Jump to content

Leica CL Review

RomeoBravo
 Share

Recommended Posts

RomeoBravo

RomeoBravo

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey All!

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

 
 
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!

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
x
Wojtek

Wojtek

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by Wojtek
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RomeoBravo

RomeoBravo

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

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 by RomeoBravo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wojtek

Wojtek

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

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... ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RomeoBravo

RomeoBravo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RomeoBravo

RomeoBravo

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

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 by RomeoBravo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...