lct Posted May 16, 2018 Share #201 Posted May 16, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Elmarit 21/2.8 asph feels bulky indeed on the CL but the SEM 21/3.4 is not considerably smaller. The CV 21/4 is a bit slower but is hard to beat size wise on the CL. BTW the CL's batteries have not the same size as those of the DL109. Different charger then. 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281981-leica-cl-as-main-camera/?do=findComment&comment=3519633'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 16, 2018 Posted May 16, 2018 Hi lct, Take a look here Leica CL as main camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
norm_snyder Posted May 16, 2018 Share #202 Posted May 16, 2018 For those of you using the 21mm Elmarit on theCL, any difficulties with corner smearing, wide open? I tried my Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZM, and it definitely has fringing in the corners, as well as some smearing. My 23mm lens is far better in the corners, although the size bothered me a bit, compared to the 35mm Summicron v4 I'm used to using on the M. I considered the C-V lens, due to its size, but f4 is a bit slow for my needs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted May 17, 2018 Share #203 Posted May 17, 2018 On the CL with a 23mm TL lens, from photos, I do not see any aperture ring control, if you want to shoot manually setting the apertures, how dose it done? Is it convenient? Must not be too visual like with a M or R lens... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 17, 2018 Share #204 Posted May 17, 2018 You can do it through the dials of the camera i guess. Don't ask me more as i don't like that and focus by wire is not my cup of tea either so i only use M lenses on the CL so far. Must be convenient for AF users though but i don't understand why they cannot control apertures the usual way while some competitors allow the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 17, 2018 Share #205 Posted May 17, 2018 On the CL with a 23mm TL lens, from photos, I do not see any aperture ring control, if you want to shoot manually setting the apertures, how dose it done? Is it convenient? Must not be too visual like with a M or R lens... You set the aperture by the right wheel, quite convenient. The aperture is displayed both in the viewfinder and on the top LCD. I do not miss the aperture ring. The advantage is that one does not need two hands to change aperture. It is interesting that Leica/Panasonic experimented with both systems in the Panaleica lenses, and apparently decided for a camera-controlled aperture as being the most ergonomical. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamhoey Posted May 17, 2018 Share #206 Posted May 17, 2018 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? Yes it is the ASPH lens. I don’t use the lens hood. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astropap Posted May 22, 2018 Share #207 Posted May 22, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm seriously thinking of selling my new Q and my lightly used X Vario to buy a CL. I really like both cameras but don't like be tied to one lens. I've considered getting an M10 or M-P 240 but I fear my eyesight isn't good enough to focus the rangefinder accurately. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 22, 2018 Share #208 Posted May 22, 2018 I'm seriously thinking of selling my new Q and my lightly used X Vario to buy a CL. I really like both cameras but don't like be tied to one lens. I've considered getting an M10 or M-P 240 but I fear my eyesight isn't good enough to focus the rangefinder accurately. Had both and really loved them, although the XV was a bit slow and clunky ....... the CL would be an excellent replacement and add a lot of flexibility. The downside is the money you will get for the XV ...... for such a good camera it was pitiful. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted May 22, 2018 Share #209 Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) I'm seriously thinking of selling my new Q and my lightly used X Vario to buy a CL. I really like both cameras but don't like be tied to one lens. I've considered getting an M10 or M-P 240 but I fear my eyesight isn't good enough to focus the rangefinder accurately. Sell the X Vario, but keep the Q! The CL is terrific, but if you want to slowly test the waters, the original T is a bargain on the pre-owned market (appx. $500 USD) and you'd be unlikely to lose any IQ nor much money if you wanted to sell. If you use dng files I suspect you'll not see any differences in image quality. (The CL's jpegs are terrific, while the T's are flat). Rob Edited May 22, 2018 by ropo54 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astropap Posted May 22, 2018 Share #210 Posted May 22, 2018 Thanks but I tried the T and it