Jump to content

Leica CL as main camera


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

I would not call f/2.8 exactly fast in the Leica world. On the coolness factor I cannot comment  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Even though this thread has been dormant for some time, I thought I'd add my own (slightly verbose) experience in the hope it might help others thinking about adopting the CL as a main camera. I’ve been a magazine writer/photographer for 30 years. For most of that time, my photographic equipment comprised full-sized film and then DSLR cameras, culminating in the Canon EOS 5D series and asociated lenses. I always carried my entire kit (less tripod) in a Pelican 1510 so I could bring it as ca

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 poin

Seems to me that there are two issues at work here. One is the feeling that many Leica users have the sense that they want "the best", even though "the best" may not have any relevance for their photography. Sometimes I have that feeling too, although I don't often act on it: when reading about the new Summicron-50 ASPH, I realize that I am happy to have my favorite 50mm lens, the DR Summicron, followed by the Summilux-50 pre-ASPH. The other is the feeling that, if one is using lenses for FF for

Posted Images

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.

 

 

Agreed, Scott. And I would not even mind they were then manual focus, trading AF lens barrel size for larger apertures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

I used to own the Fuji 14mm/f2.8 and I have been longing for a similar TL-lens as well.

 

Now, a 11-23mm with OIS would do the trick for me as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Agree.  I use my Q as the mirrorless Leica alternative to my X-T2 + 16/1.4.  While not always wide enough, the Leica delivers enough speed and excellent IQ.  But a fast wide TL lens would help me simplify my camera count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said earlier in this thread that there are still situations where I need my M10 or my SL, so I will be keeping all three. I sited my astrophotography, situations where I might need image stabilization, weather proofing, and a couple more. Well, the more I use the CL, the more I’m thinking I may not need that M10 any longer. Sure, the M10 has the more direct interface, and I’m having a tough time even thinking about giving up all that beautiful M glass, but purely from an “image” perspective—in terms of what pictures could I get (or make “better”) with the M10 I’m really struggling.

 

They are both similar in size, depending on the lens

The CL is generally lighter, again depending on the lens

The more I compare image quality in the real world, the more I am finding similarities rather than differences

The CL has AF when I want it

The M10 still seems a touch better at high ISO, but not dramatically so

The build quality seems higher on the M10

I still don’t have the color working quite as well on the CL as I did on the M10, but that will come

While the ‘M’ glass is legendary, and I’ve got a ton of it, the TL lenses are quite astonishing—often at the same level

I can get better control over DOF with a full frame body, but the advantage I was expecting with regard to full well capacity and read noise just isn’t there for the M10

 

There are still reasons for me to hang onto the SL, but suddenly I am less certain about the M10. No need to rush, I suppose. But I could probably pay for an X-1D with both lenses if I decided to part with the M10 and most of my M glass. Hmm. That would give me a light travel camera, a workhorse, and a dedicated landscape camera. Worth thinking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are missing a reason: The histogram in the viewfinder combined with the exposure compensation wheel is fantastic for getting exposure right and controlling the highlights. Shooting in the snow today it was a godsend. My compensation ranged from -1 2/3 to +3. All shots were perfectly exposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also been putting the CL through its paces the past 2 months.

 

The differences with the SL are all in all pretty small I find... Better high ISO together with the OIS of the zooms is a plus for the SL, weather sealing, better body for larger lenses.

 

If Leica were to release a 16-55mm zoom with OIS for the CL it could be game over for the Leica SL...  We are not there yet though... but the Leica Q has already been sacrificed... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing a reason: The histogram in the viewfinder combined with the exposure compensation wheel is fantastic for getting exposure right and controlling the highlights. Shooting in the snow today it was a godsend. My compensation ranged from -1 2/3 to +3. All shots were perfectly exposed.

Yeah, a few others I skipped as well. Like the ability to compose precisely without Liveview or an external finder, the ability to focus longer lenses without the accessory finder, the ability to compose wider angles without a viewfinder, and even a couple lowly “features” like the inability to accidentally take a picture with the lens cap on. Yeah, I’m going to have to give this some real consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing a reason: The histogram in the viewfinder combined with the exposure compensation wheel is fantastic for getting exposure right and controlling the highlights. Shooting in the snow today it was a godsend. My compensation ranged from -1 2/3 to +3. All shots were perfectly exposed.

