Leica CL vs Q Popularity

[Stevinci]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read several threads about the Leica CL vs the Q, yet I've yet to see anyone highlight what happens on the used market with these cameras.  The Q is an older camera yet blows the CL out  of the water in terms of appeal.  You don't believe me?   Scan Ebay auctions over the next few weeks and see how many Leica Qs sell vs the Leica CL.   I nearly bought a CL with the 18-56mm kit lens. I'm glad I didn't.  This is clear that I'd take a beating on resale in case I didn't like it.    I know some users love the CL and I respect this, but I wouldn't believe anyone who claimed that the CL has anywhere close to the level of respect and appeal as the Q in the resale market.  Am I missing something?  Maybe Q owners are simply more realistic.  This is common  to find a Leica Q listed in an auction format with a low opening price.  This is rare to see the CL listed at a low starting price in auction format.  

[lct]

Welcome to the forum . I would have thought that more Qs are available for the simple reason that several Q owners want to buy a Q2 whereas there is no CL2 on the market yet and the CL has no competitor but i may be wrong. Now try to put a telephoto on the Q. Different beast, i would not buy one at any price but it's just me. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by lct

[Advertisement]

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

[Stevinci]

There are many Leica CL digital cameras for sale on Ebay, they simply aren't sellling.  I've only seen one Leica CL sell in the past couple of weeks and that's because the seller accepted $2,200 for a basically new black CL with the 18-56mm lens.  That was a bargain. I had literally just purchased a used silver Leica Q off of Ebay right before I saw the CL listed or I might have gone after the CL kit.  I've been torn between the two cameras.  Typical of Leica, things are rarely clear cut.   I've had the feeling as others have that the CL is overpriced even by Leica standards, and what I've seen on Ebay seems to confirm this opinion.  Or - as I said - Leica CL sellers do not want to give in yet to the marketplace.  They aren't dropping the prices even though the cameras aren't selling.

[jaapv]

Respect? Appeal? Who cares? These are cameras, they are made to take photographs. Which is precisely what to do, pretty well too. Nor are ebay sales very interesting. We all know that digital cameras lose their value pretty quickly. If an amateur one writes off the camera against pleasure the first minute of ownership, if professional against taxes over a few years. What hopeful punters try to gain on eBay has little or no relevance in real life.

[Stevinci]

Appeal = quality and perceived value.   Sales are very real. Sales say more than reviews.  Photographers are smart people.  We vote with our pocketbooks.  The CL may be an excellent camera but it's clearly overpriced or it would sell on Ebay.   The Leica Q is different.   For the person who owns a Leica CL and enjoys it, none of this matters.  For someone like myself who has wondered which camera to buy, this has been another factor to consider.  I could buy a used Leica Q and play with it and sell it within a few months and not lose much if at all.  This is not the case with the CL.  

Edited August 16, 2019 by Stevinci

[lct]

So much the better if you like the Q but what are you trying to demonstrate? That the CL should be less expensive? I thought the same about the SL and i was right apparently but the CL has no competitor to me so i doubt that Leica will lower its price but again i may be wrong.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you've come to the wrong forum. You need a financial investment forum.

Neither a Q nor a CL make financial sense, unless you're being paid to take photos with either of them.

[jaapv]

What has eBay to do with the number of cameras Leica sells? I notice that most CLs in there are from Japan. Who knows, maybe the market is flooded over there. That they don't sell used may just as well mean that the camera is affordable enough for people to prefer new.
And again, who cares? A photographer buys a camera to take photographs with, not to use as a chip in some kind of financial statistic.
The CL is not cheap for an APS-c mirrorless, the Q is weirdly expensive for a point-and-shoot. Still Leica manages to exceed their sales targets comfortably. It appears that the users find them value for money.

Buying a camera because it is popular on the used market appears to me to be a wobbly basis for good photography.

[Marac]

Maybe have a look at a Sony or Fuji

[RickP]

Please excuse my ramblings. 

       I have owned the Leica Q in the past.  It was capable of taking, what I considered to be, the sharpest - most colorful photos - in even  dim light, of any hand held camera I have ever used.  It comes equipped with one of the finest Leica lenses ever made - (that lens,  originally designed for the M system, costs around $5000 by itself) -

     The one and only problem of the Q for me, was that it is a fixed focal length .  28mm field of view is just perfect for landscapes, street photography, even close up macro shots with the Q. 

      However, as a one camera kit, it is frustrating when you need a longer focal length.  I took it on one trip - to New Orleans - the shots I got were wonderful... the shots I couldn't get were enough for me  to sell the camera as soon as I got back!  It was a tough decision, but for me, there was no sense in having it if I still had to carry another body and lens along with it.

       The Q appeals to far more people than the CL or TL.  On one level, it is a very effective point and shoot... it takes little time to learn how to  work it.  Any 'wanabe'  photographer with $4500 in his pocket  can own one, and start shooting immediately. In the hands of a 'Pro' the results can be astounding.  Of course there is no quick way to develop the ability to see a good photograph -  ie. develop what we call the 'Eye'.  So snap shots with a great camera like the Q are still 'Snap Shots' . 

