Jump to content
howiebrou

Leica CL substitute for Leica Q?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I still have my Sony Rx1RII. 

Beware the lens is prone to seizing up. It happened to me and i found out it is not uncommon. To correct it you need to give it a right big thump which is a bit disconcerting!

Edited by howiebrou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jay968 said:

I've owned both (I own only the CL now along with an M10). Here are some thoughts;

When I first tried the CL, I was horrified by the results. I complained but eventually tried another and the results are pretty darn good to be honest.

Q - nice that it is full frame but the sensor in the CL is so good that it is very close. The Q (and I had owned a couple of them) always gave me fits with certain kinds of subject matter. There is a tendency for moire to rear its ugly head. I THINK it may have to do with the lens out resolving the sensor. I think that camera really needs a 30+ mp sensor for its lens. 28mm takes some getting used to if you normally use a 35mm, and you just may never like it. Some do, some don't. I got used to it when I owned the Q but to be honest I would much rather that the Q had a 35 instead. I never really loved the EVF in the Q. It may have been ground breaking in its time but now, it has been surpassed and frankly the CL EVF is much better. The Q is also a bit big for what it is, especially if you are used to the Sony. Positive for the Q is its manual focusing, probably the best by far of any mirrorless camera out there.

CL - Just cannot be replaced by the Q in terms of changing lenses. You may not think you need nor want ithat, but once you have it, you won't want to go back. Plus, it plays extremely well with an adapter and some Nikon lenses (I have the 55 micro and the 180 F2.8, both superb on the CL). The CL is a very nice size, even with the grip which I highly recommend and can be carried in a coat pocket if only the 18 is on it. Can't do that with the Q. The one fairly large drawback to the CL the way I see it is that the zoom lens max apertures are kind've slow. But I suppose that is why I own the 2 primes that I do.

I did a comparison with the 35mm F1.4 TL lens and the 50mm summilux on my M10. With 11x17 prints I really see very little if any difference. Both lenses are superb when shot wide open. I also own the 11-23TL, 23TL and 55-135TL. No complaints about any of them, and I am very finicky when it comes to lens performance. Aside from the 50 summilux, I also own the 35 summilux and 21 SEM for my M10.

I struggled with my original decision to go to the CL and sell my Q, and at first I regretted it. But once I tried a second CL body and got used to it, I have not looked back. If I were to do it all over again, I would not even consider the Q. The CL is just too versatile.

Thank you. Very informative. What exactly was wrong with your first CL? Sounds a bit worrying that you needed to swap. Was it a poor sensor? I agree the Q is much bigger than the Sony which was part of my raison d'être for going for the Sony in the first place. But to be honest it was too small and i don't have Trump hands so i couldn't actually hold it and take photos with one hand!

Anyway 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

LOL! Getting both is an interesting way to go with this discussion. But seems to be pretty common amongst Leica folks. :D

That's an interesting Q special ... hadn't seen that style before. It's quite pretty. :) Have to say I still prefer basic black on my cameras, however. 

For me the M-D and CL make a near perfect pair of cameras nowadays. The M-D body is 200g heavier than the CL body, compensated for a little bit by the fact that I tend to put R lenses on the CL and M lenses on the M-D. The difference in total weight is really a trifling thing in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ramarren said:

That's an interesting Q special ... hadn't seen that style before. It's quite pretty. :) Have to say I still prefer basic black on my cameras, however. 

If it was available in hot pink... the red and silver one is a Singapore Limited Edition. There was also a red and black one i think for San Francisco. I much prefer red on silver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q is unbeatable. I rented a CL and the shutter was loud; a very serious kerchunk. It was about equal to my Ricoh GR II (though the CL has the EVF). I may look at the CL again, but in. any case, the Q will be around for many years to come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, after shooting with the Q (near silent), SL (quiet), and M10-P (very quiet) it's hard to go back to cameras with loud shutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both. The Q as one of the early owners. File quality wise the CL is as good as the Q. Obsessive pixel peeping and head to head comparison might reveal a tiny tiny advantage of the FF sensor depending on the shooting conditions (light), but I doubt it. Since the CL is in the house, the Q is gathering dust (as is the M) and I might sell the Q soon. The versatility of the CL wins for me. It's all I need under most circumstances and with the new L-mount alliance it's future is looking bright. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, howiebrou said:

Thank you. Very informative. What exactly was wrong with your first CL? Sounds a bit worrying that you needed to swap. Was it a poor sensor? I agree the Q is much bigger than the Sony which was part of my raison d'être for going for the Sony in the first place. But to be honest it was too small and i don't have Trump hands so i couldn't actually hold it and take photos with one hand!

Anyway 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!

Yes I think my first CL had a sensor issue, not sure. Photos lacked contrast bigtime. They were just not acceptable. As soon as I shot with the second, I saw a major improvement.