 

 

Seems to me that one shouldn't have to use compensation as much as -1⅔ to -3 unless one is also trying to eliminate specular highlights. However, sometimes with the M10 I also have had to use this level of drastic compensation, but it hasn't meant that the "shots were perfectly exposed", since I've then had to raise the shadows commensurately in post-processing. At times that has made me think that the M10 sensor is inadequate in its tendency to blow out highlights too easily — but that is another issue, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice thing about having a dependable 12 and occasional 14 bits of dynamic range is that in post processing I frequently both stretch highlights and bring up lots of detail from the shadows.  And still end up with an image grounded in solid blacks.  But increasingly, I let the specular highlights go to sparkles of white rather than crush midtones.  I don't see the need to "expose to the right" in general, nor do I feel that a fully spread out histogram defines a perfectly exposed picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that one shouldn't have to use compensation as much as -1⅔ to -3 unless one is also trying to eliminate specular highlights. However, sometimes with the M10 I also have had to use this level of drastic compensation, but it hasn't meant that the "shots were perfectly exposed", since I've then had to raise the shadows commensurately in post-processing. At times that has made me think that the M10 sensor is inadequate in its tendency to blow out highlights too easily — but that is another issue, isn't it?

Try shooting somebody or something against a snowfield or a beach, or a beach/snowfield framed by shadowy objects. You'll soon learn to expose for the most important part. In the past, it meant using spot metering. Digital, EV compensation and an EVF with histogram have simplified those situations quite a bit.

And yes, we have to lift shadows or pull down highlights or make them specular in some cases. Perfect exposure means we control this process.

It is not the camera blowing the highlights out - it is the photographer doing so.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still going to have to use my Ricoh GR to set a "snap focus" distance unless the CL has a firmware update that allows a button to act as AF-On. Also I'm using the CL a lot on a monopod where the lack of a remote release is frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I decided today that while the CL isn’t a replacement for all things Leica, it is a replacement for my M10. So I traded in my M, a 21SEM, a 21 ‘Lux, a 35mm FLE, a 50 APO, a 75mm Summicron, a 90mm Macro Elmar, a 135mm APO Telyt, and a 180mm Telyt R on a Hasselblad X1D. That leaves:

 

‘Q’

SL with 24-90 and 16/18/21 WATE (75mm Summicron SL on order)

CL with 11-22, 18-56, 18, 23, and 35mm

 

I’ll probably want to add the 60mm Macro for the CL as well.

 

That gives me a fun camera, a workhorse, and a dedicated landscape/studio camera.

 

First time without an ‘M’ in the bag in, well, a very long time. It was hard to part with all the ‘M’ glass, but, honestly, I can’t tell the difference in image quality between the ‘M’ glass and the TL for the vast majority of my day-to-day uses, and I get more keepers with the CL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I decided today that while the CL isn’t a replacement for all things Leica, it is a replacement for my M10. So I traded in my M, a 21SEM, a 21 ‘Lux, a 35mm FLE, a 50 APO, a 75mm Summicron, a 90mm Macro Elmar, a 135mm APO Telyt, and a 180mm Telyt R on a Hasselblad X1D. That leaves:

 

‘Q’

SL with 24-90 and 16/18/21 WATE (75mm Summicron SL on order)

CL with 11-22, 18-56, 18, 23, and 35mm

 

I’ll probably want to add the 60mm Macro for the CL as well.

 

That gives me a fun camera, a workhorse, and a dedicated landscape/studio camera.

 

First time without an ‘M’ in the bag in, well, a very long time. It was hard to part with all the ‘M’ glass, but, honestly, I can’t tell the difference in image quality between the ‘M’ glass and the TL for the vast majority of my day-to-day uses, and I get more keepers with the CL.

 

 

Hi Jared,

Sorry for this "dumb question". I am a newbie. When you say you "traded in" did you trade it back to Leica for credit towards the new cameras? Or did you sell it yourself? Is it pretty easy to sell used Leica cameras?

