Jump to content
dkmoore

Leica Q EVF versus CL

Recommended Posts

The Q has a higher resolution EVF (3.68M) than the  CL (2.36M).  How much this impacts your work is hard to say.  But if you plan to manual focus at all, it will be less than a great experience). In my case I use a lot of manual focus M glass and the CL EVF was a deal breaker.  Too bad as in other areas the CL is an interesting camera. I love my Q and the EVF, while not as good as the SL is pretty great.  In my opinion, Leica made a design error on the CL wrt EVF. I should’ve been a CL buyer but the first hands on test with the CL was a total failure for me. I also think the EVF of the M10 was a big disappointment. (Better than the very poor M240 EVF, but not an acceptable solution). Also hard to believe that Stepan’s team nailed the SL EVF (class leading for 3+ years) and failed on the CL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange - I find the CL EVF excellent for manual focussing. To describe it as a deal breaker will certainly be surprising to the many members of this forum who happily use the camera with M and other manual lenses. I compared it to the SL EVF (arguably still one of the best on the market) and the CL was close. Not surprising, as it is a generation ahead of the Q and SL*, which part-compensates the lower resolution. The linear difference between 3.68 and 2.36 is not all that much, anyway.

I would suggest that you try it out instead of depending on opinions on the forum.

 

*EyeRes vs. SXGA+/LCoS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some opinions for which I give more weight in these discussions. Yours is one of them based on my observations over the past few years.

That said, I think Pixelman's response was also reasonable but I agree that I am best served to try out the EVF. Figured I would ask before making the trip to the nearest Leica store (only about 1.5 hours).

I've used the Q extensively which is why I asked the question as I am contemplating buying the CL for a quick shooter around the house with the kids and for family vacations, etc when I don't feel like using just the M10P or Monochrom. That said, I wouldn't consider the CL if the EVF is lesser quality than the Q as the Q EVF is what I would consider on the fence solely because I prefer the OVF that much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no experience of the Q but I would guess that there is little between the two. As I said, best try for yourself. All opinions are quite subjective, and eyes differ considerably too. Let us know what you find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I have no experience of the Q but I would guess that there is little between the two. As I said, best try for yourself. All opinions are quite subjective, and eyes differ considerably too. Let us know what you find.

Will do. Leica store SOHO has a R. Gibson exhibit that I would like to see so I plan on killing to birds with the proverbial stone. I love the idea of the CL just need to make sure I will enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CL EVF is way better than Q one. No competition really.

CL EVF is OLED with real 2.36MP and excellent viewing optics. Best contrast and brightness among all Leicas (even SL EVF is only an LCD panel, huge and super well define but dimmer and with less contrast) 

However Q EVF is a really annoying LCOS from Panasonic with fake 3.68MP which has to be divided by 3. The panel switch rapidly between red, blue then green. Therefore annoying rainbow effect when not seen straight in the middle and a horrible banding effect with certain LED lights. Worst is the subpar/poor viewing optics (über reflective, massive distortion and not sharp at all) a real disappointment. 

 

Hopefully one day future Q2 should switch to OLED EVF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re welcome. 

Actually I almost never use Q EVF, only rear screen. Almost 50K photos taken with it. 95% with rear screen 

However I use CL EVF most of the time. After 13K photos with it only 30% with rear screen. 

 

Tu sum up : CL is smaller and lighter, has better EVF, better dynamic range, same IQ than Q 

Q has a tiny edge with high ISO (not really relevant, because 50K ISO is too bad with both cameras) and the astonishing Summilux-Q 28mm. Its real selling point 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I have no experience of the Q but I would guess that there is little between the two. As I said, best try for yourself. All opinions are quite subjective, and eyes differ considerably too. Let us know what you find.

