Leica CL Leica CL as main camera

[Guest VVJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any of the M/SL/CL are fantastic cameras in their own right and I find the IQ the same from all three for any of my practical purposes.

 

+1.  And the CL is IMO a very good compromise between price, size/weight and image quality.  

[jaapv]

The Leica S sensor is (only) 45x30.... 

 

Full frame Medium Format Jaap is referring to is approximately 54x40.

 

Perhaps that explains the differences in calculations.

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.

[Advertisement]

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

[SiOnara]

Not just to me, the differences are utterly irrelevant for real-life photography, there are quite a few threads on the forum right now confirming that. Feel free to disagree - if your photography is of a level to benefit of the marginal differences, any small-format sensor, be it APS-C, full-frame, or -horror!- MFT, is bound to disappoint.

I don’t see any real change between my photographs taken with my M10 and my CL. Using the right lens combo with the sensor both cameras deliver similar, splinter results.

[SiOnara]

I don’t see any real change between my photographs taken with my M10 and my CL. Using the right lens combo with the sensor both cameras deliver similar, splinter results.

Splinter = splendid!

[Guest Nowhereman]

I guess the spelling-checker prefers the M10!

[meerec]

After two months hiatus in using SL since the time I bought the CL at the beginning of December and shooting it exclusively since, I took my SL out last night to the China Town in Sydney. I must disclose that the 11-23 zoom is the only native CL lens I’ve acquired and used and actually a couple of days only. This zoom feels too large for my taste **on the CL** even if it yields very good images. So my CL has seen a lot of the M lenses, and occasionally the 90-280 zoom from my SL. Now to the point — I’ve really gelled well with the CL over the last two months, and it granted me a lot of fun, and many great images. And the main confession to make: I didn’t enjoy the night out with the SL yesterday. It’s probably the reason I’m writing this short post to share my discovery. SL is mighty capable, there’s no doubt, and it has my full respect and love. and I’d feel hard pressed at this stage to part with it forever. But it felt large in my hands, clunky and too heavy to enjoy the stroll around the city with the summilux-M 35 FLE attached. I took the 90-280 as well, and albeit used for 15min it remained in the shoulder bag and made it heavy like hell, of course :-)

 

Attached are two sample shots ... everyone shoots cats right? So this one was taken on CL with M-35 FLE.

And a shot from last night at China Town on the SL with 90-280 zoom at 280mm and heavily cropped to isolate the kid from the surroundings.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by meerec

[Guest VVJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW, I was in New Jersey yesterday and on the way home I decided to stop by at Unique Photo in Fairfield, NJ.  They had a Fuji X-H1 Demo Day going on.  I held one for a brief period of time.  If you are used to the design and build quality of Leica holding a Fuji can IMHO be a little bit underwhelming.  And that is an understatement.  Same with all the dials and buttons.  What a mess.  I immediately started appreciating the simplicity and the minimalism of Leica.  That being said, feature wise it is an impressive camera and a feature like IBIS is IMO obviously not a gimmick.  They also had the GFX 50S on display.  Similar observations compared to the Leica S.

[Mr.Q]

I shoot with both Leica and Fuji. I agree that the Leica M and S are impressive in build quality. The CL is not in the same league, and closer to Fuji in that regard.

[Guest VVJ]

Closer perhaps, still a significant difference IMO.  A CL body feels pretty rock solid in my hands compared to a Fuji body.

 

That being said, I had 3 Fuji bodies as well in the past, none of them ever broke down, so does it really matter?

[sblitz]

I only have the CL a few days now, traded in my Q because I needed a digital where I could change lenses. And the crop was attractive because it makes long lenses longer. I am really enjoying the camera, love the form factor, having fun and the files are great. Had an SL to play with for a bit and yes the files were bigger and there was a lot more to play with. BUT to me the SL involved more of a commitment to digital than I wanted to make given its size and cost. The CL is in a sense an SL lite but that is no slight to the CL. Great camera lots of fun and I will get a lot of use out of it for a few years until I trade for the next big thing Leica introduces. My heart is still in film. But there are times digital is better. And as for an M10, well the arrival of grandchildren dictated the need for video capability

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pthean]

side by side 35.jpg

 

Couldn't agree more, only difference for me is that the CL replaces my M for travel.  We are off for a short trip next week, carry on baggage only,  and my only issue is the wonderfully performing, but badly formed 35mm.  Mine may have to stay home in favour of a 46 year old M 35mm - because even with adaptor it takes up so so much less room in the bag.  Would really like Leica to come up with a smaller 35 1.4 for the CL, I was when I used it, a big fan of the Fuji 35mm 1.4 much friendlier form.  

Thank you for showing the M lens side by side. Wow - what a huge difference in size. M lens are manual focus only, so we would lose the auto focus capability of the CL 35mm. Does it make sense for someone like myself who does not own any M gear to buy the smaller M lens to use on the CL? (M lenses are also much more expensive). Since you have both lenses, when would you use the CL 35mm over the M one?

 

Thank you for any thoughts on this topic.

[Boojay]

Thank you for showing the M lens side by side. Wow - what a huge difference in size. M lens are manual focus only, so we would lose the auto focus capability of the CL 35mm. Does it make sense for someone like myself who does not own any M gear to buy the smaller M lens to use on the CL? (M lenses are also much more expensive). Since you have both lenses, when would you use the CL 35mm over the M one?

 

Thank you for any thoughts on this topic.

 

Certainly a big difference in those 35's, yes.  

