Jump to content
howiebrou

Leica CL substitute for Leica Q?

Recommended Posts

I am going to post this in both leica Q and Leica CL forums and hopefully I can negate the bias of each type of owner!

I am looking for a replacement for my Sony RX1MkII which had a 35mm F/2 Zeiss lens and served me well for a number of years. I need a smallish camera to carry around and the Leica Q is at the top of the list but the CL with a 35mm TL summilux f/1.4 or 23mm F/2 TL lens seems, on paper at least to be a possible alternative. Yes the CL is APS-C but apparently it is also of high quality. My question is; is this comparing apples with oranges. The Q has a lot to brag about: great IQ, great handling and a great lens but i am not insistent on a 28mm lens either and the 23mm f/2 TL lens is the equivalent of a 35mm which many Q owners seem to want as well. The CL has the added advantage of being able to change lenses (although that is not what I need right now but it does keep my options open) and the 18mm is bang on the same as the Q lens in terms of focal length, if not quality or max aperture. 

Given that the Q is a few years old and the CL is basically brand new and a CL with 23mm or 35mm is not much larger (if at all) than a Q, would that make more sense now?

p.s. let's ignore the costs for this comparison

Edited by howiebrou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q would be my clear choice (based on your parameters).  

Superb low light performance, stunning IQ and lens, and full frame. (The Q also gives the option to shoot at 35mm and 50mm, with fewer pixels, and apsc sized).  As good as the CL may be, its only advantage is the versatility of using different lenses.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ropo54 said:

The Q would be my clear choice (based on your parameters).  

Superb low light performance, stunning IQ and lens, and full frame. (The Q also gives the option to shoot at 35mm and 50mm, with fewer pixels, and apsc sized).  As good as the CL may be, its only advantage is the versatility of using different lenses.

Rob

Would a Cl with 35 TL Summilux not have equally, if not better, low light performance (with a 23mm f/2 not far behind)? To be honest i was ready to buy a Q but stopped to ponder the CL option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, howiebrou said:

Would a Cl with 35 TL Summilux not have equally, if not better, low light performance (with a 23mm f/2 not far behind)? To be honest i was ready to buy a Q but stopped to ponder the CL option.

Given the smaller sensor, not likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, howiebrou said:

Would a Cl with 35 TL Summilux not have equally, if not better, low light performance (with a 23mm f/2 not far behind)? To be honest i was ready to buy a Q but stopped to ponder the CL option.

No, from my experience (and I have tried the combinations) the Q does the better job. 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Q is the best digital Leica camera in production.

Don't be fooled by specs. The 23/2 TL lens is no match for the 28/1.7 Summilux. The Q has a very cinematic and pleasing quality to it's rendering. The 18/2.8 and 23/2 TL lenses can produce sharp photos as well, but they lack the smoothness and tonal range that the Summilux has to it's images.

As for the camera itself, the Q has a superior AF system and it's a better low light camera, due to the F1.7 lens and OIS combo. The Q can focus down to 17cm in macro mode. Also, don't forget that the Q has a near silent leaf shutter. (I really dislike the shutter sound of the CL.... worst out of the current digital Leica's imo)

I agree with Rob that the only advantage of the CL is it's versatility to use other lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

In my opinion, the Q is the best digital Leica camera in production.

Don't be fooled by specs. The 23/2 TL lens is no match for the 28/1.7 Summilux. The Q has a very cinematic and pleasing quality to it's rendering. The 18/2.8 and 23/2 TL lenses can produce sharp photos as well, but they lack the smoothness and tonal range that the Summilux has to it's images.

As for the camera itself, the Q has a superior AF system and it's a better low light camera, due to the F1.7 lens and OIS combo. The Q can focus down to 17cm in macro mode. Also, don't forget that the Q has a near silent leaf shutter. (I really dislike the shutter sound of the CL.... worst out of the current digital Leica's imo)

I agree with Rob that the only advantage of the CL is it's versatility to use other lenses.

The Q really does have it's fans, probably for good reason. It will be hard for me to get either camera for a prolongued time to try so your comments are very worthwhile, thanks. Seeing as you did mention the Cl's use with other lenses, would the gap narrow if i slipped a 50mm APO M Summicron onto the CL?

Edited by howiebrou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, howiebrou said:

Would a Cl with 35 TL Summilux not have equally, if not better, low light performance (with a 23mm f/2 not far behind)? To be honest i was ready to buy a Q but stopped to ponder the CL option.

No, I've owned both as well. 

First, you are comparing a 28mm FOV lens to a 52.5mm FOV lens, so that's a stop difference in one's ability to hand-hold. Add in OIS and there's another 2 to 3 stops.

Second, the Q can focus in near pitch dark conditions. That's not possible with the CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, doesn't it all come down to whether or not you want a camera with interchangeable lenses? And that, only you can answer.

Pros for CL: flexibility of lenses

Pros for Q: having only one lens trains you to find photos you normally might miss.

Other differences: well, if you're going to print a massive commercial poster, then, sure, the FF Q is better. But essentially all differences get washed away after 10000 or so actuations. Use a great camera enough and its possibilities become infinite. It's only our own possibilities that remain finite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, howiebrou said:

The Q really does have it's fans, probably for good reason. It will be hard for me to get either camera for a prolongued time to try so your comments are very worthwhile, thanks. Seeing as you did mention the Cl's use with other lenses, would the gap narrow if i slipped a 50mm APO M Summicron onto the CL?

