Leica CL New Leica CL or Used Leica M?

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yes, this picture has wonderful colors. It is sharp as well despite the possible noise reduction in post. By the physics the difference between FF and APS-C is approx. 1 LV given the same technology of sensor. But realistically seen the differences are minor. 

 

Still we have to be aware that ISO 6400 on the dial of the camera might be ISO 3200 on another camera (or something else). However we see a low light image from jaapv that is absolutely marvellous considering that we have a night scene. After all when shooting pictures we need light.It is useless to look for examples with almost no light and expect noiseless images. When we have planned jobs in darker environments then after all we might take other cameras if needed at all.

[jaapv]

No NR other than setting ACR properly  The secret (taught to me by the M8), is proper exposure. Often, photographers tend to underexpose night scenes. And then you are fighting noise and colour all the way.

[Advertisement]

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

[grahamhoey]

Jaap can you expand on that for at least my benefit. I would be interested in what part of your image you exposed for.

[jaapv]

Main subject, and watch the histogram. Specular highlights can blow out. That means that you aim the camera at the point that you want exposed optimally. Then turn the EV comp. wheel to get as full a histogram as possible, the "mountain" should be high and more or less in the middle. A spike squashed against the right represents your blown highlights. You must interpret whether you are going to accept them. In a night shot I usually do. Disregard a spike against the lefthand side, those are blocked shadows.

 

In Photoshop optimize sharpness and noise in ACR at 100% Use the alt/option key. Mask carefully.

When processing the image go to curves and pull up the middle of the curve to brighten the midtones. Click OK, go to curves again and apply linear contrast. 

When finished, go to sharpen, set amount to 20, radius to 50 and threshold to 1. Go to "edit" and fade sharpening by 199%.

This will increase "presence" without emphasizing noise.

[ajayk]

I own a Leica M262, a Q, Vlux and just sold my CL. Vlux is mainly for video. I had gone to buy a M240 but couldn’t afford that with lenses so compromised on body and bought 3 lenses instead (2 preowned and 1 new). M is the best system in Leica range. Yes viewfinder takes a little long to master but once you master it, its simple. For someone shifting from Canon/Nikon it really took time. Q and CL do away that need to master view finder as they come equipped witg EVF or screens. Results are great from all of them. But M with summarit or the voigtlander vs a Q with Summilux, there is no comparison. I used Q more often as its lighter and those optics are really super. Its easier to handle than M due to EVF. CL gives same functionality with interchangeable lenses but M lenses I think will require an adapter on CL. If I had the money, I will go for latest M10P with a 35mm and a 85 or 90 mm Summilux over CL and Q. If I couldn’t afford would stick to Q.

Edited August 21, 2018 by ajayk

[Michael A. Marcus]

I went for the M240 at a reasonable price w/the VF-2.  Have also M8 and M7.  5 lenses.  Used to it!

[johntobias]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

well, after a few test shots with my new 35 f1.4 TL   , all bets are off....FAST focus and iq & Bokeh absolutely out the top drawer at leica...I love this setup   CL/35 TL is my 'grail' photo experience....

 

Just my 2cents worth,  your mileage may vary ! :-)

[pixelstrata]

Can I revive this thread? Late to the party. 
 

I have an M9 I’ve been using for about 5 years that I very much love. With a 50mm Summicron v4(?) non ASPH. I also have a 90mm Summarit 90mm f2.5 that I really enjoy and quality sharpness are excellent. 
 

My conundrum is I have a Q that I’ve had a few months. I’m not super comfortable with the 28mm. Having said that I have a Ricoh GRIII and like using the 28mm on that - it’s 28mm equivalent. The Ricoh lens is fantastic for such a compact camera. APSC 24MP. I prefer the style of shooting the Ricoh for 28mm as you’re better off close to the subject therefore it is easier to wield candidly. I am mostly a street shooter but also environmental/urban/abstract photographer. So the plan is sell the Q - it’s a QP,  the matt design is wonderful, has a better on/off switch. 
 

