CL vs SL

[jimleicam3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using the M system for decades now.  In 2017 I sold my M8 , however, I was unable to find a new M10.  So I purchased a new SL.  I only used my M lenses, and really liked the camera, but I felt that it was too heavy, too big.  And when only using M lenses, I was not using the camera to it's fullest.  So I sold it and found the M 10.  I now am having trouble focusing as I get older.  So I am thinking of going back to the SL.  But it is still too big and heavy.  

So after boring all of you with my story.  I am looking at the CL, and starting with the 18 mm.  

As always, I really appreciate everyones comments.

Cheers,

JL

[grahamhoey]

Some thoughts

I have been using the CL exclusively for the last year with both TL lenses and some M lenses. I too had trouble focusing with the rangefinder cameras. The CL with focus peaking and magnification is quite easy to manual focus. 

However if you really prefer auto focus the CL is great. I stayed away from the SL also due to size. 

However recently I got the SL and so far 3 of the SL lenses (the 90mm f2, the 16-35 and the 50mm f1.4). I find the IQ a step above the CL and the weight balance with the SL is much better with their native lenses. The SL does seem to me totally unbalanced with M lenses.

So I have kept the CL and some M lenses and the 18-56 TL zoom (I found this was the lens I used the most with the CL) and will use it when I want something more discreet than the SL.

When I want the best IQ I will use the SL with SL lenses. 

I think your decision depends on whether you want to invest in some SL glass. If not the CL is great with M lenses for manual focus and the size and weight will be much more familiar to you if you get some TL lenses. 

Edited November 24, 2018 by grahamhoey

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

The SL was the perfect tool when I needed its extraordinary performance and those amazing lenses. But a year or two back, after I'd retired, I realized that I just wasn't using it anymore and always grabbed the M-D instead. An SL and its lenses is a lot of stuff and a lot of money to leave sitting on the shelf in my cabinet unused, so I sold them off. Which left me without a digital body to use with my R lenses or do my macro/close-up/long tele work with. I bought the CL to fill that need and find it does a superb job of that, on par or better than the SL for my specific purposes, and is a super fine camera in its own right for general purpose use.

I use it with my R and M lenses: It does a great job using them. If you want AF, I'm sure the T/TL lenses are great too. (I just practice focusing regularly and haven't had any problems despite my eyes getting funky... getting older aint fun, but with work I keep up.  ) As a package to carry, with the M lenses on it, it is about the same size and a little lighter than the M-D and produces the same quality.

[jimleicam3]

Thanks for the advice.

 

[JayBird]

I have the CL and have been very happy with it. After moving from a DSLR with the heavy lenses, I am really enjoying the lighter weight. It has really been helpful as I have nerve damage in my right shoulder. The only thing I miss sometimes is the lack of image stabilization.

 To give you a bit of my history, I have only had cropped censor cameras since entering the digital age. They more than meet my needs. I do not have any issues with the IQ or dynamic range of the CL. The controls are very good. I find I can more adjustments without taking my eye away from the EVF than I can with my Nikons. My only concern is the availability of the L mount lenses designed for the CL and TL. The 18 mm and 23 mm are great primes but I would like to see something around a 10 - 12 mm f2 prime for urban / architecture. The range of vario lenses is quite good. I hav the 18-56 and am very pleased with it.

One nice thing about the CL it is discrete. I was at a college reunion event the other weekend where professional photographers were working. I saw all sorts of Canons and Nikons. I was photographing class mates and other friends. Over the course of  the evening, only one photographer came up to me and asked me about the Leica. He was shooting one of the high end Sonys. It was interesting to see the DSLR crowd either did not notice or was not interested in something so different than what they had. It was only the guy shooting another mirrorless who noticed.

[bags27]

I'm a Q owner who will likely get an SL(2) or CL next year as well, and currently leaning to the CL because of cost and size.

But wondering whether the CL's lack of weather sealing and stabilization makes a difference to anyone. The Q also lacks weather sealing and there have been a few times when I've left it at home when I otherwise might not have. But the Q's OIS is awesome; I recently took a nighttime picture handheld at 1/4 of a second and at 12500 ISO that, with just a little postprocessing, was dead-on perfect.

And, for another one with aging eyes (and a teary-eye condition) and coming from the Q with its excellent EVF, I have to say that the EVF in the SL really, really impresses, but the EVF in the CL, while certainly good, is just a bit of a letdown compared to the Q.

Thanks for any help here.

