SL vs CL ?

[Royalpar1]

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 ?

[Advertisement]

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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Superior. But not *far* superior. The move from APSC to 35mm is incremental. The lenses are similar except the 24-90 is faster than it's CL equivalent and it has IS.

 

I loved my A99, but I think the SL is a better camera all round and the equivalent lenses are certainly better, but with less options. You can use the SL lenses on your CL for extra reach.

 

Go to a Leica store and spend an hour with the SL. Then you'll know, or not.

 

Gordon

[Mr.Q]

The SL + 24-90 will provide

1. Slightly better IQ

2. Faster lens

3. Better DOF control

4. Extra 3mm eFOV on both the wide and long end

5. Image stabilization (OIS)

6. Weather resistance

7. Slightly better high ISO and DR performance

8. Best EVF

[Mr.Q]

....in a MUCH bigger and heavier package, though similar to your A99 + F2.8 zoom

[Ivar B]

I own an SL with the 24-90, but I also bought a T with 3 lenses (11-23, 18-56 and 50-250). I fear that the T was used by far the most. It is so much more compact and easier to bring around, and picture quality will, I feel, satisfy most users. The CL should be even closer to the SL in this respect. I am selling my T and plan getting a CL, and who knows, maybe the SL will be sold.

[jaapv]

The SL + 24-90 will provide

1. Slightly better IQ

2. Faster lens

3. Better DOF control

4. Extra 3mm eFOV on both the wide and long end

5. Image stabilization (OIS)

6. Weather resistance

7. Slightly better high ISO and DR performance

8. Best EVF

8. is doubtful. Lower resolution, but more advanced technology.

[jaapv]

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 ?

Far superior not. I think, if you want to combine the CL with another camera, that you should look for a different experience. The SL and CL are too close (except in size )

Try an M10, or S class camera.

[bags27]

I own an SL with the 24-90, but I also bought a T with 3 lenses (11-23, 18-56 and 50-250). I fear that the T was used by far the most. It is so much more compact and easier to bring around, and picture quality will, I feel, satisfy most users. The CL should be even closer to the SL in this respect. I am selling my T and plan getting a CL, and who knows, maybe the SL will be sold.

I was in a museum with my Q and bumped into a guy with an SL and the 24-90. I told him that kit produces the best photos I've ever seen short of a MF camera. He looked at my Q somewhat jealously and remarked about how heavy his camera is. I think this is why there was such an emotional outpouring for a possible C-M: something that can do terrific autofocus in a smaller package that is also FF. OTOH, lurking on the CL thread, I'm often very fooled and think I'm on the SL thread.

[ramarren]

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 ?

Having had and used the SL with it's native lenses (and with the same R lenses that I now use on the CL), I feel upon comparing similar SL and CL images that there's very little difference in the rendering qualities (for simplicity, call it the combination of dynamic range and noise together) due to the body/sensor until you reach a stratospheric level of ISO settings. The SL lenses are superb, and are just as superb on the CL as they are on the SL, and the same goes for the R and M lenses.

 

Where there is a difference, and particularly with M lenses, is that the CL's smaller format eliminates more of the edge problems that certain (mostly short focal length, symmetrical) lens designs have with digital sensors. The SL and M full frame sensors rely more heavily on the lens profiles to help correct these problems; the CL is more successful with certain Zeiss and Voigtänder lenses than either purely because the periphery of the image circle is cropped away more.

 

I sold my SL because I found over the course of a year+ time that I wasn't using it and its dedicated zoom lenses enough to warrant keeping it. I bought the CL body because I still do need a TTL body for close-up, macro, and tele work that an M is simply not the best tool for. The CL actually handles the specific close-up and macro work I need to do better than the SL did, and I also find that it proves a delightful all rounder for general purpose work as well.

 

If I was still doing the kind of work that I originally bought the SL for in 2015, I would not have sold it. But I retired from that work over the course of the past three years, and that made the SL mostly redundant in my equipment kit.

[Jeff S]

Other distinguishing factors for me between the CL and SL systems are the SL’s weather sealing (body and lenses), the OIS in two of its zooms, and the different control interface.

 

Jeff

[farnz]

8. is doubtful. Lower resolution, but more advanced technology.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand you there, Jaap?  The CL's EVF has 2,360,000 pixels whereas the SL's EVF has 4,400,000 pixels.

 

Pete.

[jaapv]

Exactly what I said, Pete. The SL has higher resolution and the CL more up-to-date technology. The end result makes the viewfinders about equal (with the SL still nosing ahead by a whisker). Not something to sway a buying decision.

