Jump to content
howiebrou

Leica CL substitute for Leica Q?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, lct said:

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.

That's right !

anyway, I was just checking again some files and I think definitely something is wrong with my unit, because pictures taken with the camera just switched on, are better than pictures taken after a while when the camera gets palpable hotter...

Thus, I'll return my camera to the seller.

Thanks again,

Juanjo

 

Share this post


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

...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.

...

Lightroom v7.5? Surely you mean one of the CC versions because the perpetual license version of LR stops at v6.14. 

There's no way to know precisely what you mean by "soft" without seeing a direct comparison in the form of raw exposures from your T, M9, M8, and CL of the same subject with the same lens, etc. I've done that comparison with my CL compared against the M-D typ 262: the results are excellent and a very close match at the default settings in both Lightroom 6.14. 

As lct suggested, start a new thread on this subject and supply some examples so others can see what you are seeing. 

---

You posted while I was writing. 

If you're seeing a change as the camera heats up, definitely go with it to Leica or return it to the vendor. That sounds like a problem with your specific example. I've seen no such difference between photos taken at the beginning of an afternoon's shooting compared against ones taken at the end of the day, after the camera was in use and on for up to 500 exposures. 

Edited by ramarren

Share this post


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

Lightroom v7.5? Surely you mean one of the CC versions because the perpetual license version of LR stops at v6.14. 

There's no way to know precisely what you mean by "soft" without seeing a direct comparison in the form of raw exposures from your T, M9, M8, and CL of the same subject with the same lens, etc. I've done that comparison with my CL compared against the M-D typ 262: the results are excellent and a very close match at the default settings in both Lightroom 6.14. 

As lct suggested, start a new thread on this subject and supply some examples so others can see what you are seeing. 

---

You posted while I was writing. 

If you're seeing a change as the camera heats up, definitely go with it to Leica or return it to the vendor. That sounds like a problem with your specific example. I've seen no such difference between photos taken at the beginning of an afternoon's shooting compared against ones taken at the end of the day, after the camera was in use and on for up to 500 exposures. 

Yes, LR v7.5 is last version of Classic CC. I was using v6.14 but I needed this last Classic version because 6.14 doesn't recognized any more some raw files from my Fuji GFX50S...

As for my CL unit, and as I've just posted before, now it's clear for me that something is wrong with it. I'm packing it for return to seller.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 11:33 AM, fotofreak_es said:

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 

 

What you are describing sounds very much like the experience I had with my first CL. I also saw a few reviews where the same was complained about. At first, I was very surprised and decided to return the camera. However, after seeing many images online done with this camera, I decided to give it another go and am actually happy with the results from the second one that i purchased.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pixels are dimensionless and the CL and Q produce the same number of pixels. So the question really amounts to the pair of questions: "Is the CL sensor producing as good as the Q sensor in terms of dynamic range and tonal gradation?" and "Are the lenses available for the CL up to the same level of performance as the lens fitted to the Q?" 

I don't have a Q so can't compare them directly, but comparing the SL and M-D exposures against the CL, the CL sensor falls right in between them with respect to its performance at up to ISO 6400. I suspect the result of this comparison against a Q would produce output that was "never no mind" different between them. 

Regards lens performance, it's very difficult to say without testing specifically. Even in my small lens kit, I have two outstanding lenses that produce about the same FoV as the Q's 28mm (Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH and Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1), and of course this doesn't count the TL18mm or TL11-23mm lenses made for the CL, which are reputedly outstanding. Neither of these can match the Q's lens in speed (f/1.7) but of course there are other, faster lenses available. 

I've made prints at 13x19 inch sizing from the SL, the M-D, and the CL that are indistinguishable with respect to quality, and could certainly be printed at 30" wide as well (approximately 180 ppi output without interpolation or resizing) with similar, indistinguishable quality. Where I see a difference in the rendering performance of the smaller sensor is at ISO settings over 6400 between the SL and CL: there the SL has a slight advantage. But I doubt I'll ever make 30"+ sized prints from captures at such elevated ISO settings. 

