Leica CL New Leica CL or Used Leica M?

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Leica rangefinder is a lifestyle choice ..... you are embracing an essentially manual camera with some digital modifications. 

 

Ask yourself seriously if that is how you are going to take photos for the foreseeable future and whether you will stay the course once the novelty has worn off.

 

The CL is a similar size, can be user configured to be as simple, and can be entirely manual if you wish......

 

...... but ...... you can stick almost any lens on the front, have AF, auto shutter and an excellent EVF which enables you almost to see in the dark. 

 

I was quite willing to put up with the drawbacks and irritations of an M until the SL came along .... when most of my M's went ...... and when the compact CL appeared all the rest of my M gear went apart from a few select M & R lenses. 

 

I've played with an M10, which is beautiful to handle and use, but memories of the frustrations of using a RF rapidly brought me back to sanity. 

 

As James said in the first reply ..... you need to handle and try both ...... but beware ..... it is easy for the unwary to be seduced by the M, just by virtue of its uniqueness. 

 

Personally I'd get the CL + 18-56 zoom which gives you a very versatile package, then add some second hand primes if you want variety. 

 

Both will take fine photos so there is no 'wrong' choice ...... 

Edited August 15, 2018 by thighslapper

[microview]

Maybe it's because I came to Leica M via Canon AE1 with split image for focusing, but I don't see the difficulty/frustration at all with the rangefinder. Essential I guess, that you try system somehow before spending, however. As everyone says, the Q autofocus won't be different from the CL's with appropriate lenses.

 

The M and CL may seem similar in size but the weight difference for carrying around is 260g. In my case the heavier set-up has allowed longer hand-hed exposures: On computer screen I could see TL2 pics at1/60s with evident camera movement.

Edited August 15, 2018 by microview

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

More likely pixel size.

[johntobias]

I'm 54, have varifocal spectacles and therefore the AF on the CL was the deciding factor...yes I have M lenses but manually focusing them on the cl takes time, often my subject has changed ! ....so I guess I'm advocating the CL because YOU will have the choice of AF or MF   , if you like the MF and its limitations etc (as well as its advantages) you can switch bodies to an M.....the M10 prices will fall when the M11 comes out  so perhaps start on the CL

 

MOST OF ALL  Welcome to the wonderful world of LEICA ....once you go leitz, you won't go back !

 

John

[frame-it]

sounds like a "Leica symptom" of wanting both

I already have tried them on several occasions, but for me a visit to the dealer is unfortunately not enough to make up my mind. And the more I read, the more confused I get 

[ramarren]

sounds like a "Leica symptom" of wanting both

 

 

Solved in my case by buying both ...

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've got an M10 with 21SEM, 35 1.4 FE ASPH and 50 1.4 ASPH. I've also got a CL with 23TL, 35TL, 11-23TL, 55-135TL, adapted Nikon 55 F2.8 micro and Nikon 180 F2.8.

As far as image quality goes, my honest opinion is nothing I own beats the M10 and the lenses that I have, especially the 21 and 50 which I also find do very well when adapted to the CL.

I'd  pick the adapted 21, 50, Nikon 55micro and the 11-23TL as my best lenses for use on the CL. I also find the 55-135TL to be pretty good. After that, I find the 23TL and 35TL pretty similar actually, both pretty good but not in the same league as my M lenses. Not sure if I have a dud 35TL but unless I am shooting wide open (where it shines), I don't find it very interesting. The Nikon 180 while a decent lens just serves the purpose of a long telephoto for me and is nothing exciting really.

 

At any rate, there is no way I would pick the CL over the M10 unless all I ever did was shoot for web or screen viewing. Here I don't see a big difference. However, once I print, the M10 is head and shoulders above the CL. No comparison.

 

On the other hand, the versatility of the CL makes it very attractive. I can shoot with the long Nikon lens, or with the Nikon micro and not have to rely on the external EVF of the M10. The EVF on the CL is probably its greatest feature. I also like the CL's handling, size and the fact that I can shoot silently in a pinch if I have to. It took me awhile to get a handle on how to get the most image quality out of the CL, but I have. Still prefer the IQ of the M10 though when I print.

