Leica CL vs Q Popularity

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Searches for sold items of any kind give you an idea of the current actual market value of items you might be interested in as determined directly by the market, since Ebay is an auction site. Never mistake the BIN listings for the actual market value, on anything. 

I bought my CL body-only, new, at the dealer in SF. Been 100% satisfied with it: was well worth the full MSRP asking price IMO. And even then, he threw in a couple hundred dollars worth of extras based on Leica promotions at the time I bought. The CL has replaced my SL and my M system cameras, it's that good. The Q could not do that, not at all, because of the fixed lens. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

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

[terrycioni]

When the Q hit the stores in Canada I bought one! For almost a year I had a 5000$ 28mm point and shoot, albeit a Leica point and shoot. For the first few months I loved it but I began to miss the ICL aspect of photography. I sold it and moved down (image size) to APS-C and finally got to the CL. It is a great camera, doesn't get in the way of your shooting style and the lenses are amazing. You have to shoot the TL lenses to realize how good they really are.

Recently I had the extended loan of a Sony A6400 and after using it I wouldn't contemplate switching from the CL to the A6400. In my opinion (my opinion) the Sony is the opposite - the interface demands your time and attention away from the shooting experience. There are no AF APS-C lenses from Sony or anyone else that can match the Leica TL lenses, including the new Sigma 16/30/56 Art lenses.

If you want Leica quality in an APS-C ILC then the choice is simple the CL or TL2 with those amazing lenses. If you want a full frame point and shoot you have two choices the 35mm F2 Sony RXR1MKII or the 28mm Leica Q/Leica Q2. 

I enjoy photography and I am not worried about sales figures or if my choice is going to hold it's value - I want to use the gear. The Q and the CL are made to be used!

Cheers, Terry

Edited August 23, 2019 by terrycioni

[Stevinci]

Thanks.  I enjoy reading others' feedback.  I followed through on the idea to visit the Leica Store in Washington, DC this weekend since I was in town.   This is a great store in an interesting city - a win win.  I was able to handle a black CL with the 15-56mm lens and the 23 mm lens with the handgrip and thumb rest.  I also got to handle a used Leica Q.  They didn't have any Q2 which is on back order.  I also saw the silver CL.   The CL is a nice size. I was surprised how solid/heavy it felt.  I liked the handgrip and the thumb grip, too.  Nice viewfinder!  I missed the more ordinary type dials like the Leica X2 has and the Q has them as well in terms of the marked ring.  The Q, in contrast, felt lighter than I expected.  I expected the Q to feel like a heavy M camera.  Again, what a lovely viewfinder.  The Q with the handgrip felt a little big for my hands.   The CL was the opposite and I like the added size with the handgrip.   Of course, with an in-store hand holding, I couldn't tell this much except I'd hope the CL2 would revert back to more traditional dials.   Both cameras felt good to hold.   The store also had a used TL2, but I didn't feel any desire to hold that. I'd like a viewfinder.  

[geoffreyg]

Shared your original reluctance about the dials, and initial felt lost sometimes...Then decided to simply always shoot in one mode (manual) and either with the auto focus lenses or the manual focus ones. Set up both the same (left dial as either fstop or focus confirmation) to lessen the thinking. Use a lens for 5 minutes, and it comes to mind easily. The trick is to limit the number of options. 

 

[Stevinci]

I can relate to the thought to limit the number of options.  Even as I played with the Leica CL 18-56mm lens in the store,  I wondered whether I would enjoy the zoom lens or would I find it a distraction.   I've felt satisfied in the past couple of years to limit myself to the fixed 35mm lens of the Leica X2.  Conversely, I got myself into such a mental muddle about what lens to get with the Leica M8.2 that I had purchased that I decided to give the M8.2 to a friend to use.  He quickly figured out and found the lens he wanted to use - the Leica Elmar 24mm.  I admired his decisiveness.  Regardless, I'm thankful that I had the chance to stop by the Leica Store in DC today. What a treat. 

[Mr.Q]

Leica store in Japan says they sell 4-5 Leica Q's for every APS-C camera (TL2 + CL).

I'm not sure if that holds true in other countries, but in Japan, the Leica Q is at least 5 times as popular.

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Leica store in Japan says they sell 4-5 Leica Q's for every APS-C camera (TL2 + CL).

I'm not sure if that holds true in other countries, but in Japan, the Leica Q is at least 5 times as popular.

Maybe those Japanese customers already have TLs and CLs and are just adding a Q. No way to tell

[Mr.Q]

10 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Maybe those Japanese customers already have TLs and CLs and are just adding a Q. No way to tell

Perhaps, but the math doesn't add up unless every CL/TL user is buying multiple Q's lol

The bottom line is that the Q cameras are a mega-hit for Leica. The CL/TL2 isn't necessarily unpopular, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how much buzz there is surrounding the Q/Q2. There are waiting lists even for the damn battery!

