CL - 1 year in

[Merv-O]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A couple of months ago I observed that there is a differential between T/L glass and M-mount glass. Perhaps because most of my M glass is not vario/telephoto,  as the M- prime f-stops are faster & rather than invest another $1,500 to $3,000 on the 18mm (pancake) and 23mm summicron L mounts, I simply kept my M-Mount lenses and bought a second M to T adapter so I can switch out lenses/cameras easier. I use my Leica TL body now exclusively for my Vario lenses (11-23mm; 18-56mm, and 55-135mm) as I sold my Visolflex 020 EVF ( thought it was slow and the T series is fast enough on live view with firmware updates to 1.9). I use all of my M-mounts on my CL in exclusive manual mode and I love it. The focus peaking is reminiscent of the RF features in the M but the smaller faster technology on the CL body makes it a joy to focus, aperture set and the built in CL EVF is superior to the visolflex.

This is going to sound blasphemous to many Leica-philes, but I'm so convinced about the CL kit that I sold my beloved M8 and M9 bodies....now parting with the M (typ 240)???? Not sure yet.

[ramarren]

Blasphemous? No, not to me. It's equipment: use what works best for your photography and you.  

[colonel]

nice review, more like this posted in forum from personal experiences would be wonderful

[colonel]

On 11/19/2018 at 8:44 PM, Merv-O said:

I am considering selling my CL as it's not up to what I expected after 4 months. I like the APS-c format and the adapter let's me use my M lenses albeit in 1.5x factor, but the controls are not as intuitive as my M9 and the programmable buttons are not fast.....the camera itself is fine, but I question the Programmable modes and the AF. I notice when using the M glass in aperture priority mode with focus peaking on, I get my best results...maybe the Japanese Leica glass is more Lumix/Panasonic than Leica, but I see a difference. (I have the full tele spectrum of L lenses: 11-23mm, 16-56mm & 55-135mm). Even my manual Voigtlanders outperform the DOF and clarity on these lenses.

Anyone else see a problem or differential with the CL and M glass?

People pumping up the CL to be "as good as" the M and its lenses, or in fact most FF solutions, are making impossible expectations

The CL is a very good APS-C camera. If you accept it as that then you will be happy but if you want M IQ and AF you need to go SL, A7, Z6, etc.

I am interested in what you decided vis-a-vis the CL, and if you sell it where you go. thanks

rgds

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by colonel

[Merv-O]

On 2/4/2019 at 6:49 AM, colonel said:

People pumping up the CL to be "as good as" the M and its lenses, or in fact most FF solutions, are making impossible expectations

The CL is a very good APS-C camera. If you accept it as that then you will be happy but if you want M IQ and AF you need to go SL, A7, Z6, etc.

I am interested in what you decided vis-a-vis the CL, and if you sell it where you go. thanks

rgds

I decided to stay with the CL and am using it exclusively with my M-mount glass and a the Leica adapter. I like the focus peaking and use it like a rangefinder at this point. Not going beyond ISO 3200 also keeps it sharp. The issue with the T/L glass is that it too slow for my needs (3.5-5.6 on the walk around 16-56mm mini telephoto is not great for a $1,500 Lens.)

Anyway, that's where we are.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 6:49 AM, colonel said:

 

 

[cirke]

I sold my M240  and 5  M lenses (28 summilux, 50 apo , ...)  for a Sony A7RIII and a Leica CL and I do not regret it at all
Ill maybe sell my Sony if the SL2  is what I am waiting for