 

51 minutes ago, Barry Shapiro said:

I’ve been using my Q now for several years. Has anyone tested large prints (30” wide +/-) from the CL to compare and see if the smaller sensor can hold up to the full frame?

Thank you...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a Q to evaluate against, but I thought it might be useful closure to look at a Leica CL capture compared to a Leica M-D capture using the same lens and same exposure parameters, processed entirely at the defaults in Lightroom 6.14. Both cameras were set to manual exposure. The CL was set to daylight white balance; the M-D has no white balance setting and is always AWB. The scene was direct sun just after noon with a clear sky. The camera to subject distance was locked in by using a tripod for both. I cropped the M-D capture to net about the same FoV as the CL with the same lens. Links are to 100% pixel rendering of the default capture in JPEG with minimum compression.

Leica M-D, Summicron-M 50mm f/2, ISO 200 @ f/8.5 @ 1/1000:

full resolution, cropped to APS-C format (3694x2468 pixels)

exposure check:

Xrite Color Checker:

Leica CL, Summicron-M 50mm f/2, ISO 200 @ f/8.5 @ 1/1000:

full resolution APS-C format, (4000x6000 pixels)

exposure check:

Xrite Color Checker:

As you can see, the metering calibration and native camera calibration profiles for the two bodies differ very slightly (about 0.15 EV on exposure, with a slightly warmer balance to the MD), but are well within adjustable range of hitting the exact same output. 

It would be interesting to do the same with a pair of Q exposures to see how it falls, but then I'd need to use different lenses on all three bodies to net a similar 28mm FoV and lens differences would also come into play. 

enjoy! G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have on many occasions compared APS-C printed images with full frame (and medium format) images. What I have seen time and again is that images blown up from smaller sensors lack one thing that not too many people are aware of nor very often even capable of detecting without being pointed out to them. That is dimensionality (or volume) to subject matter. It's difficult to actually explain, and is not even able to be seen online but it exists. Take photos of an object with both an APS-C camera and with a full frame camera, blow them both up to at least an 11X17 print and look at the contours of that object, especially if it is rounded and/or has depth to it. The larger sensor will appear to show that object with a bit more apparent dimensionality,  to its contours (at least as much as a 2 dimensional print can show it). Go to a medium format sensor, do the same and the result will appear to have even more apparent dimensionality to the object. Another way to put it is that a smaller sensor may show subject matter looking a bit flatter than a larger sensor will.

I recently did some shots with my M10 and 50mm summilux and compared same sized prints having been shot with my CL and 35mm summilux TL. To most people I think the results would look identical. To my eye though (and no I do not presume to see in any special way, I am just looking for something very specific), I can pick out the M10 prints close to 100% of the time. Yes I know the field of view is different and the depth-of-field may be different, but that is not what I am talking about nor looking at when I do this. I am looking specifically at that apparent dimensionality or volume to objects that I tried to explain above. It is subtle, it is hardly noticeable when comparing full frame with APS-C but it IS there and if you look specifically for it, you will see it. Compare images shot with the Q and images shot with the CL and if you look at prints and know what to look for you WILL see a difference.

So while I feel that sensor technology has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past few years, there is still and always will be an advantage to larger sensors. As I said earlier, most people will not recognize it nor care about it especially if they only view their images online. I myself have owned cameras with sensors ranging from micro 4/3 to medium format and currently am using APS-C more than anything. But if I compare images done with that sensor to one done with a medium format (or even a full frame) sensor, no...they are just not the same.

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...lack one thing ... dimensionality (or volume) to subject matter..." 

Per your description of the "difference" as you see it: This is a rendering issue not a format issue, in my opinion.

