CL + M135f3.4

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Obviously you will be cropping the field of view. However, Leica clearly regards it as a suitable platform for R lenses by supplying an R-adapter L. In my experience the only drawback of using R lenses is bulk and weight. Optically the results are as good as can be.

[yst]

As you may see on my photo-diaries (like this most recent one from April:

http://photoart.chebucto.org/photos-folder/2018Apr_LanCang-Mekong-river_PhotoDiary.pdf ) 

Since it is not film using, so I could only use a cellphone, and a D-Lux 5 "point & shoot" little camera for all those snapshots.   Therefore could not control depth of field, and do not have longer focal length than 90mm, so if having a CL + my already own 135f3.4, then could be a solution for the telephoto images.   Before able to buy a M10...

 

Is the M & R adapter already provided with the CL camera package, or is an additional order? 

Edited May 8, 2018 by yst

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

Leica M Lens to Leica L mount > $395~~

Leica R  Lens to Leica L mount > $750~~

[Boojay]

Two adaptors as above but if you are going to buy an M10, and plan to use R lens then would make sense to stack R-M, M-L, rather than purchasing the more expensive R-L adaptor.  The Leica R to M mount adaptor is $395 also.

[jaapv]

Any R-M adapter will work excellently on the M adapter L, I use both the Novoflex and a 20$ one from eBay. I would be hard pushed to notice  any quality difference. A passive R-M adapter will not transmit ROM data, of course, but I don't miss it.

[yst]

Therefore, due to already have a135f3.4 M lens, the CL is a "cheaper" alternative to have a "telephoto" capacity... compared to get a SL, or a M10?

 

Also what would be the big drawback with a "APS file" of the CL, compared with a "full size file" of the SL, or M10?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have discovered none. Usable DR is the same, high ISO similar, overall rendering very close. The M10 might draw ahead slightly at very high ISO, but competent PP will close the gap. Actually it is quite amazing what they have done with that smaller sensor.

The SL EVF will be even better than the CL, but in practice one will not notice. Of course the SL lenses are rather oversized and heavy when used on the CL, so if one owns those, the SL will handle better.

[lct]

[...] Also what would be the big drawback with a "APS file" of the CL, compared with a "full size file" of the SL, or M10?

 

Big is a matter of tastes and i have no experience with SL or M10 but i find my CL too noisy above 3200 iso. Even some of my 3200 iso pics look too grainy compared to my Sony A7s mod which is a champion there admittedly. Now i own both M 135/3.4 and R 180/3.4 and fact is that i use more often the former with the CL than the latter with the Sony. I'm a handhold shooter though. On a tripod i would probably prefer the Sony + 180 combo. FWIW.

[jaapv]

Possibly, but the question was about a comparison to other Leicas. Leica has always had a minimum of in-camera noise reduction, giving the user more control in PP.

An APS-C sensor, other things being equal, will in general be a stop behind a full frame one regarding noise. The simple answer for the rare cases that one wants to exceed 3200 ISO (personally I find 6400 ISO usable, but never find the need) is Topaz. To me a non-issue.

[jaapv]

Therefore, due to already have a135f3.4 M lens, the CL is a "cheaper" alternative to have a "telephoto" capacity... compared to get a SL, or a M10?

 

Also what would be the big drawback with a "APS file" of the CL, compared with a "full size file" of the SL, or M10?

 

 

 

We have this thread on the subject:

 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281767-image-quality-cl-vs-sl-vs-m10/page-3?do=findComment&comment=3515365

[yst]

Possibly, but the question was about a comparison to other Leicas. Leica has always had a minimum of in-camera noise reduction, giving the user more control in PP.

An APS-C sensor, other things being equal, will in general be a stop behind a full frame one regarding noise. The simple answer for the rare cases that one wants to exceed 3200 ISO (personally I find 6400 ISO usable, but never find the need) is Topaz. To me a non-issue.

 

What is  "PP" ?

[jaapv]

postprocessing

[yst]

postprocessing

 

With the CL, do you think shooting jpg is enough, since the file is good, and if the exposure, the use lighting is good, there is not much need for adjustment which not necessary to shoot RAW?

[jaapv]

Shooting jpg is never enough.

There is no reason to do so either. Raw processing is, in fact, easier than jpg processing. If you feel lazy , just hit "auto" in the quick process function of Lightroom. You'll never know what type of file you opened, unless you look at the extension anyway. (or try and use a camera profile ) With a raw file you can choose a camera profile which will help you get optimal colour and you have more leeway for adjustments.

