Leica CL Leica CL Review

[RomeoBravo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey All!

I just published a review of the Leica CL on my website, and shotkit.com

 

http://www.romeobravophoto.com/leica-cl-review/

 

I'm really enjoying this little gem!

 

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!

 

 

[Wojtek]

Romeo, just 4 things

 

1. Incredible pictures! This kind of pictures would convince me to buy a camera like that.

2. I love the way you write. To the point. No fluff.

3. It's possibly the most favourable review I've read? But I don't find it fan boyish at all. 

4. Thank you

 

Edit. Oh, but there's a little #5: I don't think CL has better dynamic range than many of the cameras you mentioned. I think you didn't check something correctly? I.e. it's worse than X-H1, M10, D4

Edited August 13, 2018 by Wojtek

[RomeoBravo]

Romeo, just 4 things

 

1. Incredible pictures! This kind of pictures would convince me to buy a camera like that.

2. I love the way you write. To the point. No fluff.

3. It's possibly the most favourable review I've read? But I don't find it fan boyish at all. 

4. Thank you

 

Edit. Oh, but there's a little #5: I don't think CL has better dynamic range than many of the cameras you mentioned. I think you didn't check something correctly? I.e. it's worse than X-H1, M10, D4

Thanks Wojtek!

As for #5, did you check Bill Claffs table?  That's where I got the information from:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

 

Leica CL 10.72

FujiFilm X-H1 10.10

Nikon D4 10.38

Edited August 13, 2018 by RomeoBravo

[microview]

This review already under consideration in <CL reviews> thread (entry No 179).

[jaapv]

Thanks Wojtek!

As for #5, did you check Bill Claffs table?  That's where I got the information from:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

 

Leica CL 10.72

FujiFilm X-H1 10.10

Nikon D4 10.38

Bill Claff's figures are far more relevant for practical use than for instance the theoretical ones by DXO.

Those include the unusable part of the response curve, which varies by camera.

[Wojtek]

Thanks Wojtek!

As for #5, did you check Bill Claffs table?  That's where I got the information from:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

 

Leica CL 10.72

FujiFilm X-H1 10.10

Nikon D4 10.38

 

 

Oh that's why! I was looking at the graph which shows clear advantage to many other cameras mentioned on all / almost all ISOs. Sorry for a little off-topic but could you please explain why looking at maximum possible dynamic range (CL truly wins) would be a better idea than looking at the overall graph (which can show that yes, at ISO 100 Leica CL wins with X-H1 but at every single setting from ISO 200 and above it looses)?

 

Romeo congrats to having your review on LeicaRumors! Truly great review with incredible pictures.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I see it we are  talking half-EV value differences at most here. What is the relevance for real-life photgraphy? Any of these cameras are capable of better imagery than most users are.

I think that Fuji has been doing some funny digital stuff at low ISO too...

[RomeoBravo]

Oh that's why! I was looking at the graph which shows clear advantage to many other cameras mentioned on all / almost all ISOs. Sorry for a little off-topic but could you please explain why looking at maximum possible dynamic range (CL truly wins) would be a better idea than looking at the overall graph (which can show that yes, at ISO 100 Leica CL wins with X-H1 but at every single setting from ISO 200 and above it looses)?

 

Romeo congrats to having your review on LeicaRumors! Truly great review with incredible pictures.

 

I can't say looking at the tables vice graph is a better idea than the other.  I just look at the tables showing max PDR because that is what I usually look for.  However, looking at the graph with PDR over a larger ISO spectrum does show a more complete picture (pun intended).

 

Thanks!  I had an email from Peter, but didn't see it until you told me here.

[RomeoBravo]

As I see it we are  talking half-EV value differences at most here. What is the relevance for real-life photgraphy? Any of these cameras are capable of better imagery than most users are.

I think that Fuji has been doing some funny digital stuff at low ISO too...

Fuji is fudging things for sure.  When I had my X-Pro2, I noticed it when using it with the Oly Pen-F & Leica T I had.  The ISO values needed for a properly exposed picture where always different.  I also did a quick comparison when I first got the CL vs my wife's Fuji X-T2.  The CL produced MUCH clearer images that where a LOT brighter at the same ISO values.  The comparison wasn't as close as I thought it would be, and that's why I moved on to compare the CL with the Sony a7R III.

Edited August 15, 2018 by RomeoBravo

[lanetomlane]

Enjoyed reading your review very much. Thanks for posting.

[RomeoBravo]

Enjoyed reading your review very much. Thanks for posting.

Thanks for reading!

[m9photo]

Nicely done! what type of studio flash do you use on the CL? I'm heavily considered letting go my 5DSR for SL and currently have Elinchrom ELB 400 (outdoor/indoor) plus Speedotron (for indoor only).