TL2 vs CL for M lenses

[padam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

My first camera was the Sony NEX-5N, and I recall how small and light it was, and I enjoyed using with rangefinder lenses, it was really easy to just punch in by a single touch (very weird that most cameras don't work like that). I didn't mind the lack of an EVF.
But I didn't care for the colours or how those lenses interacted with the sensor, the performance towards the edges worsened significantly.

I just wanted to ask if anyone has tested the corner smearing with these two cameras. From what I've gathered from this forum, both sensors omit the AA filter, but they might not be the same and some measurements indicate that the TL2 has better dynamic range than the CL.
I've also read about the GXR performing better than a TL, so I am not sure, if the later cameras are any different.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
(p.s. I have handled the Sigma fp, as it seemed like a good modern day equivalent with a FF sensor which I'd prefer, but I didn't like it)

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

The sensors are the same or very similar neither camera shows conner smearing, Leica designs all its cameras to accept virtually all their lenses without restrictions.

As for dynamic range - at base ISO it is identical. However, the TL2 applies some digital enhancing - it has different firmware- to make images look more "poppy", which makes some sense, given the different target audiences. It will make no difference after post processing. Choose your model on user interface, which is the real distinguishing factor. 

The things you are looking at are of no relevance in actual use. Both cameras have more than ample image quality and are eminently suitable for the use of M lenses..

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[nicci78]

There are several differences. The most dreaded one, is the lack of any firmware update for the whole TL line since September 2018. 
Therefore I will avoid TL2. It seems to be a dead end. Especially if it proves true that Leica pull the plug about this line up. 
 

Just consider that CL and SL received their latest FW in February 2020. 
 

TL2 is stuck at version 1.5 with no dramatic changes since its introduction. 
However CL enjoyed several major innovations bringing it to version 3.2

Both cameras were released in 2017. Only one year of software update for TL2 is quite shameful for Leica.
Please note that TL2 did not received the much need update for full L-mount lenses compatibility (Lumix and Sigma aperture ring and push-pull focusing ring) 

Now I guess that we can tell which is the favourite son in Leica APS-C family. 

 

You know the facts. Now you can choose. 
 

[nicci78]

Another thing. TL2 DNGs are already cooked for popping images. 
Theoretically you will get less leeway when editing your RAW files compare to CL uncooked ones. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by nicci78

[jaapv]

You make an important point that is missed by all DR comparisons although less so by Photonstophotos than for instance DXO which is really terrible. All measurements are made of OOC raws, which are not raw at all, but processed files. The amount of processing is an important factor in the measured dynamic range. Leica reduces the processing to a minimum, except for cameras that are specifically aimed at the consumer market, like the T series. Having said that, they do it well and there is little negative to be said about T(L)(2) files. 

[robgo2]

To me, the big issue would be manually focusing an M lens while holding the camera away from the body. I'm sure that it can be done but with more focusing errors than when stabilizing the camera against the forehead and looking through a high quality EVF. On that basis alone, I would choose the CL in a heartbeat.

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

EVF is way better for manual focusing. But it can be done through rear screen.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, robgo2 said:

To me, the big issue would be manually focusing an M lens while holding the camera away from the body. I'm sure that it can be done but with more focusing errors than when stabilizing the camera against the forehead and looking through a high quality EVF. On that basis alone, I would choose the CL in a heartbeat.

I use a chestpod for long lenses on the TL.

[HuntingSand]

Am 8.6.2020 um 02:52 schrieb nicci78:

There are several differences. The most dreaded one, is the lack of any firmware update for the whole TL line since September 2018. 
Therefore I will avoid TL2. It seems to be a dead end. Especially if it proves true that Leica pull the plug about this line up.

TL2 is stuck at version 1.5 with no dramatic changes since its introduction. 
However CL enjoyed several major innovations bringing it to version 3.2

Both cameras were released in 2017. Only one year of software update for TL2 is quite shameful for Leica.

I owned the original T and loved it with the 11-23mm (which was rivaling my M 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar, btw). Now have the TL2 with the 35 and the 55-135, it serves as a quick-response and lightweight complement to my S system. The GPS in the add-on EVF is a big bonus for me (same in my S, once it actually decides to engage), and there are other elements of the T I really appreciate, much of it to do with the design and the tiled, easily customizable UI. Personal preference I guess...

Btw., if you knew the background to the T story (from evolution to physical design to software/UI implementation to its demise), I guess you would change your tone. There wasn't anything "shameful" about it at all (well, except at its inception when Leica just took what was an experimental UI and left the company that had coded it out in the cold, but that's its own story). Water under the bridge now.

[nicci78]

So, you validate the fact that Leica gave up the whole TL product line ? No original developer = no further development ? 
It is shameful, really. Really shameful for the buyers. 

If you have a story to tell, just share it. I am very curious to read it. 

