Jump to content
eev776

CL vs. Q2 which one to purchase?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/28/2019 at 10:42 PM, wda said:

In what respect?  They are different focal-lengths. 

General sharpness and look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please quantify "sharpness" (not a definable optical property) and "look" (subjective assessment)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMVHO your choice should be decided by IS.....do you need it or not.

I chose the CL, no IS...........would I make the same choice again....I don't think so, but I wouldn't choose the Q2 either...Why, fixed lens.

It's a lot of £'sss you're spending, think carefully.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am 28.10.2019 um 15:47 schrieb bags27:

I think they're a bit different in IQ. The TL 35 I think has a slightly "more natural" rendering. But please don't ask me what I mean or to prove it!¬†ūüôā¬†It's all in the gut. The Q's rendering for me is "wow", but I tend to actually be drawn more to photos taken with the TL 35.¬†

I have the original Q and a CL with TL 11-23 and 55-135 (I sold my 18-56 to acquire the 11-23). I prefer the renderings from the 2 TL zooms I have to the renderings from the Q, and I believe the zooms, while excellent, don't match the TL 35 or TL 60, both of which are extraordinary and pretty much compete with the L primes (which may be the best glass in all of photography today).

 

+1 in every respect. The Q has a more spectacular style, the TL lenses render  colors more naturally. Images from the original Q are a little smoother than those from the CL. I do think the FF format shows, even if we are talking about nuances. Nevertheless all TL lenses have their own character. The 55-135 is super smooth with vibrant colors, the 60 mm macro is super sharp and contrasty without lacking bokeh and vibrant colors, the 11-23 has very good contrast and dark image parts don't get too dark (when using multipoint metering), whch is a problem the Q1 definitely has. The 35 mm Summilux TL can do magic (sharp and smooth rendering at the same time) but is sometimes prone to flare in critical situations, it is the same with the 11-23 mm TL) and has some chromatic aberration around dark structures against bright background like all Summilux-M ienses. The 18-56 is a very good allrounder with no obvious flaws, maybe not as brilliiant as the other lenses, but we are again talking about nuances here.

 

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colours and contrast are mainly determined by post processing  and can easily be equalized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 1 Minute schrieb jaapv:

Colours are mainly determined by post processing 

Post processing is a factor, of course,. But have you ever been using the Q and the CL side by side? I  have. I am not talking about JPGs but DNGs processed in Photoshop or C1. My starting point and procedure is different. For example I would never use the embedded profile from the Q, but it often gives good results with the CL. Of course it is not the lenses only, but the sensor and firmware, too. There is something specific about each TL lens. I think it is all about microcontrast. All are pretty sharp.

I have also compared a 50 mm Summilux-M with adaptor to the 35 mm TL on the CL (not the same focal length, I am aware of that). The Summilux-M gives a much wamer hue. The 35 mm TL is well-balanced as it comes to color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have not used the Q specifically. But many other cameras and lenses side by side. Making a decent profile goes a very long way to equalizing colour, contrast can be manipulated all ways in curves. There will be differences in IQ, but not in these two aspects. A warmer hue? I can make it look ice-cold. Just shift the colour temperature and go to the colour sliders in ACR. (or colour wheel in C1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 12 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

I have not used the Q specifically. But many other cameras and lenses side by side. Making a decent profile goes a very long way to equalizing colour, contrast can be manipulated all ways in curves. There will be differences in IQ, but not in these two aspects. A warmer hue? I can make it look ice-cold. Just shift the colour temperature and go to the colour sliders in ACR. (or colour wheel in C1)

Of. course I¬†know how to process an image,¬†but I¬†don‚Äôt¬†go into the trouble of defining personal¬†lens profiles. I have been trying to make Q and.CL¬†images look similar., which takes some¬†effort.¬†You can‚Äėt match¬†two cameras completely, but the¬†differences are very subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences are subtle, I agree, but are more to be found in  microcontrast (which to many translates as "sharpness")  and transitions between in- and out of focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

The differences are subtle, I agree, but are more to be found in  microcontrast (which to many translates as "sharpness")  and transitions between in- and out of focus.

I agree. Yet, if I may give an example from a different hobby - as an amateur astronomer I am using different telescopes, partly Apo refractors of different  brands. My eye sensors say that they render differently, and they have to, being made of different glass and optical systems (triplets or quadruplets, Petzval systems,  flourite or ED glass or simply achromatic lenses). Microcontrast, coating, shielding against stray light and intrinsic glass color play a role.

