Q vs CL & 35mm

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, so its not a head to head I am talking about, but more an approx shooting experience

I have actually shot with a Q and a CL in the past (although with a 18-56mm) and liked both

At the moment I have heavy FF cameras and want a lighter walk about, and would only be using these when I can't be bothered carrying my other stuff.

From my memory the Q has outstanding IQ but doing 50mm equiv sheds a large amount of pixels. Effectively the main limitation is the fixed lens, although most of the time its also a liberation.

The CL on the other hand is slightly not as good at handling, doesn't have OIS and doesn't have the ultimate clarity but does keep the possibility open of other lenses open, and a small consideration but being able change lenses allows me to avoid the depreceiation on the body for longer. The cost of both kits second hand is very similar.

What other differences have I missed, to those that have both ?

What do you guys think about the choice ?

I just can't decide ...

 

[ramosa]

I have used the Q extensively, but--unfortunately--not the CL. The IQ, as many have said, is excellent. I personally don't like viewing a camera in terms of expected cropping and, thus, never shot the Q in one of the crop modes. (Of course, there is nothing wrong with the cropped approach in general; it's just not to my liking.) If, these days, I were consider a fixed-lens camera to crop from 28mm to 35mm, however, I would ponder the Q2 with its larger sensor. (Of course, that ups the cost from the Q.)

[bags27]

I have the Q and CL. Since getting the CL (used), I have to remind myself to pay some attention to the Q.

I do think the Q has a slightly better IQ. It should; not only FF, but a dedicated and integrated lens. However, I do prefer the CL, and likely, if the incredible 11-23 lens were available, I'd swap the Q for it (a pretty even trade). Yes, the CL is a little more challenging to use, but I like that challenge, and I actually prefer the aesthetics coming out of the camera. It's a bit closer to film than the fantastic, but digital look from the Q. In fact, one of my lenses is the Zeiss 50 f/1.5 which is famously film-like in draw. And I'm on the look out for a reasonably (ha ha ha) priced Leica 35 f/2 version 2 for the same reason.

What I'd miss about the Q is that, with OIS and a Summi lens, it's a real "Ko"nig der Nacht"; and the fantastic macro. But life is full of choices! I love the flexibility of the CL and its aesthetic draw.

Edited July 2, 2019 by bags27

[Jared]

Is 50mm your preferred focal length?  If so, the CL is probably the better choice.  You're just giving away too many megapixels cropping the Q that much.  The Q is perfectly usable at 50mm for almost any purpose, but if that's the focal length I was going to find the most fun I'd choose the CL instead.  The Q is effectively a 7MP f/3 equivalent 50mm full frame camera while the CL with the lens you mentioned is effectively a 24MP f/2 equivalent 50mm full frame camera.  The CL is going to be a bit heavier (because the 35mm 'Lux is a big, heavy lens by APS-C standards), but it's still small and light enough for you to carry around for a day and not really be bothered.

Some comments on each:

- The CL is the more flexible camera simply because you can put a variety of lenses on it

- The 18-56 is a surprisingly good lens, but slooooowwww (aperture, not AF) so you get limited control over depth of field

- The 35 on the CL is easily a match image quality wise for the 28mm on the Q, but they are very different fields of view; the 28mm on the Q is technically superior to any of the other CL lenses with the possible exception of the 60mm macro which is really solid in its own right

- The EVF in the CL is dramatically better than that in the Q

- The Q is a better choice as a general use camera if you are limited to one lens.  

This all gets much closer if you are talking about the Q2 instead.  I'd probably still give the edge to the CL at the 50mm focal length in particular, but not by much, and the Q2 solves quite a few of the niggling problems with the original Q.  

I guess the real thing to decide is whether you would be OK with just the one lens on the CL, and whether you really shoot the vast majority of your shots at that one focal length.

[colonel]

13 hours ago, Jérôme said:

I have used the Q extensively, but--unfortunately--not the CL.  If, these days, I were consider a fixed-lens camera to crop from 28mm to 35mm, however, I would ponder the Q2 with its larger sensor. (Of course, that ups the cost from the Q.)

I agree, the Q2 would give much more effective zoom flexibility, but unfortunately currently outside my budget

13 hours ago, bags27 said:

I have the Q and CL. Since getting the CL (used), I have to remind myself to pay some attention to the Q.

