Jump to content
Learner

Why I will, or won't, be tempted to move from the CL to the Q2

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Both😀. Now you have a backup!

I’ve had the Q for awhile (bought used) and just picked up a CL (again used, which is weird because I never buy used, except Leica it seems...) Haven’t really touched my A7R2 since, even with all that extra resolution. (full disclosure: I’ve got a GFX 50 and Credo 60 based tech cam, I’m telling you, megapixels aren’t everything.)

I use them both. I guess one could rationalize that the Q2 can be cropped more aggressively because it has more megapickles, and I crop the Q occasionally, but thats for trimming. Never could warm up to the 35-50 crop

Edited by sore80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In very first glance the CL images appear to have more bite to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Learner said:

Just wondering what the thinking is re this topic.

They are two very different types of camera and can coexist together. The CL is a better system choice and is more versatile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, otto.f said:

In very first glance the CL images appear to have more bite to me. 

Not to me when comparing the CL to the Q!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sore80 said:

Both😀. Now you have a backup!

I’ve had the Q for awhile (bought used) and just picked up a CL (again used, which is weird because I never buy used, except Leica it seems...) Haven’t really touched my A7R2 since, even with all that extra resolution. (full disclosure: I’ve got a GFX 50 and Credo 60 based tech cam, I’m telling you, megapixels aren’t everything.)

I use them both. I guess one could rationalize that the Q2 can be cropped more aggressively because it has more megapickles, and I crop the Q occasionally, but thats for trimming. Never could warm up to the 35-50 crop

I think if I had to chose between them I might have megapickles too. Can megapickles be painful and what is the cure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different beasts but a compact Q doing 35/50/75 could interest me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CL is a cheaper platform for M lens. This is an very attractive point. I am using a combo of CL+M35/2A and one of M10D+M21/3.4A. The CL combo is very easy to use, while I am practicing the M10D combo for the super-wide angle lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Q and just bought a CL. I really like the CL and lean more toward putting longer lenses on it. A Q2 plus a CL with a M mount 75 (= 108 in CL speak) would be my perfect kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I was never drawn to the Q, I doubt that the Q2 will generate more interest with me. Although the 47 MP are of little interest for 98% of my photography, on the Q2 they make sense as it is, basically, a cropping camera. Still, the CL, M9 and MM1 provide more photographic possibilities than I am able to explore, if only because there are only so many hours in a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly a compelling option. From a weight standpoint, it is lighter than the CL + 18 to 56, with a faster lens that can do macro. With the 50mm frame lines, you get ~15mp which should be enough unless you're printing really big. Weather and dust sealed. No need to change lenses or even carry more lenses. Cheaper than a CL + 23mm + 18-56 (and you still get shallower DoF and bigger aperture than the 23 - or even the TL 35 1.4 when equivalence comes into play).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, when cropping, the resolution is not the only consideration. Basically, the Q(2) offers a "digital zoom lens". The details are there, especially on the Q2, by sufficient resolution, but it will be interesting to see at which point things like tonal transitions, acuity and smoothness will begin to deteriorate.

In other words, what crop will give an IQ equivalency to the CL. I  suspect that the point will be somewhere around 35 mm equivalent, i.e. the CL with Summilux M 24 asph might have the edge over a  Q2  crop in total IQ. I hope somebody like Sean Reid will make the comparison.

 

In the end it will not make one whit of difference to the resulting images, though. ;)
The resolution hike that is being forced by the market is photographically meaningless for the vast majority of photographers. There are quite a few  photographs taken by my DMR that could not be improved upon by technology and might even look worse on a modern sensor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice camera but not tempted. Hope the SL will now get more pixels...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the Q and the CL.  

The Q2 does not interest me.  File sizes are already pretty large from the Q, and although storage keeps getting cheaper, it still costs money to keep adding capacity to keep up with large file sizes (I shoot DNG + JPEG Large, and I save both, as well as any LR or PS-processed JPEGs I create from the DNG file- sometimes multiple versions labeled a,b,c etc).  I don't need weatherproofing, and I don't like that the Q2 takes the SL battery, whereas the Q takes the same battery as my CL. I have never run out of battery on my Q, but I always carry an extra battery, which fits both my Q and CL.   I almost never use crop mode on my Q, so I don't care that the Q2 offers a 75mm crop.  I never use video, either.  Regarding the reduced number of buttons on the back of the Q2, I think Leica may be taking it a bit too far.  I like the Q having the ISO and Delete buttons on the back, and I miss those on my CL.