wasn’t for me. Amy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdann Posted May 25, 2018 Share #211 Posted May 25, 2018 After 4 months I personally consider the CL to be a Mini M. I have and use a M7 and a M8 to compare it to. For me, the EVF is easier to use than a mechanical viewfinder. The IQ is excellent as is usable IOS. The ability to have autofocus capability as well as easily use my M and Nikor lenses is great . I posted a couple of suggestions on the firmware thread but I love this camera. It has become my main camera. I considered a M10 but am glad I bought the CL. The M7 and M8 (which still makes excellent photos) are backups. Cheers, Dan 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistairm Posted May 28, 2018 Share #212 Posted May 28, 2018 One of my daughters is performing in a concert tonight. As I left for work this morning I threw the CL and 18-56 into my suitcase. It really is amazing to have such a small package and zooms that may involve some sacrifice of maximum aperture but no sacrifice in terms of image quality. Normally I would have grabbed the M... but the CL is smaller and lighter. Alistair 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 28, 2018 Share #213 Posted May 28, 2018 You forget another benefit: the electronic shutter is complètely silent. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTLeica Posted June 12, 2018 Share #214 Posted June 12, 2018 Consensus really? Would be interesting to do a poll on that. Pretty much fact that in good light there will be almost nothing between TL2, CL, SL and M10 from a sensor standpoint. Then give or take a stop at higher ISO. It will be the quality of the lens used that makes the difference. I suspect the 18mm f2.8 Elmarit would not compare that well against a 28mm Elmarit APSH II on the M? But it would likely compare ewll to the Summaron M lens 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTLeica Posted June 12, 2018 Share #215 Posted June 12, 2018 I think it does. LCT may well be correct and I in error for mini-MF. Anyway, whatever else, the sensor format is the least of our worries nowadays. Exactly 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 13, 2018 Share #216 Posted June 13, 2018 Pretty much fact that in good light there will be almost nothing between TL2, CL, SL and M10 from a sensor standpoint. [...] I beg to differ. Main difference to me is size of the sensor which determines DoF and allows for larger pixels. Size matters in this matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 13, 2018 Share #217 Posted June 13, 2018 DOF is more determined by perspective - take one step forward and the sensor size difference vanishes into thin air. As for pixel size, in theory you are right, but nowadays technology smooths the difference. Just look at the 20 MP (80 on full frame) 4/3rds sensor which rivals quite a few APS-C ones. And the Sony APS-C sensors which are close to full-frame from the X1 onwards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTLeica Posted June 13, 2018 Share #218 Posted June 13, 2018 I beg to differ. Main difference to me is size of the sensor which determines DoF and allows for larger pixels. Size matters in this matter. I am talking from a resolution perspective. DoF is restricted very slightly sure, but I bet if you looked at 10 shots from a 50mm F1.4 and 10 from a 50mm F2 you would not tell them apart. DoF is controlled more by the user than anything else. Shallow DoF is also the most overhyped function of a FF camera IMO. I obsessed over it at first, but you learn that its really not all that important. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 13, 2018 Share #219 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) Matter of tastes or practice i guess. I can tell you easily which of my pics is shot at f/1.4 or f/2 and shallow DoF is one of the main reasons why some photogs prefer faster lenses and/or larger formats. May be important for me and less so for you but you referred to "facts" and from this viewpoint, DoF depends objectively on the size of the sensor. Perspective is another story. Edited June 13, 2018 by lct Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTLeica Posted June 13, 2018 Share #220 Posted June 13, 2018 Matter of tastes or practice i guess. I can tell you easily which of my pics is shot at f/1.4 or f/2 and shallow DoF is one of the main reasons why some photogs prefer faster lenses and/or larger formats. May be important for me and less so for you but you referred to "facts" and from this viewpoint, DoF depends objectively on the size of the sensor. Perspective is another story. Literally just told you that I was referring to resolution and output. Not DoF when comparing sensor sizes... I then went on to discuss your DoF point... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.