anyone thinking of upgrade from CL to SL2?

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

It only happens with M and R lenses in APS-C mode.
Hopefully it does not happen with TL lenses. 
 

Salesman think that it may be a bug. But not sure yet. Waiting for Wetzlar official answer. 

Thanks for the clarification, Phil. It wouldn't be my concern, as I wouldn't be using M and R in crop mode. I didn't get a sense of that with TL lenses, though, truthfully, I was using autofocus and shooting quickly.

[tom0511]

As a user of both I just did some fun testing...CL-SL2-S007 with equivalent focal lengths (23-35-45),

than CL+35 (35/1.4 at f2) vs SL2+35 (SL35/2.0 at f2) cropped, and so on.

Some images I can not see any differences,  in some others there is a general impression than I would say the bigger the sensor the more 3d the image. DOF difference seems more than 1 f-stop between them.

Back to the original question: My conclusion at the moment is:

CL is great when you want a small camera or small weight; The image quality is ver good, however the lens lineup can be a little boring/limiting; I mean the midrange 18-56/5.6 is not as flexible as a 24-90 or 24-105 in regards of focal lengths and also in regards of shallow DOF at long end.

Another limitation is IS/IBIS; it can be really useful for longer focal lengths or for handhold movies. But then for everything else you get very good IQ in a compact and relativly light package;

 IMO - compact has advantages (light, small , unobstrusive) but also disadvantages. To me a camera in DSLR-size like the SL(2) fits better in my hands. Wheels and buttons are easier to reach. The joystick of the SL is right where my thumb is, on the CL I need to search for the buttons. I also sometimes dont know if my thumb is at the right or left wheel of the CL. On the SL I know exactly where I am.

I also prefer the shutter sound of the SL, the CL sounds a little metallic.

So for me the CL is a great camera when it needs to be small (skiing, events), but the SL(2) is more fun to use for me and the Zooms of the SL2 and IBIS offer more flexibility.

I know I could put a 24-105 lens or a 90-280 on a CL, but why would I want a small body if I use it with big lenses.

 

I love that both share the same mount and both same menue system and both are quite similar in color rendering.

Edited January 4, 2020 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

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

[bags27]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

As a user of both I just did some fun testing...CL-SL2-S007 with equivalent focal lengths (23-35-45),

than CL+35 (35/1.4 at f2) vs SL2+35 (SL35/2.0 at f2) cropped, and so on.

Some images I can not see any differences,  in some others there is a general impression than I would say the bigger the sensor the more 3d the image. DOF difference seems more than 1 f-stop between them.

Back to the original question: My conclusion at the moment is:

CL is great when you want a small camera or small weight; The image quality is ver good, however the lens lineup can be a little boring/limiting; I mean the midrange 18-56/5.6 is not as flexible as a 24-90 or 24-105 in regards of focal lengths and also in regards of shallow DOF at long end.

Another limitation is IS/IBIS; it can be really useful for longer focal lengths or for handhold movies. But then for everything else you get very good IQ in a compact and relativly light package;

However - IMO - compact has advantages (light, small , unobstrusive) but also disadvantages. To me a camera in DSLR-size like the SL(2) fits better in my hands. Wheels and buttons are easier to reach. The joystick of the SL is right where my thumb is, on the CL I need to search for the buttons. I also sometimes dont know if my thumb is at the right or left wheel of the CL. On the CL I know exactly where I am.

I also prefer the shutter sound of the SL, the CL sounds a little metallic.

So for me the CL is a great camera when it needs to be small (skiing, events), but the SL(2) is more fun to use for me and the Zooms of the SL offer more flexibility.

I know I could put a 24-105 lens or a 90-280 on a CL, but why would I want a small body if I used it with big lenses.

 

I love that both share the same mount and both same menue system and both are quite similar in color rendering.

I've only spent a couple of hours comparing both haptics and IQ of the SL2 and my CL (I'm still waiting for my name to come up on the SL2), but my impressions are similar to yours. I'm satisfied that the SL2 is entirely manageable weight-wise and size-wise, and there are a number of things--some minor, some important--that make it an excellent complement to the CL. So, I'll very likely trade in my Q, but no motivation yet to trade in the CL.

[Guest]

Potentially another element which could be of importance to some people is that the price difference between both cameras has gotten smaller...

The retail price of the Leica CL is now $3,095 at B&H versus $5,995 for the Leica SL2.  Still a significant difference but less than it used to be.

 

[jaapv]

Well, it is two CLs for one SL2  not to mention the lenses...