 

The old 35mm Summilux (1972) in the picture actually cost less than the 35mm CL lens, and there are lots of reasonably priced options if you want to try a manual lens, the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 is around the same size and costs around a third of the price of the 35mm CL, remembering you have to factor in the cost of the M to L adaptor though.

 

It is just the old thing of travel, and when you want to keep things smaller and lighter,  you also get a very different look to the files from the older manual lens, note I said different - not better.  At home, taking family candid/portraits I would probably always use the CL lens.

 

I should also add that when I bought the CL I bought the kit with the 18-56 and did not have it in mind to buy any other of the CL/TL lens, just to stick with my M kit.  Then somehow found myself getting the 23mm, (justified because widest I have in my M kit is 35mm)  then 55-135 because it looked from all images I had seen from others  - great (and it is),  and then the 35mm - no more now!!!!!  Definitely more Greed than Need.  

[mctuomey]

I have my kit sorted out for a trip to New Orleans later this month, marking a trial return to Leica from Fuji X.  Two bodies, two lenses, Q + CL with M-Lux 50, covering my two common focal lengths.  Will share some photos & comments on return.

 

I could not run with just a CL because I prefer two light bodies to changing lenses on one and also because I must have both a fast wide and fast short tele.

Edited February 27, 2018 by mctuomey

[frame-it]

and which fuji X are you usually using ?

I have my kit sorted out for a trip to New Orleans later this month, marking a trial return to Leica from Fuji X.  Two bodies, two lenses, Q + CL with M-Lux 50, covering my two common focal lengths.  Will share some photos & comments on return.

 

I could not run with just a CL because I prefer two light bodies to changing lenses on one and also because I must have both a fast wide and fast short tele.

[pthean]

Certainly a big difference in those 35's, yes.  

 

The old 35mm Summilux (1972) in the picture actually cost less than the 35mm CL lens, and there are lots of reasonably priced options if you want to try a manual lens, the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 is around the same size and costs around a third of the price of the 35mm CL, remembering you have to factor in the cost of the M to L adaptor though.

 

It is just the old thing of travel, and when you want to keep things smaller and lighter,  you also get a very different look to the files from the older manual lens, note I said different - not better.  At home, taking family candid/portraits I would probably always use the CL lens.

 

I should also add that when I bought the CL I bought the kit with the 18-56 and did not have it in mind to buy any other of the CL/TL lens, just to stick with my M kit.  Then somehow found myself getting the 23mm, (justified because widest I have in my M kit is 35mm)  then 55-135 because it looked from all images I had seen from others  - great (and it is),  and then the 35mm - no more now!!!!!  Definitely more Greed than Need.  

 

Thank you for sharing. I started with the CL and the 18mm kit when I was on a trip in Amsterdam in December.  I was going to add the 55-135 and be done. I found the 55-135 slightly used for a discount online as well as the 18-56. So I was tempted to buy both. I figured I was done. But I could not get the depth of field that I wanted out of the 18-56, even though the photos look beautiful. So I finally succumbed and bought the 35 f/1.4.  I really like the photos I get from the 35mm f/1.4. However, to my surprise, when I use the 35, I found myself focusing manually instead of using autofocus to get the exact focus that I wanted. So that's why I am contemplating a manual focus 35 if it makes the combination smaller and lighter. 

 

I am thinking that for my next trip, I will most likely take the CL and 3 of my lenses to see which ones I really use in real life situations. I will take the 18, 35 and 55-135. I am looking forward to it in a few weeks!

[mctuomey]

and which fuji X are you usually using ?

 

I've been using a combo of X-T1 and X-T2 bodies primarily with the 16/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 50-140/2.8 for 3+ years.

[Anika]

Thank you for sharing. I started with the CL and the 18mm kit when I was on a trip in Amsterdam in December.  I was going to add the 55-135 and be done. I found the 55-135 slightly used for a discount online as well as the 18-56. So I was tempted to buy both. I figured I was done. But I could not get the depth of field that I wanted out of the 18-56, even though the photos look beautiful. So I finally succumbed and bought the 35 f/1.4.  I really like the photos I get from the 35mm f/1.4. However, to my surprise, when I use the 35, I found myself focusing manually instead of using autofocus to get the exact focus that I wanted. So that's why I am contemplating a manual focus 35 if it makes the combination smaller and lighter. 

 

I am thinking that for my next trip, I will most likely take the CL and 3 of my lenses to see which ones I really use in real life situations. I will take the 18, 35 and 55-135. I am looking forward to it in a few weeks!

 

 

I think you will use the 18mm all the time... and crop

[Guest VVJ]

UPS left the 60mm yesterday at the front door.  This was the only native TL lens that I didn't have yet.  Hopefully Leica has more TL lenses lined up!

[scott kirkpatrick]

I needed wide and fast AF last night for a school festival in crowded, tight quarters with colorful costumes and funky lighting.  The CL and its lenses don't really go there.  I wanted 21 or 24 mm-eff and f/2.0 or better, so used a Fuji X-T2 and the XF-16/1.4 lens, with results that you can see at https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/JJ1HT5 .  It would be nice to see an equivalent lens (14 to 16 mm, f/2.0 or better)  for the CL, with AF.

Edited February 28, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Tobers]

I needed wide and fast AF last night for a school festival in crowded, tight quarters with colorful costumes and funky lighting.  The CL and its lenses don't really go there

Yep you're right - a wide, fast AF lens is a big hole in the lineup.

 

Mind you, the 18 2.8 is pretty cool, though I'm with you, a 14mm f/2 (21mm equiv) would be coolio.