Shoot raw+jpg. If you're happy with the jpg and/or post on social media, just use the jpg and archive the raw. If you want to lift shadows considerably, or really get the colour just so, use the raw file and ignore the jpg.

And if you happen to take a shot that has important content for you and screw up the technical side -believe me, it happens to all of us- you'll thank your lucky stars that you have a raw file to salvage.

 

And please, ignore the self-important  Internet gurus who try and make out that shooting raw is some kind of esoteric initiation rite reserved for the highest caste of photographers only. It is not - it is just a file containing more data, nothing else. More data is good, isn't it?

[yst]

Not even if you can have very accurate exposure etc technical control, like when shooting slide-films, no more than half stop allowed, that you can then use jpg only?   And this way save the space as well, since the RAW takes up much more space?    Therefore, if you do not make mistake on a shot, then  that shot could be taken in jpg?   No? 

Edited May 10, 2018 by yst

[jaapv]

Yes, it could

But why should you want to? If you shoot raw+JPG, you have the best of two words.

 

Memory space is not an argument.

If you use a 32 GB card, which is small by present-day standards, the CL will write about 800 DNG+JPG. My oldish (2013) MacBook Pro has 2TB + 0.5 TB SSD. My backup device holds 0.5 TB.

Memory is cheap and plentiful.

 

Upload speeds? Use a USB 3.0 reader or have a cup of coffee for 2.0.

 

Scenario: You take the perfect shot, and lo and behold, you win the Pulitzer Prize for it, National Geographic is clamouring for the raw file. And then? You only have JPG... 

Seriously, you don't have to process each shot in DNG if you don't need to or want to. But you can have DNG+JPG, use whatever suits you, and have the raw data to make the file future-proof, just in case. It costs you nothing and gains a lot.

Don't think every shot is predictably perfect enough out of camera (any camera), and moments are fleeting and unrepeatable.

[yst]

Yes, it could

But why should you want to? If you shoot raw+JPG, you have the best of two words.

 

Memory space is not an argument.

If you use a 32 GB card, which is small by present-day standards, the CL will write about 800 DNG+JPG. My oldish (2013) MacBook Pro has 2TB + 0.5 TB SSD. My backup device holds 0.5 TB.

Memory is cheap and plentiful.

 

Upload speeds? Use a USB 3.0 reader or have a cup of coffee for 2.0.

 

Scenario: You take the perfect shot, and lo and behold, you win the Pulitzer Prize for it, National Geographic is clamouring for the raw file. And then? You only have JPG... 

Seriously, you don't have to process each shot in DNG if you don't need to or want to. But you can have DNG+JPG, use whatever suits you, and have the raw data to make the file future-proof, just in case. It costs you nothing and gains a lot.

Don't think every shot is predictably perfect enough out of camera (any camera), and moments are fleeting and unrepeatable.

 

The "DNG+JPG" sounds like a good idea...    Is it a lot more work or more difficult to work on the RAW-DNG files than just work on JPG?   JPG is easier or much less technical knowhow to work on or adjust ?     

[bags27]

YST-your photographic diary is lovely. You have a excellent sense of composition and exposure values. By my very amateur eye, you are fine shooting in jpg, but if you did shoot in raw and post-processed your images, many of them might have been even sharper and more effective. But what you have produced is excellent already.

Edited May 10, 2018 by bags27

[Einst_Stein]

135mm 3.4 APO is supposed to be visibly superior to my 135mm F4 Elmar, the 1960 release.

I am very happy with mine, so I cant imaging any reason you would not like your combination.

 

However, now the 135mm prime is mostly replaced by T55-135mm zoom (equivalent to 85mm-200mm in 35mm FF), Not a concious IQ decision, just for the zoom convenience.

 

By the way, Leica 135mm f4 tele-elmar is similar in IQ, but even smaller than the Elmar version. You can have the elar for about US$200, and tele elmar version for about $400.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

The "DNG+JPG" sounds like a good idea...    Is it a lot more work or more difficult to work on the RAW-DNG files than just work on JPG?   JPG is easier or much less technical knowhow to work on or adjust ?     

You'll hardly notice the difference in workflow in most post-processing programs, including Lightroom. You have a few more options and your interface won't change much, but your results will be better - a lot-, especially for shots that need a bit more than minor basic work. The  number of clicks is about the same, the time needed too. It does pay off, though, to spend some time studying a few basic books or Internet videos.

I find JPG more difficult than DNG to work on - it tends to give the images an "over-processed" look if you are not careful, and you run into things like posterisation and harsh transitions much sooner.