jaapv, with all due respect to your status on the forum, I still feel strongly about the CL vs Q EVF issue and would encourage you to do a side by side comparison.  I have been an active Q user since a few months post launch. I’ve been using Leica M’s since the mid 1970’s btw) I mostly use Manual focus on the Q in Macro or when I want to get a group shot focus perfect.  (I’m quite happy with the autofocus performance of the Q). On the CL, my first evaluation of the CL was when it first hit the store post release. A good Leica pal who is also a Q and M user went to the shop with me and we had a bag of Leica m glass.  Both of us were considering a purchase of the CL. Neither of us bought.  I remember especially liking the feel of my 35FLE on the CL and liking the image quality.  (I think the CL is a cute camera capable of good results). The lower resolution of the EVF caused my credit card to be safe that day.  The CL has an eyepiece magnification of .74x. That is pretty good and helps, but if you are manual focusing, the CL evf resolution is just not that great IMHO.   To those that argue that the lower resolution of the CL EVF is superior to the Q for manual focusing, I’d suggest trying again.  I had a similar evf discussion with a Sony rep who couldn’t see the difference between the EVF of the A7RIII and the A7III.  Very similar resolution difference (2.4 vs 3.7) as the Q/CL.  Eventually he could clearly see the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt that the resolution number is relevant for the EVF quality experience when you are comparing two  different technologies.

For me my own experience counts. I find the CL viewfinder a very good tool for manual focussing. Often I don't even have to bother with focus magnification, depending on the subject.

 

Let's see what Dunk thinks. He uses the same type of lenses as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 8 Stunden schrieb dkmoore:

Is the Q EVF better than the CL EVF?  

 

I have been a Q user since 2016 and a CL user right from the start and still use both. It is not all about resolution, but also refresh rate and rendering. Like  many on the forum I prefer the CL EVF. Make sure that your diopter settings are correct. Manual focus is easy with it, both with focus magnification and focus peaking. I am using M and R lenses via adaptor and I found that manual focusing is a tad more accurate compared to autofocus when using TL lenses. I am doing a lot of macro, too with the Elpro 52.

There are other things to consider - overall image quality, versatility, equipment weight and bulk. I also get the impression that the Q viewfinder is degrading with time, but maybe it is only an illusion. I even  took it to Wetzlar, where I was told that the vignetting and reflections were normal (shop assistant). I am still not convinced . I think the EVF is more prone to reflections. That said, this is not a statement of camera preferences. The Q is unique. You decide.

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me elaborate on rendering. With OLED black will switch off the pixel, as opposed to normal LED systems which will only mask the permanent light. This means a superior black point. We all know that the perception of sharpness depends on edge contrast, not resolution, This is the reason that OLED  is superior technology. The quality of the detail counts, not the quantity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really no problem to manual focus with CL EVF. 

I do not even use focus peaking, which is more useful for video than photography. 

 

An EVF whatever its resolution will be much less than real 24MP sensor definition. So... 1 more or less MP for the EVF will not change anything. Jaapv is right the quality of viewing optics, refresh rate and lags are the most important parts. In this case CL did not disappoint. SL also. 

But Q and Visoflex Typ 020 are not that great, optics wise. Q really has the worst, unworthy of Leica. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having both the Q and SL, I'm experiencing both as really satisfactory.  On both AF and MF.  Truly don't understand the fuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 19 Stunden schrieb pixelman:

The Q has a higher resolution EVF (3.68M) than the  CL (2.36M).  How much this impacts your work is hard to say.  But if you plan to manual focus at all, it will be less than a great experience). In my case I use a lot of manual focus M glass and the CL EVF was a deal breaker.  Too bad as in other areas the CL is an interesting camera. I love my Q and the EVF, while not as good as the SL is pretty great.  In my opinion, Leica made a design error on the CL wrt EVF. I should’ve been a CL buyer but the first hands on test with the CL was a total failure for me. I also think the EVF of the M10 was a big disappointment. (Better than the very poor M240 EVF, but not an acceptable solution). Also hard to believe that Stepan’s team nailed the SL EVF (class leading for 3+ years) and failed on the CL.  

well, I am interested in the theme. But its hard to me to understand what your position is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to trying out the CL. If the VF is equal to or greater than the Q I will probably buy it and the two zooms wider zooms (if the 11-33 is in stock). I have no issues with the Q EVF at all. I just would not be happy with anything lesser.

I appreciate all the feedback, which has provided motivation to give it a whirl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CL is better. Just compare them in bright day light and in museum with weird lightning, to understand how good the CL is. 

Don’t be surprised when future Q2 will use the same CL OLED EVF. 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d imagine the Q2 will recycle the SL evf but that is my guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...