CL vs. SL (not SL 2)?

[PDP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My favorite camera is the CL, I enjoy size, weight, ease of use, flexibility to use M- and R-lenses. Prices for used SL are dropping and so I am thinking if a used SL might be a good investment (as a 2nd camera). I would use it for macro, portrait-sessions, but for traveling and street the CL is my option (size, weight). I could use all my lenses with SL too (L-mount). But here is my question: is the image quality of SL really better and worth the investment? So my question to those using both: can you help me? By the way: I have testet the SL2, this camera is a monster, wow, but too heavy for my trips to nature and street.

Thanks

Philipp

[cp995]

vor einer Stunde schrieb PDP:

...By the way: I have testet the SL2, this camera is a monster, wow, but too heavy for my trips to nature and street...

If you don't like the SL2, the SL is not an alternative as they are very similar regarding size and weight.

Here is a good comparison:
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/leica-sl-vs-sl2/

Size and weight @ point 8 Design

[Advertisement]

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

[HeinzX]

I have the CL, had the SL and own a SL 2 too. My opinion is, that to benefit really from the SL it is necessary to use full frame lenses, with exception of the L Macro 60 mm. And do not forget, the SL has no stabilizer, nor have the TL lenses.The use of TL lenses with the SL 2 is another story, because this camera has an IBIS. But this was not the question. I would hope and wait for a CL 2 which migth have an IBIS and higher resolution too. But I would not spend mone on a SL when using TL lenses. Things would change, if you have or would buy some Canon EF lenses and the Sigma or Novoflex adapter for using it together with the SL or to buy either a 24/90 from Leica or  L lenses from Panasonic or Sigma with the SL, which can be used with the CL too. I own a Pansonic 16/35 which is really excellent, not too heavy and has a modest price. This lens gives very good results on the SL and SL 2 and on the CL too.

[PDP]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb HeinzX:

I have the CL, had the SL and own a SL 2 too. My opinion is, that to benefit really from the SL it is necessary to use full frame lenses, with exception of the L Macro 60 mm. And do not forget, the SL has no stabilizer, nor have the TL lenses.The use of TL lenses with the SL 2 is another story, because this camera has an IBIS. But this was not the question. I would hope and wait for a CL 2 which migth have an IBIS and higher resolution too. But I would not spend mone on a SL when using TL lenses. Things would change, if you have or would buy some Canon EF lenses and the Sigma or Novoflex adapter for using it together with the SL or to buy either a 24/90 from Leica or  L lenses from Panasonic or Sigma with the SL, which can be used with the CL too. I own a Pansonic 16/35 which is really excellent, not too heavy and has a modest price. This lens gives very good results on the SL and SL 2 and on the CL too.

Dear Heinz,

i missed to give the information that I have full frame lenses, M and R (21, 35, 50, 100). So I could use Summicron 50 or R ApoMacro 100 on the SL. I was a M Photographer for years, but switched to CL because of my eye glasses.

Thanks vor your answer

philipp

[LocalHero1953]

I have CL and SL and use both more or less as you propose. The CL for social and travel, the SL for when I'm playing at being a pro with portraits, stage, music etc.i use both cameras with their native lenses. 

The CL is a later generation camera so the benefits of a larger sensor are not as big as you might expect. That doesn't worry me - it's my compositions, skills and creativity that make a much greater difference to the outcome than lens and sensor at this level. 

As already noted, though, if the SL2 is too big and heavy for you, then the SL will be as well. 

[jankap]

New, big, heavy, large files and much cash against used, big and heavy.

Edited June 14, 2020 by jankap

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had the SL from when it was released in 2015 until 2018. I loved the viewfinder, the control UI, the feel, and the quality of its captures. The body alone has much the same weight and feel as my Leicaflex SL with respect to bulk and weight, and, used with the R lenses, much the same feel in use once you've got the controls configured to your preferences. 

But I'd long since stopped carrying SLRs much for every day shooting due to their bulk in preference to the M. I sold off the SL kit and its two zoom lenses after I closed down all my for-pay photographic assignment work, didn't need it or use it much; don't see the point to having such nice, expensive kit sitting on the shelf depreciating while it still has a high residual value. 

That left me without a TTL camera for my tabletop and macro personal work. While I still had (have) the Olympus E-M1 and a few lenses for it, I wanted to use my R system lenses as they return a different kind of image to my eye. I bought the CL, body only, expressly for that purpose. IMO, the SL sensor nets an additional stop or two of performance at best, and at ISO 200 the difference in the image quality is measurable but not perceivable. The smaller format has advantages for my tabletop and macro work ... less magnification needed for most of my usual subject matter, making the capture easier to steady and shorter, the lens needed shorter, less working space required, etc etc. 

And after that I discovered that the CL is such a good, versatile camera in the right form factor that I essentially stopped using the M at all and just use the CL with my R and M lenses.  

I personally see little point to acquiring an SL for the occasional need, or the SL2 ... The CL covers all that ground too well for me. My choice in an additional system was to move up to medium format digital: that nets some things that neither APS-C nor FF can do as well. But each of us is different, you have to decide what is going to turn you on and motivate your photography. 