Edited November 24, 2018 by bags27

[FrozenInTime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try one : The CL is small, flexible and easy to use ; a great choice when you want to be a bit more casual with your photography, yet it can still can pull up sufficiently when it matters.  M lenses play well, but with the TL lenses it becomes addictive.

My film Ms and M10 are, for the first time, relegated to niche players, only coming out on premeditated occasions. If this state holds for a year, I may start to question keeping them and the expensive/fast lenses.

[ropo54]

4 hours ago, bags27 said:

I'm a Q owner who will likely get an SL(2) or CL next year as well, and currently leaning to the CL because of cost and size.

But wondering whether the CL's lack of weather sealing and stabilization makes a difference to anyone. The Q also lacks weather sealing and there have been a few times when I've left it at home when I otherwise might not have. But the Q's OIS is awesome; I recently took a nighttime picture handheld at 1/4 of a second and at 12500 ISO that, with just a little postprocessing, was dead-on perfect.

And, for another one with aging eyes (and a teary-eye condition) and coming from the Q with its excellent EVF, I have to say that the EVF in the SL really, really impresses, but the EVF in the CL, while certainly good, is just a bit of a letdown compared to the Q.

Thanks for any help here.

I may be in the minority here, but the SL and Q excel, compared to the CL or TL.  The larger sensor just allows for more depth and tonality in the images, and for better performance in any kind of compromised light.  The incredible viewfinder also is a pleasure, as you have touched upon.

No doubt one can make great photos with either, but just on performance alone, the full frame Leica options win.

I love my TL2 for convenience, but, the SL and Q make better images.

Rob

Edited November 24, 2018 by ropo54

[bags27]

Thanks Rob. Do you ever think of not grabbing the SL because of its size? 

BTW, a local Leica dealer watched me trying both the SL and the CL and said that, after the Q, I'd be unhappy with the CL. I used to think that, but especially recently the photos on the CL thread, even with the 18-56 zoom (supposedly the weakest of the TL lenses), look terrific. 

[ropo54]

11 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Thanks Rob. Do you ever think of not grabbing the SL because of its size? 

BTW, a local Leica dealer watched me trying both the SL and the CL and said that, after the Q, I'd be unhappy with the CL. I used to think that, but especially recently the photos on the CL thread, even with the 18-56 zoom (supposedly the weakest of the TL lenses), look terrific. 

Yes, all the time!  My back would ache after carrying the 24-90 all day while traveling.

I had the CL for a while, but preferred the tactile experience with the T, so went back to it.  If I had to have only one camera - CL or TL2 - I'd go with the CL because of the built in viewfinder and faster AF.  I did not see any meaningful difference in image quality between the CL and T. The TL to me is like sculpture, a work of art, and a bit more fun to tote around for those moments when I want light weight and portability. A conversation starter, too.

This summer, my SL was in the shop so I took my Q and TL on my travels. I used them each about 50-50.  The Q's portability was great, and frankly  it might be a tad smaller than the T with its zooms.  I liked having the 11/23 on the TL though for some wide angle shots, but, if I had to take only one camera, - TL or Q - it would have been the Q.

Having said all that . . . I've toyed with the idea of just taking the SL too, and bringing along the TL zooms for light weight options.  Yes, I know I'll get lambasted for that opinion (!) - apsc images - but  I can live with 10mp images apsc lots of the time too. I find that AF is easier on the SL than the TL because of the rocker switch for pinpoint AF and the better viewfinder (and maybe less noisy images because of the larger sensor?).  And, having the SL's full frame performance with a noctilux or SL 50 1.4 along with me is just too tempting! (The 18-56 zoom and 55-135 are both superb).

So many options, so many options! 

 

[bags27]

Thanks so much for the insight, Rob. An embarras de richesse, as the French would say.

[cabe]

In the past I had the leica Q and now I use the SL and the CL. 
The CL is an extraordinary camera and its image quality is incredible (with the right lenses the IQ approaches a FF camera).
But I agree with Robert and, for me, the Q and SL are on a higher level than the CL.
The SL with its lenses (I have the Lux 50 and the Cron 90) reaches an IQ comparable to medium format camera! 😉

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by cabe

[ropo54]

Just now, bags27 said:

Thanks so much for the insight, Rob. An embarras de richesse, as the French would say.

Oui, un peu!

I really should thin out the herd - a lot - but in my 'old age' I just cannot seem to make decisions, anymore. Frankly, I just confuse my  mind with much too much thinking about what to take, rather than just having fun with one camera. But, its all hobby, so I go along with the insanity.