[Le Chef]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Perhaps, but the math doesn't add up unless every CL/TL user is buying multiple Q's lol

The bottom line is that the Q cameras are a mega-hit for Leica. The CL/TL2 isn't necessarily unpopular, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how much buzz there is surrounding the Q/Q2. There are waiting lists even for the damn battery!

Your math doesn’t make sense, but no matter.

[ramarren]

The CL replaced my Ms. I had both at the same time for over a year. I found that the quality I was getting was as close to identical as you can get, the CL was lighter and easier to use, and when push came to shove, the one I grabbed more than 90% of the time was the CL. It is also more versatile since I can fit any of my long tele and macro equipment (R system) to it as well. I sold the M. 

I use the CL exclusively with my M-mount and R-mount lenses, as well as with a couple of Nikon F mount lenses (like my ultra-cheap and crappy Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror tele  ). It has done thousands of frames of table-top work, negative and small-print photo copy work, as well as been my only camera (with 28 and 50mm lenses) on two extended travel occasions. The CL does it all with ease, grace, and excellent quality. Neither the M-D typ 262 nor the Q could have done what the CL does so easily. 

What camera other people buy more of means nothing to my use or needs. I don't care what dealers in Japan or Oshkosh have to say about it... 

I find it best to make my own decisions by trying out the equipment I think will work for a good bit of time. The cost incurred when things don't work out through the depreciation of resale is the cost of my education, which I accept. 

[jaapv]

17 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Leica store in Japan says they sell 4-5 Leica Q's for every APS-C camera (TL2 + CL).

I'm not sure if that holds true in other countries, but in Japan, the Leica Q is at least 5 times as popular.

Basically, who cares. In general, point-and shoots are far more popular than system cameras.Why should Leica be different?

[Mr.Q]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Basically, who cares. In general, point-and shoots are far more popular than system cameras.Why should Leica be different?

I'm just responding to the title of this thread. If you don't care and have nothing to add, why respond?

[jaapv]

Well, what is your idea then about different sales for different camera types? It is quite possible, were Leica to bring out a bridge camera in the CL or Q class, that it would outsell both. Disclaimer: I don’t think such a camera is feasible at present. So yes, I am pointing out that this thread is comparing apples to oranges.( And introducing a hypothetical lemon 🤪)

[Stevinci]

I started this thread, yet I still laughed to read Japp's latest response:  "Basically, who cares."  Ha! It's true.  When I first heard about the Leica Q, I couldn't understand the enthusiasm for the camera other than this was Leica's first point and shoot with an EVF.   I realize now that it's a lot more than this.   The Q didn't have any direct predecessor. The CL shares a lot with the T series including the same lenses. This quickly dawned on me that the Leica Q lens is newer than the TL 18-56mm lens which I'd likely use with the CL.  I'm glad I got to hold both cameras.  I could see the appeal in owning either one.

 

[Stevinci]

For better or worse,  I can be influenced by reviews and sales.  The Leica Q clearly has more universally, enthusiastic reviews.   The reviews of the CL are more mixed and in some cases, the same reviewers who loved the Q had significant reservations about the CL.  I realize, though, that the concept of popularity as applied to Leica cameras is very iffy!   This is easy to forget in this forum that many people do not know what Leica is.  I had to go to a Leica Store to see the CL in person.   There's not many Leica Stores worldwide.  I'm currently renting a room temporarily with someone who was an artist and photographer in his younger days, and he never heard of Leica.  This surprised me, yet I hadn't heard of Leica, either, until I got married in 2007 and the wedding photographer used Leica cameras.  I wanted the wedding shot in film, because I wasn't convinced that digital had caught up yet to film in terms of image quality.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Stevinci

[Mr.Q]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, what is your idea then about different sales for different camera types? It is quite possible, were Leica to bring out a bridge camera in the CL or Q class, that it would outsell both. Disclaimer: I don’t think such a camera is feasible at present. So yes, I am pointing out that this thread is comparing apples to oranges.( And introducing a hypothetical lemon 🤪)

The way I see it, the aging demographic of the Leica M camera was a concern for Leica, and the Q was a godsend as it became a gateway camera for new customers. The Q was not only the more popular camera, but more important for Leica.

Who cares? I'm sure the folks over at Wetzlar care, and quite frankly we should care too, as more sales means more innovation from Leica moving forward.

[BXL Gotham]

On 8/15/2019 at 9:38 PM, Stevinci said:

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.  

There are countless competitors the the CL. The XT-30 for starters. The Q has only the SONY RX1. I think it is unique in being a fixed lens, fairly compact FF camera puts it in a different tier of appeal to the ILC ASPC of which options abound.