Edited by jay968
To add information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had both at the same time for a couple of weeks. I found that I just was not using the Q, so I sold it. Yes the Q shutter is quieter, but I think the CL is quiet too. It is not a loud shutter at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jay968 said:

Yes I think my first CL had a sensor issue, not sure. Photos lacked contrast bigtime. They were just not acceptable. As soon as I shot with the second, I saw a major improvement.

Something to be aware of. I will be sure to check mine thoroughly, thanks.

Edited by howiebrou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen anything out of any CL that "lacked contrast". It was most likely something off in the settings or whatever. How long did you work with the first CL you had? How familiar with it were you when you used it? 

Regardless, and regarding the sound: For sure a Q ought to be quieter. It has a leaf shutter and leaf shutters are nearly always quieter than focal plane shutters. Of course, you can set the CL to use the electronic shutter exclusively and then it is absolutely silent; I don't know if that's possible with a Q. Electronic shutters are not without their own oddities, so I leave mine set to "Extend" mode where the electronic shutter adds more functionality when needed. I don't find the CL shutter to be particularly noisy, although the SL's larger and heavier body does damp its shutter sound a bit more.

Here are recordings of the SL, CL, and several M cameras I made to compare them with: M Shutter Sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ramarren said:

Never seen anything out of any CL that "lacked contrast". It was most likely something off in the settings or whatever. How long did you work with the first CL you had? How familiar with it were you when you used it? 

Regardless, and regarding the sound: For sure a Q ought to be quieter. It has a leaf shutter and leaf shutters are nearly always quieter than focal plane shutters. Of course, you can set the CL to use the electronic shutter exclusively and then it is absolutely silent; I don't know if that's possible with a Q. Electronic shutters are not without their own oddities, so I leave mine set to "Extend" mode where the electronic shutter adds more functionality when needed. I don't find the CL shutter to be particularly noisy, although the SL's larger and heavier body does damp its shutter sound a bit more.

Here are recordings of the SL, CL, and several M cameras I made to compare them with: M Shutter Sounds.

Well, I'd never seen a camera which randomly didn't shoot photos when the shutter release was pressed, until I owned one (a Nikon F3), and I'd never seen a Hasselblad that randomly refused to respond when its main control dial was turned, until I owned one ( X1D). I have even owned Leicas that had problems straight out of the box (a couple of R5 bodies that I owned back in the 80s...the electronics in BOTH of them gave me fits). So I am honestly bewildered by the skepticism concerning a faulty CL. For what it's worth, same settings on my current CL produce  better image quality than did those settings on my original CL. Thinking it over, I am fairly confident that the first one had some sensor defect (not 100% sure but it sure seems that way), however I would NOT hesitate to purchase nor recommend one of these based on that alone. They are good cameras (as are the F3, X1D and R5 cameras). Sometimes stuff just happens.

If memory serves me, the only way to get the Q into total silent mode is by using it as you do in "extend" mode where it automatically reverts to silent at the highest shutter speeds.

Bottom line is both the Q and CL are great cameras and both are extremely fun to use. I think the biggest thing to consider is whether or not the single lens on the Q is what you want (and do you want 28mm), or do you want interchangeable lenses. Yes the Q can be cropped but so can any camera. Keep in mind that doing so, brings the sensor down to a 15mp one using the 35mm setting and an 8mp one when using the 50mm setting. I found the 35mm setting to be somewhat useful but I did not like the results at the 50mm setting. The CL will produce 24mp images no matter what lens you use.

And maybe one more thing to consider might be the fact that the Q senor is now what, 4 years old? There seem to be advances in sensor technology every few months no less every 4 years. Just something else to think about.

 

 

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always possible that you had a defective unit. I just think it's pretty rare and not something that one has to be overly on guard about. I routinely test every new piece of equipment I buy immediately after it arrives in my hands to ensure that I didn't get a defective unit; I'm not that skeptical of the possibilities of defectives. :)

My choice was the CL and I'm delighted by it. The ability to use a range of lenses for my photographic needs is essential to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need Help with this too. I've just purchased a Leica Cl, and I'm really disappointed with the results. Either DNG or OOC JPG are far away from the results produced by my Leica T.

To be clear,  ALL files come out FLAT and  poorer in contrast and sharpness compared to the T.  Even at Iso 100 on a sunny day.  

I'd rather appreciate comments about this, because as far as I've read in the forum, it seems to be a random issue with this sensor. 

Juanjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fotofreak_es said:

I need Help with this too. I've just purchased a Leica Cl, and I'm really disappointed with the results. Either DNG or OOC JPG are far away from the results produced by my Leica T.

To be clear,  ALL files come out FLAT and  poorer in contrast and sharpness compared to the T.  Even at Iso 100 on a sunny day.  

I'd rather appreciate comments about this, because as far as I've read in the forum, it seems to be a random issue with this sensor. 

Juanjo

Are you capturing DNG files or JPEG files? 