If it is observable with APS-C vs FF, it should certainly be observable with FourThirds vs FF ... and I have plenty of largish prints with both that don't demonstrate any such difference. (I of course have plenty of hastily made photos with both that look like junk too. :D) Some of my most beautiful and most "dimensional" photographs were exposed with FourThirds format cameras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 13 Stunden schrieb jay968:

I have on many occasions compared APS-C printed images with full frame (and medium format) images. What I have seen time and again is that images blown up from smaller sensors lack one thing that not too many people are aware of nor very often even capable of detecting without being pointed out to them. That is dimensionality (or volume) to subject matter. It's difficult to actually explain, and is not even able to be seen online but it exists. Take photos of an object with both an APS-C camera and with a full frame camera, blow them both up to at least an 11X17 print and look at the contours of that object, especially if it is rounded and/or has depth to it. The larger sensor will appear to show that object with a bit more apparent dimensionality,  to its contours (at least as much as a 2 dimensional print can show it). Go to a medium format sensor, do the same and the result will appear to have even more apparent dimensionality to the object. Another way to put it is that a smaller sensor may show subject matter looking a bit flatter than a larger sensor will.

I recently did some shots with my M10 and 50mm summilux and compared same sized prints having been shot with my CL and 35mm summilux TL. To most people I think the results would look identical. To my eye though (and no I do not presume to see in any special way, I am just looking for something very specific), I can pick out the M10 prints close to 100% of the time. Yes I know the field of view is different and the depth-of-field may be different, but that is not what I am talking about nor looking at when I do this. I am looking specifically at that apparent dimensionality or volume to objects that I tried to explain above. It is subtle, it is hardly noticeable when comparing full frame with APS-C but it IS there and if you look specifically for it, you will see it. Compare images shot with the Q and images shot with the CL and if you look at prints and know what to look for you WILL see a difference.

So while I feel that sensor technology has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past few years, there is still and always will be an advantage to larger sensors. As I said earlier, most people will not recognize it nor care about it especially if they only view their images online. I myself have owned cameras with sensors ranging from micro 4/3 to medium format and currently am using APS-C more than anything. But if I compare images done with that sensor to one done with a medium format (or even a full frame) sensor, no...they are just not the same.

I cannot explain why, maybe it is true that larger pixels capture more information, but I tend  to confirm your impression.  I have taken MFT and APS-C images galore during my photographic life and also FF.  I do not print very often, but I can see the differences at the monitor. MFT images  look flatter, but you do not notice it in every situation. APS-C images have more pop and FF even more so. Images taken with the Q are smoother and, as you wrote, have more depth (not in the physical sense, it is an impression). Processing is much easier. I still think that Leica did a very good job with the CL and especially the 55-135 Apo-Vario TL. I do not own the 35 mm TL or the 60 mm Macro, which certainly are as good as the Apo-Vario. I did not like the 35 mm Summilux-M combined with them CL, the same goes for the 50 mm Summilux-M, weird colors.

I think the CL is no substitute for the Q, and vice versa. They are complementary, I own both. The CL is highly portable and has the edge if you have to save on weight and bulk when you need  a tele lens. I hate to carry both at the same time, though. And I would never sell the Q in order to purchase a CL.

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 7:52 AM, Barry Shapiro said:

I’ve been using my Q now for several years. Has anyone tested large prints (30” wide +/-) from the CL to compare and see if the smaller sensor can hold up to the full frame?

Thank you...

I certainly appreciate all your input, experience and knowledge. At this point I find it promising. I'll explain further my personal needs and will again appreciate anyone's opinions. 

Anthony Bannon from the George Eastman House once said my work was "Humanistic Journalism." I'm sharing this information so those of you that have more experience than me about the technical aspects of digital photography will better understand my needs. Like many, I  have more years with film than digital and the emotional content of an image is the goal. I did my best over many years mastering the darkroom to make the best print I could. Now with large sensors and fine equipment, the images can have an almost more realistic outcome than I can see looking at the world through my glasses. 

Currently there is a gallery in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico selling my black and white images because they speak more to a film look. If interested you can see some work of mine at www.barry-shapiro.com. 