And to buy an M10 and use my Summicron M 50mm f2.0 + Summarit 90mm f2.5 interchangeably with my M9 - different look and feel in output CCD vs CMOS. Potential for EVF shooting with an external. Same shooting style (rangefinder) 

OR

CL with either the kit zoom or a 28 mm M lens. I’d thereafter enjoy using a variety of other lenses over time tbd. The CL would give me compact, interchangeable, AF, manual with the M lenses, similar IQ to the M10 though of course not quite as good. 
 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by pixelstrata

[Torpille]

I would keep the m9 with the 50 and 90 and go for the cl and his vario 18-56mm. 
the TL-18 mm is small but not better as the vario @18mm and you already have a ricoh gr3. 
The cl is the best all around kit you could get and offers you a lot more flexibility than a q or m. 
the IQ can be very good with a 18-56mm or a summicron 50 and the color range is very close to the m10. 

Cheers

 

[Le Chef]

I might suggest going for the CL + Sigma 18-50 f2.8

[ramarren]

On 8/14/2018 at 9:57 AM, mph said:

...[snip]...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 

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!

 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.

My question is; which option would you buy, and why? ... [snip]...

As a starting context, I have a long history of using Leica RF cameras all the way back to the early 1970s. I've owned and used extensively several digital Leica M cameras since 2011 or so, and have a full complement of M-mount lenses. By 2018, having had the M9, then M-P 240, then the pair of an SL and an M-D 262, I sold the SL as it was heavier and more camera+lenses than I really wanted to carry after retiring, and bought a CL body to use with my M-mount and R-mount lenses in order to have a TTL viewing camera for close up, macro, and long tele work. The Q at that point was interesting as a light carryabout but I'd decided (since selling an X typ 113) against buying fixed lens cameras due to their lack of versatility. 

Well, a year on and I realized that I'd not touched the M-D 262 all year in preference to using the CL. Since it was still worth quite a lot on the used market, I decided to sell it and put the money into other things I was doing. I now regret that decision: the M-D 262 was the perfect Leica M for me. 

I continue to use the CL very happily, at least most of the time, and find it to be an excellent performer with my M-mount lenses (and the R-mount lenses for macro and long tele). It's just a hair smaller than an M, a good bit lighter, more versatile overall, and produces exceptional image quality. 

You may notice that I use "most of the time" in that description. Well, the problem I have is that my eyes are aging, and while I still see with more than adequate clarity to focus either rangefinder or EVF/SLR with critical accuracy, consistently, what is becoming more difficult is adapting to varied light in high contrast situations. On a sunny day, outdoors, with the CL (and my other EVF cameras), my eyes can no longer quickly accommodate the change from looking at my subject with my naked eyes (behind glasses), and seeing the EVF or focusing screen in an SLR. The result of this is that if I do not have a wide-brimmed hat on, and keep my eyes and the camera well-shaded, I can barely see an image in the CL viewfinder now. The ironic converse is now true: I can see more clearly and focus more accurately with the coupled optical rangefinder of an M than I can with the CL when I'm in sunlit conditions, and if I had the M-D 262 still, I'd just it more when shooting outdoors than the CL, and likely more of the time overall. 

If I were choosing between the two cameras now, I'd pick an M with Live View capabilities because of my vision and because with current Visoflex accessory finder, the M is just as useful for close up and macro work. It's not so useful for long tele in the field because its responsiveness in Live View mode is not adequate for that work, at least for me, but I really only use long tele on infrequent occasions (and my Olympus E-M1 with a long, dedicated, native lens is actually a better pick for that work than even the CL). 

At present, I'm evaluating the Pixii rangefinder camera. It uses my M-mount lenses, has a good optical range/viewfinder, and is the same format as the CL so I have all the right lenses for it. It's about M sized and has a nice feel and balance in the hand. If that does not work out the way I want, I'll likely return it and use that money as partial payment on an M10 Monochrom, and keep the CL for exactly the same reasons I bought it for.

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I've been ruminating on these things a bit over the past day or three since I'm testing the Pixii next to the CL even as we talk about it, and it's kind of consuming my mind and attention ... 

G

[grick]

I agree with Le Chef and Torpille - get a CL. It’s really versatile. I recently purchased a used CL along with an TL-18mm. I then got a Leica M-L Adapter and have been using it to explore my M lenses on the CL. Some produce wonderful results.

I also recently purchased Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens. That’s pleasant lens if you prefer a 50mm on full frame format.