If DNG, what are you using to process them? If Lightroom, what version? To get the correct camera calibration profile you need specific versions of Camera Raw and LR or your results will look poor:

If JPEGs, start looking at the image settings in the camera. 

I have my CL set to DNG only with the JPEG settings at the camera defaults. The DNG files look terrific when converted at the defaults in LR 6.14 (perpetual), Affinity Photo (on the iPad Pro), SnapSeed (on the iPad Pro), Luminar 2018, and Photos (macOS High Sierra v10.13.6), just like the Leica SL and Leica M-D typ 262 DNG files do. I don't have a T so cannot compare with that camera. 

Edited by ramarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fotofreak_es said:

I need Help with this too. I've just purchased a Leica Cl, and I'm really disappointed with the results. Either DNG or OOC JPG are far away from the results produced by my Leica T.

To be clear,  ALL files come out FLAT and  poorer in contrast and sharpness compared to the T.  Even at Iso 100 on a sunny day.  

I'd rather appreciate comments about this, because as far as I've read in the forum, it seems to be a random issue with this sensor. 

Juanjo

I've owned both cameras, the TL2 (and T) and CL. RAW images from each of the cameras were quite similar, and otherwise excellent. 

However, that was not the case with the the jpegs, where the CL's were excellent and the TL's were not.

Rob 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, fotofreak_es said:

I've just purchased a Leica Cl, and I'm really disappointed with the results. Either DNG or OOC JPG are far away from the results produced by my Leica T.
To be clear,  ALL files come out FLAT and  poorer in contrast and sharpness compared to the T.  Even at Iso 100 on a sunny day.  
I'd rather appreciate comments about this, because as far as I've read in the forum, it seems to be a random issue with this sensor.

I have no experience with the T and i cannot check if your camera is faulty w/o viewing your pics but as far as OOC files are concerned, results will depend on the way the files are read by the camera or the computer. By opening them on a Mac through Apple's Preview, for example, you may find that JPG files are rather dull (1st pic) whereas DNG ones are more contrasty to the point that some colors may look over saturated (2nd pic). This is matter of tastes of course but a good camera like the CL deserves a good raw converter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original post, I have a Q amongst other systems but not the CL.  Love it EXCEPT the fact it is 28mm.  Other than that, I would buy again and again because it’s really a great travel camera when I don’t want to carry one of my system cameras.  Think very carefully about going for 28mm fixed lens.  I find is so much wider than 35mm, can be annoying if you aren’t comfortable getting closer to your subject.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ropo54 said:

I've owned both cameras, the TL2 (and T) and CL. RAW images from each of the cameras were quite similar, and otherwise excellent. 

However, that was not the case with the the jpegs, where the CL's were excellent and the TL's were not.

Rob 

 

Rob, Ramarren, Ict,

thank you for your comments. But unfortunately, the problem I see is not related to SW. The appearance of files, either seen on camera preview, or processed through LR v7.5, C1 8.3.4, PS 2018-CC & Camera raw 10.5, Affinity, OnOne Photo raw 2018 or anything else, It's definitely SOFT.

What I'm referring to, is a softness not as strong as the dullness of a linear gamma raw file, but a result comparatively softer to the T output, providing, this is clearly the most comparable camera among my collection, and of course, using the same Lens and picture parameters. One thing should be clear: sensor in the T is the excellent and well known 16 Mp Sony seen in the Ricoh GR too (among other brands), and the sensor in the TL2 and CL is a different one with probably a different behavior.

I own the GR too among other cameras that I've collected and thoroughly tested and used through my 48 years of professional career as a Technical Photographer (and now SW instructor and advisor to many photographers, as Cristina Garcia Rodero for instance). I've even been a tester  for Hasselblad in the development of a specific digital Back aimed to IR photography for Museum and other institutions photographers.  Therefore, when I first take a product for testing its results or practical possibilities, I know very well what I'm looking for.

Thus and as far as I've checked at this forum one comment related to this particular issue (not too many...), I'm looking for someone that could have experienced the same. I'm thinking in someone owning both cameras, and therefore having some experience using them in a variety of conditions as to pronounce about differences checked. As I've stated before, this is not a strong raw dullness aspect, but a slightly flat output (IMHO) compared to the T. There is too an evidence of inferior sharpness compared to the T. Of course it's not as strong as could be expected from a Foveon vs Bayer comparison...!   But it's definitively softer than my T,  M8 and M9-P and lacks that Leica special digital character I can see and much appreciate in these cameras. For me, all of them can give you a special B&W characteristic final result, more film alike than other Bayer sensor based cameras.

What I try to conclude is simply if my unit could be a defective one according to a misaligned sensor or another manufacturing issue, or in the contrary, this is a "normal" behavior of the CL. 

Any comments about personal experience would be much appreciated. Thanks to all.

Juanjo 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juanjo,

May i suggest that you open a new thread and show some of your pics there. This way we won't bother our colleagues interested in Q cameras anymore.

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

×