CL. For Family Photography with Kids?

[justbananas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, I've been researching new cameras, and have narrowed my choices to a handful.

On my "want" list, the CL is at the top, but I have some usability concerns for my specific shooting style.

The vast majority of the photos I take are family photos and a great number of them include many photos of my toddler.  Toddlers move quick and don't stay where you ask them to 🤣.  So to me, autofocus and ease of use in autofocus is very valuable.  A lot of my photos are fairly close, sometimes framing only busy hands or her feet in mom's shoes, stuff like this.

I currently use a Canon DSLR of years past, and I find that 90% of the time I use single point focus, I move it sometimes, or do my best to half press / recompose. With the later, I generally find that by the time I've recomposed, even quickly, my child has moved.  Both of these methods are, as you could imagine, less than awesome to deal with.  And I almost always stay in shutter priority.  Most of my photos are indoors, and in sometimes dimly lit interiors.  I find it easiest to just open the lens, get to a suitable shutter speed, and let ISO adjust as needed in auto in a predetermined range.

I also want my new camera to be travel friendly.  Meaning size and bulk are not such that you don't want to take it out of the house for say a trip to the zoo.

I rented a Fuji Xt-3, and it was a love/hate.  Too many buttons, too many menus, the camera got in my way.  Also, I found the raw images to be difficult in my usual post process. I did find the face tracking auto focus to be pretty amazing (except when it locked onto the wrong person)

I capture on average, 300 photos per day.

So, for any CL owners... would you use this camera to catch shots of your 2 year old?  Or would you think that maybe this isn't the camera for that sort of shooting.  I've also got a Q2 on my list, but I just don't know that I only want that focal length.

[jaapv]

If you use an older camera successfully you’ll surely benefit by a more modern AF system.  In practice there is little to choose between Q and CL regarding AF. However the focal length of the Q will be limiting. You’d be doing a lot of cropping. 

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

I use the CL for photographing my grandchildren, all in the toddler or small child category. I also have the TL2, SL and smartphone to compare it with, and my wife's OMD EM5ii, and I have had in the recent past a M240.

I find the CL with the standard 18-56 zoom with AF very good for photographing them. I switch frequently between face recognition and spot AF, because in a group of children face recognition will often pick the wrong one. I have limited experience of other brands, but I suspect, from others' tales, that Sony face recognition (identification and tracking) is superior to Leica's, but no better at picking the right face from a crowd.

Another consideration is the reaction of children to you and the camera: putting a strange black object in front of your face can be intimidating, especially when you are close, so being able to stand back a bit and use the zooms with a smaller camera can be helpful. Close up, using the TL2 with touch to release is a better bet.

As for the child moving too quickly to focus, this knocks out smartphones and a lot of other brands - the delay from pressing the shutter to taking the shot is too long. The M240 and SL are best at this, with the CL not far behind, and the TL2 not far behind again.

The fact is, photographing toddlers will always have a low success rate whatever equipment you use, simply because their expressions, which are the essence of a good shot, are fleeting, and anything you do to get the best angle on them will also cause them to move! The photos I take of my g/c, however, are always in high demand from their parents over any they take themselves - so I and my kit must be on the right track!

Edited March 29, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[Guest]

I use the CL often just as you and LocalHero do and I am very pleased.  The CL with 18-56 zoom is certainly fast enough to capture my grandkids  - and the camera doesn’t get in the way as the Fuji did for you.  The custom controls allow me to easily access Burst mode and switch between the different AF or MF modes, or adjust EV, or exposure mode.  That’s all I need for them. I have a User Profile set up just for them, but this is what I use 99% of the time in any case.

Having a rangefinder style camera like the CL, that doesn’t block your entire face is also a tremendous plus - because my very cute subjects are literally smiling at me, not the camera, because they can see my face.  I find this makes a *huge* difference in capturing their expressions.   

The CL’s excellent viewfinder is another big plus here in capturing the right moment.  The fact that it’s side-mounted also helps with composition - and keeps me in the moment too (albeit with one eye) and not “behind the camera”.  I find this is also big.

The 18-56 is a fantastic and versatile grab and go lens.  The fact that it’s not a 1.4 makes it a bit forgiving against motion since the focus plane is not paper thin when using SP.  

the 35/1.4 is a beautiful portrait lens.  The 23/2 makes the camera small enough to take to a restaurant (and the 18 is even smaller but I cant comment on that one.)

