Smaller SL alternative

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think there are many here who would disagree with your assessment of the CL.  Of course the only way for you to know is to demo, rent or buy a standard one to see for yourself.  Surveys don't address individual tastes and preferences.

Jeff

[hirohhhh]

10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I think there are many here who would disagree with your assessment of the CL.  Of course the only way for you to know is to demo, rent or buy a standard one to see for yourself.  Surveys don't address individual tastes and preferences.

Jeff

I'm not assessing it, it's only based on what I heard from other people. But I agree, the only way to know is to try it yourself.

Well, since we're all locked now, my SL is perfect for my home studio. I needed a smaller camera only when I'm outside, shooting on street and carrying it around.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, hirohhhh said:

I'm not assessing it, it's only based on what I heard from other people.

Well, if you believe them, and discard the option, then you've made an assessment.  I would recommend that you ignore the assessment of your 'acquaintance' and try it out.  The CL and SL forums are full of discussions regarding use of both, even interchanging lenses both ways.

Jeff

 

[Jared]

47 minutes ago, hirohhhh said:

I'm neither super rich, nor stupid to have unopened boxed hidden everywhere without me even knowing. I bought this camera, it was limited edition, meaning you can't buy it now. I wanted to give it as a gift to my wife, but she refuses to use the expensive camera so it remains unopened until today. I'll probably sell it as I don't really need it, because I already use SL and Fuji, so CL would be unnecessary.

In the meantime, an acquaintance who owned both CL and SL and is familiar with the Fuji model I have, confirmed me that CL would be closer to Fuji, than SL in terms of IQ.

The last thing I wanted is to defend myself here, but I hope I clarified the situation about unopened $4500 camera now. It's not wasted money, I can still sell it for the same amount, possibly more, since it is limited edition.

I think the ribbing is intended to be good natured.  You’ve got to admit it’s unusual to have bought a Leica a couple years ago and still have it unopened.  It’s even more unusual when that Leica isn’t a special edition ‘M’.  And then to find that that camera exactly matches the description of what you are looking for in a camera—a smaller, lighter SL?  That’s worth a little light hearted kidding. I wouldn’t take it personally.  No one insulted you or called you names.  And this is a forum full of people who love Leica cameras and buy them for many reasons but rarely because they take better pictures, so we all need to be a little thick skinned about how we choose to spend our extra income.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

19 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

I'm neither super rich, nor stupid to have unopened boxed hidden everywhere without me even knowing. I bought this camera, it was limited edition, meaning you can't buy it now. I wanted to give it as a gift to my wife, but she refuses to use the expensive camera so it remains unopened until today. I'll probably sell it as I don't really need it, because I already use SL and Fuji, so CL would be unnecessary.

In the meantime, an acquaintance who owned both CL and SL and is familiar with the Fuji model I have, confirmed me that CL would be closer to Fuji, than SL in terms of IQ.

The last thing I wanted is to defend myself here, but I hope I clarified the situation about unopened $4500 camera now. It's not wasted money, I can still sell it for the same amount, possibly more, since it is limited edition.

It's your camera. Do what you wish. Don't worry about the others. They're just having a bit of fun. Important in these times where human interaction is limited. Where I live this is how your friends speak to you, not the haters.

I don't agree that the CL is closer to the XT100 than the SL, though. I have an XPro2 and XT3 to compare to my CL and SL. The CL files are much more like the SL than the Fuji files, especially in Lightroom. C1 is a bit closer but the colours still aren't the same. The lens rendering is different and you don't have the option to use different lenses. The Fuji lenses are excellent but the CL lenses are better. Ranging from simply excellent to absolutely stunning. Files look like the SL just with a stop more DoF and a half stop more noise.

Plus you can use your SL lenses on it.

Gordon

[RockettMan]

On 4/1/2020 at 12:55 AM, Per P. said:

I was going to respond but it seems you managed to find the CL answer almost on your own. Maybe check the other unopened boxes to see if a Q or M is hiding somewhere ...

CL is not full frame. Q is.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Q is not full-frame either. It is miniature 135 format.

[ahl]

Hi Hirohhh,

Just a thought.

If you are going to sell your CL , why not sell the SL as well and  treat yourself to an SL2.

I now have one and the IBIS makes wonderful sense with M lenses if you want to travel lighter.

As you already have SL lenses you can then have a wonderful range of equipment to use to suit every need.

Good luck with your final choice.     Alan

 

[Jared]

On 4/5/2020 at 5:46 PM, jaapv said:

The Q is not full-frame either. It is miniature 135 format.

I’m confused.  Most people consider “full frame” to mean approximately 36mm x 24mm sensor or film size.  That’s the same as the Q/Q2, yes?

I know historically  35mm/135 format film was considered a small negative when compared to medium format cameras, 4x5 cameras, and 8x10 cameras, but that was for film not for digital. It’s been twenty years or more since that was relevant. In the digital realm, 35mm chips have always been considered “full frame” because they use the entire image circle of a 35mm format lens—by far the most common format at the time digital cameras first became popular.

Are you just reminding us that in the film days negatives were sometimes bigger than digital sensors today? Or am I misunderstanding your post?  I’m pretty sure the Q/Q2 cameras have full frame sensors which are generally understood to be 35/135 format.

[jaapv]

I thoroughly dislike the term “full frame” to me it means that the recording medium is the same size as the print. 

[Jared]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

I thoroughly dislike the term “full frame” to me it means that the recording medium is the same size as the print. 

Interesting.  I couldn’t find any historical reference to the term being used that way.  I’m familiar with contact prints, of course, but not aware of them (or any other similar technique) being referred to as “full frame”.

I think the term is pretty universally understood to mean 36x24 mm or similar sized sensor. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Jared said:

Interesting.  I couldn’t find any historical reference to the term being used that way.  I’m familiar with contact prints, of course, but not aware of them (or any other similar technique) being referred to as “full frame”.

I think the term is pretty universally understood to mean 36x24 mm or similar sized sensor. 

Or it is used in the negative to describe all the larger MF solutions that fit into cameras that look like they are based on 6x6 platforms, yet the imaging chip, with the possible exception of the latest 100-150 MPx versions, is not quite 'full frame." That is, not 58 x 58 mm.

[Jeff S]

31 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Or it is used in the negative to describe all the larger MF solutions that fit into cameras that look like they are based on 6x6 platforms, yet the imaging chip, with the possible exception of the latest 100-150 MPx versions, is not quite 'full frame." That is, not 58 x 58 mm.

Or even 6x4.5, let alone 6x7 or 6x9 or wider.  I just call the new breed digital MF.

Jeff

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jeff S

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I also really dislike the term "full frame" to describe 135 format. I do realise I have lost that argument though. But I, personally, won't use that term. Really though I'd like to see formats described by their actual size, ie: 24x36 or 33x44, rounded up to the nearest mm. As it is we have sensors described in inches, mm and arbitrary names. No wonder no one can make sense of them.

The only camera I own that's not full frame is the DLux 7 because it never uses the full sensor area to make an image.

As for the medium format discussion, there were many film formats smaller than 6cm roll film that were described as medium format. Some very close to the current 33x44mm format currently used. The arguments that the GFX or X1D aren't medium format seem strange to me. 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

As for the medium format discussion, there were many film formats smaller than 6cm roll film that were described as medium format. Some very close to the current 33x44mm format currently used. The arguments that the GFX or X1D aren't medium format seem strange to me. 

 

But most consider 645 (60mm x 45mm) as the smallest most common MF film format. Most were bigger than that... 60x60, 60x70, 60x90 or more.  All dwarf the digital MF variants in area, other than Phase.  That’s the basis for the film MF vs digital MF size debate, even though technically MF has generally referred to anything between 24x36mm and large format (commonly starting at 4x5 inch).  That’s not to say that digital might have certain technical attributes surpassing film. 

Jeff

 

[BernardC]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

But most consider 645 (60mm x 45mm) as the smallest most common MF film format.

Not from a historical perspective, even if you limit the term 'medium format' to 120 roll film.

645 was only popular for the last 15 years or so of the 100 year history of medium format, and even then it was arguably less popular than 6x6.

[jaapv]

And 6x9

[Jeff S]

23 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Not from a historical perspective, even if you limit the term 'medium format' to 120 roll film.

645 was only popular for the last 15 years or so of the 100 year history of medium format, and even then it was arguably less popular than 6x6.

645 goes back to the early 1900's.... https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/history-of-645-format.411296/

Mamiya 645 was introduced in 1975. By the 80's, other companies followed, and was fairly well known to me at least in my early film days (from mid 70's on).  

In any case, I only mentioned 645 since it's smaller than 6x6, which is typically the size one uses to suggest that digital MF sensors are smaller than typical MF film sizes (and the Hasselblad 500 goes back to the 50's as best I recall). Plus, as I noted, 6x6 was hardly the largest MF film size.  

I'm well aware of the history of photography (including 19th century), as a long time student and print and book collector.  But I hardly think about photography in the early 1900's when film vs digital comparisons emerge, however flawed those might be.  Most young photographers today, when they hear about digital MF, really have no idea about film history, let alone the very early days, so I was limiting comparisons to popular formats during my formative and current years (as a near 70 year old).  In fact, if I say 4x5, most young photographers today wouldn't know if that meant mm, cm, inches, or whatever.  Anyway, I was merely addressing Gordon's comment and trying to keep it simple.

Jeff

 

 

[Jeff S]

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And 6x9

As I noted above (60x90).

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Indeed. I just wanted to point out that 6x9 was probably more prevalent than 6x6.  In amateur use contact prints were quite common.  

Edited April 8, 2020 by jaapv