Why the CL?

[Pippin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curious as to the reasons you choose the CL?

 

I have coveted the thought of a Leica since I was a young man and saw the B&W photos and how ethereal they appeared to me . They just had a quality about them that was more than the artistry the photog put into the picture .

I moved to Fuji from Nikon SLRs several years ago to be able to carry a small kit and have enjoyed the results but still think of Leica every now and then so bought a used TL with 18mm lense (I’m a wide ~35mm guy) to give it a whirl. I love the build and the photo quality. Challenge is I can’t seem to stop myself from putting it instinctively to my right eye only to clue in that the EVF isn’t on it. I have the EVF but don’t leave it on for fear if breaking it putting it in my bag - even still the feel isn’t like a rangefinder style and am considering trading it for CL.

I’m not worried about megapixels per say as the TL provide what I need for my photo prints. I’m more interested in how the camera feels in the hand, the ability to use some old MF glass and the enjoyment that brings to the process of photography. 

[Peter Wright]

I got a CL because it is not an M camera.  (I already have those, and the lenses).  Sometimes I need to avoid changing lenses so a zoom is needed, and sometimes I need AF, and sometimes I need to get to the telephoto end of things.  The CL and many other cameras cover all that, but the CL wins for me because of its simplicity of use, very intuitive user interface, simple menus, and small (but not too small) size.  And I can get my M lenses working on the CL with no issues.

[Advertisement]

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

[ynp]

1) light and compact, easy to travel with, even with the current cabin bag restrictions,

2) AF,

3) works well with my M lenses and the L-alliance lenses. 

4) don’t like Sony. 

[ramarren]

I bought a CL after I sold my SL kit because I still needed a TTL focusing/viewing camera, and Leica bodies work better with the Leica M and R lenses I intended to keep using than any other make. I bought the CL because I wanted a built-in EVF and its more traditional controls over the T/TL/TL2 series bodies. 

I have been delighted with it, and find I use it more than any other digital camera I own at this point. 

[lct]

Simply the best APS mirrorless camera for M and LTM lenses.

[LocalHero1953]

Same reason the original Leica worked >100 years ago: small, light, fast, high quality lenses, easy to use, yet with full control over the image.

Using M lenses has never been a priority, though I occasionally use some. The native lenses add valuable functionality while losing nothing (in general) in image quality. If I was buying into the Leica CL from another brand, I doubt I'd ever buy an M lens. Nothing wrong with them (obviously), and they work well, but they just aren't designed for the CL - too slow IMO - others disagree, and it depends on what you want them for.

EVF and OVF are just different - neither is better than the other. EVF is WYSIWYG for exposure, composition and focus; using the histogram to judge exposure is a major advantage, the biggest IMO. The OVF is the real world. Pick which you prefer, and don't worry about it.

Criticising APS-C because it is not full frame is a two-edged sword of an argument ("real men use full frame"). If APS-C is not big enough, then what makes the next size up the ideal? Why not go for medium format, full plate? Pick the sensor size that works for what you want the image to do.

Edited June 29, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I replaced my M240  with it, an happy I have done so. I agree with Paul that it is probably the camera that comes closest to Barnack's original concept. APS-C? It is just a miniature format, like the "Leica 24x36"  The sensor size doesn't prevent it from taking images that bear comparison to any fullframe ones. It punches far above its weight.

[JayBird]

I bought the CL because:

1. It was within my budget
2. It has a built in view finder
3. It gives me access to Leica lenses
4. It is compact, light weight and makes for a great travel camera.

[Jake]

I was looking for something smaller(had a Nikon DSLR), and looked at the fuji's. The build quality felt cheap, had way too many buttons, and the EVF was . . . poor. So I went to the counter where the Leica's were just for giggles because I never saw myself spending that kind of money - but always wanted one. The second I felt the M10 in my hand, and saw the large viewfinder and didn't need any explaining from the sales rep about how to navigate the menu, I knew I was going to look at the CL as an option. With the Fuji's I had a question every 30 seconds. I bought the CL sight unseen after extensive online research, was within my budget (no tax since I had it sent to Oregon), and didn't see myself getting a sony. I couldn't be happier. Exceptional build quality, exceptional glass, has a VF, and takes exceptional images. I never even considered a TL because it has no VF. 

[geoffreyg]

HHave shot with M cameras for years, also larger format. I was nevertheless interested in APS-C sensor cameras, but was intrigued by the  G-9 with the Pana-Leica lenses and smaller size, fast handling. Looked long at the Q2, but don’t like 28mm, and the idea of the always cropping didn’t sit well. Tried the CL, compared to my M240 - they say it doesn’t give much up and that’s true. I am constantly surprised. 

 

So the reasons for the CL: smaller, lighter, faster, and with histogram, more accuracy; with the standard zoom, essentially crop as you wish at the shoot, so more mp to work with in the files. The colors are much nicer than the more clinical Sony; easy and fun use of M lenses. Lots of flexibility. A number of people I respect said it’s a gem, you’ll grow into it. Can be full auto, full mech’l, or in between. With the AF, easy more creative walk around.

Edited June 29, 2019 by geoffreyg

[Pippin]

thanks all for the feedback. Just added a CL with 23mm summicron T to my kit. looking for to wandering with it in hand this weekend 

[PDP]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

I replaced my M240  with it, an happy I have done so. I agree with Paul that it is probably the camera that comes closest to Barnack's original concept. APS-C? It is just a miniature format, like the "Leica 24x36"  The sensor size doesn't prevent it from taking images that bear comparison to any fullframe ones. It punches far above its weight.

exactly my move, it was a good one, never regret

[Ecaton]

1. Because it delivers on the original milc promise of lighter and more compact. 2. Because it is a X with interchangeable lens mount. 3. Because it lets M-lenses show their potential. 4. Because it has the best UI of all aps-c milcs. 5. Because it looks sleek.

[huwm]

Because it's the closest I've found to perfect for me.

But typically I have to have 'back up ' or 2nd camera and the TL2 is perfect? (18mm and carried in pocket or in bag with the 'other lens' ready)

A 2nd CL however is probably even better.

[DaveD1]

I agree with close to perfect. I've had $10,000 in Nikon. A lot less in Canon and Olympus. Light weight, excellent zoom range and images that are amazing to me.  Did I mention the quality of the hardware?

[cirke]

I bought the CL because a M with EVF was not coming any soon

[nicci78]

Right now CL is second best Leica camera available, right after Q2 :

• small and lightweight
• excellent TL lenses
• made to be used with M lenses
• APS-C sensor is best in class. Rivalling 24x36 by offering same image quality as SL, Q or M10
• cheap (for a leica) 1/3 the price of M10
• awesome easy to use user interface. (except for video lovers)

CL can be  your main body, or Q2 partner (for normal, long and ultrawide focal length)

[HeinzX]

I bought it to have a small, light camera with interchangeble and light lenses, as alternative for my SL, when I do not have a need to take the SL gear with me. But keep in mind that for the time beeing the CL requires Leica TL or SL  lenses (which are heayy), when you want to bnefit from all advantages of the system.  And that is costly, when you want more than one lens. Maybe that might change together with the L Alliance, but it is not sure, that Sigma will come up with APS-C lenses and therefore the more heavy lenses for FF will be necessary to use, either from Panasonic or from Sigma (wiil be available in autumn). On the other hand the CL  with the 18-56 only gives you a lot of possibilities and together with an achromat - i.e. from Marumi macros are possible - at least to some extent.  By the way I am really worried about Leicas behaviour regarding the Sigma MC 21 adapter, which should have been a possibility to use Canon EF lenses on the CL and on the SL. I have some  very special ones, and because of specification changes is now not able to do this with the CL and SL. For the SL exists an alternative (I have) but not for the CL. But this is my specific an own situation.

 

[nicci78]

Sigma APS-C mirrorless lenses are coming to L-mount in early 2020

3 DC DN lenses, all f/1.4 : 16mm (24mm) + 30mm (45mm) + 56mm (85mm)

Edited July 8, 2019 by nicci78

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount