Jump to content
eev776

CL vs. Q2 which one to purchase?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

For your use, wouldn't a Leica S or the upcoming SL2 be more suitable?

I photographed with SL few times before, it's a fantastic camera, but too large and too heavy. That is why I like CL, it can be with me everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eev776 said:

Great that you have two, my question is - how is CL handles night cityscapes images comparing with Q?  Is APSC on CL can do same quality as Q full frame in dark situations, or how much is difference? 

I have not  used the CL at night yet, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Night shots as an ultimate reason to change systems is dubious in my view. It’s a white balance thing I presume and if so, it is more a postprocessing ability. A Q or a CL can come out just as over-oranged as a Sony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Given that you:

1) like high resolution
2) mainly shoot subjects that require high-ISO and wide dynamic range
3) don't like big and heavy cameras

I think your only choices are Nikon Z7, Sony A7RIII or IV, and Hasselblad X1D or II.
As for night shots, don't forget that Leica cameras are handicapped by LENR and shutter speeds at high ISO.

Edited by Mr.Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eev776 said:

II was thinking to upgrade to a7R III, but final thoughts - NO MORE SONY, I had enough!

I have a Sony A7R III , the files with 85 1.4 GM or any good prime lenses are amazing , but I hate the body aesthetics and ergonomics, it is a camera for engineers or pilots of planes but not for photographers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Buy both. Q2 and CL are made for each other. 
Almost same UI. 

If money were no object I would buy the CL and the SL -- use the same lenses on both at two different EFOV values, take the CL when travelling light and use the SL when ultimate quality is essential.  Theoretically of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are trying to decide to .."get CL or...." .... And then you go on: ".....images I took with the CL...". Are you Chuck Norris or Ken Rockwell, i.e. can you take pictures with cameras not in your possession yet??B):wacko:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rob_w said:

If money were no object I would buy the CL and the SL -- use the same lenses on both at two different EFOV values, take the CL when travelling light and use the SL when ultimate quality is essential.  Theoretically of course.

My plan (maybe): swap the Q (and a whole lot of money) for an SL2, if it's just a wee bit smaller than the SL. But honestly, having the Q and CL using the same batteries counts for a whole lot in my book. A great combo and very easy to carry together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 1:28 AM, cirke said:

I have a Sony A7R III , the files with 85 1.4 GM or any good prime lenses are amazing , but I hate the body aesthetics and ergonomics, it is a camera for engineers or pilots of planes but not for photographers

I have Sony a7R and I hate it for the same reason, plus it's falling apart after extensive use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 5:32 AM, rob_w said:

If money were no object I would buy the CL and the SL -- use the same lenses on both at two different EFOV values, take the CL when travelling light and use the SL when ultimate quality is essential.  Theoretically of course.

Thank you, sounds like a good advise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 10:52 AM, Ecaton said:

You are trying to decide to .."get CL or...." .... And then you go on: ".....images I took with the CL...". Are you Chuck Norris or Ken Rockwell, i.e. can you take pictures with cameras not in your possession yet??B):wacko:

 

I just went to Los Angeles Leica Store in West Hollywood with my memory card and they let me to take pictures to compare them at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the CL half frame dose not have to imply much inferior image quality, I feel Leica is intentionally making a significant gap between the Full frame M/SL and the half frame CL/TL lines for the marketing sake. I think it will take a while before seeing the TL/CL new lenses that reveal their full potential capability. Be prepared to see the superiority of The full frame SL or M lines to C!L and to live with SL les portability and M less automatic.

Q and Q2 would be the answer for those who want the M portability and the SL automatics as well as its upgraded class of IQ over M, albeit with the limitation of fixed lens.  This limitation is not a not problem at all among many M fans as lots of  M cameras are permanently  attached to only one lens anyway.

I think Q or Q2 would be a better choice for you for now, and be prepared sooner or later you might want M or SL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful with the SL , it is supposed to be a pro camera but Leica  flash system is not good and you cannot use Godox with it (a reason why I keep my Sony)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

While the CL half frame dose not have to imply much inferior image quality, I feel Leica is intentionally making a significant gap between the Full frame M/SL and the half frame CL/TL lines for the marketing sake. I think it will take a while before seeing the TL/CL new lenses that reveal their full potential capability. Be prepared to see the superiority of The full frame SL or M lines to C!L and to live with SL les portability and M less automatic.

Q and Q2 would be the answer for those who want the M portability and the SL automatics as well as its upgraded class of IQ over M, albeit with the limitation of fixed lens.  This limitation is not a not problem at all among many M fans as lots of  M cameras are permanently  attached to only one lens anyway.

I think Q or Q2 would be a better choice for you for now, and be prepared sooner or later you might want M or SL. 

 

Great advise thanks, I'm thinking to go with Q2 finally, megapixels and shooting in the dark conditions is very important for my work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 17 Stunden schrieb Einst_Stein:

While the CL half frame dose not have to imply much inferior image quality, I feel Leica is intentionally making a significant gap between the Full frame M/SL and the half frame CL/TL lines for the marketing sake. I think it will take a while before seeing the TL/CL new lenses that reveal their full potential capability.  

 

I think you`re wrong.

1. Leica just gave us the great 11-23 zoom,  en excellent lens.

2. You can use all Leica SL-lenses on a CL, too. So there are more lenses available for the CL than for the SL.

3. You can use all L-Mount lenses from other manufactors (from Pana, Sigma, etc.) on a CL. You can use all Leica M- and R-Lenses on a CL. 

I really can`t see your gap at all.

 

 

Edited by DirkS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 10:17 PM, jaapv said:

Weird - "APS-C freaks me out". reminds me of the comments Barnack got when he introduced 24 x 36 miniature film... 

I didn't know you'd been around that long, Jaap! 😉

Big plus of the CL would be the ability to attach an ultra W/A for architectural photos. A 28mm lens on the Q has an AOV of 76 degrees; if you fit a 21mm-equiv. lens on the CL the AOV is 92 degrees. A big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 28mm lens has a 28mm FoV on the Q2 vs 28 x 1.5 = 42mm on the CL. The latter would need a 18/2 to compete in low light. Now the Q2 has only 7MP at 75mm so it is less than "half frame" from this viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cirke said:

be careful with the SL , it is supposed to be a pro camera but Leica  flash system is not good and you cannot use Godox with it (a reason why I keep my Sony)

I've been using Godox flashes and triggers on my SL for more than a year. If you mean it can't use Godox flashes in TTL mode, that's true for all flashes other than Leica's own. Yes, it would be nice if Leica used a more industry-compatible system, but then I don't use TTL mode - it's like using P mode for autoexposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I've been using Godox flashes and triggers on my SL for more than a year. If you mean it can't use Godox flashes in TTL mode, that's true for all flashes other than Leica's own. Yes, it would be nice if Leica used a more industry-compatible system, but then I don't use TTL mode - it's like using P mode for autoexposure.

TTL mode with exposure compensation is very practical to use , actually Godox flashes are not working on Leica s camera as they should

 

Quote

it's like using P mode for autoexposure.

no !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy