Q2 vs. CL which one to buy?

[eev776]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm new to Leica after 20 years of SONY a7R / Nikon user, trying to decide what camera to get CL or Q2, what do you guys think? 

In Los Angeles, California, I do architectural photography / landscapes / street photography, I use to my good set of Zeiss and wide Voigtlander wide lenses, love zoom lenses 240mm., and I like 36mpx quality.

Night city scape photography is very important for me as well, to get city panoramas with all those little windows lights at night.

CL and lenses it offers is fantastic for me, but APS-C is freaks me out even though images I took with CL where really impressive quality wise.

Q2 is looks like a great camera with great resolution, but fixed lens.

Hard to choose, any suggestions? Let me know! 

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

Are you expecting different replies from the other thread?

[eev776]

19 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Are you expecting different replies from the other thread?

Yes, I'm wondering what people from Q thread can tell.

[mbphotox]

Just my 2 cents:

From Nikon to the Leica CL, you're stepping down in every single aspect, save price.

For serious architecture, I would use a Nikon System with tilt-shift lenses.

If you prefer the Sony for whatever reason, you could use Canon T/S lenses with an adapter.

 

I have never seen a single compelling reason why anyone would want to buy a Leica CL. It's probably the worst example for an overpriced status symbol. (Same goes for the SL, I'd rather spend my money on an S system, or an M)

The Q is, among many non-Leica reviewers, one of the most justifiable cameras from Leica, because it delivers according to the asking price.

However, the Q is most definitely NOT suited as an architectural camera. There's just too much distortion to deal with.

[eev776]

20 minutes ago, mbphotox said:

Just my 2 cents:

From Nikon to the Leica CL, you're stepping down in every single aspect, save price.

For serious architecture, I would use a Nikon System with tilt-shift lenses.

If you prefer the Sony for whatever reason, you could use Canon T/S lenses with an adapter.

 

I have never seen a single compelling reason why anyone would want to buy a Leica CL. It's probably the worst example for an overpriced status symbol. (Same goes for the SL, I'd rather spend my money on an S system, or an M)

The Q is, among many non-Leica reviewers, one of the most justifiable cameras from Leica, because it delivers according to the asking price.

However, the Q is most definitely NOT suited as an architectural camera. There's just too much distortion to deal with.

Last 5 years I used mostly SONY, that I hate now. You have an interesting point about distortion in Q, so you got pretty bad distortion when you shoot an architecture with Q. CL is most versatile camera that can go anywhere with me.

[mbphotox]

I only ever tried a Sony (A7S) once and hated everything about it, too. It's just a toy with terrible user interface.

If the camera needs to be compact, get a Fuji X-T3. You'll safe thousands of dollars and get better image quality than with the CL.

 

I for one really don't see how architectural photography and "compact" can go together, but you're in the business, so you'll know.

If size isn't THAT big of an issue, get a Nikon Z7 with adapter and Nikon tilt-shift lenses.

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The CL sensor is 24x16mm - most certainly big enough for e-sharing of images and for printing to fairly large sizes; I would say depending on the abilities and experience of the post processor and the printer, you could print to 16x24 inch size from CL files and get great results. 

The Q2 is a different story.  With its 47mp sensor, you could print very large.  I have printed to 24x36 inches with files from my M-P 240 and had excellent results.  The Q2 files should be able to go double that size, or close to it with outstanding results in terms of image quality.  There are a number of variables that determine printed image quality though; it's not all about which camera has the highest megapixel count.

As for the Q2's fixed 28mm 'lux, the 28 is more versatile than one might think.  A lot of the flexibility of the 28 comes back to the photographer and his/her skill.  Of course, the 28 just doesn't work well for some applications.  Wildlife, bird and sports photography being at the top of the list. 

Quote

"... In Los Angeles, California, I do architectural photography / landscapes / street photography..."

The 28mm would be a great lens for those applications.  It's all about practice and learning how to use a wide lens to get the best results it can produce. 

JMHO, but I'd choose the Q2 over the CL.  It's awfully hard to argue with that 28/1.7 lens backed by a 47 mp full frame sensor.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[eev776]

On 10/9/2019 at 3:04 PM, Herr Barnack said:

The CL sensor is 24x16mm - most certainly big enough for e-sharing of images and for printing to fairly large sizes; I would say depending on the abilities and experience of the post processor and the printer, you could print to 16x24 inch size from CL files and get great results. 

The Q2 is a different story.  With its 47mp sensor, you could print very large.  I have printed to 24x36 inches with files from my M-P 240 and had excellent results.  The Q2 files should be able to go double that size, or close to it with outstanding results in terms of image quality.  There are a number of variables that determine printed image quality though; it's not all about which camera has the highest megapixel count.

As for the Q2's fixed 28mm 'lux, the 28 is more versatile than one might think.  A lot of the flexibility of the 28 comes back to the photographer and his/her skill.  Of course, the 28 just doesn't work well for some applications.  Wildlife, bird and sports photography being at the top of the list. 

The 28mm would be a great lens for those applications.  It's all about practice and learning how to use a wide lens to get the best results it can produce. 

JMHO, but I'd choose the Q2 over the CL.  It's awfully hard to argue with that 28/1.7 lens backed by a 47 mp full frame sensor.

Sounds like great advise. Thanks!

[photogray]

I have both cameras. I first bought the CL with the 18-56 zoom and added the 23 Summicron and 35 Summilux. I also have a large number of NIkkor lenses going up to a 180IF ED. With the CL I was able to cover an entire range of focal lengths and have been very happy with the results and flexibility of the camera. The 35 Summilux is a beautiful lens and the 23 Summicron works great for a walkaround lens when you don't want to lug a whole kit. I post most of my photos on Instagram at Theoriginalphotogray.

That said, I bought the Q2 for the purpose of travel and carrying one camera. I'm taking off next month expecting to not mind not having a longer lens, to enjoy having a lot less to carry, a lot less to think about, a much simpler approach to taking photos.

[Tobers]

If you are happy with 28mm-50mm, then the Q2.

If you want wider and longer (17mm-200mm in 35mm equiv) then the CL.

My suggestion - buy a used Q and a used CL with 55-135 and you’ll have a really phenomenal setup that can cover pretty much everything.

I have a Q-P and a CL with 18-56 and 55-135 and also a T with a 23mm on it.

Edited October 13, 2019 by Tobers