       Enter the CL and TL2 - Leica quality, a really nice choice of Leica lenses available … a complete system for most styles of shooting.  Unfortunately, the price point of the Cl with one Leica zoom already approaches the cost of the Q... get 3 or 4 lenses, you are up to $8000 easily.  Plus, as a system camera, it takes quite a bit of time and effort to learn how to use it effectively.

      Hence the widespread popularity of the Q vs. the TL/CL systems.  

 

     Camera values go up and down with  popularity, and availability... period!

 

Rick

 

 

[Bill W]

I never really warmed up to the Q. Just me but a fixed focal length camera is essentially a point and shoot. Now before you flame me, the Q is certainly a fabulous camera for what it is and the Q2 even more so. I would love to know how many Q units are out there compared to CL. I initially thought of the CL as just another APSC thingy but I read and read about it. I was so tired of the weight of the SL that I finally bought the CL kit. I loved it so much I bought a second body and have 6 lens. I am in the process of selling my SL system. Just my journey, yours may be different.

[Le Chef]

I looked at both the CL and the Q before I bought, taking both out on long test drives courtesy of a very helpful AD here in Chicago. Much as I like the Q, I realized that not all the shots I wanted to take fitted into the FoV of the Q. In my case I’m sure as a second camera the Q would be wonderful, but not as my primary camera. 

Would I sell my CL for something else? Doubtful - more likely add a CL2 body whenever that comes along.

[mdp]

I'm not really sure about the point of this thread, but anyway...

I think the most accurate gauge on resale values of Leicas is at Leica dealers, which is where I've traded them in the past. At my preferred dealer in London, top grade Q's sell for 78% of the new price, where as CL's of the same grade sell for 84% of new. 

 

[bags27]

I'm going to try to block this thread: very first time since joining. There is actually some hidden merit in this question, but as it is posed, it is vulgar.

[Boojay]

53 minutes ago, bags27 said:

I'm going to try to block this thread: very first time since joining. There is actually some hidden merit in this question, but as it is posed, it is vulgar.

Think I tend to agree with Bags on this one.

To OP,  not sure why you should be comparing the two - or looking at eBay results.  What does that prove - what is it YOU want.  Very different beasts - crop/ FF, ILC/ Fixed.  

Ebay used price would never be something I based my purchase plans on.  This from owner of CL Q M (digital and analogue).

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Boojay

[Charadis]

30 minutes ago, Boojay said:

Think I tend to agree with Bags on this one.

To OP,  not sure why you should be comparing the two - or looking at eBay results.  What does that prove - what is it YOU want.  Very different beasts - crop/ FF, ILC/ Fixed.  

Ebay used price would never be something I based my purchase plans on.  This from owner of CL Q M (digital and analogue).

 

My guess is that the OP is concerned about the return potential when taking a chance with the CL system. It could be discouraging for someone who just wants to give the camera a try, but prefers peace of mind getting his/her money back in months/years later if it doesn’t work out or they want to upgrade. 

The lowest I’ve seen the body-only in complete used condition go for was 1795 shipped for a silver in 10- condition through Leica Store SF. Still higher than what I paid for my TL brand new

[Le Chef]

It would be interesting to know (as a point of comparison) why people bought the CL and why they then sold it. Unlikely that Leica would do this kind of study as it's not cheap to execute, but it would be useful data for developing the CL2.

[Stevinci]

Thank you Rick and Charadis for your thoughtful feedback.  I love Leica cameras!  I'm in the camp that says that the Leica look is real.  We can't explain it, but those of us who see it are captivated by it.  Photography is an art, and the end product that matters most is the image quality.  I've tried out several Leicas since I first got my X2 in 2013:   X Vario, X1, Digilux 2, T, and M8.2.   I only learned about the CL recently (because I've been on a healthy break from looking to buy anything else), and I was excited at first.  Oh boy, finally a real up to date equivalent of the Digilux 2.   I loved the results I got with the Digilux 2.  The electronic viewfinder on the Digilux 2 is laughably bad, yet I still found it helpful.  You can follow then why when I heard about the CL, I thought it would a great camera to try.  Usually, with a Leica camera, you can buy a used one and not worry too much about a loss, because the camera retains its value if sold within a reasonable time after purchase.  The Ebay observation was a disappointing surprise.  I'm not saying the Leica Q is better than the CL or vice versa.  How could I?  I haven't tried either camera!   I was simply noting that in terms of resale, I noticed that the Leica Q is a safer investment.  I'd rent the cameras if I thought I could figure things out in a week.  

[lct]

The market is the market. I have no idea about that but are you just complaining or are you expecting Leica (or the LUF?) to help you? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[nicci78]

Yes Q is more attractive than CL. 

Because Q is one of the three most sold Leica ever with M3 and M6. 

Q is a really special camera  It is an excellent first Leica camera. Before getting hooked and what’s best if in need of another focal length ? CL of course. Or maybe the SL if are strong and wealthy enough. Or any M from the M3 to the M10 if you want to experience the real Leica. 

However CL can be your sole camera. Sadly Q cannot. 

But Q has the excellent Summilux-Q that nobody has. So it is a must have. 

If you have M lenses. CL is an excellent choice. 

Every TL lenses for CL are also excellent.