How many of you would skip the CL and go straight to the M

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/5/2019 at 5:43 PM, justbananas said:

After a few days with a rented CL, I enjoy the camera.  

A big part of me though wonders... should I invest in the CL system or should I pass it by and head straight for the M10 and a Lens.

From owners that own both, if you could only have one, which would it be for you

I own the SL and the M9 and MM1 and I must say that the SL is much more prone to collecting dust than my M’s; in windy area’s as Patagonia for instance.... This will most likely count for the CL too. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, otto.f said:

I own the SL and the M9 and MM1 and I must say that the SL is much more prone to collecting dust than my M’s; in windy area’s as Patagonia for instance.... This will most likely count for the CL too. 

I am a bit puzzled... Are you saying that the M works better than the SL (and probably the CL) in windy conditions? If so, why?

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

Size?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Size?

CL < M

[otto.f]

2 hours ago, Joachim_I said:

I am a bit puzzled... Are you saying that the M works better than the SL (and probably the CL) in windy conditions? If so, why?

When changing lenses you directly look at the sensor, which is thus is unprotected to the outside world, whereas in the M there’s a shutter which protects it from incoming dust. This counts for all modern mirrorless camera’s except rangefinders of course but it can be a thingy to vote for a rangefinder. 

[Guest]

Thanks, got it.

[dau]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

When changing lenses you directly look at the sensor, which is thus is unprotected to the outside world, whereas in the M there’s a shutter which protects it from incoming dust. This counts for all modern mirrorless camera’s except rangefinders of course but it can be a thingy to vote for a rangefinder. 

However, the sensor might turn out to be more robust than a focal plane shutter.

[lct]

11 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Too big for what?  It's as big as it needs to be to achieve what Leica wanted.  There have been numerous size and weight comparisons on this website, and in all honesty, I don't think either the camera or the lenses could be any smaller for what they do ...

Too bad for me but so much the better for competitors.

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!

[ramarren]

8 hours ago, LeicaS2 said:

Let us know once you compare the CL vs M. I have loved an M6, M8 , and M 9. Fantastic cameras. But not as compact as the CL. I have a friend who has an M10 and a CL and the CL gets the use.

I can skip the full frame argument because when getting really serious I use an S (007) which is why an M or SL would be stuck in the middle, and not used much.

The CL isn't that much smaller than an M-D. It is. however, 200g lighter (body only). The "feel in use" of the CL is more akin to a compact film SLR than an M because it is a TTL viewing/focusing camera rather than a rangefinder focusing camera. This changes the ergonomics by quite a lot, for me. The way I use them, the M-D is a "set up beforehand, look in the viewfinder and focus, frame, release shutter" camera. The CL is a "look through the viewfinder, focus, meter and make settings, frame, release shutter" camera. Because of the difference in use workflow and viewfinder focusing and framing, the CL is a digital correlate of my R6.2 where the M-D is almost the same as my M4-2. The camera versatility with different lenses and other accessories for close up, etc, follows the same lines ... CL==R, M-D==M4-2. The format difference essentially means that to get the same FoV/DoF between an M or a CL body, drop down one focal length and open up one stop for the CL, for example, use a 35 and shoot at f/4  on the CL vs a 50 and f/5.6 on the M-D. The lens limitations on the M are that it has insufficient focusing/framing capability for lenses longer than 135mm, or true close-up/macro work (unless you have a digital M with the EVF capability, and then it's a bit clumsier in use). The lens limitations on the CL are that if you're looking for very wide angle lenses, you have to go for very short focal lengths which are rare and expensive (and often not very fast). 

Which suits your photography best is a question only you can answer. My photography can be pretty broad spectrum so I have both and use one or the other as apropos. I'd like a S class sensor camera too, but the Hasselblad X1D is more to my needs and desires than the Leica S system. I may yet buy one of them, if I don't go a different direction entirely and buy a Q2.

I've never seen much difference in dust and dirt on the sensor between the M-D and CL. I treat both the same no matter what the conditions. They both need occasional dusting out.

Size and weight between the CL, M-D, and SL ... If you use the same lenses on the CL and SL, the SL is obviously bulkier, just like an R8 is always bulkier than an R6.2. If you use the same lenses on the CL and M-D, there's not much difference at all. So again, that's a 'pick your poison' situation.

