Very interesting discussion about CL vs M10 in the CL Forum

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here the link:

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281767-image-quality-cl-vs-sl-vs-m10/page-3

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

Are we supposed to wade through five pages to discover what it is that is 'very interesting'? A little precis would help? 

[otto.f]

I get the impression that the tester does not see or downplays the differences where I see the SL images more often as best followed by M10

[jaapv]

He doesn't  say that. He says that any differences are irrelevant for normal use (which translates to me to 95% of all cases).

[jaapv]

Are we supposed to wade through five pages to discover what it is that is 'very interesting'? A little precis would help? 

We greatly encourage people to read as much of the forum as they can

[evikne]

I have bookmarked the Leica M forum, so I rarely read in the other forums here, but I have discovered lately that there can be interesting stuff in the other forums as well. :-)

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

He doesn't say that. He says that any differences are irrelevant for normal use ....

Yes that’s what I read, I call that downplaying. Image quality is the result of a chain consisting of several links, the weakest link decides the result.

BTW, one of these links can well be the weight of the camera in relation to the used lenses: so where lies the centre of gravity in your hands when you pull the trigger. I would not so soon use R lenses on a CL for instance. But it’s of course a matter of taste if you want to compromise on IQ to go gentle.

Edited August 14, 2018 by otto.f

[jaapv]

I do not think we have a weakest link situation here. More like synergy in a process. Small differences in one section will only influence the outcome marginally, often imperceptibly.

[Herr Barnack]

The CL is a very nice little camera and provides outstanding image quality.  That having been said, I can't see it eating in to M10 sales.  Apples and oranges...

[pgh]

The CL is a very nice little camera and provides outstanding image quality.  That having been said, I can't see it eating in to M10 sales.  Apples and oranges...

I'm sure it may a little bit, but I doubt it's significant.

At this point you essentially buy the M10 in spite of it's image quality from comparable and less expensive cameras, not because of it - and if you don't, you're kidding yourself.

The Fuji X cameras are in the same league, the Sony mirrorless cameras are significantly better.

The CL is a different tool with a kindred spirit, but it's not full frame (which matters to some users, myself included - this actually can be a practical matter) and it's not a rangefinder. It's a shame you still need to shell out 7k+ for a compact, full frame camera with a 50mm lens. If Leica made a Q 50mm version with a better sensor, or Sony made an Rx1R 50mm version, that may be enough to part with the M system, but until then I'll stay with it. Carrying the 2 small cameras (the wide and normal versions) would be less headache than one camera and 2 lenses even. 

[daveco]

What a great time we live in, to be photographers, especially Leica photographers....so many options!

[Gregm61]

The best being, that the M system still exists as an available new option.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Gregm61

[Jon Warwick]

At this point you essentially buy the M10 in spite of it's image quality from comparable and less expensive cameras, not because of it - and if you don't, you're kidding yourself.

+1

 

The Leica M remains a small and tactile object with a unique rangefinder, but I’m increasingly being swayed to other systems for better image quality. These other systems include the SL with its new SL Summicrons in my view.

[Gregm61]

And beyond the SL there's the 40+ MP Sony A system, or any of the full-frame professional DSLR's from Canon or Nikon, or the even bigger medium format cameras from Hasselblad or Pentax if image quality is the trump over better AF/operational performance, lens selection, etc.

 

Or, just say screw all that, shoot 8x10 and scan the negatives.

 

There's ALWAYS something better. I'm resigned to the fact I'll never be using anything that's going to give me the ultra/uber imaging quality that allows me to proclaim there's nowhere else I can go now....

 

There's a beautiful 30x45 inch metal print of a lake in Western Canada I captured last year with the M262 and 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH. For me, that's about all I really need, other than the satisfaction of using these beautiful rangefinder cameras that isn't quite there when I use my Olympus E-M1 Mark II, nor was when I was shooting Canon DSLR's before that and wouldn't be any more satisfying with a Sony AR7III, which I had an opportunity to play with along with the 24-105mm zoom.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Gregm61

[otto.f]

Yes in the end it’s perhaps more about what you have in your hands, happiness is a warm gun

[bocaburger]

I might consider a used CL as a replacement for my NEX6 someday, but at close to 3 grand, even with the M adapter thrown in it's still a no-go for me.  I'm sure it's a nifty little camera but I don't want an EVF camera as my main one, and as an emergency backup to an M there are plenty of good APS-C mirrorless cameras out there for well under a grand.  I suspect the main reason Leica made it APS-C was not just to keep it small, but to not cannibalize sales of the M10 and SL.  Having learned that lesson from the original CL perhaps. 

[Herr Barnack]

 

...Or, just say screw all that, shoot 8x10 and scan the negatives....

 

Not many decisive moments will be captured that way...

[jaapv]

I might consider a used CL as a replacement for my NEX6 someday, but at close to 3 grand, even with the M adapter thrown in it's still a no-go for me.  I'm sure it's a nifty little camera but I don't want an EVF camera as my main one, and as an emergency backup to an M there are plenty of good APS-C mirrorless cameras out there for well under a grand.  I suspect the main reason Leica made it APS-C was not just to keep it small, but to not cannibalize sales of the M10 and SL.  Having learned that lesson from the original CL perhaps. 

The weird thing of the CL is that it tends to take over as main camera - maybe even a worse prospect.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgh]

 

There's ALWAYS something better. I'm resigned to the fact I'll never be using anything that's going to give me the ultra/uber imaging quality that allows me to proclaim there's nowhere else I can go now....

 

But that's just it - with the M, there actually isn't - which is why, for me, it's the only Leica that's interesting, and that I will every buy into (unless prices/value relationship changes).

 

If you want a rangefinder or a small, full frame, ilc - the M is the only thing on the market - there is nothing better, and there is nothing worse, save for older M's.

If you're willing to drop down in sensor size, don't mind a different viewfinder, or are up for shooting a fixed lens camera suddenly you have other options. 

 

The M's appeal to me was always about the combination of IQ for a given camera size, and it still is. If you're the type of photographer that always has a camera with you, but you want the best IQ possible there, and the flexibility that FF offers, the M is still the best option. The Sony's are amazing, but they grow too big with the lenses to carry everywhere. The Fuji's are excellent, even the Olympus Pen F is quite solid - neither have the FF sensor. This is also why the CL is a tough sell to me when compared against the larger market. I'd rather buy a full Fuji kit.

Edited August 15, 2018 by pgh

[jaapv]

I'm not sure the majority of the market is as hung up on full frame. Personally I tend to look at image quality in such decisions - and the CL is fully equivalent to M10 and SL.