I do think the Q has a slightly better IQ. It should; not only FF, but a dedicated and integrated lens. However, I do prefer the CL, and likely, if the incredible 11-23 lens were available, I'd swap the Q for it (a pretty even trade). Yes, the CL is a little more challenging to use, but I like that challenge, and I actually prefer the aesthetics coming out of the camera. It's a bit closer to film than the fantastic, but digital look from the Q. In fact, one of my lenses is the Zeiss 50 f/1.5 which is famously film-like in draw. And I'm on the look out for a reasonably (ha ha ha) priced Leica 35 f/2 version 2 for the same reason.

What I'd miss about the Q is that, with OIS and a Summi lens, it's a real "Ko"nig der Nacht"; and the fantastic macro. But life is full of choices! I love the flexibility of the CL and its aesthetic draw.

Very interesting. Yes the CL2 will probably having OIS but the life cycle, including second hand market, would be years off even when it arrives.

I am more interested in your digital vs draw point. This is important for me and I never thought about it before.

13 hours ago, Jared said:

Is 50mm your preferred focal length?  If so, the CL is probably the better choice.  You're just giving away too many megapixels cropping the Q that much.  The Q is perfectly usable at 50mm for almost any purpose, but if that's the focal length I was going to find the most fun I'd choose the CL instead.  The Q is effectively a 7MP f/3 equivalent 50mm full frame camera while the CL with the lens you mentioned is effectively a 24MP f/2 equivalent 50mm full frame camera.  The CL is going to be a bit heavier (because the 35mm 'Lux is a big, heavy lens by APS-C standards), but it's still small and light enough for you to carry around for a day and not really be bothered.

Some comments on each:

- The CL is the more flexible camera simply because you can put a variety of lenses on it

- The 18-56 is a surprisingly good lens, but slooooowwww (aperture, not AF) so you get limited control over depth of field

- The 35 on the CL is easily a match image quality wise for the 28mm on the Q, but they are very different fields of view; the 28mm on the Q is technically superior to any of the other CL lenses with the possible exception of the 60mm macro which is really solid in its own right

- The EVF in the CL is dramatically better than that in the Q

- The Q is a better choice as a general use camera if you are limited to one lens.  

This all gets much closer if you are talking about the Q2 instead.  I'd probably still give the edge to the CL at the 50mm focal length in particular, but not by much, and the Q2 solves quite a few of the niggling problems with the original Q.  

I guess the real thing to decide is whether you would be OK with just the one lens on the CL, and whether you really shoot the vast majority of your shots at that one focal length.

50mm is only occasional but yes its not a high quality setting on the Q if I remember correctly. 

I agree that the 18-56mm is awesome, but just too slow for a prime shooter like me. Interesting you think the 35mm TL is a match for the 28mm Q and also that the EVF is better!!!

I think to like the Q you need to be a 28mm or at a pinch, a 35mm shooter, most of the time. This bill fits me. Now a 2.8 compact zoom for the CL (28-50 ?), that would be something

[scroy]

I have the Q2 + CL.The Q2 is now my walk around, everyday camera. I believe the on-the-spot macro capability is very underrated. The IQ from the CL+35mm Summilux is absolutely fantastic and I tend to use the CL combo when I want to concentrate on 50mm FoV or I travel in reasonably good weather with multiple lenses.  

The SL comes out for weddings, events, portraits, landscapes, etc...

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are a 28mm/35mm type of shooter more than 50mm AND you plan on keeping your larger camera(s) for when you need more focal length, I would get the Q despite the inferior EVF.  The lens is fantastic and the controls are, in my view, more intuitive than those on the CL. Having built-in macro, even in a 28mm lens, is a bonus.  And the EVF is perfectly usable even with the strange color fringing/blurring.  I wouldn’t worry too much about images looking too “digital” with either.  You’ll learn the settings that give you what you want and just save a pre-set.

If this will be your only camera, get the CL. You can’t beet the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. 

[Mr.Q]

Given that you have other FF cameras and seeking a lighter load, the last thing I'd do is buy into another system. I think you'd be better off purchasing smaller lenses for your FF cameras. I had the CL briefly, but felt it lacking in features and the lens lineup limiting compared my Fuji APS-C system. And despite what others said, I felt the IQ was inferior to the Q and M10P (which I had at the time) Like you said, the Q/Q2 is liberating because you never have to think about changing lenses. Just take the camera out and shoot. There's no need to complicate things by adding an APS-C system.