Rob

[ropo54]

2 minutes ago, cabe said:

In the past I had the leica Q and now I use the SL and the CL. 
The CL is an extraordinary camera and its image quality is incredible (with the right lenses the IQ approaches a FF camera).
But I agree with Robert and, for me, the Q and SL are on a higher level than the CL.
The SL with its lenses (I have the Lux 50 and the Cron 90) reaches an IQ comparable to medium format camera! 😉

 

Agree that the SL approaches the medium format look.

You might also consider trying some of the S lenses too on the SL. They are fantastic and fairly reasonable - in Leica dollars - on the pre-owned market.  AF is slower but the IQ is fabulous.  (I've posted some shots in another thread on the S forum).

This one was taken with the SL and S 120.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bags27]

Of course the Hassy 50--which is a limited camera in some ways, though noticeably lighter than the SL--turns out jaw dropping photos....

[cabe]

7 minutes ago, ropo54 said:

Agree that the SL approaches the medium format look.

You might also consider trying some of the S lenses too on the SL. They are fantastic and fairly reasonable - in Leica dollars - on the pre-owned market.  AF is slower but the IQ is fabulous.  (I've posted some shots in another thread on the S forum).

This one was taken with the SL and S 120. 

I saw Robert ... the S lenses, used on the SL, are excellent!
To be honest, all the lenses I tested on the SL, work very well. This camera has a fabulous sensor! 

[ropo54]

I had actually tried out the Hasselblad X1D and the images were just incredible. But, there is a "clackety-clack" x 3 when the photo is snapped, so that the subjects needed to be static and the camera took a bit too long for my use to be ready for the next snap. Made it tougher to take photos of my grandkids moving around, but for landscape photos it would be phenomenal. The S was much better in regard to 'readiness', but the X1D will be a real winner if they can get that all worked out, particularly at its price point.

I don't know anything about the Hassy 50.

Also, Leica lenses are faster, but the Hasselblad may be developing faster lenses.

Edited November 24, 2018 by ropo54

[Jeff S]

29 minutes ago, ropo54 said:

I had actually tried out the Hasselblad X1D and the images were just incredible. But, there is a "clackety-clack" x 3 when the photo is snapped, so that the subjects needed to be static and the camera took a bit too long for my use to be ready for the next snap. Made it tougher to take photos of my grandkids moving around, but for landscape photos it would be phenomenal. The S was much better in regard to 'readiness', but the X1D will be a real winner if they can get that all worked out, particularly at its price point.

I don't know anything about the Hassy 50.

Also, Leica lenses are faster, but the Hasselblad may be developing faster lenses.

To be clear, in normal leaf shutter mode, there is minimal shutter lag after pressing the button (the picture is captured before the susbsequent clicks), but there is some EVF blackout following capture. 

Jeff

[Guest]

I just went through a similar decision process. I was looking for a solution to use my six M lenses on a digital camera. The CL was not really on my horizon until I started reading this forum. I tried one and really liked the way I could focus my M lenses. At the same time, a hardly used SL appeared locally 2nd hand for not much more than the new CL price. I tried this one as well and also liked it a lot. However, for my intended use (using M lenses only) the camera was just too big for my taste. The CL balances very nicely with my M lenses. But mine are not from the newest generation and therefore relatively small. So I bought a CL and I am very happy with it. 

I have no doubt that the SL sensor allows for better results. And the SL2 is likely to be much better again. These cameras are a dream when combined with their dedicated Apo-Summicron lenses, no doubt. But I already have a large M system, a large Nikon system and a large Pentax 67 system. I don't want to start yet another system and just use my M lenses on a digital body. The CL is perfect for this. I very much enjoy this combination. 

Finally, like you, I was also thinking of adding the 18mm TL lens because the shortest focal length in my M range is 28mm. Instead, I bought a 21mm F4 Voigtlander Color-Skopar. Given that I bought the CL for my M lenses, I thought having a single autofocus lens in addition just would lead to confusion. No doubt one could get used to this (you could create specific user profiles with the CL for autofocus and manual focus use) but it seems simpler just to stay in the manual focus environment. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Guest
typo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Keith_W]

I have an M10 and a CL. I bought the CL as a backup body and for my wife to use, and she loves it. Quite often, I look at those two cameras side by side and I often go for the smaller size, lighter weight, ease of use, and flexibility of the CL. However, I only have one lens for the CL - the 18-56 lens. This lens is noticeably inferior to my M primes at all apertures but for happy snaps, it is more than good enough.