Follow my heart or use my head about buying TL2

[DanielJr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I regret big time selling my Leica t. I have tried the z7,eos r, xt3, and a73 but the tl2 is calling my name. I know  a couple of these cameras are better spec but Leica tl2 paired with 35mm tl lens is pretty magical. Should I go with my heart regrading the TL2 or buy a full frame. Sl would be my choice but it's too big of a camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stillstand ist Rückschritt]

Hi Daniel,

I own both the CL and the SL. I owned the first T before, but the CL ist easier to operate even though I love the clean design of the T. CL gives me more of what I need in the right place.

I fully understand your comment on the 35mm TL lens. It is my favorite on the CL.

What speaks for an SL or why do I have it? In portraits, where you prefer a shallower depth of field, full frame is superior. The same in low light, where full frame is better.

But: That camera is so heavy, that I will not bring it with a set of lenses on a trip. CL is always with me. And one lens more or less does not make a big weight and volume difference.

When it comes to IQ: Don't worry. I have now 10 photos size 60 x 40 cm hanging in my house. Nobody is able to tell which one I took with the SL and which one with the CL or previously T. Not even professionals. Actually my 3 best pictures are taken with CL and T. ( I admit, I only have the SL for a few weeks, so it will catch up)

And SL will cost you twice as much.

Think about what pictures you take and where you would take your camera. Then consider what you are willing to carry in terms of size and weight. And look at your budget.That should give you the answer. Don't worry about specs.

 

Oliver

[grahamhoey]

Hi Daniel

For me what is missing from the TL2 is the EVF. I know an add on can be purchased but the CL integrates it much more cleanly. Also the CL is somewhere in between the price of the TL2 and the SL. I agree with what Oliver said regarding IQ. I had been used to full frame and can't tell the difference between full frame and the CL images. 

The other issue I think you should consider is whether you want ultra wide angle lenses which with the cropped frame are not so wide on the CL or TL2 of course.

Agree with you the CL 35mm has amazing qualities but you should discount the TL zooms. I use the 18-56 most frequently of any lens that I have, particularly when travelling. It isn't on par with the 35mm for speed but for IQ is hard to differentiate.

Either way I'm sure you won't regret buying into Leica, there is something different about the images but I believe most of that is attributable to their lenses. So go with the camera body that you will use the most.

 

Graham 

[DanielJr]

12 minutes ago, Stillstand ist Rückschritt said:

Hi Daniel,

I own both the CL and the SL. I owned the first T before, but the CL ist easier to operate even though I love the clean design of the T. CL gives me more of what I need in the right place.

I fully understand your comment on the 35mm TL lens. It is my favorite on the CL.

What speaks for an SL or why do I have it? In portraits, where you prefer a shallower depth of field, full frame is superior. The same in low light, where full frame is better.

But: That camera is so heavy, that I will not bring it with a set of lenses on a trip. CL is always with me. And one lens more or less does not make a big weight and volume difference.

When it comes to IQ: Don't worry. I have now 10 photos size 60 x 40 cm hanging in my house. Nobody is able to tell which one I took with the SL and which one with the CL or previously T. Not even professionals. Actually my 3 best pictures are taken with CL and T. ( I admit, I only have the SL for a few weeks, so it will catch up)

And SL will cost you twice as much.

Think about what pictures you take and where you would take your camera. Then consider what you are willing to carry in terms of size and weight. And look at your budget.That should give you the answer. Don't worry about specs.

 

Oliver

Thanks I think I should buy the TL2 and get the 35mm. Then later get the macro.

[FrozenInTime]

TL2 is great with the 35 summilux TL. Ergonomics allow for single handed operation with AF and LCD unlike CL which lacks the grip.

The TL2 screen menus make it much faster to reconfigure than the UI and wheel button gymnastics on the CL where I mainly resort to recalling profiles.

For MF lenses however the CL comes out ahead thanks to the internal EVF and improved focus peaking.

I ended up buying both TL2 first as a small jacket pocketable travel camera and recently added the CL to use as a companion to it for more serious endevours where frequent changing of lenses is something to avoid.

Given how I often find the M10 more than I want to take, the SL was too big for me to consider; the SL lens roadmap through 2020 indicates a future SL2 will never be as small as a M10 or CL.

 

 

 

 

[ropo54]

I think you know all of the issues. 

The full frame SL - at the cost of some weight and size - will give you the best images in any kind of challenging conditions and will give you the ultimate in depth of field.  When you want to go lighter, I have found that the T lenses work so very well on the SL. Yes, 10 mp, but that's plenty and the joystick of the SL makes pinpoint focus very easy. Finally, I have observed that there is less noise on the T lenses with the SL than on my T/TL2 where high iso is required (but at the expense of megapixels).

The T/TL2 cameras are beautifully built and render equally nice DNG files to the CL's files.  The CL has that built-in EVF which is more preferable to me than the external attachable visoflex.  I prefer the solid feel, and the shutter snap of the T/TL2 to the CL.  For jpegs, the CL's were far nicer than the T/TL2's.  I have had both the CL and TL2 and I stayed with TL2 rather than the CL. 

For image quality and ultimate versatility, the SL wins. For portability, the apsc cameras are the choice. For looks and feel its the T/TL2.  For ultimate compact package its the CL. For apsc quality images, the T/TL2 and CL are indistinguishable.

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by ropo54

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rational thinking in art knows nothing of the heart and it supports no comfort; it knows nothing about you.
Go with your heart.

Edited October 26, 2018 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

7 hours ago, DanielJr said:

I regret big time selling my Leica t. I have tried the z7,eos r, xt3, and a73 but the tl2 is calling my name. I know  a couple of these cameras are better spec but Leica tl2 paired with 35mm tl lens is pretty magical. Should I go with my heart regrading the TL2 or buy a full frame. Sl would be my choice but it's too big of a camera.

You get it or you don’t.  If you get it, it’s fabulous.

The TL2 has more functionality than the CL, but that’s head talk.  Heart didn’t get the CL, so I’ve stuck with the TL2.  Add the 11-23 zoom later, and you’ll be very happy.

[scroy]

Since the last firmware update, I've been exceptionally pleased with the TL2 - focusing is a bit more accurate. The IQ is with the TL lenses is what makes the combo special. I've been using this combo quite a bit when I travel.

 

[Photon42]

16 hours ago, DanielJr said:

I regret big time selling my Leica t. I have tried the z7,eos r, xt3, and a73 but the tl2 is calling my name. I know  a couple of these cameras are better spec but Leica tl2 paired with 35mm tl lens is pretty magical. Should I go with my heart regrading the TL2 or buy a full frame. Sl would be my choice but it's too big of a camera.

You seem to know who is calling your name and you know the different camera designs and specifically the T well enough. Desires are there for a reason. Either get a noise cancelling headset or follow the siren's call. I tried the TL2 several times, and while I really think it is a hot machine just from the looks (IQ was never in question), I cannot bring myself to always use the rear panel. For me, it was and still is the CL. I was also eying on the SL at some point.

[LocalHero1953]

Head said "CL" for the built in EVF and faster focusing, so I traded my TL2 for a CL. 

Heart has beaten Head back into its kennel, and I've just bought a used TL2. 

I will use both, each in their place. 

[ropo54]

24 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Head said "CL" for the built in EVF and faster focusing, so I traded my TL2 for a CL. 

Heart has beaten Head back into its kennel, and I've just bought a used TL2. 

I will use both, each in their place. 

'I resemble that remark!'  Rob

[LocalHero1953]

The TL2 has just arrived - it came from the Leica Shop Vienna. As with other items I have bought from them, their descriptions are understated/pessimistic: the only visible signs of use are to the box.

I was pleased I could remember, about 18 months on, how I had previously set up my quick access menus; touchscreen and icon operation still feels very intuitive, whereas I keep touchscreen switched off on the CL. With the 18mm lens, it feels very neat and transportable - more so than on the CL, even though the physical dimensions of the combos are nearly the same.

The CL is a traditionalist's camera: it wears a tweed jacket with chalk dust, and leather patches on the elbows, or twinset with pearls.
The TL2 is a hipster's camera: it wears a black leather raincoat and sports a ponytail, or bodycon with heels.
I guess I must fit somewhere between the two (the male versions).

Edited November 2, 2018 by LocalHero1953