Since I switched to digital I've been using a full frame Canon system. As some of you can relate, I'm simply tired of carrying around heavy cameras. I'm really not a candidate for the M system and when I looked at the CL I imagined how easy it would be to carry it along with a few lenses. I've had a great experience with the "Q". It's been my first Leica camera. I have however never used the formatting mask to capture at 35mm and 50mm. 

If this smaller sensor can do what I want it seems like a great solution. I'm fine with it not being quite as sharp as a full frame in a 30" print. What I can't live with is any sign of a digital artifact (if I'm describing this correctly). 

Again, Thank you all...

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry, 

I don't think you have anything to worry about with the CL sensor. It produces delightful quality images, on par with my Leica M-D and Leica SL cameras' images. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

had the Q have the CL, swapped because I needed a camera with interchangeable lenses. I am very happy with the CL, wasn't at first but when CaptureOne came out with their update that had the CL in it, the pics were much better. BUT, the IQ of the Q is far superior. The malleability of the files is far superior. If they did come out with a 50mm Q I would grab it. The CL to me is a better D-Lux 109. The Q was, to me, the SL with a fixed mount lens. I had it from the beginning (swapped my M9 for it), and it never let me down and its video is superb (capturing the grandchildren). So I can more than live with CL, it is wonderful, love the size, and can do more for me because of the interchangeable lens capability (use R and M lenses on it). But on a pure one shot basis, the Q outperforms.

 

Share this post


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

If they did come out with a 50mm Q I would grab it.

The Q was, to me, the SL with a fixed mount lens.

 

I still dream of a 50mm Q!

For me, the SL was a Q with a zoom lens 🤪 (albeit not as portable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 11:52 AM, jay968 said:

I have on many occasions compared APS-C printed images with full frame (and medium format) images. What I have seen time and again is that images blown up from smaller sensors lack one thing that not too many people are aware of nor very often even capable of detecting without being pointed out to them. That is dimensionality (or volume) to subject matter. It's difficult to actually explain, and is not even able to be seen online but it exists. Take photos of an object with both an APS-C camera and with a full frame camera, blow them both up to at least an 11X17 print and look at the contours of that object, especially if it is rounded and/or has depth to it. The larger sensor will appear to show that object with a bit more apparent dimensionality,  to its contours (at least as much as a 2 dimensional print can show it). Go to a medium format sensor, do the same and the result will appear to have even more apparent dimensionality to the object. Another way to put it is that a smaller sensor may show subject matter looking a bit flatter than a larger sensor will.

I recently did some shots with my M10 and 50mm summilux and compared same sized prints having been shot with my CL and 35mm summilux TL. To most people I think the results would look identical. To my eye though (and no I do not presume to see in any special way, I am just looking for something very specific), I can pick out the M10 prints close to 100% of the time. Yes I know the field of view is different and the depth-of-field may be different, but that is not what I am talking about nor looking at when I do this. I am looking specifically at that apparent dimensionality or volume to objects that I tried to explain above. It is subtle, it is hardly noticeable when comparing full frame with APS-C but it IS there and if you look specifically for it, you will see it. Compare images shot with the Q and images shot with the CL and if you look at prints and know what to look for you WILL see a difference.

So while I feel that sensor technology has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past few years, there is still and always will be an advantage to larger sensors. As I said earlier, most people will not recognize it nor care about it especially if they only view their images online. I myself have owned cameras with sensors ranging from micro 4/3 to medium format and currently am using APS-C more than anything. But if I compare images done with that sensor to one done with a medium format (or even a full frame) sensor, no...they are just not the same.

I would agree.  Have seen this difference between full frame and medium format.  So, naturally there would be same between APSC and full frame.  I haven’t noticed it as much between APSC and full frame, but really noticed it going medium format.  Probably has more to do with relationship between larger lens coverage of the sensor than just the sensor size, I suspect.  Don’t know, guessing.  It might explain why my M lenses give me better images on APSC than TL lenses?

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.

×