Persuade me to buy a CL or even TL2

[terrycym]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like photographing concerts but quite a few halls prohibit "professional" cameras ie DSLRs.

That rules out my Canon 5D with my L tele lenses.

I also have a M240 and a 90mm lens which I've used with the EVF but it's not ideal. I really want a 70-200 (35mm equiv) lens, F2.8 minimum (ideally) with a teleconverter as a nice to have.

it has no high ISO, no auto-focus and no image stabilisation

So, I've been looking at other non-DSLR cameras.

Being a keen Leica user, I've looked at the CL but the lens range is poor and there's no IS

I've also looked at the Fuji X-E3 which seems a better bet? There's IS, and a huge lens range and it's a LOT cheaper!

Persuade me that the CL is a better bet for my particular requirement, than the Fuji.

[LocalHero1953]

What sort of concerts? That will determine what sort of shutter noise level will be acceptable. For classical or solo artists, any sound at all should be avoided, hence not the M240 or any DSLR - you need a body with an electronic shutter. For a rock concert then shutter noise is probably irrelevant.

[Advertisement]

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

[terrycym]

Thanks for the reply Paul.

Music concerts mainly, the Canon does have a quiet mode which is the limit as far as noise is concerned. Mainly, with all the noise, I can't hear the shutter. You can see some of my concert photos to see what kind of photography I've done in the past on my Flickr site.

Edited January 28, 2019 by terrycym

[Ecaton]

You "want" f2.8 and 200mm (in FF terms) and you hope to smuggle this "tube" in as "non professional"? Good luck with that. And your "huge lens range" of Fuji does really include a F2.8 equivalent zoom??

[Boojay]

16 minutes ago, Ecaton said:

You "want" f2.8 and 200mm (in FF terms) and you hope to smuggle this "tube" in as "non professional"? Good luck with that. And your "huge lens range" of Fuji does really include a F2.8 equivalent zoom??

Well in fairness the Fuji 50-140 2.8 comes pretty close - but it is still a large lens, I did have it when I shot Fuji, nice performer.

Not really sure anyone will want to persuade you - you really need to try for yourself.  Maybe for you it would make sense for the CL/TL so you can use your M lens too,  or maybe you should try (without the need for a complete new system), one of the Canon mirrorless APS-C offerings, no need for any more lens purchases.  

[Bill W]

The CL with 55-135 is a nice combination and not that large but it does not have IS. I have found the CL to be very acceptable at high ISO though. The 55-135 is a 200mm lens on the CL FWIW.

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 18 Minuten schrieb Boojay:

Well in fairness the Fuji 50-140 2.8 comes pretty close - but it is still a large lens, I did have it when I shot Fuji, nice performer.

 

Well this is 75-210mm f/4 equivalent assuming Crop 1.5. It might be missing some light when I see some of the photographs on flickr.

[Boojay]

8 minutes ago, Alex U. said:

Well this is 75-210mm f/4 equivalent assuming Crop 1.5. It might be missing some light when I see some of the photographs on flickr.

It doesn't feel like that to me when I look through my old Fuji albums on Flickr, and I really wish Leica would do a TL equivalent.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Boojay

[scott kirkpatrick]

Seems to me there are lots of ways to sneak in as "non-professional" by using a mirrorless APS-C or M43 body and either a moderate aperture zoom or an older generation prime.  Olympus E-M1.2 with the 12-100 (effective 24-200) @f/4 is incredible for its stabilization.  Panasonic G-9 offers the same.  The Pro 2.8 lenses are a bit bigger and give your game away a bit more, but with today's high ISO capability, maybe you don't need that.  And Kirk Tuck assures us all on his blog that M43 image quality is indistinguishable from full frame at web scale as needed for most of his customers.  If you want more, I find APS-C and full frame from the CL and SL indistinguishable up to 5K display size, maybe even to 8K.  As noted above, the 55-135 does really well on the CL and TL bodies, but is a bit slow at the long end.  I recently pulled an R 180/2.8 off the shelf and was amazed at its quality.  If you want headshots from the back row of the theater there is an APO 2X extender that is not too expensive on E-Bay.  The smaller image sizes really pay off when you can't get as close as you would like.  And the CL and TL can be totally silent.

[terrycym]

1 hour ago, Bill W said:

The CL with 55-135 is a nice combination and not that large but it does not have IS. I have found the CL to be very acceptable at high ISO though. The 55-135 is a 200mm lens on the CL FWIW.

I spotted that one too - matches my 70-200 requirement. You're beginning to persuade me...

[terrycym]

36 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Seems to me there are lots of ways to sneak in as "non-professional" by using a mirrorless APS-C or M43 body and either a moderate aperture zoom or an older generation prime.  Olympus E-M1.2 with the 12-100 (effective 24-200) @f/4 is incredible for its stabilization.  Panasonic G-9 offers the same.  The Pro 2.8 lenses are a bit bigger and give your game away a bit more, but with today's high ISO capability, maybe you don't need that.  And Kirk Tuck assures us all on his blog that M43 image quality is indistinguishable from full frame at web scale as needed for most of his customers.  If you want more, I find APS-C and full frame from the CL and SL indistinguishable up to 5K display size, maybe even to 8K.  As noted above, the 55-135 does really well on the CL and TL bodies, but is a bit slow at the long end.  I recently pulled an R 180/2.8 off the shelf and was amazed at its quality.  If you want headshots from the back row of the theater there is an APO 2X extender that is not too expensive on E-Bay.  The smaller image sizes really pay off when you can't get as close as you would like.  And the CL and TL can be totally silent.