 

So, I'd say for a fun camera with lots of versatility, the CL is a great choice. But for pure image quality, I'd go with the M10. This is why I own both.

[jay968]

Btw, when I say the images from the M10 are head and shoulders above the CL, I am talking about printing 16 inch prints.

[Marcial]

CL if you are used to the creature comforts of digital-cams- small size, access to zooms and autofocus lenses.  DW is very happy using the CL with the 18-56 mm. M10 if M lenses and traditional RF work-flow are what attracted you to the red dot. 

[LocalHero1953]

I would buy the CL + 18-56.

 

I am a long time M user since M3, and I'm comfortable with rangefinder focusing, and have good eyesight.

 

I have the CL, M240 and SL, all with a range of native lenses. I use the CL most of the time because:

- AF is fast and accurate most of the time. Certainly faster and more accurate most of the time than the M240.

- I judge exposure by TTL and histogram. This is certainly more reliable at dealing with blown highlights than the M and its centre-weighted metering.

- it is smaller and lighter than the M240 for a similar IQ. I would still prefer full frame, though, but can live with APS-C.

- the 18-56 zoom is a single small lens compared to a bag full of M primes with the same range, though I would prefer the wider apertures of the M lenses.

- it has better low-light performance than the M240, though not, I understand, than the M10.

- the CL starts up and wakes up faster than the M240 and M10. From sleep, I can just press the trigger and after a fraction of a second the CL will take a shot with a good attempt at AF. The M240 takes nearly 2 secs, and relies on you to get focus right.

 

It is reasonable to ask why choose the CL rather than a MFT or alternative APSC system. This is fundamentally a question of whether you like the CL user interface or the alternatives. IMO the Leica interface is superior and make it easy to take the pictures I want; alternatives are too complex and impenetrable - they get in the way of taking a picture. Lesser considerations:

- I don't find the MFT IQ to be as good as that from the CL. This is with Olympus lenses on the EM5ii, but I think this is inherent in the smaller sensor size. Others may disagree.

- Leica lenses. I like them.

 

Edit:

I use the SL because of those zooms: 24-90 and 90-280. The image quality combined with stabilisation. I use it entirely for when I am doing an amateur's 'professional' work: portrait sessions, stage performances for publicity, other publicity shots etc.

The M240 is getting little use. The only reason I haven't sold it is the nagging feeling that I might go back to it sometime - the way I bought and appreciated the M9 after leaving my M2 unused throughout the early digital era.

Edited August 19, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[thighslapper]

I could have written this myself ...... my feelings exactly.

 

The only difference is a decision to liquidate anything I wasn't using while it still had some residual value and use the cash to upgrade my 'unglamorous' gear to quality stuff with some longevity (tripods, ballheads etc.) 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I have all three but the CL is getting the most use.  Lately I've been using the CL and M10 together, with a different lens on each, to determine where the crossover points are and to get a better sense of their color accuracy and color balance issues (our kids tell me I am blue-green color blind, but I'm working on it).  I never sell off a Leica lens, but do eliminate older generation bodies.

[Alistairm]

LocalHero has summed it up well.

 

As another member with M10, SL and CL and lots of lenses, the CL is awesome.

 

The SL is my most used by far, but it’s native lenses are big and very expensive.

 

I went to an M240 from a Nikon SLR for family and travel photography because I loved the lenses and the compact form factor. While (for stationary subjects) I have no problems at all focussing a rangefinder, the quality of Leica’s EVFs has spoiled me for nailing tricky exposures and it’s that I miss most now with my M. The CL gives the best of both worlds, with the EVF improving on both.

 

The CL’s lightness combined with EVF, autofocus, native lenses of stunning quality and ability to use SL or M glass is compelling. Once you take price into account compared to Leica’s other systems the decision becomes pretty easy. I just wish it has an AF-ON button, which can be fixed in firmware but is just a bizarre design omission from a company whose DNA is to separate focus from the shutter button!

