Jump to content

Leica CL as main camera


Guest VVJ

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed; cameras like this one:

 

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!

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the medium format crop is better than the other two.  It manages to present more detail while still maintaining a smooth progression from highlights to midtones, and it has some real pop and saturation in the blue center of the flower that is lacking in the SL and CL--and that was after I did what I could to get the SL and CL images to match.  In particular, look at the details in the stem from the X1D shot vs. the SL.  I would discount the CL when looking at the stem since the AF clearly choose a focus point that is a touch closer than the other two cameras.  Still, I think the SL and CL held up pretty well, and for most purposes I find the CL more than adequate.

 

To those who say the differences as you move from APS-C to full frame and even larger formats are substantial, I would say, really?  Certainly they exist, but for general use?  I can't tell a difference on most subjects under most lighting conditions and most output sizes.

Thanks Jared

 

I actually like the pics of the CL more then the SL, but the X1D is astonishing

 

I’ll stick my head out and say that it’s probanly because the CL and X1D have Sony sensors, which are far enough ahead of the co petition to always make a visible difference at the pixel level IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bad example of an Astro image here, Milky Way over Sydney.

 

Leica Camera AG Leica CL

APO-SUMMICRON-SL 1:2/75 ASPH.

ƒ/2.0 75.0 mm 32sec ISO 100

 

26892882938_9d10927150_c.jpg

 

Focusing issue? This is why I prefer infinity stop of M lens on M vs on other cameras with Adapater (lens focuses past infinity at infinity stop).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The CL complement my M 240. Will be useful for the family outing/ family event where you really need a smaller compact size body with AF. 

 

For my street photography, Leica M 240 will still be my workhorse, unless the CL can zone focusing which I hope the future firmware can address this (something like snap feature in Ricoh GR). Of course, I can use the M lenses on the CL but I feel that CL is best to be used on a native lens.

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not quite the case. I am impressed by the way the CL handles M lenses. For instance I have a dream combination: The Summilux 24 on the CL rivals (I think: betters) the Summilux 35 on the 240. For one thing, I prefer the CL sensor over the 240 one.

 

BTW, if you use AF I cannot see the sense of zone focusing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Certainly there are inherent pro's and con's to any format.  For a given sensor quality level/generation, as the sensor grows you get more control over depth of field, you get greater dynamic range, better high-ISO performance, and you have the potential for more detail in the image since you aren't pushing the lens as hard since the image is magnified less.  As you shrink the sensor, you lower cost (both in the camera and in the lenses), you lower the size and weight (both cameras and lenses, again), and you increase depth of field ... 

Could someone have the experience that how much difference in "depth of field" between the use of for example "a M lens 50/f1.4 on a CL = 75mm"  vs  "a M lens 75/f1.4 on a M10 = 75mm" ?   On the CL, would it be 0.5 stop, 1 stop, or two stops ... more DOF then?     

Edited by yst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule of the thumb about one stop. There a a few different factors involved.

 

Would that be for all M lenses then?  I am more concern 50, 75, 90, 135... those M lenses to use on a CL.   Therefore, if I have the 135/f3.4 M on a CL wide open, the DOF would be like a 200mm/f4.5 on a full frame?   And can not make advantage of the shallower DOF as would be on f3.4...  say on a portraiture etc... ?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] if I have the 135/f3.4 M on a CL wide open, the DOF would be like a 200mm/f4.5 on a full frame? [...]

 

Almost exactly. Thin DoF anyway.

 

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that be for all M lenses then?  I am more concern 50, 75, 90, 135... those M lenses to use on a CL.   Therefore, if I have the 135/f3.4 M on a CL wide open, the DOF would be like a 200mm/f4.5 on a full frame?   And can not make advantage of the shallower DOF as would be on f3.4...  say on a portraiture etc... ?

 

Yes, you’ve got it right. Basically, if you want shallow depth of field there is no substitute for a full frame camera. Even going larger (medium format) doesn’t generally help any since the lenses tend to be slower.

 

Honestly, though, the 200mm equivalent focal length of using the 135 Telyt on the CL will easily get you shallow enough that you’ll have to stop down a bit just to keep both eyes in sharp focus if not exactly face on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask some people who have the experience of a CL with the CL 18mm/f2.8 (28mm), or the CL 21mm/f2 (35mm) lenses?   which one do you think would be more sensible to get with a new CL purchase?

 

If my main purpose is to use the CL for my 135f3.4, to use along side of a D-lux (type 109) for travels.  

 

I can just get a CL body only, but thought maybe an idea to have a CL own system lens for normal additional to the D-Lux use, or in case only have the CL body, then at least has one lens in the normal photo side of the usage... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the CL and have recently used it with the Elmarit M 2.8/21 for street photograph when traveling. Loved the ability to zone focus and as a rule of thumb used the depth of field scale on the lens assuming I was one f stop faster than the scale read. I have almost all the T lenses but really liked the manual focus at the wide end of the lens scale. 

However when getting into the longer lenses I much prefer the auto focus lenses as the DOF is so thin.

Just my preference and not sure it answers all your questions.

Cheers from Ottawa Canada to a fellow Canadian

Edited by grahamhoey
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially purchased the CL with the 18mm as a kit. Although I like the 18 mm, I found I missed the 35 mm equivalent. Therefore

I added the 23mm. I will keep both lenses but if I had it to do over I might just have the 23mm. Both lenses are really great.

I have adapters for both M and Nikor also and they are a pleasure to use and make great photos. I use a 135mm 2.8f

Nikor to shoot grandsons baseball games. Really a nice easy to use package. I love this camera and am glad I did not get a M10.

I have and still use a M7 and M8 but they are not getting much use.

Cheers, Dan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a bit of misconception. Most zooms in this range are this speed. And the ISO performance of the CL is far better than the D-Lux. It is my most-used lens. The 18 is the least of the TL lenses. (still quite good, though)

 

Actually my favourite lenses on the CL are the Summiluxes 24M and 50Masph. Not small nor light (especially the 24) but the images are exceptional.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not quite the case. I am impressed by the way the CL handles M lenses. For instance I have a dream combination: The Summilux 24 on the CL rivals (I think: betters) the Summilux 35 on the 240. For one thing, I prefer the CL sensor over the 240 one.

 

BTW, if you use AF I cannot see the sense of zone focusing.

 

Hope I am not confusing the issue, but I looked through the CL (official) handbook online, and it describes using zone focusing, exclusively with 60mm Macro, and 55-135mm zoom lenses only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked it, and you are indeed confusing "zone focusing" with "focus limit".

The latter means that the camera restricts the autofocus range to enable it to acquire focus faster as the autofocus motor has to span a shorter distance. 

 

Zone focusing (otherwise known as zone misfocusing) is something quite different: it means setting the camera to a fixed focus distance and relying on DOF to have the subject more or less sharp.

 

Zone focusing is rather difficult with lenses without a focus scale anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the CL and have recently used it with the Elmarit M 2.8/21 for street photograph when traveling. Loved the ability to zone focus and as a rule of thumb used the depth of field scale on the lens assuming I was one f stop faster than the scale read. I have almost all the T lenses but really liked the manual focus at the wide end of the lens scale. 

However when getting into the longer lenses I much prefer the auto focus lenses as the DOF is so thin.

Just my preference and not sure it answers all your questions.

Cheers from Ottawa Canada to a fellow Canadian

 

:)  Nice hearing from you fellow Canadian... !    Is your "Elmarit M 2.8/21" the ASPH lens, and is that large square lens hood convenient when use on a CL?  

 

Also wonder anyone may know that would the CL battery charger different from a D-Lux (type 109) charger or the same? 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...