Switching from M10 to CL. What would I be giving up?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course the CL has face recognition, like any Leica AF camera for years. It has decent tracking focus too, for that matter.

The only thing it lacks for my use is post-focus, but so do most other cameras.

[nicci78]

CL has really fast AF-S

but AF-C is not A9 level of course. Usable if subject is not too challenging. It depends on the TL lenses used : too slow with APO-TL 60 to very fast with TL 28

MF is nice with excellent EVF with or without focus peaking. You are sure about the sharpness. 

 

M10 with longer lenses, requires frequent perfect calibration of rangefinder with your lenses. Once it’s off, all photos will be blurry. So it’s really annoying and too expensive. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by nicci78

[M11 for me]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb ramarren:

I have to admit being slightly amused by this. I see more difficulties getting exactly what I want in focus when I use AF systems than I do when I focus manually, regardless whether I'm focusing with a TTL viewfinder or a rangefinder. I use my CL only with manual focus lenses...

For my business-hobby tasks I use a 5D MkIV. This is a real machine. I do not need eye detection. I want to put the AF point on the spot I want. This works perfectly for my purposes. However the point is still that when giving up an M10 one can win on the AF side.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Alex U.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

CL has really fast AF-S

but AF-C is not A9 level of course. Usable if subject is not too challenging. It depends on the TL lenses used : too slow with APO-TL 60 to very fast with TL 28

MF is nice with excellent EVF with or without focus peaking. You are sure about the sharpness. 

 

M10 with longer lenses, requires frequent perfect calibration of rangefinder with your lenses. Once it’s off, all photos will be blurry. So it’s really annoying and too expensive. 

Not my experience with over forty years of M cameras. Rangefinder calibration never wanders off without a reason, like a (very) hard knock. It is a simple and cheap adjustment by any competent repair shop or simple DIY.

[nicci78]

For normal lenses it’s ok and fast. But with longer lenses a trip to Wetzlar for matching is often required. 

I was very picky buying long lenses, I never buy one that did not match my rangefinder. 

But one day, my M Monochrom rangefinder drift with my Tele-Elmar 135mm. No way to use it through optical viewfinder. Best repair shops in Paris cannot fix it. 

Finally I sold the lens to a Sony A7 user, too cheap to worth a long trip back to Wetzlar. 

 

Ms rangefinder is OK until it is not. But I will not give false hope to new user. It can go wrong one day. Especially at the worst time.

With an M camera, you will need a backup camera during holidays. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

Why Wetzlar? There is no need and takes too long. I've always used 135 lenses on my M cameras. The out-of-adjustment issue is vastly overblown on the Internet if you ask me.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't have too many problems focusing a 90 on a rangefinder when I had both, as long as I took care. I never got camera and lens matched. The M9 body and the 90 were each recalibrated once, and my M240 once. It happens, but was never a big issue for me.

M9 and Apo-Summicron-M 90. This is quite a close crop. 

Chocolatier

 

 

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!

[jaapv]

Nice shot. Camera-lens matching is the wrong way to go anyway. It throws the whole system out of calibration. Only tolerance matching may work - a bit.

[nicci78]

Camera lens matching is just Leica's official way. You can do it or not. 

Everything is possible, but reasonably 135mm with 0.68x/0.72x  M cameras is not reasonable. Frame lines are so small and rangefinder patch covers almost one third of the image. Not ideal at all for focusing. Worst with 1.25x or 1.4x magnifiers, you will lose contrast, making focusing even harder. 

For 135mm just buy a M3. 

 

I still stand that 0.68x/0.72x  M cameras are only made for 28-35-50-75mm. Summicrons will be easier to focus than Summiluxes. 

Other lenses use is of course possible with lots of practice. But it will never be ideal

[jaapv]

34 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Camera lens matching is just Leica's official way. You can do it or not. 

Everything is possible, but reasonably 135mm with 0.68x/0.72x  M cameras is not reasonable. Frame lines are so small and rangefinder patch covers almost one third of the image. Not ideal at all for focusing. Worst with 1.25x or 1.4x magnifiers, you will lose contrast, making focusing even harder. 

For 135mm just buy a M3. 

 

I still stand that 0.68x/0.72x  M cameras are only made for 28-35-50-75mm. Summicrons will be easier to focus than Summiluxes. 

Other lenses use is of course possible with lots of practice. But it will never be ideal

It is absolutely not Leica’s official way.

Both camera and lens are adjusted to a common standard. Otherwise you could never buy a nee lens or camera without adjusting your full kit again. 

I wonder why the cameras you mention have 135 frame lines?  Both Summiluxes and Summicron are equally easy to focus. The only thing that happens is DOF covering up errors.

The curves for precision focusing between a RF and SLR cross at approx. 120 mm  @ 0.72.(See Günther Osterloh).

[lct]

Depends on the aperture of course. At full aperture, a 135/3.4 lens is out of the accuracy range of all Leica rangefinders but 0.91x (M3) or 0.85x (M6) w/o EVF or optical magnifier. Not a problem at f/4 though but the M8 needs f/5.6.

[jaapv]

Still, even if it is a bit down on the curve (you are right there) it is perfectly possible to focus the Apo-Telyt wide open in my experience - although Leica followed you theoreticlal approach on the M8.

The theoretical focussing value is based on the resolution of the human eye which is not the same for everyone and some are better at vernier vision than others so user experience will vary considerably. 

[colonel]

I think the CL is a perfectly good main system

However be prepared for more noise and less DR then full frame. Its not a direct replacement

The CL is a nicer system to walk around with due to its size, weight and size of lenses. The CL/TL system also has smaller (shorter) lenses then the Fuji system

It all a quest of compromise and what you want. The M10 has the experience and the edge on IQ (which I think is noticeable) and the SL has a quality edge but a big weight and size issue for amateur use IMHO

As I find the D-Lux 7 acceptable in many circumstances I have come to believe that IQ is important but its only one factor. As long as your are ok with the IQ then other things may be the determining factor

For example I really want to love the Olympus cameras and would use an E-M ii and 12-40 in a heartbeat if the sensor matched the Fuji or Sony, but it doesn't so I won't

 

[nicci78]

M10 and CL has same IQ. 2/3 of stop difference in ISO though but it does not make any difference in real life. 

If not too demanding they both have usable 25K ISO for small prints. But 50K ISO is useless for them. 

 

You gain super nice electronic shutter (to use with care indoor) with the CL. You can shoot Noctilux wide open sans ND filter with precise focusing at noon in the desert, without any sound. Something that M10 can never dream of. 

Off course no need of M10-P super damped shutter for silent shooting. CL is absolutely silent. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

 

ISO 50.000?? I get claustrophobic down coal mines...

[lct]

I can get clean 12,800 iso with my Sony A7s mod but 3,200 iso is the limit on both my M240 and digital CL. Depends on one's expectations i guess.