Leica CL and Leica Q - Using one more than the other

[bgb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I purchased a Q end of last year, liked it so much that I sold my Nikon DSLR, Lumix FZ-2500 and Fuji XE-T3. I then purchased the CL with the 18-56mm lens a few months later. Now with adapters to use my Rokinon wide-angles, and 7 Artisan lenses I find myself using the Leica CL way more than the Q.  There's no doubt that the IQ of photos from the Q, a full-frame camera, are better than the Leica CL, t's a fantastic camera and lens with macro capability.. But I'm thinking of selling it add more lenses for the CL (or at least pay it off 😎).   Anyone else face this situation?    BTW, with all that's going on in the world at this time, I'm fully aware that this is no big deal, but it keeps my mind off the other cataclysmic issues  we're experiencing.  All opinions welcome, any recommendation for lenses?...thanks.  I am currently waiting for arrival of the TTArtisan 35mm F1.4 lens to ship.  Be Well everyone.

[david strachan]

Hi bjb

Nice to have you aboard the Forum.

Keep both..you have the best of all worlds...interchangeable lenses, full frame, auto focus, close up, etc. Everything nailed...enjoy.

...

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, bgb said:

I purchased a Q end of last year, liked it so much that I sold my Nikon DSLR, Lumix FZ-2500 and Fuji XE-T3. I then purchased the CL with the 18-56mm lens a few months later. Now with adapters to use my Rokinon wide-angles, and 7 Artisan lenses I find myself using the Leica CL way more than the Q.  There's no doubt that the IQ of photos from the Q, a full-frame camera, are better than the Leica CL, t's a fantastic camera and lens with macro capability.. But I'm thinking of selling it add more lenses for the CL (or at least pay it off 😎).   Anyone else face this situation?    BTW, with all that's going on in the world at this time, I'm fully aware that this is no big deal, but it keeps my mind off the other cataclysmic issues  we're experiencing.  All opinions welcome, any recommendation for lenses?...thanks.  I am currently waiting for arrival of the TTArtisan 35mm F1.4 lens to ship.  Be Well everyone.

I find myself using CL much more than M240, even though I also have R 35-70 and R80-200. 

I find I use M with M primes much more than using R lenses, but I use CL with zoom much more than M with prime.

 

[DirkS]

I sold my SL, because I found out, that I used the smaller CL more often. 

[wda]

Q is full-frame and gives you superior results. Treat it as a special capability and insurance on important travel trips. Devote some days as Q-days so that you are constantly aware of its value to you. Of course the CL will always be special with its system role. When you doubt the need for the Q, just use it again and be reminded of its high quality output.

[Viv]

I have the CL and the Q2. I use both - CL for general photography and travel, Q2 when I want the highest image quality.

[MDCT]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have CL and and SL and I still shoot the CL more because of the form factor. I really am loving the new firmware as well. Its made my favorite camera even better.

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, wda said:

Q is full-frame and gives you superior results. Treat it as a special capability and insurance on important travel trips. Devote some days as Q-days so that you are constantly aware of its value to you. Of course the CL will always be special with its system role. When you doubt the need for the Q, just use it again and be reminded of its high quality output.

Q is not a full frame when compared with CL, it is even smaller than CL, denpends on the focal length you need.

28mm is not a good focal length for travel photography. It is too wide for your family or travel partners. The general preferred focal length would be 35mm or longe. Q can do that by cropping, but you lose image quality. This is exactly against its full frame.. 

The most important factor for choosing CL vs. Q is the focal length. If you have to crop Q, you do not have a full frame.

 

[carbon_dragon]

I agree, I mean nothing wrong with 28mm, but I've never really liked it personally. I'm much more of a 50mm and 35mm person with some occasional telephoto. Q's a cool camera, but too wide.

[caigy]

I, too, have both the Q and the CL.  

I do find myself using the CL much more than the Q, with several of the TL lenses (the 11-23mm is great), but also with adapted vintage Nikon, Minolta and Leica R lenses as well as the 7Artisans 55mm 1.4. 

I find myself using the Q less and less, and only every now and then (temporarily on hold due to Covid-19) I will dedicate a day to using the Q, especially for urban street shooting (I live near NYC).  I do find the haptics and the user experience of the Q to be far, far superior to the CL.   The image quality of the CL comes close, so the slight image quality superiority of the Q doesn't matter as much to me, but the Q somehow "feels" better and I enjoy having an aperture ring on the lens.

Given how little I use the Q, I should probably sell it, but the emotions I experience using it keep me from doing so.  I feel more like a photographer using the Q than I do with the CL.

To me the CL feels much more like an electronic instrument, while the Q feels more like a camera.  While the CL obviously gives me the flexibility of using many different lenses and a wide range of focal lengths, it is somehow less satisfying to use (to me).

There is much speculation about what a CL2 might look like and what features it might have.  I, like many others, would like IBIS in a CL2.  But just as much (many will disagree with me here), I would like to see dedicated top dials for shutter speed and aperture like Leica X2, X113, X-Vario.  I doubt we'll see this, but in my experience, the non-dedicated nature of the top dials on the CL detracts from the user experience, it doesn't add to it. Despite having bought the CL exactly 2 years ago (Sept 2018) and having set the top dials the way I want them, I still have to think what each is set for every time I pick up the camera.   I can't seem to develop a "muscle memory" for the way the dials have been set, even though I haven't changed them since I bought the camera.   That's part of what keeps drawing me back to the Q.   It's simple, clear, and I know what to expect every time I use it.

To slightly digress from topic: I also find it highly frustrating that Leica does not seem to listen to its customers.  The CL community has been asking for a firmware update to address the wandering focus point since the camera first came out.  Most recently, we've gotten a 4th firmware update and yet still no solution for locking the wandering focus point.  It cannot be that Leica is unaware of the desire for this feature, so I can only conclude that they are arrogant in their refusal to address the issue.  This gives me hesitation about investing further in the Leica system.

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, caigy said:

I, too, have both the Q and the CL.  

I do find myself using the CL much more than the Q, with several of the TL lenses (the 11-23mm is great), but also with adapted vintage Nikon, Minolta and Leica R lenses as well as the 7Artisans 55mm 1.4. 

I find myself using the Q less and less, and only every now and then (temporarily on hold due to Covid-19) I will dedicate a day to using the Q, especially for urban street shooting (I live near NYC).  I do find the haptics and the user experience of the Q to be far, far superior to the CL.   The image quality of the CL comes close, so the slight image quality superiority of the Q doesn't matter as much to me, but the Q somehow "feels" better and I enjoy having an aperture ring on the lens.

Given how little I use the Q, I should probably sell it, but the emotions I experience using it keep me from doing so.  I feel more like a photographer using the Q than I do with the CL.

To me the CL feels much more like an electronic instrument, while the Q feels more like a camera.  While the CL obviously gives me the flexibility of using many different lenses and a wide range of focal lengths, it is somehow less satisfying to use (to me).

There is much speculation about what a CL2 might look like and what features it might have.  I, like many others, would like IBIS in a CL2.  But just as much (many will disagree with me here), I would like to see dedicated top dials for shutter speed and aperture like Leica X2, X113, X-Vario.  I doubt we'll see this, but in my experience, the non-dedicated nature of the top dials on the CL detracts from the user experience, it doesn't add to it. Despite having bought the CL exactly 2 years ago (Sept 2018) and having set the top dials the way I want them, I still have to think what each is set for every time I pick up the camera.   I can't seem to develop a "muscle memory" for the way the dials have been set, even though I haven't changed them since I bought the camera.   That's part of what keeps drawing me back to the Q.   It's simple, clear, and I know what to expect every time I use it.

To slightly digress from topic: I also find it highly frustrating that Leica does not seem to listen to its customers.  The CL community has been asking for a firmware update to address the wandering focus point since the camera first came out.  Most recently, we've gotten a 4th firmware update and yet still no solution for locking the wandering focus point.  It cannot be that Leica is unaware of the desire for this feature, so I can only conclude that they are arrogant in their refusal to address the issue.  This gives me hesitation about investing further in the Leica system.

If Q makes you feel more like a photography than CL does, get M. Choose the best fit focal length for your need.

Q or Q2 is not for general use for most people, it's a special tool dedicated for a much limited purpose, be it photographer of mortal.   

A non-exist Q Vario might be.

[geoffreyg]

Prefer the sense of the Q but have the CL instead. Reasons for the CL: 

- smaller size - the  Q is nice enough, but ends up being a bit big for the pockets.....

- more lens flexibility with the CL. Even have come to like the zooms. 

- prefer 35mm lens length, and the idea of cropping a 28 to get there is not satisfying. 

A 35mm lens on a Q would be hard to resist. The built in macro, aperture ring, and easy understanding are all points for the Q.  But the CL is lovely to use, can be quite compact and surprising image quality - prints well up to 17 x 22. So the M240 sits, without much action. 

Edited September 2, 2020 by geoffreyg

[rob_w]

19 hours ago, caigy said:

I would like to see dedicated top dials for shutter speed and aperture like Leica X2, X113, X-Vario.  I doubt we'll see this, but in my experience, the non-dedicated nature of the top dials on the CL detracts from the user experience, it doesn't add to it. Despite having bought the CL exactly 2 years ago (Sept 2018) and having set the top dials the way I want them, I still have to think what each is cset for every time I pick up the camera. 