Edited April 12, 2019 by ramarren

[Merv-O]

I own (and have owned) several M's along the way and I bought a CL about 6 months ago because my EVF on the T I also own was frustratingly slow at times and the T was wearing thin on me as to it's limitations. Having already invested in three core L-Mount lenses (11-23, 18-56, 50-135), I felt that the CL may give me more of a traditional camera feel and a superior EVF. The extra 8mp's (16 v. 24) didn't hurt and I was correct. The real bonus was the M to T mount adapter and the multi-colored focus peaking on the CL.

Suddenly, I was getting these crisp sharp, photos while using my coveted M-Mount glass (50mm Summarit, 35mm Summilux, etc.) and the extra APS-c focal length provided interesting fields of view. The auto-focus is fast and modern. At $2,700, the CL is not inexpensive, but it is packed with features that would make an M-Mount typ 240 blush. I love taking both my M and the CL on shoots because the fast-focus and updated technology shines through. 

Buy the CL and get accustomed to Leica systems, then buy an M and be happy that Leica saw fit to allow interchangeability with their most wanted lenses. No planned obsolescence here. I have to say one final thing: Leica is thought of a old-fashioned company. So wrong. Leica respects the classic rangefinder systems but is cutting edge in so many other ways. The T is the camera equivalent of an ipad. The CL and the new SL have a new universal mount in the making because of the affiliation between SIGMA, Lumix & Leica on compatible bodies and lenses...even 3rd party manufacturers like Voigtlander, Iberit, Zeiss & 7Artisans have been in the fray. 

No downside to the CL my friend, especially in manual mode with a low noise factor of 12,000....good luck with whatever you choose...

[faxao]

Became a Leica enthusiast five years ago (MM1, M-P 240 and more recently M10).

The M10 is my favourite camera (the MM1 is still here and it always be...) but I have recently added a (gently) used CL body to my line-up. I thought it could be interesting to shoot with a slimmer body+AF with TL lenses and, most importantly, to use my M lenses (even though MF) on the same camera.

The CL shooting experience so far has been kind of "mixed": on one side I do appreciate the camera body format and the versatility of the MF with M lenses+AF. On the other hand I find that the IQ of the M10 is still very difficult to beat (aside from the APS-C vs. FF sensor format) as well as (at least in my experience) the overall handling/shooting experience of the M10. I find the CL (RAW) pics to be less sharp and saturated if compared to the ones taken with the same lenses on the M10. Also, I probably love the RF experience more.

I should probably give it a bit more time to get used to this setup and I must admit that using CL with a TL 23mm do improve the overall results especially in terms of quick "street-like" use. Just my 2 cents...

[jaapv]

I'm a bit surprised at your experience, as the CL produces quite saturated colours -sometimes too much so for my taste- (compare the M10 and CL image threads) I think that you are trying to postprocess your files with identical settings. If you use different cameras, you should figure out the optimal workflow (including profiling, capture sharpening and colour management) for each camera separately. Lightroom and ACR give you the option of assigning your basic setttings to  each individual camera.

If anything, I would call the M10 colours more subdued and "Sharpness" , whatever that is, about equal.

[IkarusJohn]

10 hours ago, Joachim_I said:

CL < M

Sorry, what I was suggesting was windage - the smaller TL lenses might make framing and focussing easier on a windy day. Apparently not.

Size doesn’t really worry me much. It’s a trade-off.  I hate small fiddly cameras with buttons all over the place - see LCT’s A73 comparison above. The SL fits my hands nicely, and the TL2 my pcoket.

[justbananas]

Well, the rented M10 arrived today.  This is a total shift in thinking without a doubt.  Hopefully as the weekend progresses I'll start to act a little more naturally with it.  

My first impression is it's a heavy chunk for sure!  Focusing seems simple enough, although even with my glasses my eye sight is a little off.  Probably time for new glasses.  I'm at the perfect age where I can't see up close WITH my glasses, but I can't see far away without them.  So this means a lot of on/off.. a pain in the ass.  I only mention this because with the EVF on the CL I could use it without my glasses, and at the same time see the camera menus without much fuss.  Although with the M, how much menu looking is really needed?  Likely not much.

 

Focusing quickly is going to take me a minute to get used to.  But it has pointed out a funny habit.  I found my half pressing the shutter button waiting on a beep or a lock of some sort. 😂

[IkarusJohn]

You might like to leave the focus tab at infinity by default.  That way, you’re always focusing towards you.  This improves muscle memory.

[justbananas]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

You might like to leave the focus tab at infinity by default.  That way, you’re always focusing towards you.  This improves muscle memory.

good idea.  I'll try that.

 

So far, I think I'm in love...

