Royalpar1 Posted August 20, 2018 Share #1 Posted August 20, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I currently have a CL with 18-56 lens. I love the camera and its my jump back into photography. I am going to sell all of my Sony A99 Gear. I have all the 2.8 lenses. I just love the Leica ! Should i start saving to a SL with a 24-90 ? My CL does i feel everything i could want, however methinks the quality of the SL and lens would be far superior. What do you guys feel ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 Hi Royalpar1, Take a look here SL vs CL ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted August 21, 2018 Share #2 Posted August 21, 2018 There are a variety of reasons for having an SL over the CL ....... but image quality is fairly low down the list. If you are happy with the CL you will be a lot poorer and only marginally more happy with an SL. Of course, if you have money to burn, the best solution is to have both ..... 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_P Posted August 21, 2018 Share #3 Posted August 21, 2018 Choices choices, so many options! Am offloading one of my M9's and been hovering over which to buy between the above two. As ever ideally would like the EVF one in the middle of the SL and CL... the one which isn't here yet. Have had a SL in my shopping cart several times but think after reading all the CL forum posts I am going to go for the CL with 18-56 and the M-Adapter. Waiting just in case there is some extra surprise announcement added in today.... a much improved visoflex or something otherwise will pull the trigger. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted August 21, 2018 Share #4 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) Some good reasons for the SL over the CL: The noctilux; The R 80 1.4; Low light performance; Depth of field from full frame; Weather sealing The viewfinder on the SL is superb. Edited August 21, 2018 by ropo54 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted August 21, 2018 Share #5 Posted August 21, 2018 so no weather sealing on the CL ? Some good reasons for the SL over the CL: The noctilux; The R 80 1.4; Low light performance; Depth of field from full frame; Weather sealing The viewfinder on the SL is superb. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted August 21, 2018 Share #6 Posted August 21, 2018 No, the CL is not weather sealed. Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 21, 2018 Share #7 Posted August 21, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I currently have a CL with 18-56 lens. I love the camera and its my jump back into photography. I am going to sell all of my Sony A99 Gear. I have all the 2.8 lenses. I just love the Leica ! Should i start saving to a SL with a 24-90 ? My CL does i feel everything i could want, however methinks the quality of the SL and lens would be far superior. What do you guys feel ? If you ‘love’ the CL why are you thinking of changing it? I sense GAS. Concentrate on your photography not some assumed improvements in quality of equipment (unless you’re sure your current equipment is holding you back in some way). You can donate the savings I’ve made you with my advice to me, I’ll put the money to good use. 5 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted August 21, 2018 Share #8 Posted August 21, 2018 There are good reasons to have a SL and good reasons to have a CL. Rob has already written, where the SL is superior to the CL - I would add, that the dynamic range is higher and some special lensens from Canon and Nikon can be adapted, if this is desired and necessary. Disadvantage of the SL is the higher weight together with the native lenses. Especially the -excellent- 90/280 is huge and heavy. The 24/90 looks bigger and heavier, than it really is, but together with the body it is nevertheless a lot heavier than the CL with the 18-56. I own both systems, but I will often have the CL with me, when the SL is not required and I have no special project in mind and am still walking around and looking, if I find intersting objects for taking photos. At home I will normally use the SL system. So both systems have their merits - their advantages and their disadvantages and it depends, what is of bigger importance for the photographer. In case you should decide for the SL I strongly recommand to buy the 24/90 together with it. All I wrote are only my 5 cents. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 21, 2018 Share #9 Posted August 21, 2018 Agree with this except for the dynamic range. The usable DR Is higher on the CL, at least at base ISO. I guess the newer sensor offsets the size advantage. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted August 22, 2018 Share #10 Posted August 22, 2018 Agree with this except for the dynamic range. The usable DR Is higher on the CL, at least at base ISO. I guess the newer sensor offsets the size advantage. At ISO 100 yes, but the SL sensor uses dual conversion gain making it perform better at ISO 50 and 200. Better explained here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4124741 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted August 22, 2018 Share #11 Posted August 22, 2018 At ISO 100 yes, but the SL sensor uses dual conversion gain making it perform better at ISO 50 and 200. Better explained here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4124741 This is also my (subjective) experience after using both systems for some time: Firstly, I use ISO50 or ISO200 or higher ISOs if needed on the SL, avoiding ISO100. Secondly, I found the SLs ISO50 files to be more malleable than the files of the CL (at base ISO). No big difference, but highlights and shadows were easier dealt with on the SL at, particularly, ISO50. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 22, 2018 Share #12 Posted August 22, 2018 Weather and dust sealing and the 24-90 lens is the main reason I keep my SL after getting a CL. I do a fair bit of classic car rallying, often on non-tarmac roads in the far east, where dust created by the passage of the cars is a big problem. Back when I used to take my M8/9/240, I had to clean the sensor nearly every day. On a three week rally in northern Thailand and north east Myanmar (Burma) with the SL, I did not have to clean the sensor once. The 24-90 is a superb performer and a serious rival for the image quality from my Leica M primes. The autofocus was poor when the camera was first released but firmware updates have cured this totally. It is probably the best contrast detection AF system around. The biggest downside is the weight and size of the SL and its lenses. I cannot tell which images are taken with the CL and SL without checking the EXIF. The CL's images print well up to 24" x 36" and even bigger. Wilson 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted August 22, 2018 Share #13 Posted August 22, 2018 Agree with this except for the dynamic range. The usable DR Is higher on the CL, at least at base ISO. I guess the newer sensor offsets the size advantage. Given the CL’s smaller sized pixels (ie, 24mp on a small APS-C sensor), whilst ALSO achieving higher DR compared to the SL, it just shows how sensor technology is marching on ...... As someone that personally wants Leica to get out of the 24mp full frame rut, it hopefully bodes well for an SL2 extrapolating to 40mp+ whilst also having better DR than we’re used to on its current full frame cameras .... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 22, 2018 Share #14 Posted August 22, 2018 Given the CL’s smaller sized pixels (ie, 24mp on a small APS-C sensor), whilst ALSO achieving higher DR compared to the SL, it just shows how sensor technology is marching on ...... As someone that personally wants Leica to get out of the 24mp full frame rut, it hopefully bodes well for an SL2 extrapolating to 40mp+ whilst also having better DR than we’re used to on its current full frame cameras .... It will have to ....... otherwise it will never sell any ..... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted August 23, 2018 Share #15 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) It will have to ....... otherwise it will never sell any ..... Well, one never knows with Leica ....given a track record of the identical 37mp resolution for the S2, S006, S007 ..... and identical 24mp resolution for the M240, M10 ....and with a lot of people here saying “I don’t need more resolution”! The Nikons entering the market today adds a new angle for the SL mirrorless space though ..... Edited August 23, 2018 by Jon Warwick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephan_w Posted August 24, 2018 Share #16 Posted August 24, 2018 having both I can say I love both. But I really love the CL, such a capable little camera. I wish they had made them weather sealed, but otherwise its pretty fine and light 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeri Posted August 24, 2018 Share #17 Posted August 24, 2018 I also have both. I use the SL, together with my M for documentary weddings, headshots and many other things. But I've taken the CL on a couple of assignments too and for me there are three things where I prefer the CL to the SL: weight (obviously), affordable and light AF-lenses and responsiveness. The CL has a slower start-up time and just feels more responsive to me compared to the SL. I think I'd be comfortable shooting an entire wedding on two CLs. It's just a terrific camera. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.