 As your toddler ages and gets on the school stage, the 55-135 will give you reach to zoom in, and having an APS crop format (1.5x) will keep all the telephoto lenses smaller in general for this.

24mp is also enough MP to crop shots to bring them closer when they are too far to optimally compose the frame beforehand. 

ISO sensitivity and dynamic range make low light captures and post processing shadow recovery a breeze.  

And then there’s that Leica look - and colors - that are unique and very special I feel.

Bottom line is that you will be buying in to a system that will grow with you, and the lenses are somewhat future proof as the CL2 will likely have even faster AF.

I don’t think I count many, if any OOF pics with my grandkids, and I am capturing candid shots most all of the time. 

Most cameras that focus faster will have too many buttons.  The CL has reached a “fast enough” point that your reflexes to capture the decisive moment will likely be the limiting factor. (I’ve also read that CF mode is better than people expect, but I haven’t used it much myself.)

Why don’t you rent one for a week?   That’ll give you the ultimate assurance. 

I hope this is helpful.  Good luck with your selection, and enjoy every moment of being a parent.  Your toddlers will grow up very quickly.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Guest

[M11 for me]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

. . .

As for the child moving too quickly to focus, this knocks out smartphones and a lot of other brands - the delay from pressing the shutter to taking the shot is too long. The M240 and SL are best at this, with the CL not far behind, and the TL2 not far behind again.

. . .

You bring the M into play. Are you saying that you are able to precisely focus very fast with the M?

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, fairly fast. The CL is quicker, but only if it picks the right thing to focus on, or only if gets focus right first time round without hunting. There is no perfect solution. I would rather use the CL because once it or you has got the right focus point, you can take repeated shots with it automatically focusing each time, while with the M you have to check the focus is right each time (or the child hasn't moved). 

Edited March 29, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[justbananas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These are all excellent responses! 

Im lucky that my child is quite camera trained. I’ve been taking daily photos since birth. 

She even now has her own very old Nikon Coolpix that belonged to my late father in law that she plays with.  And she loves to see photos as I take them. She’s very accustomed to me having a camera quite near her. 

The leica colors is what I’m after. I agree that they are very pleasing. 

I found one business where I can rent one. I didn’t want to rent one until I at least had some confirmation the camera was suitable. There are not so many reviewers on YouTube as other cameras 

I also agree that Sony has great autofocus, but in no way do I want to deal with those menus, or even the limited selection of E-mount lens.  

I already own a big camera. Now I’m after a small(er) camera. The 18 and 23 mm lens pique my interest heavily for their size. And considering I’m generally quite close to my daughter when taking pictures, the wider focal length helps in those situations. Although the zoom would a welcome addition. I currently often use the sigma 18-55. It’s heavy but lovely, but heavy!

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!

[justbananas]

31 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yes, fairly fast. The CL is quicker, but only if it picks the right thing to focus on, or only if gets focus right first time round without hunting. There is no perfect solution. I would rather use the CL because once it or you has got the right focus point, you can take repeated shots with it automatically focusing each time, while with the M you have to check the focus is right each time (or the child hasn't moved). 

This exactly is why I switched my Canon to single point when using the EVF.  With most zone focusing, it has a tendency to focus on a shirt, shoulder, elbow, leaving the face slightly soft to really soft.

The odd thing about the Canon 80D is that if you use the LCD screen, Tracking can be enabled, and it does a fairly good job.  However, I don't enjoy that near as much as the EVF and it's slower with the mirror up, time between shots is reduced.  Also the camera is quite clunky to shoot from the hip.  The Fuji XT-3 was pretty amazing from the hip, or even just hanging the camera down.  The face detection was brilliant and I took a great deal of photos without even looking at the camera at all.  The rest of the Fuji was hit and miss.  Probably some of that had to do with the lens, but I found myself missing my canon once I got into Lightroom.  Do doubt, Canon takes nice pictures but a clunky form factor in this old body.

I captured this image of a camera reclusive nephew while just holding the Fuji camera at the end of my arm without looking at the camera

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!

Edited March 29, 2019 by justbananas

[justbananas]

Ok, I just rented one with a 23mm and the 18-56 zoom.  

[Guest]

PS - I have recently found that using MF with my TL lenses on the CL with my grandkids isn’t that bad, because once you have it in focus range, you are only sometimes making small (quick) focus adjustments, and can better/faster rapid fire (in single shot mode) to capture the best moment (it doesn’t have to reacquire AF for each subsequent press of the shutter).