Sure it would. But that's a 75mm FOV lens on the CL. I shoot mostly in the 28-35mm focal range and I found that there were no options with the CL that gave me a similar output to the Q. Maybe a 21mm or 24mm Summilux-M on the CL..... but then it becomes bigger than the Q while losing AF.  So what's the point? I'd rather shoot with the 35mm FLE on a rangefinder.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Sure it would. But that's a 75mm FOV lens on the CL. I shoot mostly in the 28-35mm focal range and I found that there were no options with the CL that gave me a similar output to the Q. Maybe a 21mm or 24mm Summilux-M on the CL..... but then it becomes bigger than the Q while losing AF.  So what's the point? I'd rather shoot with the 35mm FLE on a rangefinder.

 

 

You're right. I actually shoot mainly with 50mm Leica M lenses but my Sony was 35mm and that wasn't too bad either. So for CL i would need a 35mm or 23mm (hence my OP) to be in the ballpark. I presume the EVF on the Cl would make shooting M lenses relatively easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case. I wouldn't buy the Q.
35mm is quite similar to 50mm, but 28mm produces a totally different look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bags27 said:

Really, doesn't it all come down to whether or not you want a camera with interchangeable lenses? And that, only you can answer.

Pros for CL: flexibility of lenses

Pros for Q: having only one lens trains you to find photos you normally might miss.

Other differences: well, if you're going to print a massive commercial poster, then, sure, the FF Q is better. But essentially all differences get washed away after 10000 or so actuations. Use a great camera enough and its possibilities become infinite. It's only our own possibilities that remain finite.

The Q's inability to change lenses actually works in it's favour in making it a simpler 'pick it up and go' camera without faffing around with different lenses and buying different filter sizes for them all. That's how i used my Sony RX1 mkII. If i felt like faffing, i took my M, if not i took the sony. If i only own one CL lens it could work the same but i know i would be tempted to try others and then my M lenses.....etc. One major concern with the Q i have is the age compared to the CL and how gutted i would be if a new one came out soon. Having said that I just bought a SL which is almost as ancient although in this case i would only need to upgrade the body and the glass would stay whereas with the Q it all goes when you upgrade. Semantics perhaps but it is keeping me awake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want Quality: Clearly the Q. If flexibility is more important: CL. I have been through the same process and researched for months intensively and finally got the Q. Never been happy with any camera I had and not looking back. Regarding age and future? How much better can the image quality be?  Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frans Kemper said:

 Regarding age and future? How much better can the image quality be?  Just my 2 cents.

My concerns would not be with IQ, just brain numbing depreciation, that's all. No-one likes to buy something that drops in value quickly even if it continues to work flawlessly. Lenses are a different matter but digital bodies are more of a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A camera that is old to me, would be passed its 5 year life cycle and even then i wouldn't care about its age as long as it works and produces, the Q's first batch was released in June 2015 then new batches every year. Leica still releasing the Q brand new!!. But anyways you posting on the Q forum so people will not side with the CL.  Just get the one which focal view you will happy with or if you looking to intern-change lenses in the future then go CL, just know that the CL doesn't render like the Q and the Q at crop gives you 35mm and 50mm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came to the Q purely by accident - Barbara surprised me with it for Christmas.  She did so since my existing gear, a V-Lux 114 and a D-Lux 109, were less than satisfactory in extremely low light, and her research suggested the Q as a solution.  I was gracious, thanking her profusely, oo-ing and ahh-ing over the camera, and delighting in the initial start up screen animation.  But, this was a completely different experience for me since for decades I had used only SLRs (and the D2 starting in 2004, since sold) almost always with zoom lenses, though I did rarely use a 21, macro 60 and mirror 500.  We travel a great deal, and always do carry-on luggage, so space and weight are important to us.  We now travel with the Q, the V-Lux  and a 10X25 Ultravid bino.  The Q is now my carry everywhere everyday camera, in spite of its fixed, wide lens, and as you can surmise, I love it.  I did try out the CL, and very much liked the ability to switch lenses, but that greatly impacted weight, space and cost.  Even with the F2 pancake lens it was noticeably inferior in low light performance to the Q.  I also felt that the "feel" of the images the CL produced were not up to the Q's, but then look at the wonderful photos Louis is producing with his CL with an adapted Nikon lens.

Clearly, much of this does not apply to what you describe your situation is, but perhaps it will be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 13 Stunden schrieb howiebrou:

...great handling and a great lens but i am not insistent on a 28mm lens either and the 23mm f/2 TL lens is the equivalent of a 35mm which many Q owners seem to want as well.

For more than 20 years, I was the 35mm guy. Then the Leica Q came on the market and I was first confused about the 28mm. I calmed myself down because I also had 35mm with the Crop function.

After more than three years with the Leica Q, I am now the 28mm guy. 35mm doesn't work for me at all anymore. I have never used the Crop. When I see 35mm today, the image angle is much too narrow for me.

Meanwhile I love the 28mm focal length.

I had never tried the 28mm before. Always only 24mm and 35mm focal length. That was a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank everyone for their comments. I made a decision. I will get them both. Yesterday I picked up a limited edition red and silver Q. The CL will follow sometime later. These are internet photos, i will try and snap some real photos later today. I am amazed how light the Q is after lugging my MP240 and M246 with noctilux!

Edited by howiebrou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×