Get a CL or a Q2?

[Peter Wright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(I put this question in the CL forum as well.  Hope that is allowed.  I'm hoping to even out the bias )

 

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.

[rhwolf]

Had an Olympus M4/3.  Sold it and bought the CL.  LOVE IT.  Image quality is terrific.  I can use all my M and R lenses if I so choose.  Entire system is small enough to fly and hike with no issues.  Had a Q.  Sold it because the digital zoom (cropping) delivered images that were too small.  Have an order in for the Q2.  Once I get the Q2, I'll need to see how much use the CL gets.  I suspect I will keep both.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tobers]

I’ve had an M9, M240, M10. I’ve now got a QP and a CL. I’ve also had an Olympus EM5 so know what you mean about complexity. Those cameras are almost impossible to figure out.

The CL is a wonderful camera. Very simple to use. Much much simpler than the Olympus. I have the 18-56 and 55-135 lenses. These are both excellent, and I am not giving anything away to my M10 except for very wide aperture goodness.

I also have a QP because I wanted to fill that wide aperture gap. 

A Q2, with its higher res sensor could easily replace a CL with the 18-56 lens. But if you want longer (and the 55-135 is very useful), then you should stick with the CL. If not, get the Q2.

[bags27]

I'm a Q and CL user and right now am using the CL far more than the Q. I like that you have to think more compositionally and I'm moving away from what I see as the highly digitized (though extremely attractive) look of the Q image. 

But having a couple of great RFs with a complete set of lenses in your focal range...well, I don't know what more a sentient human being needs beyond an occasional piece of bread and glass of wine. OTOH, if you're wanting to dump the Olympus system but not let the money burn a hole in your pocket, I'd go with the CL, since it can extend your range as far as you want (with the terrific and often reasonably priced R mounts). You'll also have lots of fun using your M and Nikon glass on it. Each lens will give you, not only flexibility in focal range, but a different aesthetic look. 

But the Q2 is, by all reports, a truly awesome camera. Go with your gut and enjoy whichever.

[Peter Wright]

Thanks for the replies.  I have ordered a CL with 18-56 lens.

[TheEyesHaveIt]

They serve very different purposes. I too was considering the CL, but ended up with the Q2. The CL was duplicative of my Sony setup - with a far less impressive sensor and lens selection. Somewhat smaller but once you commit to take an ILC, apart from DSLRs, the mirrorless ones are fairly similar in terms of volume (and in some but not all cases weight depending on the lens you choose). It also requires changing lenses if you want something fast. I have my Sony for that but the Q2 is more unique (and admittedly specialized). Forced into 28mm but with cropping ability, weather sealed, stabilized, and smaller / lighter than the CL kit. For travel or street, I feel it will be a better option. There’s also no other camera quite like it - but many competitors to the CL.

Edited May 22, 2019 by TheEyesHaveIt

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was at the Leica Store in SF yesterday and had a chance to play with the Q2 a bit. Also the original Q as well. Not sure precisely why, but the new model feels substantially nicer to my hands than the original did. I had my CL with me as well and the comparison is about dead even on just "appealing to my touch" between them. I seemed to know more than the salesman about the Q2 menus and such (??) so I was able to make a couple of exposures for comparison between the Q2 and the CL fitted with Pentax-L 43 Limited lens. I'll look at them later today. 

The Q2 cannot replace my CL because it's a fixed lens camera and thus not really useful for a lot of what I have the CL for (macro, copy work, long lenses, etc). But for day to day shooting, the Q2 competes with the M-D and has some advantages in its light weight and the easy way you "swap between focal lengths" using cropping rather than changing lenses, never mind the AF, movie capture, and other conveniences if such things appeal to you. I could see buying one and using it as my sole camera for travel, much like I carried the Light L16 only on my last big trip. Add a 1.5x telextender for a bit more pixels at a 75mm crop (and a bit more at a 105mm effective crop) as well as a couple of ELPRO close up lenses and it could do very well indeed. 

There are always more interesting, entertaining good cameras than there is available time and money to enjoy...