Owning both the Q and the CL, I have to say that I am often torn which to take with me.  I know that many say the files produced by the CL equal the Q, M and SL in quality, but I do detect a different "rendering" on the Q that I can't quite describe but I do think is better than the CL.  And I love the fast 1.7 aperture on the Q's 28mm lens.  That said, the reason I bought the CL was because I felt a bit constrained by the 28mm focal length of the Q, and now I find that I take the CL out more often than the Q.

On my CL, I started by using the 18-56, then bought the 23 and the 11-23. So far I have not bought a telephoto; I'm waiting to see what the Sigma L or Sigma Art lenses for L mount will offer. I have found that the slowness of the Leica zooms is annoying, especially when compared to the Q's 1.7 lens.  I've recently been using the 23mm more on my CL more than the 18-56 because I've found that with the 18-56 the CL often pushes Auto ISO to levels that are too high (for my taste).  With the 23mm, I can be at f/2 or 2.8 vs. the 18-56 which even at wide end is slower.    I'm always on Auto ISO with the CL so that shutter speeds don't fall too low.  With the Q, I am almost always, even in dim light, using ISO 100 only (image stabilization isn't great, but does help).

As a result of almost always using ISO 100 on the Q vs. Auto ISO on the CL, I think that is a major contributor to my preference for the Q's output vs. the CL.  A high percentage of my CL Auto ISO photos turn out to be ISO 800, 1000 or higher.   I wish I could use ISO 100 only on the CL, but shutter speeds just get too low.

That said, the CL's form factor is a little more compact and easy to carry, and in bright daylight it certainly produces excellent files with great colors.

I am happy with the viewfinders in both the Q and the CL.

If I did not already have a Q, I would certainly consider the Q2.  The Q2's price is only a slight premium to the Q and probably well worth the up-charge. And as I said above, there is something about the "rendering" of the Q that I just love more than the CL, so I imagine the Q2 would be even better. But picking up a new Q (if any are still available) might be sufficient for many photographers.

To answer the OP's original question about temptation to move from a CL to a Q2: I wouldn't recommend it.  No one really needs 47mp, and though I love the 28mm lens, it is limiting. The CL is more versatile, and can take adapted lenses from other brands (I don't own any M lenses, but I have adapted Leica R, Nikon, and Carl Zeiss Jena (M42) lenses to it.   As I said, though I love the rendering of my Q, I am now using the CL more often.

Finally, all my arguments for keeping the Q while owning a CL would probably go out the window if Leica would improve the CL with image stabilization and perhaps offer some faster zooms or really fast (1.4, 1.8) primes.   I will not trade my CL for an eventual CL2 unless it offers image stabilization: to me this is the most glaring omission in an otherwise fine camera.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am perfectly content with the CL for everything except wildlife. For that, I have my Nikon. My next acquisition will be the 11-23 vario. If Sigma comes out with an ultra wide APS-C prime, I would consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a chance to play with the Q2 yesterday at the Leica Store Boston. Its a very nice street camera, its exceptionally quiet, has the hyperfocal marks, and it seemed to be quite a bit quieter than the M10. I did not have an M10-P to compare the sound.  The camera that has very good manual lens control, i do like the improved lens indents vs the Q. The DNG files are very nicely detailed.

It could be a very nice companion to my CL, and would remove my desire to get the 23mmTL prime.

I'm afraid it has me tempted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q2 appeals to me much more than the Q did because the higher resolution makes the "crop for different focal lengths" approach more useful. But the Q2 cannot do any of the niche endeavors using long lenses and macro equipment that the CL does so well. 

I do not need another camera. Doesn't mean I can't want one. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The 18-56 TL focusses down to 30 cm. What is the difference?

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...