Get a CL or a Q2?

[Peter Wright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To put my question in context:  My main system is the M 240 and MM 246 with a full set of lenses between 15mm and 90mm. I also have the EVF and very occasionally use it for specific reasons with a few of my old Nikon lenses (macro, extended tele).  But it is indeed very occasional.  The vast bulk of the time I am in the 28-90 range and I don't need fast glass.  From time to time however I can be in circumstances where it is almost impossible to change lenses and a mid-range zoom is a practical necessity.  Likewise, sometimes auto focus can be more than helpful.  (but I'm not talking about olympic level sports here).  So as my secondary system I use an Olympus m43 system.  I have no IQ problems with m43, and can happily print up to 16x20, however I find the cameras to be WAY too complex and non-intuitive.  As it's not in regular use, I need to allow myself an extended refresher before using it each time, if I'm not to get some setting incorrect and then miss shots while I figure out what went wrong during the shoot – very frustrating!

Hence the CL vs Q2 question.  I can buy one or the other as my M backup, but definitely not both, and when I do the m43 system is gone.  The Q2 seems very like my M cams in operation, but has AF and with the big sensor looks designed to work at effective focal lengths after cropping from 28-75: a mid range zoom!  So I'm very tempted.  However the CL has its own zoom lenses and AF, but has a less intuitive interface (Or am I wrong?.  I am assuming it is much more straightforward than the Olympus m43).  I absolutely don't want to get the CL and find that (for my purposes) I have simply got a more expensive m43 system.  Not trying to cause offence here now 😉!

The M system is my gold standard:  I like cameras that are small (zero interest in the SL), but not too small, and are simple to use and of high quality.  So what do you suggest?  Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[geoffreyg]

I've been on a similar fence. Looked closely at the Q2, decided on the CL. The Q2 is quite attractive, and the interface is a piece of cake, very M like, and yes, you are right the CL is a bit more tricky. I suppose the wide-mid range is fine on the Q2, with the additional resolution, but the idea of a 16mb 50mm shot just doesn't excite me. The 30mb 35mm shot does, but somehow not happy about cropping for length. 

The main reason for the CL was the smaller size and greater flexibility, with the ability to add all the M lenses, and maybe a bigger zoom or tele. Gives lots of flexibility with the 18-55 fine for all around. With a small CV21 lens its small enough, and also have a 50 and 75CV for other options. Lots of possibilities. 

The image quality on the CL is just fine, and while the Q2 would be a good M240 replacement -  very close in size -  not ready to give up the M240. YMMV. 

[Advertisement]

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

[gotium]

I've been using M9->M240->M10 and Q for several years, and just got a CL with the 18/2.8. I also use only 24-90, really virtually only 28 and 50. Neither the Q nor the CL gives me the "wow" I get from the M with a good lens, but the AF is sometimes really helpful, and they are great to grab and carry all day. 

Both the Q and the CL are a delight to use. I find the interface nearly identical, once you get used to the CL dials; that was actually easier than I thought, having a long-time preference for aperture rings on the lens. But it's fine, really. The CL lacks back-button focus, also - unlike the Q, there are no buttons there.

I think the Q gives better image quality than the CL with the 18/2.8, mostly with regards to sharpness at the edges of the frame. It is much better than the CL with the 18/2.8 if you want to blur out your background, and it also has a real macro mode. 

Having said that, when I grab something to take out, I am now usually taking the CL because it is so small and light - and it just feels so good in the hand. I really prefer holding and carrying it over the Q, and certainly over the M. It also lets you play around with other focal lengths and M lenses by adapter, but I've not tried any of that yet. And the images I get are still great, for my uses. 

Both are great. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by gotium

[Peter Wright]

2 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

 

The image quality on the CL is just fine, and while the Q2 would be a good M240 replacement -  very close in size -  not ready to give up the M240. YMMV. 

Just to be clear.  I'm not planning to give up my M240.  It, the M246 and lenses are going to stay.  It's just the m43 system that will go.

[Herr Barnack]

Between the CL and the Q2, I would spend the extra $1000 and get the Q2.  Why?  The Q2's 47mp 24x36mm sensor is awfully hard to say no to, particularly if you want to make large prints.  It would be a powerful back up to your M240 and MM246 and M lenses.

