preferable - Longer lenses? - better  a CL.

[jmahto]

Another argument is of course the preferred focal length - Do you mostly shoot wide-angle? - the M10 will be preferable - Longer lenses? - better a CL.

More clearly, M10 for wide to normal, CL for normal to long. Problem is when only preference is normal, in that case you need both.

[Belle123]

Don't laugh. This is just to warm up. I was still trying to figure out the correct settings to use for comparisons. I used slightly slower shutter speed on the M10 here to try match exposure at identical ISO. I don't know if this has to do with different base ISO (M10 around 200). I often used both lenses wide open ignoring the FF factor on the M10. The reason is, you stop down the 35 Summicron-M to 2.8 and a bit more and it becomes insanely sharp. I have a few at f/2.8 and you'll see what I mean. There are many more from today. Will post them later. The LUF pictures posted here are crops. Opened in LR, adjusted WB to try to match, Clarity +10, zero NR, Adobe Standard profiles used. There is something sweet about the M10 tones, especially around the face.

 

Uncompressed and not cropped JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL

Santa Claus_CL_lufv.jpg

 

ISO 1600 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M

Santa Claus__M10_lufv.jpg

ISO 1600 f/2.0 @1/125 sec.

Between these two images, the M10 has better color. It’s not a huge difference.

[Chaemono]

Between these two images, the M10 has better color. It’s not a huge difference.

It's subtle, it's only evident in some pictures, sometimes one has to crop to see it, not everybody will see it, and it won't matter to some. It matters to me.

 

There is one more thing. The M10 has better AWB by the camera, sometimes . At least, it's easier to adjust it (for me) while maintaining a good color balance. Those making their own profiles probably won't care. Below is one extreme example from yesterday.

 

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

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL AWB by the camera, Exposure +0.30, Shadows +20, 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 100 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL WB adjusted to try to match M10, Exposure +0.30, Shadows +20, Clarity +10

ISO 100 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M AWB by the camera, Highlights -11, Clarity +10

ISO 200 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

And here both but with a slightly cooler look (Temperature 2800K) and WB adjusted for the CL to try to match the M10.

 

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

 

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

[scott kirkpatrick]

With one stop difference so that the deep scene bokeh (lights in the distance) matches between the two the details in the middle distance seem more clearly rendered by the CL Summicron.  I like that, but if you want more isolation of the plane that is in focus, it may be a drawback. 

Edited December 23, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[Tobers]

Thanks for doing those comparisons - very interesting indeed, that there’s really very little difference. Granted there’s the DoF situation which you can’t do much about but still...

[Belle123]

It's subtle, it's only evident in some pictures, sometimes one has to crop to see it, not everybody will see it, and it won't matter to some. It matters to me.

 

There is one more thing. The M10 has better AWB by the camera, sometimes . At least, it's easier to adjust it (for me) while maintaining a good color balance. Those making their own profiles probably won't care. Below is one extreme example from yesterday.

 

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

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL AWB by the camera, Exposure +0.30, Shadows +20, Clarity +10

Candle house CL_AWB_by_the_camera_lufv.jpg

 

ISO 100 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

CL + 23 Summicron-TL WB adjusted to try to match M10, Exposure +0.30, Shadows +20, Clarity +10

Candle house CL_WB_adj_lufv.jpg

ISO 100 f/2.0 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M AWB by the camera, Highlights -11, Clarity +10

Candle house M10_AWB_by_the_camera_lufv.jpg

ISO 200 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

M10 clearly better image in both color and detail here. The CL is very good, as is the TL2, but think is a stretch to be worth replacing full frame. Am betting would see similar differences comparing Q to CL.

[Herr Barnack]

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.

 

If you want to make large prints - large as in 11x14 inches or larger - keep your M10 and use it.  If you only show your images electronically, the APS-C sensor is fine for that. 

 

Regarding travel, my approach is to take my entire M kit and not worry about weight.  Two M bodies and 4 M lenses are blissfully light compared to the Nikon and/or Hasselblad 6x6 kits I used in the days of my misspent youth.  Having a well designed camera pack - not a shoulder bag - makes carrying my gear much more comfortable, and I do not carry everything with me at all times.  When going out to photograph in a foreign city, I will take two lenses and my M-P.  The other body & lenses are locked in the hotel's safe.

 

I have never understood the concept of "justifying" gear choices in photography.  A photographer has only to "justify" his gear choices to the man (or woman) who signs the check at the cash register; that would be the person whose teeth he/she brushes every morning.  To hell with what everyone else thinks. 

 

JMHO/YMMV/IANAL/offer void in Alaska, Hawaii and American Samoa on Thursdays. 

 

P.S.

I think jaapv hit the bull's eye when he said,

 

To me, it all comes down to the functionality, ergonomics whether a camera "fits" a photographer. All the rest we can take for granted.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Herr Barnack

[jaapv]

 24 MP APS-C will print exactly the same as 24 MP full frame.  Print size is not determined by sensor size. It is determined by sensor resolution and quality. Transitions and colour count. There one may see a slight difference, but both full frame and APS-C will be beaten by a fair margin by medium format. Still, I will not go schlepping the big stuff anymore now that the small fry has become so good...

[Chaemono]

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

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 100 f/0.95 @1/160 sec.

 

M10 + Noctilux WB adjusted to remove tint

ISO 200 f/0.95 @1/125 sec.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Chaemono

[Herr Barnack]

 24 MP APS-C will print exactly the same as 24 MP full frame.  Print size is not determined by sensor size. It is determined by sensor resolution and quality. Transitions and colour count. There one may see a slight difference, but both full frame and APS-C will be beaten by a fair margin by medium format. Still, I will not go schlepping the big stuff anymore now that the small fry has become so good...

 

Thanks for sharing that information - I did not know that.  I have always thought that sensor size is as much of a factor in printed image quality as is megapixel count.

 

 

Still, I will not go schlepping the big stuff anymore now that the small fry has become so good...

 

Can't blame you for that - but it is a bit humorous that the M 240 and/or M10 platform can be considered the big stuff nowadays - particularly humorous to yours truly who has schlepped a Hasselblad 503 and lenses around in the days of yore.

 

I am still working on plucking up the courage to do an overseas trip with the much revered one camera one lens kit.  I could easily live with two lenses - a 28 and a 50 - but I am still a bit leery of the one lens kit...

Edited December 24, 2017 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

I would never to that. However, I do plan ahead and only take lenses - and cameras- that I am fairly certain I will need (want ; )