[helged]

Exactly what I said, Pete. The SL has higher resolution and the CL more up-to-date technology. The end result makes the viewfinders about equal (with the SL still nosing ahead by a whisker).

Not my experience. After using the SL since launch and the CL for 6+ months, the CLs EVF is fine but the SLs EVF is superior. At least for my eyes...

[Jeff S]

EVFs, just like cameras, can’t be measured by MP alone. Besides potential tech advances with new generations, viewfinders vary based on magnification, contrast, eye relief, flare control and so on. Variations across brands in use of materials and tech used (glass types, aspheric lenses, etc) are often greater than within brands, but MP is just one consideration. And in the end, just as with cameras, individual experience and preferences mean more than specs.

 

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

If you are just jumping back into photography, indulge yourself with a well-equipped CL and see how much you can get out of it.  I have both CL and SL (and an M10), and the SL stays home when I travel, the SL goes out with me within auto distance for more specialized jobs.  The improved sensor and the general simplicity and ease of use of the CL has helped me to get good results in really terrible light.   Here's an example, from a party shot all at ISO 6400 with the CL and 23/2.0: 

 

C1090071 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

I've worked with the 11-23, the 35/1.4 and the 60/2.8 in various combinations.  In another outing, I used the 23 and an 18 on my CL and another, borrowed CL body, to get close to the action and work more quickly.  It's a fine camera, and everything costs about 1/2 what the FF gear will set you back.

[jaapv]

Not my experience. After using the SL since launch and the CL for 6+ months, the CLs EVF is fine but the SLs EVF is superior. At least for my eyes...

Well, I speak from comparing side-by-side. I find the SL's EVF supriority minimal. Different strokes for different folks, Iguess.

[farnz]

Exactly what I said, Pete. The SL has higher resolution and the CL more up-to-date technology. The end result makes the viewfinders about equal (with the SL still nosing ahead by a whisker). Not something to sway a buying decision.

 

Thanks, Jaap, I understand what you meant now.  I haven't used a CL so I'm not in a position to compare.

 

Pete.

[bags27]

Not my experience. After using the SL since launch and the CL for 6+ months, the CLs EVF is fine but the SLs EVF is superior. At least for my eyes...

I reluctantly completely agree. Having used both interchangeably one morning, I thought the SL's was significantly better. Coming from the Q (whose EVF is between these cameras), it's the main thing still holding me back from a CL. My eyes just ain't what they used to be....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

I reluctantly completely agree. Having used both interchangeably one morning, I thought the SL's was significantly better. Coming from the Q (whose EVF is between these cameras), it's the main thing still holding me back from a CL. My eyes just ain't what they used to be....

 

 

Two factors for the (subjectively stated) superiority of the SLs EVF is that it is large and that the EVF-optics seems very, very good. With the CL, I had the feeling of looking at a smallish screen; whereas the SLs EVF is much closer to looking through an optical view finder. The latter is, for me, a big plus. And regarding optical VF, nothing beats the absolutely large & stunning finder of the S - but that's a completely different animal, obviously...

[LocalHero1953]

I have the SL and CL. I agree that in terms of IQ they are as near as makes no difference.

Most of the time I use the CL (size, weight etc), but there are times when I would not be without the SL.

 

- The SL with its native lenses is weatherproof, and I happily take it out in the rain; the hoods on the two big zooms keep the rain off most of the time.

- The OIS in the SL's native zooms is a real boon in low light.

- The SL's native zooms are much faster focusing than the CL's.

- The depth of focus control with the larger sensor is valuable in crowded and messy environments where you want to separate a face from a background.

- The second card slot is reassuring in situations where you only have one go at getting the shot.

- The SL's EVF is much superior to the CL's, IMO; I like the greater size in particular.

- The 90-280 zoom blows my mind every time I use it: just the brightness and clarity in the EVF is enough to make me want to use it.

- Subjectively, I feel that the SL and its zooms would stand up better to rough treatment than the CL. And it's hard with sharp edges that people keep away. It's a bit like driving a Landrover round a busy city - other cars clear a space around you.

 

All this means that for events, when, as an amateur I am playing at being a professional, I would always take the SL and its two longer zooms. Yes, they are large and heavy, but so am I, and we're a good match. They fit in a Fogg b-major, and I can use them all day without problems.

 

The CL has it's place, though, as a back up for the SL for events (the 18-56 matches the 24-90). The one area where (IMO) it scores over the SL in functionality is the 60mm TL Macro lens, which is a great portrait lens and macro/close up lens in one package with no need for a macro adaptor. So when using it in close support to the SL, I keep the 60 on the CL, with the 18-56 in the bag just in case.

Edited September 3, 2018 by LocalHero1953