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Q2  and a Fuji X-t2 with a couple of lenses, but when I pick up the Fuji after I've been using the Q2 it feels awful. Too many menus and buttons.  Do those of you who own both the Q2 and CL think you made the right choice?  Do you walk around with both or is it too bulky? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the right choice. Same ergonomics between CL & Q2 

Only battery differs

 

I paired the CL with Summilux-TL 35 and APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60. 

Because Q2 starts to break at 50mm equivalent. 
 

So I got : 

28mm f/1.7 @47MP 

35mm f/1.7 @30MP 

50mm f/1.4 @24MP

75mm f/2.4 @24MP

90mm f/2.8 @24MP with proper 1:1 macro. Equivalent to 1.5:1 in 25x36 world  

 

I planned to add a Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm f/4 macro to give me a nice zoom complement to the Q2 28+35mm : being a 50-105mm f/4 with 1:2.8 macro capabilities  when mounted on the CL  

 

 

 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rather bulky on the CL but a fine lens otherwise. The 18-56 is at least as good and much more practical. Add an Elpro and you have your macro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 2:00 PM, eev776 said:

I don't like SONY a7R for using it for last 4 years: 

after few years of use you can see how sloppy build body,

back screen is already went bad with bunch of dots and reflections,

I hate color of the images, rarely can get good night city shot, even using Zeiss lenses.

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

I have avoided Sony for various reasons, mainly the fact that Sony has a poor track record regarding repairs.  From what I have heard from others, Sony does nor want to repair their cameras; when a Sony a7R breaks, they expect the owner to throw it in the trash and buy a new one.  Sorry, Sony but a $3500 USD camera body is not a throwaway item for those of us who live in the real world.  Your list of disappointments with your a7R carves my decision in stone for me and should be seriously thought about by any one considering buying a Sony camera.

Glad to hear that you like your CL, congratulations on your recent acquisition!  I received my Q2 on 11-13-19 and am blown away by it.  I would suggest that you not rule out the Q2 and maybe take a second look at it down the road.  It feels MUCH lighter than my M-P 240/35 'cron combo that I normally carry.  The Q2 is comfortable to carry all day, is a joy to shoot with and is truly a thing of beauty. 

The above points aside, we cannot overlook the Q2's 28mm Summilux lens, image stabilization, 50-50,000 ISO range, weather sealing and 47.3 mp full frame sensor - in essence a medium format sensor in a 35mm size camera body.  It's a compelling little package.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time being I have a SL and a CL. The CL mainly for journies, when the SL is not a must.  And for street, but this is not my main interest. My advise is to buy Q 2 if you can live with restrctictions concerning the focal length - i.e. focal lengthes between 28 mm to 50 mm - ev. to 75 mm and to some restrictions regarding macro. If this is not the case, then better buy a CL with the 18-56 mm. And an  achromat for macros. I use one of Marumi with 5 diop. but of course the Elpro is a possibility too. And later on you can always decide to buy an  add. lens or not.

Edited by HeinzX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 9:48 AM, Herr Barnack said:

I have avoided Sony for various reasons, mainly the fact that Sony has a poor track record regarding repairs.  From what I have heard from others, Sony does nor want to repair their cameras; when a Sony a7R breaks, they expect the owner to throw it in the trash and buy a new one.  Sorry, Sony but a $3500 USD camera body is not a throwaway item for those of us who live in the real world.  Your list of disappointments with your a7R carves my decision in stone for me and should be seriously thought about by any one considering buying a Sony camera.

Glad to hear that you like your CL, congratulations on your recent acquisition!  I received my Q2 on 11-13-19 and am blown away by it.  I would suggest that you not rule out the Q2 and maybe take a second look at it down the road.  It feels MUCH lighter than my M-P 240/35 'cron combo that I normally carry.  The Q2 is comfortable to carry all day, is a joy to shoot with and is truly a thing of beauty. 

The above points aside, we cannot overlook the Q2's 28mm Summilux lens, image stabilization, 50-50,000 ISO range, weather sealing and 47.3 mp full frame sensor - in essence a medium format sensor in a 35mm size camera body.  It's a compelling little package.

 

I'm enjoying my CL a lot and very happy with my 55-135 lens. Currently planning to purchase some wider M lenses, 18 or 24, curios about people's experience with TL lens 11-23.

I must confess though that it did closed my mind to get Q2 down on the road, because of it's megapixel, lens with macro options and whether sealed proof, it's a fantastic camera. I'm just not sure if I ever want to cary those two cameras at the same time. Size of CL is quite amazing and I'm pretty sure it will feel even better when I put M lenses on.

