Jump to content
dennersten

Leica CL - > Leica Q Pros and cons

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love the look of both the pictures and the camera. I have a Leica Q, I used it very much but my major gripe is that it's to big. I want something to throw in my office bag or in the pocket of my coat. 

 

I use the Q for a lot of Macro and street kind of pictures. I run a quite successful blog with tourist tips of our area http://osterlen.tips/ . I use the Q for all the people pictures, inside the restaurants etc. And the M10 for all carefully composed pictures.  The best from the blog is also published as a book once a year. 

 

So should I sell the Q?? And go for the CL? 

 

Have somebody a picture of both, so I can see the size difference? 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased a CL to compliment my M10/Q thinking I would eventually sell my Q, but now after a month of use, I have to say that while I like the CL (especially mounting M lenses) it doesn't have the same appeal as the Q. The Q is a beautifully simple tool, the CL is close, but gets a bit too complex in my estimation. Certainly you can control all of the available options in the menu and limit the camera to only the essentials, but I don't find the actual experience of using it to be as satisfactory as the Q. The files are fine to work with and show a good dynamic range, very similar to editing the files from the Q than the m10. More "digital looking' and rectilinear than M files, at least when using TL lenses. M Lenses on the CL are a bit of a different story. I think I'll keep the CL to use as a backup body for my M, it may morph into a more professional tool, but right now it hasn't filled the place of my Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Size is smaller, as you say. But CL with adapter and typical M lens would be just as heavy, which may be a factor. Ideally find a dealer who will let you try the camera and study DNG files in comparison with those taken at same time/venue with your existing cameras. It's possible that the crop-sensor pics don't satisfy you as much as full-frame ones do. That and ergonomic factors were reasons why I bought then quickly sold a CL. However, many contend that IQ differences are negligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CL with the 18mm pancake lens would give you the size and compactness that you want for general use. 

 

You would lose the macro option though...... unless you try a 49mm Marumi Macro lens add on with a 39-49 step up ring, which might work without vignetting if you are lucky ....

 

I wouldn't worry about the image quality as M240/M10/Q/QL/TL2/CL are all pretty close for normal applications. 

 

I have a Q sitting in the safe that has hardly been picked up since I have been using the SL and T/TL2 and now CL. 

 

I have come to the conclusion that M rangefinder use is more of a religion than a sane photographic choice. (I already hear shouts of 'heretic, heretic .... burn him .....!')

 

Much as I was very fond of the concept and compactness the niggling irritations finally made me finally defect to mirrorless when an almost optical quality EVF solution appeared. 

Edited by thighslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ich liebe das Aussehen der Bilder und der Kamera. Ich habe eine Leica Q, ich habe sie sehr oft benutzt, aber mein Hauptkritikpunkt ist, sie ist zu groß. Ich möchte etwas in meiner Bürotasche oder in der Manteltasche werden. 

 

Ich verwende das Q für viele Makro- und Straßenbilder. Ich freue mich einen fantastischen Blog mit touristischen Tipps unserer Region http://osterlen.tips/ . Ich nutze das Q für alle People-Bilder, in den Restaurants usw. Und das M10 für alle sorfältig komponierten Bilder. Das Beste aus dem Blog wird einmal im Jahr als Buch veröffentlicht. 

 

Sollte ich auch die Q verkaufen? Und für den CL gehen? 

 

Hat jemand einen Bild von beiden, kann ich den Größenunterschied sehen? 

 

Leica "Q" - f 1,7 28mm - vs "CL" - f 2,8 Linsen - 

 

Schau hier - Camerasize.com - (CL Körper + Objektivlinsen / CL + f 2,8 18mm / CL + f 2,8 23mm etc.)

Edited by habe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CL is smaller, but isn't that much smaller, although of course you can use smaller lenses than the Summilux 28 fixed to the Q.