I think of the CL as a great go everywhere camera that will do well for online sharing of images and for making smaller prints (up to 10 or 12 inches on the long side).  If you want to make large exhibit quality prints, the Q2 would be the way to go.

JMHO...

[ramarren]

The CL works so well for me that I've practically stopped using my M system. If I decide that it's too valuable to have sitting on the shelf unused, I'll sell it and buy a Hasselblad X1D with a 21mm lens. Or a Q2 The CL will stay regardless because it is now my 'digital body to use with R lenses'.

Any fixed lens camera has limitations ... If its limitations get in the way of what you want to do, it's not the right camera for you. 

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You’ve already invested a considerable sum on lenses for your M bodies. It seems to me that spreading the cost of those lenses to another body that can use them is the way to go. That way you have a backup body and you use all the lenses you currently like using.

If you are happy with the image quality you are getting then what would you do  with more? If you’re not happy with the image quality then why not wait for M11 which will presumably have a bigger sensor?

The CL interface is actually as straightforward as the Q’s. Most of the choices you need to make can be programmed easily, so the most needed are closest to the “surface” using the 4 access points: 2 top plate buttons/dials and the Menu and FN buttons on the back of the camera. I programmed my choices into a borrowed CL last summer in 15 minutes and never changed a thong through that 2 hour use.

On the basis of the above I don’t see the logic of moving to a Q2.

Edited May 16, 2019 by Le Chef

[jpreisch]

I've had the Q but not the Q2.  The resolution of the Q allowed me to crop, and I crop a lot!  In the end with the way I shoot, the 28mm was too limiting.  I know have a CL with the 18-56.

It allows me to continue my cropping madness, and it gives me extra reach to crop with. In the long run and in my opinion, Q2 vs CL will come down your shooting style.  They are both excellent cameras and they produce excellent images.

Jim

[Peter Wright]

Thanks for the comments.  I've done a fair bit of reading (especially on Sean Reid's web site) and have come to the tentative conclusion that the CL is the way to go.  My thinking is that when I travel, or if I don't know quite what to expect, I take my M with a 21, 35, and 90, and can be ready for nearly anything.  The Q2 can't obviously reach 21 on the wide side, and is somewhat weak at the 75 -90 equivalent.  But I would still have the massive files to deal with.  The CL with the 18-56 would cover most of my needs, most of the time.  I will add the wide zoom fairly soon.  Also, I find that the CL works very will with M lenses (Sean Reid covers some of the ones I own on the CL), so if I want high quality medium tele shots I can use a 75 or 90 Summicron with ease.  A fast normal means I get out the M 35 1.4.  The CL interface seems slightly more complex than the M, but nothing like the Olympus EM1.2.  Should be a snap moving between cameras.  I'll let my thoughts gestate for a bit and then probably order the CL+18-55 kit.

[huwm]

 CL and 18-56 easily replaces the EM1.2 and 12-40 as a 'do it all' always with you touristy sort of kit

I found the 12-100 fabulous but way to big to be in your hand when you need it.

I also find the CL great for 'antique' lens shooting

[ramarren]

I still have my Olympus E-M1 as well as the CL. Utterly different cameras. The Olympus is an incredibly feature rich camera with the backing philosophy of "if you have it, you should be able to configure and customize it" ... Over 190 menu options, many of which work in conjunction with others. With all that you can customize the camera to do very specific and complex things easily, but it requires that you understand all those options and how they work together; the gestalt is elusive due to the sheer number of options and combinations. Once you understand and work with it, it is very very capable. 

The Leica CL takes a much more modest stance on features and configuration. It's not as simple as a Leica M-D, but it's not complicated. In Leica's usual way, most things as they come by default work very well and you usually have just a couple of small tweaks to the settings to make before saying "I'm done" and just using it. 

By comparison, when I got the E-M1 I spent the better part of a month going through the owner's manual trying different things, and learning how to optimize the camera for my (at the time) work; it's been long enough now that if I were to go back to using it seriously, it would take me most of that time to re-learn it. With the CL, I had the gestalt of the camera within an hour or so, and my usual settings for most things have not changed since that day, for the most part. 