[tom0511]

the lenses are a big price difference. For fun I compared the SL2+cropped 35SL2 vs CL+35/1.4TL at f2.0.

The image quality was really close. The 16-35 is a little better in the corners than the 11-23, but both are really good lenses.

So yes I agree, it is quite a price difference. And even CL lenses are far from "cheap".

I wish they offered some more lenses for the CL.

A 16-50/2.8 , a 55-135 IS-version, and a 60-200/4.0 IS would complete the system.

 

[Merv-O]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently own several Leicas, the M, the CL, the D Lux and the SL. The SL is an amazing camera and, I prefer it to the Cl. The large, tactile feel provides a steady balance in the hands. It also has a higher IQ than the Cl. With a 50mm Summicron-M attached with a M adapter T, the weight is fine. The full frame sensor is glorious and the focus peaking is fast and easier than any rangefinder once you adjust to the focus sensitivity. Additionally, all TL crop lenses can be used with the SL if needed (results are quite good).

Don't get me wrong, I love my CL. I hate the battery life, though I love the convenience and size and it's 24mp APS-c sensor is an excellent producer of the "Leica" look. The controls are small, and at times, the menu is not as intuitive as the SL, but They can be used together with the Adapters and my M-Mount lenses work flawlessly with both. The SL files are simply more expandable due to the sensor size, et al. While both 24mp, the SL is better for me for one main reason: it is weather sealed and can be taken out in the elements.

[Ecaton]

On 1/4/2020 at 10:11 PM, jaapv said:

Well, it is two CLs for one SL2  not to mention the lenses...

In $, MP and in grams. So the price/gram and price/MP are about the same. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Ecaton

[rapha_tuesday_new_products]

Hi all! I am a new member here.

 

HELP needed:

would like to buy a new camera, this time it should be a Leica. Will use that for family pics, and sport like hiking and backcountry skiing and cycling. 

Could you suggest me a setup? I was eying with the CL and SL2. A weather resistant "CL2" would be ace. What lens shall I buy? 35 mm 50 mm? or a zoom lens?

 

Thanks for any kind of help/suggestions!

[jaapv]

The present CL is reasonably weather resistant, but has no IP certification. I found that the main problem was the sensor fogging up in adverse conditions.

It is unclear when a CL2 will appear and what the specifications will be, Like with all digital gear, it is rather pointless waiting for the next iteration, if the present one is good, it will remain so. The SL2 is a different beast. At a slightly - and I mean slightly- better image quality, which most users don't need or even will see, it is a fully professional level camera with the bulk and price to match. For "family" use like you describe definitely overkill.

As for a lens, for general use as you describe, the standard zoom would be my first choice. It is arguably the best APS  "kit" zoom on the market with true Leica quality and quite versatile. Like all lenses of this type, not very fast, but the good ISO performance of the CL compensates. You can always add more specialized lenses later, according to your need.

[ECohen]

2 hours ago, rapha_tuesday_new_products said:

Hi all! I am a new member here.

 

HELP needed:

would like to buy a new camera, this time it should be a Leica. Will use that for family pics, and sport like hiking and backcountry skiing and cycling. 

Could you suggest me a setup? I was eying with the CL and SL2. A weather resistant "CL2" would be ace. What lens shall I buy? 35 mm 50 mm? or a zoom lens?

 

Thanks for any kind of help/suggestions!

 

Sony Alpha a6500 with Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS lens

and save yourself a bunch of money.   

oops wrong forum

[jaapv]

Wrong camera too

[Ecaton]

9 hours ago, ECohen said:

 

Sony Alpha a6500 with Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS lens

and save yourself a bunch of money.   

oops wrong forum

The Sony houses the same sensor as the CL does, but it's handicapped by an AA filter. As a result its files do not show the crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's the CL produces. The lens is ok, nice range, compact and lightweight but known for considerable sample variation. But the new Sony 16-55 f2.8 seems to be a quite strong performer.

[ECohen]

 

17 hours ago, Ecaton said:

The Sony houses the same sensor as the CL does, but it's handicapped by an AA filter. As a result its files do not show the crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's the CL produces.

I couldn't agree more!

the AA filter does handicap the Sony and many other family cameras.

"crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's"

 

But what exactly is a family camera? And does crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's really matter?

Whats the deliverable product ? email, 5x7,  8x10, maybe the occasional 11x17 print.

More than likely ..... posted to the web someplace at 120 dpi.

I once handed my daughter a DVD with a family event on it (files reduced)

She looked at me like I had 2 heads, rolled her eyes and said just email them to me.