 

I used the CL and 18 a bit on my trip to Japan. It is indeed a compact setup but, while small and still good, the 18 is easily the weakest Leica lens I own IQ wise. I suspect you'll be disappointed compared to your Q and end up putting a larger lens on the CL anyway.

 

If you like your Q and M but want something truly pocketable maybe a Ricoh GR?

Edited by Alistairm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Q sitting in the safe that has hardly been picked up since I have been using the SL and T/TL2 and now CL. 

 

I am in the same boat.  I started the process of selling the Leica Q yesterday.  If you hardly used a digital camera in the last 2 years it is probably recommended to get rid of it before it significantly drops in value.  

 

That being said, it is with a bit of sadness because the Leica Q is an excellent camera...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the same boat.  I started the process of selling the Leica Q yesterday.  If you hardly used a digital camera in the last 2 years it is probably recommended to get rid of it before it significantly drops in value.  

 

That being said, it is with a bit of sadness because the Leica Q is an excellent camera...

 

Yes ...... I feel like I'm contemplating  selling the dog or my grandmother ...... sellers remorse can be just as bad as buyers ...... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everbody!! Great advices. Seems like I am keeping the Q. I do a lot of Macro, and I kind of took for granted that CL would do that also. And I love the IQ in the lens. So guess I need a new everyday bag to able to bring it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good choice.  I had a brief affair with the CL and was disappointed that it really wasn't any smaller than the M - particularly with native T lenses (other than the pancake...) And I think you'd miss the IQ from the Q in the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the M240, which is about equal to the Q using a modern 28 lens,I doubt whether IQ would be missed on 95% of "normal" photographs.

Phase One can condescend to Leica S, Leica S to M series, M series to Q, Q to CL, CL to X and it is all a bit of nonsense.

I am not impressed by pecking orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

Coming from the M240, which is about equal to the Q using a modern 28 lens,I doubt whether IQ would be missed on 95% of "normal" photographs.

Phase One can condescend to Leica S, Leica S to M series, M series to Q, Q to CL, CL to X and it is all a bit of nonsense.

I am not impressed by pecking orders.

 

+1.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I had a brief affair with the CL and was disappointed that it really wasn't any smaller than the M - particularly with native T lenses (other than the pancake...) [...]

 

I have no idea about T lenses but the CL is significantly smaller and lighter than any existing film or digital M camera so far. As far as M lenses are concerned, wide and standard lenses protrude a couple millimeters more on the CL but telephotos are shorter and lighter of course due to the crop factor. As much as i like it, my 75/1.4 remains more often at home now that i can carry a 50/1.4 or 50/1.5 with the CL and even a compact lens like the Summarit 75/2.5 looks bulky compared to the tiny Summarit 50/2.5 (pic). YMMV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an either/or for me. I want a complement to my Q, ideally a fixed 50 Q. Seeing an adapted 50 on the CL in lct’s pic makes me think that the CL might be a reasonable alternative to a 50 Q that probably will never happen. Nice and compact, would fit well in the bag with a Q. Same batts, similar imaging if i use a 35 or 50 lux, and I think the CL’s manual focus support is close to the Q’s. Hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold my Q for the CL. And I loved the Q. The CL can be made a smaller package than either the Q or the M. With the Summicron 23, it operates like a Q with a 2.8/35. AF is fast enough, image quality is stunning - as with most modern cameras. More digital like the Q - c'mon. Both are digital. And a camera is either digital or isn't. Zeros and Ones 

 . But on a serious note - if one does a lot of macro work with the Q, then the CL with a 23 is not a replacement. You can pop on a Raynox but this is not quite the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

image quality is stunning - as with most modern cameras. 

 

IMHO there really is very little difference in image quality between APS-C (CL/TL2) and FF (SL/Q).  I sincerely doubt whether most people would be able to say which one is which...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO there really is very little difference in image quality between APS-C (CL/TL2) and FF (SL/Q).  [...]

 

Same difference as between FF and MF more or less. Important for some people, negligible for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference FF-MF is quite a bit more pronounced. Agree - important?- mostly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...