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I decided today that while the CL isn’t a replacement for all things Leica, it is a replacement for my M10. So I traded in my M, a 21SEM, a 21 ‘Lux, a 35mm FLE, a 50 APO, a 75mm Summicron, a 90mm Macro Elmar, a 135mm APO Telyt, and a 180mm Telyt R on a Hasselblad X1D. That leaves:

‘Q’

SL with 24-90 and 16/18/21 WATE (75mm Summicron SL on order)

CL with 11-22, 18-56, 18, 23, and 35mm

I’ll probably want to add the 60mm Macro for the CL as well.

That gives me a fun camera, a workhorse, and a dedicated landscape/studio camera.

First time without an ‘M’ in the bag in, well, a very long time. It was hard to part with all the ‘M’ glass, but, honestly, I can’t tell the difference in image quality between the ‘M’ glass and the TL for the vast majority of my day-to-day uses, and I get more keepers with the CL.

I can understand why. The CL is seriously eating in to my M10’s use time, although I’m not ready to say goodbye yet. The reality is, you had an enormous payload of Leica gear, the SL and CL make a wonderful combination and the X1D will give you something your Leica gear doesn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the Q making way for the 60 Macro soon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I decided today that while the CL isn’t a replacement for all things Leica, it is a replacement for my M10. So I traded in my M, a 21SEM, a 21 ‘Lux, a 35mm FLE, a 50 APO, a 75mm Summicron, a 90mm Macro Elmar, a 135mm APO Telyt, and a 180mm Telyt R on a Hasselblad X1D. That leaves:

‘Q’

SL with 24-90 and 16/18/21 WATE (75mm Summicron SL on order)

CL with 11-22, 18-56, 18, 23, and 35mm

I’ll probably want to add the 60mm Macro for the CL as well.

That gives me a fun camera, a workhorse, and a dedicated landscape/studio camera.

First time without an ‘M’ in the bag in, well, a very long time. It was hard to part with all the ‘M’ glass, but, honestly, I can’t tell the difference in image quality between the ‘M’ glass and the TL for the vast majority of my day-to-day uses, and I get more keepers with the CL.

 

All that gear you used to swap ..... for an X1D? You must have saved a lot of money by this transaction or am I missing something?

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rob7P
      Hi,
      with the delayed CL2 anyone tought to buy a Panasonic S5? Lens are compatible and you get IBIS and even a full frame in a comparable compact package.. More Panasonic seems a "low brand" Leica because they share more than the lens: quality of photos should be high
    • By lecycliste
      I'm already using a 35/1.4 Summilux-TL ASPH on a Leica SL2, but I'd like a much lighter load around my neck. (As I write this, I'm still recovering from being too stiff to turn my head from side to side or tilt it back without neck and shoulder pain.) I'm considering purchasing a used Leica CL and used Vario-Elmarit-TL 55-135mm f/3.5-4.5. 
      - Does the CL track just human faces, or will it track animal faces too?

      - Does the CL allow you to choose the initial AF point? 
      - How well does the CL track moving faces at f/4.5 - does it lose focus with a subject moving towards you erratically at 3 MPH? At 15 MPH?

      - How long is the battery life (# of shots) using just the EVF (no LCD)?

      - I know the camera lacks external ports of any kind. Is there an external power solution using a dummy battery with cable to a USB external battery?

      Thanks.
    • By wda
      I am looking for an L-Bracket, with Arca Swiss compatibility, for use with my Leica CL camera. Occasionally it will be used with tele-zoom lenses, but mostly with smaller lenses.
      There are a few threads on this subject in the forum, dealing specifically with bigger cameras, but none that I could find relevant to the CL. Googling brings up a lot of brand-specific solutions; a few claim to be universal. I would welcome any reports from members of this forum, of user experience with such a device, and recommendations. Thank you.
    • By Peter G
      I have a Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 Mk III lens fitted on my CL with the M-L adaptor. I set the lens detection to auto, in the menu, but I'm not convinced it is recognised as the shutter speed set seems too low.
      The lens is not in the dropdown menu as those are all Leica lenses. 
      The photos look OK in Capture One, but I would like to check that I've picked the right settings for the camera to recognise the lens.
      Any ideas?
×
×
  • Create New...