Couldn't agree more.  Why change a perfectly good interface, familiar through decades of use, for one which is specific to each camera?  Imagine buying a car that has a joystick for steering and a wheel for selecting gears ... ouch!

[AdHox]

21 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

[...]

28mm is not a good focal length for travel photography. It is too wide for your family or travel partners. The general preferred focal length would be 35mm or longe. Q can do that by cropping, but you lose image quality. This is exactly against its full frame.

[..]

I’ll agree that 28mm is not an ideal focal length for travel; I would want wider. Due to COVID-19 I haven’t had the opportunity to take my CL on vacation, but when I do have the opportunity again I’d definitely include the 11-23mm in my bag, covering the equivalent of 16-35mm - along with lenses to cover normal ranges.

[ramarren]

On 9/1/2020 at 8:16 PM, bgb said:

I purchased a Q end of last year, liked it so much that I sold my Nikon DSLR, Lumix FZ-2500 and Fuji XE-T3. I then purchased the CL with the 18-56mm lens a few months later. Now with adapters to use my Rokinon wide-angles, and 7 Artisan lenses I find myself using the Leica CL way more than the Q.  There's no doubt that the IQ of photos from the Q, a full-frame camera, are better than the Leica CL, t's a fantastic camera and lens with macro capability.. But I'm thinking of selling it add more lenses for the CL (or at least pay it off 😎).   Anyone else face this situation?    BTW, with all that's going on in the world at this time, I'm fully aware that this is no big deal, but it keeps my mind off the other cataclysmic issues  we're experiencing.  All opinions welcome, any recommendation for lenses?...thanks.  I am currently waiting for arrival of the TTArtisan 35mm F1.4 lens to ship.  Be Well everyone.

I like the Q/Q2, but find that 28mm is a bit wide for me a good bit of the time. Still the Q2 with its very high pixel resolution and the ability to crop to 35/50/75 mm FoV quickly and easily remains a compelling camera. 

I use a CL, most of the time fitted with either an M-mount Summilux 35 (50mm FF equivalent) or an R-mount Elmarit-R 28mm (42mm FF equivalent). When I want macro, I have Macro-Elmarit-R 60 and Macro-Elmar-R 100mm lenses (and the Leica Focusing Bellows-R to go with them) to work with. I have focal lengths from the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical to a Sigma 600mm f/8, all usable on the CL. 

To me, the CL is a supremely versatile and capable camera. Having compared the image quality at base ISO between CL, M 240, M-D 262, SL, and Q/Q2, there's really no differences at all of any significance. Pick whichever one you want to work with, and use it. Have both Q and CL? Sure, keep both if that's what you want to do. But if you want to sell one to buy other lenses for the CL, well, do what you think suits your fancy and your photography best. 

G

"Equipment is transitory, photographs endure."

[oldwino]

22 hours ago, caigy said:

I also find it highly frustrating that Leica does not seem to listen to its customers.  The CL community has been asking for a firmware update to address the wandering focus point since the camera first came out.  Most recently, we've gotten a 4th firmware update and yet still no solution for locking the wandering focus point.  It cannot be that Leica is unaware of the desire for this feature, so I can only conclude that they are arrogant in their refusal to address the issue. 

You obviously don’t understand German humor. 😁

 

I had both a Q-P and a CL concurrently, and I found the “superior image quality” of the Q to be overrated and mostly, for my use, nonexistent. Plus, 28mm is too wide for my general use. So I sold the Q-P.  I’m glad I tried (because now I know), but I don’t miss it. 

The CL with a couple of small primes (18, 30, 56) is pretty much a perfect kit.  Very little to complain about, except maybe battery life and the wandering AF box. 

[nicci78]

Back in the day when I got Q and CL. I used CL more than Q

But now with Q2 on board. I found that I use it more than CL. 
 

But I always use them alongside. They are not competitor. They are each other wingmen. 
Right now with CL firmware 4.0 and Q2 firmware 2.0. They are both sharing the exact same user interface. Making them the perfect match between them. 

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

But I always use them alongside. 

This is the point. Q/Q2 along is not flexible.   

[nicci78]

Exactly, just like CL will need one or two more lenses. 
So what’s the problem using several bodies ? Isn’t that even more practical with two bodies ? No need to swap lenses in the field. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Exactly, just like CL will need one or two more lenses. 
So what’s the problem using several bodies ? Isn’t that even more practical with two bodies ? No need to swap lenses in the field. 

That is true. In fact I also often carry several cameras, though one camera with one zoom or one standard lens could be enough.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Einst_Stein