 

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, justbananas said:

 Focusing seems simple enough, although even with my glasses my eye sight is a little off.  Probably time for new glasses.  I'm at the perfect age where I can't see up close WITH my glasses, but I can't see far away without them.  So this means a lot of on/off.. a pain in the ass.  

The focus patch on the M is set at a virtual distance of 2m.  Ideally, with glasses, you can see this clearly, as well as distant objects.  It’s important, too, that your glasses correct for any astigmatism.  But even with glasses, sometimes a diopter adjustment can help. I add a +.5 diopter to the VF in addition to wearing glasses to optimize viewing (this is common for aging eyes).

If you don’t have a Leica dealer close by, most local opticians can provide free trial diopters that you can tape to your VF to determine if any help before purchase.  The M10 has dedicated diopters due to its larger diameter VF thread.

Jeff

[justbananas]

12 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The focus patch on the M is set at a virtual distance of 2m.  Ideally, with glasses, you can see this clearly, as well as distant objects.  It’s important, too, that your glasses correct for any astigmatism.  But even with glasses, sometimes a diopter adjustment can help. I add a +.5 diopter to the VF in addition to wearing glasses to optimize viewing (this is common for aging eyes).

If you don’t have a Leica dealer close by, most local opticians can provide free trial diopters that you can tape to your VF to determine if any help before purchase.  The M10 has dedicated diopters due to its larger diameter VF thread.

Jeff

That's interesting, I didn't know that.

 

I can see it pretty clearly.  Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's perfectly crisp.  I need more time with it to tell for sure.  I'll be able to quite a lot of hours with it tomorrow and Sunday.

It's very interesting to not work with a preview in your eye.  It's really force me to think about what I'm doing.  I'm so accustomed to a live preview including metering on half shutter press.  Not saying one is right and one is wrong, but I quickly learned that a backlight such as a window can be deceiving to the camera if shutter and ISO are both in auto in conjunction with multi field metering

 

[Jeff S]

I thought my focusing was fine until one day I played with some diopters, and the minor .5 adjustment made the focus pop.  You won’t know without trying.

For me, there’s nothing like the RF experience.  I don’t own the EVF, and enjoy simple classic M metering, most often with manual settings. LV can come in handy, however, in the event you need to check camera/lens focus calibration.

Jeff

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

From the M FAQ:

Quote

Question: I come from an autofocus camera background. What is the best way to get good focus on the M9?

The M10 works the same way as any rangefinder camera, the central patch in the viewfinder is your focussing tool.
It is important to look through the viewfinder in the optical axis. Looking into the camera skewed will result in inaccurate focus.

The first thing to do is to ascertain that you can see the rangefinder patch properly. A correct match between the rangefinder and your eye is even more important than it is using an SLR.
Leica sells corrective diopter lenses. Determining which one you need - if any- can be done by going to your optician and holding his try-out lenses between your eye and the viewfinder. The one that allows you to see the rangefinder patch and framelines sharply is the correct one. Order the nearest value from Leica. In a pinch you can use over-the-counter reading glasses for this test. If your eyes need special corrections, you can use your spectacles, provided you can see clearly at 2 meters distance ( the virtual distance of the rangefinder patch).



Once the viewfinder is corrected optimally, there are three methods of focussing, in ascending order of difficulty aka training.

1. The broken line method. Look for a vertical line in the image and bring it together in the rangefinder patch to be continuous.

2. The coincidence method. Look for a pattern in the image and bring it together to coincide. This may lead to errors with repeating patterns.

3. For advanced users:

The contrast method. Once you have focus by method 1. or 2. a small adjustment will cause the rangefinder patch to "jump" into optimum contrast. At that point you have the most precise focussing adjustment.

Side remarks:

 

For special cases there are viewfinder magnifiers. They can help, especially with longer and fast lenses and they can give confidence, but they can also be not very useful; they cannot correct errors in the focussing mechanism. Leica offers a 1.25x one and a 1.4x. These need diopter correction like the camera, but often of a different value than the camera viewfinder.

If you try focussing on a subject emitting polarized light like a reflection it may happen that the polarizing effect of the prism system in the rangefinder will blot out the contrast in the rangefinder patch, making focussing difficult. In that case rotate the camera 90 degrees to focus.

Note that when one focusses and recomposes the camera will turn. For geometrical reasons one must bend slightly backwards to keep the focussing distance constant.

If this thread turns into a Leica M thread, I'll have to split it, and we'll all have to move to the M10 forum.