 Using a wider aperture makes this more forgiving - which comes by default with the long end of the zoom.  The effect of compression on faces with the long end also makes the kids’ features even more beautiful - much more than a WA cell phone photo can ever do.  (I am surprised nobody ever mentions this as a criticism of the Q’s 28mm lens and cropping.  I don’t see that a crop of a 28 is the same as a 50mm or 75mm equivalent photo at all.)

I am going to play with CF and burst mode more now, having recently read some blog post about a wedding photographer I think, who compared CF on the CL and Sony, and found the CL’s hit rate to be surprisingly high. 

Best wishes with your little one and camera pursuit.  Cheers!

[Petercoll]

Contrast detection focusing , which seems to be a trend for Leica , means I presume one’s TL/CL choosing any spot with lightest and darkest adjacent areas. Well , how about the contrast within the eye for starters ? Then of course one can half press the shutter button and refocus nearer if a child runs in front of your subject. Then there’s focus tracking on the CL. Anyone tried it ? Finally, I’ve found focusing my old R 90mm and R 50mm stopped down all the while to f11 or thereabouts incredibly effortless and accurate with the CL viewfinder - it really is a gem of a device. And all the TL lenses are magical in image making without any exceptions. 

[justbananas]

3 hours ago, DGP said:

PS - I have recently found that using MF with my TL lenses on the CL with my grandkids isn’t that bad, because once you have it in focus range, you are only sometimes making small (quick) focus adjustments, and can better/faster rapid fire (in single shot mode) to capture the best moment (it doesn’t have to reacquire AF for each subsequent press of the shutter).

 Using a wider aperture makes this more forgiving - which comes by default with the long end of the zoom.  The effect of compression on faces with the long end also makes the kids’ features even more beautiful - much more than a WA cell phone photo can ever do.  (I am surprised nobody ever mentions this as a criticism of the Q’s 28mm lens and cropping.  I don’t see that a crop of a 28 is the same as a 50mm or 75mm equivalent photo at all.)

I am going to play with CF and burst mode more now, having recently read some blog post about a wedding photographer I think, who compared CF on the CL and Sony, and found the CL’s hit rate to be surprisingly high. 

Best wishes with your little one and camera pursuit.  Cheers!

I agree with you that a crop of a 28 is not the same as using a 50.  I find that in a lot of my shooting, the light levels can be a little low.  Stepping up from 2.x to even a 4.0 aperture can result in too low of a shutter speed, or a dark image.  Sometimes the dark image can be recovered in lightroom.   It's a delicate balance.  For certain, my current Canon 80D does not perform well above ISO 1600.  I can squeak it to 3200 but am generally displeased with the results.  Even at 1600, I'm not aways a fan.  Of course that camera was likely never made for light low shooting at all, and it's a 5+ year old body.  A lot of the time in these conditions I'm holding the camera at iso 400 or 800.  And sometimes I go Auto ISO with an upper limit of 1600.

I'm keen to see the ISO performance of the CL. If I can step above the 1600 threshold reliably, that opens new possibilities for me.  Using ISO for the additional headroom in exposure sounds like a great plan.

I'm fortunate that the rear of my house faces east and has a large bank of windows.  During a specific set of hours in the morning, I get some really wonderful natural light there.

And I'll be sure to test the manual focus abilities.  That sounds exciting really.  I find manual difficult on the 80D through the EVF.  My eyes aren't what they used to be and there are no helpers in that department on the 80D.

Further, I'm betting that at an aperture of 4.0 +, the regular DPAF would function better.  If it catches a shoulder, the face would be more in focus too.  I'm excited to try this on the Leica.

 

Now I have the whole weekend of excited anticipation waiting for the camera to arrive, which happens on Tuesday... 

Edited March 29, 2019 by justbananas

[ramarren]

I just dunno. I've been taking photos of fast moving people/children in poor lighting for 50 some years, and I have never used even AF to make it happen to my satisfaction; in the pre-digital days, I was limited to 400 and occasionally 800 ISO for decent quality, and only rarely had lenses much faster than f/2 or f/2.8. 

The ability to set focus where I want it, and the timing to know when the subject is in the right place, means more to me than just how fast a camera's AF system is or how good the stratospheric ISO settings can be. These are both useful things, but basic camera shooting technique goes a lot farther than camera features, IMO. 