G

[Jeff S]

Not only are the size and weight of the SL and SL2 similar, as noted, but I find that the recessed grip on the SL2 makes it feel lighter and more comfortable to hold.  Of course we each have different responses to ergonomics, as well as carrying techniques. but it seems like you’d be in for a disappointment given your SL2 reaction.  But I suggest that you borrow or demo an SL and evaluate for yourself. Image quality also depends on personal standards and preferences, as well as intended subject matter, output (print? size? crop?) and editing workflow. If not using native SL lenses, one also loses the weather sealing advantage of the SL system vs the CL.
 

Jeff

Edited June 15, 2020 by Jeff S

[PDP]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb ramarren:

I had the SL from when it was released in 2015 until 2018. I loved the viewfinder, the control UI, the feel, and the quality of its captures. The body alone has much the same weight and feel as my Leicaflex SL with respect to bulk and weight, and, used with the R lenses, much the same feel in use once you've got the controls configured to your preferences. 

But I'd long since stopped carrying SLRs much for every day shooting due to their bulk in preference to the M. I sold off the SL kit and its two zoom lenses after I closed down all my for-pay photographic assignment work, didn't need it or use it much; don't see the point to having such nice, expensive kit sitting on the shelf depreciating while it still has a high residual value. 

That left me without a TTL camera for my tabletop and macro personal work. While I still had (have) the Olympus E-M1 and a few lenses for it, I wanted to use my R system lenses as they return a different kind of image to my eye. I bought the CL, body only, expressly for that purpose. IMO, the SL sensor nets an additional stop or two of performance at best, and at ISO 200 the difference in the image quality is measurable but not perceivable. The smaller format has advantages for my tabletop and macro work ... less magnification needed for most of my usual subject matter, making the capture easier to steady and shorter, the lens needed shorter, less working space required, etc etc. 

And after that I discovered that the CL is such a good, versatile camera in the right form factor that I essentially stopped using the M at all and just use the CL with my R and M lenses.  

I personally see little point to acquiring an SL for the occasional need, or the SL2 ... The CL covers all that ground too well for me. My choice in an additional system was to move up to medium format digital: that nets some things that neither APS-C nor FF can do as well. But each of us is different, you have to decide what is going to turn you on and motivate your photography. 

G

to be honest, I was waiting for your answer, somewhere in the back of my mind was that you use or have used both, "measurable but not perceivable", that is my answer. Thanks! Plus all the answers about bulk, weight etc. That means a lens (no clue which one) may give me more.

[PDP]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Jeff S:

Not only are the size and weight of the SL and SL2 similar, as noted, but I find that the recessed grip on the SL2 makes it feel lighter and more comfortable to hold.  Of course we each have different responses to ergonomics, as well as carrying techniques. but it seems like you’d be in for a disappointment given your SL2 reaction.  But I suggest that you borrow or demo an SL and evaluate for yourself. Image quality also depends on personal standards and preferences, as well as intended subject matter, output (print? size? crop?) and editing workflow. If not using native SL lenses, one also loses the weather sealing advantage of the SL system vs the CL.
 

Jeff

indeed this morning i had the (old) SL in my hand and for whatever reason it feels better, not logic considering the facts (weight).

Thanks to all answering! It seems that old SL is not far above the CL, but by definition of specs the SL2 is. Taking aside handling that brings me to the ultimate question, is it wort to invest in SL2 considering that I will use (old) M- and R-lenses (which are not prepared for 60 lines per ...) and not intending to buy these perfect huge bulky SL-lenses? There are some wonderful R-lenses and M-lenses with an attractive personality, I may look at those and wait for CL 2 as someone recommends...In fact I love the CL for all these wonderful games to play.

[Jeff S]

The SL Summicrons are not that large, and balance well on the SL and SL2.  IBIS on the latter also works when using your M and R lenses.  I hope you shot some pics besides just holding that SL; only way to really assess files for yourself. 
 

Jeff

[nicci78]

I think it is a great idea to have both CL and SL. For those reasons :

CL to get :

• more reach, like 1.5x teleconverter
• more resolution (24) for telephotos. Instead of only 10MP (SL) or 20MP (SL2)
• more depth of field for the same aperture
• higher macro magnification
• smaller cameras & lenses. 

SL/SL2 to get : 

• more overall resolution (Only for SL2)
• widest angle of view
• very shallow depth of field
• better heft for biggest lenses
• better dynamic range (slightly)

So you may need both cameras They are totally complementary to each other. It is nice to a common L-mount covering them both. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by nicci78

[jaapv]

On 6/15/2020 at 10:22 PM, PDP said:

indeed this morning i had the (old) SL in my hand and for whatever reason it feels better, not logic considering the facts (weight).

Thanks to all answering! It seems that old SL is not far above the CL, but by definition of specs the SL2 is. Taking aside handling that brings me to the ultimate question, is it wort to invest in SL2 considering that I will use (old) M- and R-lenses (which are not prepared for 60 lines per ...) and not intending to buy these perfect huge bulky SL-lenses? There are some wonderful R-lenses and M-lenses with an attractive personality, I may look at those and wait for CL 2 as someone recommends...In fact I love the CL for all these wonderful games to play.

Sorry, don't fall for the common mistake that a sensor/lens resolution is a weakest link situation. It is not. A better sensor will give better results on any lens, a better lens will give better results on any sensor.