I just acknowledge the fact that nothing happened for years in the TL world : bodies and lenses. 
 

It will not be the first time for Leica to drop a failed format. Eg : R, S (with just one last body the S3 to content the S lenses owners). Future CL2 can be the last body to content TL lenses owners) 
Bad economics will push Leica to act sooner that later. They are the inventor of 24x36. They need to focus into this format alone. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by nicci78

[jaapv]

The TL line is not a format. Dr. Kaufman affirmed the continued interest of Leica in APS. That camera models come and go is quite normal. The CL has turned out to be the flag bearer in the APS format. So what?   Leica is convinced, as most people are, that 24x36 is turning into a “pro” format as sensor quality keeps improving. The expression of the Barnack philosophy: “small format, great results” is APS. I would not even be surprised to see an APS rangefinder emerging, if size problems can be overcome in future. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I would not even be surprised to see an APS rangefinder emerging, if size problems can be overcome in future. 

What size problems are you referring to if i may ask? Epson (R-D1), Leica (M8) and now Pixii did that already. Just a dead end if you ask me but YMMV.

[rob_w]

Not sure about an APS-C rangefinder.  But I would love an APS-C monochrom.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, lct said:

What size problems are you referring to if i may ask? Epson (R-D1), Leica (M8) and now Pixii did that already. Just a dead end if you ask me but YMMV.

Electronics are simply too large at present to create a CL-sized camera that can accommodate  a rangefinder mechanism of Leica quality. They will certainly shrink in the future.  There are heat dissipation concerns too.

The R-D1 and M8 were much larger for that reason That Pixii is vapourware for the time being..

It would not make sense to produce an APS M10-like camera.

[lct]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Electronics are simply too large at present to create a CL-sized camera that can accommodate  a rangefinder mechanism of Leica quality. They will certainly shrink in the future.  There are heat dissipation concerns too.

The R-D1 and M8 were much larger for that reason That Pixii is vapourware for the time being..

It would not make sense to produce an APS M10-like camera.

A CL-sized rangefinder would have a short RF base lenght by construction with similar focus accuracy problems as those of the film CL or Epson R-D1. BTW the Pixii should be hitting the market in the not too distant future according to this review. How such a compact RF could sell at more than $3,000 is beyond be but i hope to be proved wrong.

[jaapv]

Err... Why? The camera is wide enough to place the windows at the same distance as the M - as opposed to the original CL, which lost space to the film wind and rewind mechanism. In theory the M10 could have a longer base than it has now, but there are various reasons for sticking with the present RF assembly.

[lct]

Never seen that so far but again i may be proved wrong. 

[Kim Dahl]

I totally agree.  I bought TL2 a week after introduction.  It's ok if they give up the TL2 concept if it doesn't sell.  BUT I think it is too bad that they do not update TL2 to at least CL firmware.  I have my trusty Leica M but I do not buy new "trials" from Leica when they will not update.  So in terms of APSC, I will be very careful.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[oldwino]

Back on to the topic at hand...Having used both cameras now, I would say the CL is much better with M lenses just from a usability standpoint. Also, it has a familiarity about it.

The TL2 is a great autofocus camera. It's a shame they seem really to drop it, but the lack of an internal EVF really turned a lot of potential buyers off, and I think Leica underestimated that. Even after all the negative press the X 113 because of that same issue.

I think the TL2 may go down in history as the M5 of the digital Leicas - unloved at first, under-appreciated, then (maybe, later) a cult item.

[HuntingSand]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

So, you validate the fact that Leica gave up the whole TL product line ? No original developer = no further development ? 
It is shameful, really. Really shameful for the buyers. 

If you have a story to tell, just share it. I am very curious to read it. 

I just acknowledge the fact that nothing happened for years in the TL world : bodies and lenses. 
 

It will not be the first time for Leica to drop a failed format. Eg : R, S (with just one last body the S3 to content the S lenses owners). Future CL2 can be the last body to content TL lenses owners) 
Bad economics will push Leica to act sooner that later. They are the inventor of 24x36. They need to focus into this format alone. 

Leica didn't give up, the company that was responsible for the T no longer exists. Simple as that. It went as far as it did. Similar with the X line. That has come and now gone, too. You call the R system a failed system? I have an S, btw, and while it has many failures, it also produces the most sumptuous files I've ever worked with from a digital Leica.

Re the T inception and development story, je suis désolé, some other time perhaps.

To those that read this discussion, consider a broader perspective, namely, the sociological profile of Leica users. The T was Leica's attempt to push the brand into the hands of a) women, and b), younger folk (iPhone genX). The CL took over once it became clear that the T couldn't be pushed further, but due to its design (and pricing strategy) I believe it falls short of the original agenda. That last point is speculation, I don't know the numbers (yet) re the CL's sales stats. Anyway, just a thought, on adapters and the fate of early adopters 😉