Edited by eev776

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping up with tradition, as this thread has been going on for ages and all answers are contained within already .. its time for my useless comment ;)

The Q2 is a great camera but a specialist one. If you shoot stills with 28mm sufficiently enough of the time, and you have the budget, go ahead. Its a wonderful tool. But for 99.9% of people it can't be your only camera

The CL is a system. Is the 18mm f2.8 as good as the Q2's 28mm f1.7 ? no, but its lighter weight, smaller and the system has the capability of other lenses. The Cl also could be your only camera at a pinch! - If you want a lightweight flexible walkaround the CL is second to none.

Many people have both. More people have the Q1 and the CL. Some people have a M and the CL. An increasingly large amout of people have the Panny S1 and the CL. And, well, etc., etc.. you get it ....

If you don't care about weight and have plenty of cash you should be getting the SL2 anyways and not caring about the CL or the Q2 ūüėģ :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, colonel said:

Keeping up with tradition, as this thread has been going on for ages and all answers are contained within already .. its time for my useless comment ;)

The Q2 is a great camera but a specialist one. If you shoot stills with 28mm sufficiently enough of the time, and you have the budget, go ahead. Its a wonderful tool. But for 99.9% of people it can't be your only camera

The CL is a system. Is the 18mm f2.8 as good as the Q2's 28mm f1.7 ? no, but its lighter weight, smaller and the system has the capability of other lenses. The Cl also could be your only camera at a pinch! - If you want a lightweight flexible walkaround the CL is second to none.

Many people have both. More people have the Q1 and the CL. Some people have a M and the CL. An increasingly large amout of people have the Panny S1 and the CL. And, well, etc., etc.. you get it ....

If you don't care about weight and have plenty of cash you should be getting the SL2 anyways and not caring about the CL or the Q2 ūüėģ :D

 

In general terms, I would agree with the above points.  The Q2 is fairly specialized - but it is also fairly capable. 

JMHO, but the Q2 would be an excellent one camera/one lens solution for travel, landscape, street and documentary photography.  It could also be a viable option as an all-around camera.  That having been said, the CL could also be thought of in those terms, too. 

Now that I think about it, my main reason for choosing the Q2 over the CL seems to be:  The sensor.  The Q2's 47.3 mp sensor in a 24x36mm format that has an ISO range from 50-50,000 is awfully hard to argue against, given that I make large format fine art prints from my best files.  If you don't make large prints, the CL does have more options in terms of lens compatibility/flexibility than the Q2.  The Q2's silent leaf shutter is also a very welcome change from what I am used to.

I already have the CL's lens compatibility/flexibility in my M-P 240.  The Q2 feels feather light compared to my brass plate 240 with my chrome 35 'cron mounted.  I haven't weighed both cameras, but the Q2 feels at least 1/3 lighter in weight if not more.

I have a Fuji X100F which was my backup to the 240.  it is small and light, but has its drawbacks - namely an APS-C size sensor and an inordinately complex menu system and set of buttons, dials and wheels to operate the camera and access the menus.  The Q2 is much more like the 240 in terms of simplicity, which is a welcome feature when you are neck deep in shooting a concert or other event.

The Q2 has a compelling set of features - silent leaf shutter, image stabilization, 28mm Summilux lens, light weight, weather sealing, improved ISO range and what is in essence a 47mp medium format sensor. 

Bottom line:  The Q2 just works - for me.  YMMV.

Edited by Herr Barnack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, colonel said:

Keeping up with tradition, as this thread has been going on for ages and all answers are contained within already .. its time for my useless comment ;)

The Q2 is a great camera but a specialist one. If you shoot stills with 28mm sufficiently enough of the time, and you have the budget, go ahead. Its a wonderful tool. But for 99.9% of people it can't be your only camera

The CL is a system. Is the 18mm f2.8 as good as the Q2's 28mm f1.7 ? no, but its lighter weight, smaller and the system has the capability of other lenses. The Cl also could be your only camera at a pinch! - If you want a lightweight flexible walkaround the CL is second to none.

Many people have both. More people have the Q1 and the CL. Some people have a M and the CL. An increasingly large amout of people have the Panny S1 and the CL. And, well, etc., etc.. you get it ....

If you don't care about weight and have plenty of cash you should be getting the SL2 anyways and not caring about the CL or the Q2 ūüėģ :D

 

I got my CL already, it‚Äôs a great camera for personal use. I¬†have a been using SL at work it‚Äôs a great camera,¬†but a heavy brick made solid as German tank. My co-worker says: ‚ÄúSL¬†also can be used as a protective piece of weapon to smash robbers!‚ÄĚ ūü§£ūü§£ūü§£

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.

√ó
√ó
  • 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