So I reduced them again and sent them via email to her....I'm sure they are lost on her phone.

 

How do we all archive our family photos for future generations....where and how?

My parents had a shoe box full of photos that I treasure to this day.

 

What format will our great grand children view our gigs and gigs and gigs of "crisp" DNG files?

Something tells me we're making it harder for them. And that they will never open a single file from our closet full of HDs

 

What is a family camera?

 

I'm not kidding 45 years shooting..... buying a camera is still a compromise that frustrates me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by ECohen

[rapha_tuesday_new_products]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb ECohen:

 

I couldn't agree more!

the AA filter does handicap the Sony and many other family cameras.

"crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's"

 

But what exactly is a family camera? And does crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's really matter?

Whats the deliverable product ? email, 5x7,  8x10, maybe the occasional 11x17 print.

More than likely ..... posted to the web someplace at 120 dpi.

I once handed my daughter a DVD with a family event on it (files reduced)

She looked at me like I had 2 heads, rolled her eyes and said just email them to me.

So I reduced them again and sent them via email to her....I'm sure they are lost on her phone.

 

How do we all archive our family photos for future generations....where and how?

My parents had a shoe box full of photos that I treasure to this day.

 

What format will our great grand children view our gigs and gigs and gigs of "crisp" DNG files?

Something tells me we're making it harder for them. And that they will never open a single file from our closet full of HDs

 

What is a family camera?

 

I'm not kidding 45 years shooting..... buying a camera is still a compromise that frustrates me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THANKS for the HELP you all! still hesitating

ECohen you are absolutely right. my very first sir camera was nikon F60. the photos I shoot are in frame or in photo-books. than came digital photography...no composition more...saw people only shooting picks as much as possible...lol how I hated that

would be a shame having family photos only in instagram format in the future ...  I might buy first a photo album 😉

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, ECohen said:

 

I couldn't agree more!

the AA filter does handicap the Sony and many other family cameras.

"crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's"

 

But what exactly is a family camera? And does crispness/micro contrast of the DNG's really matter?

Whats the deliverable product ? email, 5x7,  8x10, maybe the occasional 11x17 print.

More than likely ..... posted to the web someplace at 120 dpi.

I once handed my daughter a DVD with a family event on it (files reduced)

She looked at me like I had 2 heads, rolled her eyes and said just email them to me.

So I reduced them again and sent them via email to her....I'm sure they are lost on her phone.

 

How do we all archive our family photos for future generations....where and how?

My parents had a shoe box full of photos that I treasure to this day.

 

What format will our great grand children view our gigs and gigs and gigs of "crisp" DNG files?

Something tells me we're making it harder for them. And that they will never open a single file from our closet full of HDs

 

What is a family camera?

 

I'm not kidding 45 years shooting..... buying a camera is still a compromise that frustrates me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Err.. Did your printer break down?

[ECohen]

32 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Err.. Did your printer break down?

Now there is a great poll!

 

Your a moderator, how about you make one?

How many us print our family photos shot with our Leica's?

Or our phones for that matter? 

Who prints ? How often?

 

What do you think the answer will be?

I'm betting 90% of Leica owners never print a single family photo.

Except the occasional 8x10 as a holiday gift?

And even less with their home printer.

 

 

Gazillions of photos made everyday. Start asking your friends

"What do you do with your photos"?......It makes for a fun conversation.

My favorite question ....Do you archive?

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by ECohen

[LocalHero1953]

I have three kids and six grandkids. There is a wall in our hall that has a panel of 10 family photos, printed at A4 and framed. I change them regularly as the families grow up. They are loved!

[Danno_photoguy]

48 minutes ago, ECohen said:

Now there is a great poll!

 

Your a moderator, how about you make one?

How many us print our family photos shot with our Leica's?

Or our phones for that matter? 

Who prints ? How often?

 

What do you think the answer will be?

I'm betting 90% of Leica owners never print a single family photo.

Except the occasional 8x10 as a holiday gift?

And even less with their home printer.

 

 

Gazillions of photos made everyday. Start asking your friends

"What do you do with your photos"?......It makes for a fun conversation.

My favorite question ....Do you archive?

 

I for one do print (for myself and to give to others) family prints all the time.  Most family prints are 5X7 or 8X10, printed on my Epson SuperColor P800.  That being said, I believe that most people don't print at all.  To each their own, but I think that is a shame.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

I do print family photos from time to time but they don't interest young people generally. Now when i say from time to time the last time was a couple of months... or years ago to be honest . Just kidding but my main printer is called Smugmug now.