Switching from CL to SL2, anyone?

[Kyros Moutsouris]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So my CL with tekiac case/grip is very similar in dimensions to my Z6, so if the new SL2 approximates it’s  size, I’m gonna move to full frame Leica style... Any takers?

[FrozenInTime]

Are not lens sizes a big part of the equation ?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Not me. The CL quality/bulk ratio is too good. There is no way that the SL2 + lenses will match it. If I were to get a new full frame camera -which not- it would be an M10.

[ynp]

Not interested, after having an SL for some time,  I decided that my CL and S2 cover all my photography needs. My M9 is for fun, I just cannot imagine how to live without a Leica rangefinder. 

[lct]

The SL2 won't approximate the Z6 size i fear, rather the SL1 or the Panasonic S1. Bulky body then so i'm not interested at all. 

 

[Le Chef]

Nope: don’t need full frame if I’m only blowing images up to A1 at most. With every “improvement” comes a trade-off that usually throws other things out. For me the balance of IQ to size and weight with the CL is just about perfect and as close to my dear old Olympus OM1 as I can get these days.

[erudolph]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After shooting with an SL since its introduction, with M and R lenses, having found the SL zooms  too big, I got the CL on its introduction, because I wanted to try the TL zooms with a 24mp sensor.  I like the CL very much, although it took some time getting used to the crop factor.  Recently, I've shot some again with the SL and 50mm Apo-Summicron-M and really enjoyed it.  If the SL2 doesn't have noise issues at higher ISOs, I'll be getting one.

[DirkS]

For me the CL was never a compromise. Instead of that the CL is the perfect combination of weight, size and top quality, if you choose the right lenses.  

I`m not a fan of the 18-56, but with Leica 11-23 (what a great lens!!), Pana 24-105, 1,4/35 and a good Tele (Leica or Pana 70-200 + 2x converter) I don`t see a real reason for buying a SL. The SL2 could be a option. But let`s wait for first reports and tests. If the pic quality is really better you`ll have to decide between light top quality and heavier even better quality.   

 

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Kyros Moutsouris said:

So my CL with tekiac case/grip is very similar in dimensions to my Z6, so if the new SL2 approximates it’s  size, I’m gonna move to full frame Leica style... Any takers?

By that argument, what happens when you add a case and grip to the SL? Go medium format?

I have both CL and SL. They serve different needs for me, and there's no way I could confuse one for the other. Lenses are a different matter. I'm thoroughly enjoying the Apo-Summicron-SL 90 on the CL, and not noticing the size/weight. 

[Bill W]

I have been selling off my SL kit. It is just too heavy to lug around at my age. The Z6 or Z7 is much lighter and when you attach a lens to the SL, it is much heavier than a Z with attached lens. FWIW

[bags27]

I fantasize about the SL2 but in my heart know that, like the SL, it'll just be too big.  Will be sticking with the CL. I still like my Q but feel it's sort of an odd thing to keep. I suppose if a TL 11-23 became available, I'd swap my Q for it, though the Q is incredible in low light while the TL zooms are sooo slow.

The TL lenses, while terrific for what they are, won't have the resale value of the L or M lenses, and are somewhat compromised unless one is using the 1/2 sensor or a full sensor with more mps. And I'm not convinced that long term Leica will stand by the format, and then the lenses will be orphaned and have much less resale value. 

[nicci78]

http://mizuwari.fr/index.php/2019/09/09/le-leica-m9-a-dix-ans-entretien-avec-stefan-daniel-pere-du-premier-hybride-24-x-36-mm/

Don’t worry in its latest interview Stefan Daniel said that future is bright. Digital camera market is still way bigger than best days of film photography market. It is  4 to 5 times bigger in value.

He also said that m4/3 and APS-C will always exists. Because of the size advantage. Therefore Leica will stand behind its APS-C line and support it for many years. 

 

But I think that I will buy the SL2. But not as a replacement of CL.

I really want the new APO-Summicron-SL line. Keeping both CL and SL2 should make sense. With CL as 1.5x doubling body 

Edited September 17, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

New SL2 user interface will make it a no brainer, for people using it alongside CL and Q2.

You should be able to use same profiles and to assign same option choice to your function buttons and quick menu.  

In AF mode, all three cameras will work similarly  

in MF mode Q2 will work the same way as SL2 or CL + M lenses  

 

Pairing 3 APO-Summicron-SL with SL2 & CL will get you access to 6 useful focal lengths

Ex : 24mm (36mm) + 50mm (75mm) + 90mm (135mm)

Or 21mm (32mm) + 35mm (52mm) + 75mm (112mm)

 

However SL2 APS-C crop mode with 21MP could make CL redundant.

[jaapv]

If the SL2 has more MP than the CL, the "1.5x extender" argument is no longer valid. An SL2 image cropped to APS-C will have a similar resolution as a CL image, as you note in your addendum.

That means the only choice will be:

A high-MP P&S Q
A high-MP full-sized system SL2
A compact system CL

I see only few scenarios where it makes sense to combine these cameras and SL2 + Q makes the most sense, with the Q as carry-everywhere and the SL2 as heavy-duty option for "pro-type" use.

The CL will remain a compact system for those that do not need more than 24 MP, high-level video or extreme mechanical  robustness (95% of photographers)

Edit: I doubt whether a hypothetical CL2 will exceed 24 MP. I think that would create quality loss on the smaller format and push the diffraction limit down too much.

 

 

[nicci78]

Yes I know the CL advantage will be quite slight with 24MP vs 20.1MP.

Only 9% of more linear resolution 

[nicci78]

Of course if SL2 have IBIS, CL will be disadvantaged with longer focal length. 

Time will tell, if there is any reason to keep CL along with SL2. Especially if we already got a Q2 as a more compact camera.

[jaapv]

Indeed. Or spend money on an SL2 that offers qualities one will never need - like MPs that only show up at 100% crop and print sizes that only very few will use. IBIS can be useful, but many of us have developed slow-shutter shooting skills over the years that are quite effective.

[LocalHero1953]

I would pick the CL over the Q every time, for the consistency of image resolution, and the wider range of FL and perspective options. And I would not 'pair' the CL or Q with the SL, in the sense of taking them together - they are entirely different use scenarios. I didn't get the compact and light CL in order to carry the SL around with it!

But as cameras to keep in the cupboard so you can pick the right one at the right time, I agree that having the SL/SL2 sharing shelf space with a CL or Q is very attractive.

[nicci78]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

 I doubt whether a hypothetical CL2 will exceed 24 MP. I think that would create quality loss on the smaller format and push the diffraction limit down too much.

 

 

Don't know if CL2 will reach higher MP, or we should wait for CL3. But I think that APS-C can settle easily at 36MP. 

It is the Canon 2019 route : 32.5MP for its 1.6x crop sensor + soon to be announced scaled up version 24x36 at a whopping 83.2MP

Both sensor sizes have the same pixel density as 20MP m4/3

May be the last reasonable step for digital photography. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by nicci78

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Possibly. I never saw much advantage by the step from 16 to 20 MP in MFT either. The amount of detail increased marginally, but an argument could be made for loss of quality of the detail.