[justbananas]

1 minute ago, ramarren said:

I just dunno. I've been taking photos of fast moving people/children in poor lighting for 50 some years, and I have never used even AF to make it happen to my satisfaction; in the pre-digital days, I was limited to 400 and occasionally 800 ISO for decent quality, and only rarely had lenses much faster than f/2 or f/2.8. 

The ability to set focus where I want it, and the timing to know when the subject is in the right place, means more to me than just how fast a camera's AF system is or how good the stratospheric ISO settings can be. These are both useful things, but basic camera shooting technique goes a lot farther than camera features, IMO. 

👍 

[bags27]

22 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I just dunno. I've been taking photos of fast moving people/children in poor lighting for 50 some years, and I have never used even AF to make it happen to my satisfaction; in the pre-digital days, I was limited to 400 and occasionally 800 ISO for decent quality, and only rarely had lenses much faster than f/2 or f/2.8. 

The ability to set focus where I want it, and the timing to know when the subject is in the right place, means more to me than just how fast a camera's AF system is or how good the stratospheric ISO settings can be. These are both useful things, but basic camera shooting technique goes a lot farther than camera features, IMO. 

+1. Taking pictures of fast moving children is not something that only began with digital and autofocus. I have wonderful photos of my (then) young kids jumping and running with my Nikon FE and a 50mm lens. 

Whenever someone (and I do this all the time myself) poses a problem that only new, cutting-edge (and expensive) technology would appear to solve, I think that that person (me!) is trying to convince his (my!) spouse why he (I) needs to buy a new toy.

Edited March 29, 2019 by bags27

[jaapv]

24 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I just dunno. I've been taking photos of fast moving people/children in poor lighting for 50 some years, and I have never used even AF to make it happen to my satisfaction; in the pre-digital days, I was limited to 400 and occasionally 800 ISO for decent quality, and only rarely had lenses much faster than f/2 or f/2.8. 

The ability to set focus where I want it, and the timing to know when the subject is in the right place, means more to me than just how fast a camera's AF system is or how good the stratospheric ISO settings can be. These are both useful things, but basic camera shooting technique goes a lot farther than camera features, IMO. 

I agree, but bear in mind that getting the best out of AF needs skill just the same. 

[Guest]

Justbananas,

i think you will find ISO 6400 is quite reliable with little noise reduction required, and even 12,500 is usable and cleans up to an acceptable level most of the time.  This will also allow you to keep your shutter speed high to stop motion and get that pleasing Leica bokeh at the same time.

These modern sensors, in general, make the need for a wide aperture lens more of a thing for creative purposes than for an absolute need to capture more light, even with the slowish aperture zoom. 

Enjoy the test drive. Nice chatting here.  Cheers! 

[Guest]

PS again- here’s that review with mention of a continuous focus test. 

https://shotkit.com/leica-cl-review/

[justbananas]

4 hours ago, DGP said:

PS again- here’s that review with mention of a continuous focus test. 

https://shotkit.com/leica-cl-review/

Yep thanks for this.  I had seen this a few days back.  Looks promising.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Merv-O]

I use my CL almost exclusively with my M-T adapter and my M-mount glass. The Focus Peaking on the CL is fast and sharp...In fact, I prefer it to the M240's RF. Of course, a 50mm on the APS-c sensor isn't the same, but the results are tangible. 

Recently, I wanted to take the CL out and experiment. with the new cheap-o 7Artisans 35mm f/2 ($390) and wow, the 24mp sensor on the CL came through big time. It is a versatile little machine (my summicron 35mm stays at home now to be used with the M-Series)). However, I own 3 other Leica's and 5 Pentax bodies and I rotate them for different needs. If I don't shoot with the CL after awhile, I have to reference the manual as the cameras ergonomics are not as intuitive as I would prefer, but I presume if I used it more, I would be more in step with it. 

The one knock I have on the Cl is that it is not weather resistant and should have shake reduction technology in the body. These are essential for a modern smaller camera in this class. In order to create balance with the adapter and m-mount lenses, I bought a Liu half-case with a metal base and a thumb grip. This helps with the other lenses. I like the 11-23mm zoom. It is better than the 18-56mm (kit lens) or the 55-135mm zoom (which struggles with auto-focus)--thus I manually focus at all times, relegating the auto-focus lenses to the TL I take on bike rides.

As a primary camera, the CL is small, well-built and has a nice combination of Panasonic Technology with Leica's teutonic finish, but it can't be used in harsh elements like my flagship Pentax (K-3ii) and it's battery power is below average (the EVF uses a lot of power).  

In any event, good luck in your choice.