Thanks for the info, Frank. I think that the E-M1 would be a bit too professional for the security on the doors. What about the Pen-F? Put a pancake lens on it and swap over to a tele when you get to your seat?

There again, that CL looks so nice! And so Leica!

[Bill W]

1 minute ago, terrycym said:

I spotted that one too - matches my 70-200 requirement. You're beginning to persuade me...

 The only downside to the 55-135 at least in the US is that is is extremely hard to find one even used. Might not be that hard where you are. 

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Seems to me there are lots of ways to sneak in as "non-professional" by using a mirrorless APS-C or M43 body and either a moderate aperture zoom or an older generation prime.  Olympus E-M1.2 with the 12-100 (effective 24-200) @f/4 is incredible for its stabilization.  Panasonic G-9 offers the same.  The Pro 2.8 lenses are a bit bigger and give your game away a bit more, but with today's high ISO capability, maybe you don't need that.  And Kirk Tuck assures us all on his blog that M43 image quality is indistinguishable from full frame at web scale as needed for most of his customers.  If you want more, I find APS-C and full frame from the CL and SL indistinguishable up to 5K display size, maybe even to 8K.  As noted above, the 55-135 does really well on the CL and TL bodies, but is a bit slow at the long end.  I recently pulled an R 180/2.8 off the shelf and was amazed at its quality.  If you want headshots from the back row of the theater there is an APO 2X extender that is not too expensive on E-Bay.  The smaller image sizes really pay off when you can't get as close as you would like.  And the CL and TL can be totally silent.

I am quite happy with my M43 image quality, but thinking that it fully matches FF, even at web scale, is rather optimistic IMO The transitions are a bit gritty, contrast more difficult too manage, less smooth in general. But pretty good, nevertheless.

[thighslapper]

Good high ISO performance, compact but longish zoom that is inconspicuous .......

...... a tall order and I don't think you will find the solution with Leica. 

Unless you are doing this trying to produce pro level images I suspect  Bridge Camera with a fixed long zoom would be the best solution .... and just reserve it for that use only. 

There appear to be a good few to choose from that are really excellent and they are not that expensive. (Sony in particular)

 

[Archiver]

IMO anything that looks like a DSLR will get tagged as possibly a 'professional camera' at venues like this, unless it's very small. An alternative is a m43 cameras like the Panasonic GX9 or Olympus Pen F with a small prime on the front, and switch to the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 once you're inside. Other small lenses with reach include primes like the great Olympus 45/1.8, 75/1.8 and 60/2.8 macro, and the new Sigma 56/1.4 which is still pretty small.

I can't speak for the CL or TL2 as I've never used one, but m43 cameras and lenses seem to fit your stealth criteria pretty well.

[Photon42]

1 hour ago, Archiver said:

IMO anything that looks like a DSLR will get tagged as possibly a 'professional camera' at venues like this, unless it's very small. An alternative is a m43 cameras like the Panasonic GX9 or Olympus Pen F with a small prime on the front, and switch to the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 once you're inside. Other small lenses with reach include primes like the great Olympus 45/1.8, 75/1.8 and 60/2.8 macro, and the new Sigma 56/1.4 which is still pretty small.

I can't speak for the CL or TL2 as I've never used one, but m43 cameras and lenses seem to fit your stealth criteria pretty well.

If the OP can live with the ISO limitations of m43, I would also think that a small, stabilised m43 body and the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is the way to go. The 1.8/75 is another superb recommendation. The PEN-F is still a very capable body and is fine for ISO 1600. Then again the CL is a Leica. It is a great, very capable camera with fantastic lenses. I am selling mine only because I want to concentrate on the M.

[colonel]

I would advise against M4/3 for low light indoors. APS-C bodies are a similar size, whether it’s the CL, X-E3 or A6400

There is definitely an advantage in size for long zoom lenses but even the smallest still look very camera like. I think in good light M4/3s has a lot of advantages for a light weight kit, safaris spring to mind. 

I personally wouldn’t go below aps-c for every day. The Leica 55-135mm is more compact then the opposition and the CL and TL2 bodies are too so it’s a good compromise

Image stabilisation I can’t comment on as I never use it for sharpness reasons.

 

 

[nicci78]

Actually, for birding, safari, animal photos etc... you will need faster shutter. Therefore fast glass and big sensor. m4/3 will be too noisy.

Sunny 16 rules are against them. 

 

Small is useless inside a 4x4 or mounted on a monopod. 

[jaapv]

Low light indoors: M43 has pretty good stabilisation. For Safari: See my Safari threads   Many pros useM43 for wildlife nowadays. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[terrycym]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Low light indoors: M43 has pretty good stabilisation. For Safari: See my Safari threads   Many pros useM43 for wildlife nowadays. 

Many pros use Olympus M43 for music concert photography too, I've seen them!

Edited February 1, 2019 by terrycym