I still struggle with letting go of the E-M1, but it's long past time to do so. The CL fits my needs better nowadays. 

[Mr.Q]

I'm so spoiled with the X1D and 50MP files there's no going back to 24MP.  The Q2 is the only digital Leica I'd even consider, for now at least.

[jaapv]

What size is your usual print then?

[johntobias]

you have the glass.....cl is the sensible option.....also, you can have too many megapixels !

I'm still using an X1 as a snappy take everywhere and it's files never disappoint, even when made into A3+ prints

[justbananas]

But you said auto focus is nicety, that takes out anything but the limited and expensive tl lens. 

The cl is a fine camera. It’s simple, quickly intuitive.

the dials are easily accidentally turned either by hand or by clothing if you have it on a neck strap. 

Its small and light. 

It’s brilliant outdoors. I find purplish hues indoors lowish light. For the money, it’s possible I’d have a Fuji as my second camera... but then you’re back to buttons, dials, menus... but a used xpro2 is priced so effectively right now.  

On the q2’s I so dislike the 28mm, sometimes the angle works, but I see a lot weird faces in angles.... that I would always be punched in... but that big sensor! But you still get the 28mm dof.... hard to say...

right now, my cL is my main camera. Love the size, the iq is enough, wish there were more native fast lenses, wish the tl60mm wasn’t $3000, love that my wife can easily use it, makes great black and whites, it’s tiny, purple hues in low light are easily dealt with, shake at 1/100 or 1/80 happens easy, can’t crop too too much, easy menus, intuitive enough (swap dials in manual), easy to accidentally turn dials, no Lightroom profiles, files are mostly forgiving in Lightroom, can mount variety of lenses, sooc jpgs not bad, sooc bw jpegs very good, metering pretty good, autofocus pretty darn good, manual focus a snap with some practice.

 

[jaapv]

How do you find purplish hues? I would look at the colour balancing and camera profile in low light. Maybe just one push on the "tint" slider will solve your problem.

[lawman]

I have almost identical systems as you - M240 and 246 - and chose the CL with the 18-56 zoom as a travel camera last fall.  I found it to be a joy to carry and the auto focus was very helpful given that my eyesight isn't what it once was, and the speed with which we moved on our sightseeing trip. My only complaint was the relatively slow lens speeds for indoor/late evening shooting. The final results were not quite up to the M cameras, but were more than acceptable and print nicely in Lightroom. Since my trip, I have adopted the CL system and added the 35/1.4 for speed (also just a great lens) and the 11-23 zoom for wide angle. All lenses are not as well built as the M lenses - but are cheaper, have auto focus and give excellent results. I use the CL almost exclusively for chasing around my grandchildren and never hesitate taking it with me on outings.

Yesterday I took out the M cameras for a carshow shoot and to my surprise I ended up really missing the CL!!  I'm pretty sure that once I process the photos (especially the b&w) I will be in love with the M cameras again, but the CL has certainly become a go to camera for me - and the ability to use my M lenses is another big plus. I don't think you will regret the purchase of the CL. Good luck with your final decision - just be sure to buy at least one extra battery as it is power hungry. I also recommend the Leica grip and Thumbie thumb support.

[justbananas]

19 hours ago, jaapv said:

How do you find purplish hues? I would look at the colour balancing and camera profile in low light. Maybe just one push on the "tint" slider will solve your problem.

Unsure... it’s in the skin. I’ll start a new post on soon.

[jaapv]

Purplish skin hues are a recurring topic. What light are you using when you see the problem? Bright noon? Caucasian skin? Your problem might be IR leakage. That causes purple blotches. Usually a reduction in saturation of magenta and a tweaking of the reds (both hue and saturation) will go a long way to solving the problem, without impacting the overall colour impression of the image too much.

PPW by Dan Margulis is a very effective asset too.

 

https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ppw

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter Wright]

Well I ordered the Cl with 18-56 lens today.  I don't plan to turn this into a complete system, but I will get the M converter, and look forward to trying out (among others) my Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4, and my 75mm Summicron.  I also notice that Sigma is bringing out a true macro 70mm 2.8 lens for this mount at a good price.  So I don't think the 18-56 will stay glued on the camera.  However, I will still be using my M system for most of my planned pictures.