Greg

[swatch]

Mirrorless cameras are getting popular and is the mainstream now with a few technical advantages which digital M is not providing the same user experience per below:

1) electronic viewfinder show exposure preview in real time so user can adjust settings to their liking before pressing the shutter.  Viewing at viewfinder is more natural than viewing the back LCD on digital M camera for composition and exposure adjustment.

2) exposure metering can be more advance by using the sensor to measure light directly rather than reflective grey colour on shutter blade on digital M camera ( Leica realise such benefit and implement this exposure method on M11).

Using M camera is purely because of love of rangefinder experience otherwise better go for mirrorless.

Thanks

[kivis]

Bought a used M-P 240 back a bit, then got a new Summicron 50. Super happy. Many other fine lenses followed along.

[Rusty]

On 4/25/2022 at 5:53 AM, grick said:

I agree with Le Chef and Torpille - get a CL. It’s really versatile. I recently purchased a used CL along with an TL-18mm. I then got a Leica M-L Adapter and have been using it to explore my M lenses on the CL. Some produce wonderful results.

I also recently purchased Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens. That’s pleasant lens if you prefer a 50mm on full frame format.

Greg

The op mentioned portraits and bokeh. If he goes the CL route then the sigma 56/1.4 apsc is sharper and smaller than the sigma 30 or Leica 35. A superb portrait lens.

actually the sigma lenses along with the Ttartisan  if you want to try manual are a compelling reason to take the CL option. I picked up the sigma 30, 56 and 90 for half the price of the cheapest m lens and they are pretty good.

 

[MJB]

On 6/4/2022 at 3:54 PM, Rusty said:

The op mentioned portraits and bokeh. If he goes the CL route then the sigma 56/1.4 apsc is sharper and smaller than the sigma 30 or Leica 35. A superb portrait lens.

actually the sigma lenses along with the Ttartisan  if you want to try manual are a compelling reason to take the CL option. I picked up the sigma 30, 56 and 90 for half the price of the cheapest m lens and they are pretty good.

 

I have both the TL 35 and the Sigma 56 and think it is no contest in favor of the Leica. The Sigma has a huge cost advantage and is of course smaller and lighter, but the AF is poorer than with the native TL lenses in my experience. The Sigma will sometimes miss focus even in bright sunlight. I’m actually getting ready to sell it. 

[elambo]

On 4/24/2022 at 7:28 AM, Le Chef said:

I might suggest going for the CL + Sigma 18-50 f2.8

Another vote for this.

[Rusty]

On 8/15/2018 at 4:57 AM, mph said:

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 

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!

 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.

 

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...

I would get a new CL.

Reasons:

1. I struggle with rangefinder focusing and prefer autofocus.

2. Lens are cheaper thanks to the excellent Sigma I contemporary series so much cheaper in the long run

3. The CL is smaller and lighter

4. IQ is excellent for apsc nearly as good as full frame

 

Good luck

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have a CL, my go to camera and right now I am debating between a second CL body and a M10(P or R). I find in bright sunlight my M8 or M3 are a better choice, I even had a pair of non polarized sun glasses made, but with my very myopic prescription they ended up denser than using a polarized pair and were worse with the CL. I have a bunch of macro lenses and telephotos to use with the CL. I have played withan optical Visoflex on the M3 and M8, I imagine the digital Viso to be better. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[MJB]

10 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I have a CL, my go to camera and right now I am debating between a second CL body and a M10(P or R). I find in bright sunlight my M8 or M3 are a better choice, I even had a pair of non polarized sun glasses made, but with my very myopic prescription they ended up denser than using a polarized pair and were worse with the CL. I have a bunch of macro lenses and telephotos to use with the CL. I have played withan optical Visoflex on the M3 and M8, I imagine the digital Viso to be better. 

I just bought a Visoflex for my TL2, but haven’t received it yet. Everything I’ve read says it’s not as nice as the CL’s finder, which I personally find exceptional, even in 2022. I guess what I’m saying is don’t pick up an M10 and Visoflex expecting to get a better EVF experience than with the CL.  I’m not even sure if the Visoflex 2, cropped as it is on the M10, would be superior to the CL’s finder.