DL109 vs CL

[lawman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone compared the Raw images from these two cameras? I’m looking for a travel camera with autofocus and zoom lens but want the best quality I can get short of the M240. Thanks

[elopezso]

Has anyone compared the Raw images from these two cameras? I’m looking for a travel camera with autofocus and zoom lens but want the best quality I can get short of the M240. Thanks

 

 

I have both and there is no comparison.  The raw files from the CL are eons better.  In fact, I think they are close to the raw images from the SL

Having said that, I love the DL 109; tis small with high quality files for the size of the camera.

[Photon42]

Light situation plays a role when comparing. A CL with the 18-56 is about two stops slower without any stabilisation to potentially compensate. But then DLUX is end of life cycle and CL is new and has interchangeable lenses. And with different lenses or/and good light the CL always wins. For a travel camera, today, I would pick the CL + 23mm and the ML adapter and take a 50mm M if required. The CL w/23 is almost the same size as the DLUX and image wise this combination is hard to beat. I just love it.

[lawman]

Light situation plays a role when comparing. A CL with the 18-56 is about two stops slower without any stabilisation to potentially compensate. But then DLUX is end of life cycle and CL is new and has interchangeable lenses. And with different lenses or/and good light the CL always wins. For a travel camera, today, I would pick the CL + 23mm and the ML adapter and take a 50mm M if required. The CL w/23 is almost the same size as the DLUX and image wise this combination is hard to beat. I just love it.

Thank you for the comments. I have the DL109 and love the size but the files leave me missing the 240!! I was thinking about the CL with the 18-56 zoom - too slow/too bulky for travel??

[Photon42]

Thank you for the comments. I have the DL109 and love the size but the files leave me missing the 240!! I was thinking about the CL with the 18-56 zoom - too slow/too bulky for travel??

 

 

Handle the CL in a shop, if you have the opportunity. Size is very personal. The CL is small by comparison with DSLRs, but considerably larger than the DLUX. The CL with standard Zoom would give you considerable size advantages over an M240 with a 28/50/90 it effectively replaces. Not to mention weight. If you compare the CL to the M240 with a Summicron 35, there is not a big size difference.

 

Be aware of the low aperture of the zoom lens and the consequences. The CL is a lovely camera, as you will find out quickly. no one stops you selling the zoom or, more likely, add a 23 at some point.

 

To think out of the Leica box: Olympus and Panasonic sell cameras with the same form factor. Both companies produce pancake zoom lenses, which in comparison to the CL give you a even lighter package. The aperture is the same, if I recall, but at least for Olympus' stabilisation effectiveness for the PEN-F I can clearly vouch. Image quality of a PEN-F with the 14-42 pancake zoom is good enough, smaller than the CL with 18-56 and is stabilised (4-5 stops). But it is an Olympus, not built to Leica standards and the menu system did put off already a lot of people. These cameras are in general more complex to configure in the beginning.

[lawman]

Handle the CL in a shop, if you have the opportunity. Size is very personal. The CL is small by comparison with DSLRs, but considerably larger than the DLUX. The CL with standard Zoom would give you considerable size advantages over an M240 with a 28/50/90 it effectively replaces. Not to mention weight. If you compare the CL to the M240 with a Summicron 35, there is not a big size difference.

 

Be aware of the low aperture of the zoom lens and the consequences. The CL is a lovely camera, as you will find out quickly. no one stops you selling the zoom or, more likely, add a 23 at some point.

 

To think out of the Leica box: Olympus and Panasonic sell cameras with the same form factor. Both companies produce pancake zoom lenses, which in comparison to the CL give you a even lighter package. The aperture is the same, if I recall, but at least for Olympus' stabilisation effectiveness for the PEN-F I can clearly vouch. Image quality of a PEN-F with the 14-42 pancake zoom is good enough, smaller than the CL with 18-56 and is stabilised (4-5 stops). But it is an Olympus, not built to Leica standards and the menu system did put off already a lot of people. These cameras are in general more complex to configure in the beginning.

Thank you Photon42 - food for thought. I will be trying out a CL in the shop and see if it fits my Maxpack carry bag. I want to stay with Leica so I can use my M lenses.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the C112, which could be seen to be the successor to the DL109. I have always been disappointed in it and it mostly sits on a shelf. Output from the RWL/RAW images are little better than the in camera JPEG's and you don't seem to get much in the way of increased dynamic range that you get from DNG images from other Leica's. The C112's low light performance is pretty poor with images corrupted by chroma noise at 2500 ISO and above. I would have been far better saving my money and buying one of the small Sony travel cameras, which use superior back illuminated sensor technology. The CL seems to be different world to the DL/C compact cameras and its low light performance is almost indistinguishable from my SL. At some point, I hope Leica might bring out a pancake travel zoom, similar to the 14-42 that Olympus offer, with an automatic iris type lens cover. The 18-56 is very good but far from small, with quite a bulky petal lens hood. I suspect at some point, I might buy the 18mm pancake but I already have the excellent 18mm Super Elmar-M. 

 

Wilson

[Guest]

I think the 18-56 zoom is a smart choices for your CL kit . It has fast AF on the CL and fantastic optics. Having fast AF is a nice advantage for some.

 

I wouldn’t worry about the zoom’s slow aperture, even in moderately low light. The dynamic range and high ISO capabilities on the CL will make f3.5 seem closer to f/2. Of course it buys you a few stops at the long end too.

 

The zoom is sharp across its focal length and f stop ranges. It’s like having a pocket full of (slower) primes. OP really is close to the venerated M lenses.

 

Even if you stick to the faster, wider end of the zoom in lower light, you can likely crop your way to a sharp close up in PP. These lenses are extremely sharp and resolve fine details.

 

Of course, if I know I am going out for the evening, I ditch the zoom for the smaller and faster 23mm.

 

The zoom will be a nice complement to your M lenses. I use it 70-80% of the time for travel over taking a single prime (or an entire bag).

 

The 11-23mm is also a fantastic travel zoom btw.

 

I hope this is helpful.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Guest