Edited August 19, 2018 by Alistairm

[Alistairm]

[double post]

Edited August 19, 2018 by Alistairm

[ayewing]

I think Local Hero has summed up the dilemma of many of us who are long term Leica users . I have currently sent off my M240 for commission sale and am concentrating on the CL for most of my general photography. I also have a M43 system and value the lightness and smaller size of the equipment when using long focal lengths (300mm +) for birds and wildlife. I do have the occasional qualms about giving up the rangefinder and FF but having recently joined the ranks of the octogenarians I really value light compact equipment. I have invested in the three TL zooms and am evaluating  which of my M mount lenses to keep for use on the CL.

 

Having said all that my M240 has not sold  yet so I could still get it back.......

[FrozenInTime]

It is interesting reading these commments ; history repeating, it seems the new CL just like the old one is hurting M sales !

[M11 for me]

It is interesting reading these commments ; history repeating, it seems the new CL just like the old one is hurting M sales !

Its amazing how APS-C with the new TL-lenses could compete with the IQ of a FF sensor with its M lenses. If this continues to confirm one might wonder why buying an FF at all. Maybe, considering that the technology progresses further, with the M11 we see a gap again between the 2 systems. Still when the differences are so small, as it is reported, then APS-C will really hurt FF sales. Always assuming that the color rendering of the new system is equal to the one of the M-system. On the other hand physics can not be ignored when it comes to noise at higher ISOs.

[Ari Kfir]

Hi all, 

 

I have recently sold my Leica Q in order to buy something with interchangeable lenses.

 

I am really struggling to chose between buying a new Leica CL, Summicron 23mm (and I will probably down the road buy the adapter and some M-lenses), or a used Leica M 240 along with a used Leica M lens (probably 50 mm Summicron). In the end both options will do the same damage to my wallet   For info, I do currently not own any Leica lenses.

 

I am not a professional, merely a happy amateur. My photography is concentrated around portraits (bokeh!!), family, travel, social activities, landscape, architecture.

 

My heart is leaning towards the M, while my brain (and wife, even though she is not negative for the M) towards the CL. I am a bit afraid of the rangefinder, and if I will be able to focus as quick as I want to. The CL have AF on TL-lenses and focus-peaking on M-glass through the EVF (I know the M240 have focus-peaking on the screen and the optional viewfinder, but then the point of the RF is kinda gone?). After all the CL might just be a pit-stop to the M(?). I am not interested in sports- or action photography (even though we do have a eager and young dog), but it would be awful to miss a moment due to lacking focus.

 

Please do remember that this a two different, and good in the different ways, systems. While still owning and enjoying my M240, I am very happy with CL. Wrt to the focusing, for the street photography 240 may be even faster and more convenient that any autofocus camera, if you learn how to set the depth of focus on the lens and shoot from the appropriated distances.

 

My question is; which option would you buy, and why?

 

PS: I have in the process already passed on Sony and Fujifilm due to their overly-complex nature...

[Don Morley]

A Leica rangefinder is a lifestyle choice ..... you are embracing an essentially manual camera with some digital modifications. 

 

Ask yourself seriously if that is how you are going to take photos for the foreseeable future and whether you will stay the course once the novelty has worn off.

 

The CL is a similar size, can be user configured to be as simple, and can be entirely manual if you wish......

 

...... but ...... you can stick almost any lens on the front, have AF, auto shutter and an excellent EVF which enables you almost to see in the dark. 

 

I was quite willing to put up with the drawbacks and irritations of an M until the SL came along .... when most of my M's went ...... and when the compact CL appeared all the rest of my M gear went apart from a few select M & R lenses. 

 

I've played with an M10, which is beautiful to handle and use, but memories of the frustrations of using a RF rapidly brought me back to sanity. 

 

As James said in the first reply ..... you need to handle and try both ...... but beware ..... it is easy for the unwary to be seduced by the M, just by virtue of its uniqueness. 

 

Personally I'd get the CL + 18-56 zoom which gives you a very versatile package, then add some second hand primes if you want variety. 

 

Both will take fine photos so there is no 'wrong' choice ...... 

100% agree, Don

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

 On the other hand physics can not be ignored when it comes to noise at higher ISOs.

 

 

Maybe not, but ISO 6400 is still rather clean on the CL...

 

 

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!