Jump to content

Leica CL-2


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm almost certainly selling my CL and TL lenses. I'm holding them hostage with some other stuff to swap toward the M11, if the rumors about that camera are close to true. 

But my photographic habits have changed a lot since buying the CL, and I really, really did like it when I used it. (I felt I could sell the Q and have no regrets.)

So I don't understand how a CL2 would be such an improvement. A sensor with 8 more mps? It can't be fully weatherproofed if the TL lenses aren't. Okay, IBIS would be great if you're shooting long, but the 150-600 already has stabilization. There are 16 pages to this thread, so I apologize if I've overlooked something essential that couldn't be otherwise fixed with an intelligent firmware update. To my mind, the CL is a terrific camera as is. 

Edited by bags27
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, bags27 said:

I'm almost certainly selling my CL and TL lenses. I'm holding them hostage with some other stuff to swap toward the M11, if the rumors about that camera are close to true. 

But my photographic habits have changed a lot since buying the CL, and I really, really did like it when I used it. (I felt I could sell the Q and have no regrets.)

So I don't understand how a CL2 would be such an improvement. A sensor with 8 more mps? It can't be fully weatherproofed if the TL lenses aren't. Okay, IBIS would be great if you're shooting long, but the 150-600 already has stabilization. There are 16 pages to this thread, so I apologize if I've overlooked something essential that couldn't be otherwise fixed with an intelligent firmware update. To my mind, the CL is a terrific camera as is. 

I wish I could like even the idea of an M camera, but liking wide angle shots and zooms, I don’t think an M would ever work for me. So I’m still hoping for something CL-like but maybe it comes from LUMIX or Sigma instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I wish I could like even the idea of an M camera, but liking wide angle shots and zooms, I don’t think an M would ever work for me. So I’m still hoping for something CL-like but maybe it comes from LUMIX or Sigma instead.

I think you can go wide enough with rangefinders, especially with live view, but I just came back from the Berkshires with lots of nice photos with the VC 15 and VC 21 even on the M4-P (below, the VC 21 with Portra 400 developed in Cinestill C-41). I agree that long is the obvious problem with a RF. But I honestly don't believe that there's an attractive L mount solution for long. I've already sold the Sigma 100-400 and I can't get myself to buy the 150-600; otherwise, I'd keep the CL for that alone. For stationary birds and other things, nothing beats R glass on the CL or SL, but for BIF, I think the L mount is just making do. 

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!

Edited by bags27
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gotium said:

Thicker cover glass over the sensor on the Panny, increasing diffraction at the edges with rangefinder lenses

Thicker cover glass over the sensor on the Panny, increasing diffraction at the edges with some rangefinder lenses...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Leica is a master at managing rumors.  So I think it would be good to spread a rumor right now - that CL is continuing and the development with TL optics is continuing - with all the rumors that Apsc is not continuing.  Rumors that are now with good reason.  For example, whether there is IS or which sensor or waterproof or operation as SL2 - in the new CL2.  Just some signal.  
Very few I talk to believe in a future for apsc at Leica. Let Leica have that rumor beaten down.  I hope so. 
CL2 is not up to date.  It's a good camera.  It's TL2 too.  But not near a camera that can be used professionally.  AF for reportage is not good enough.  The censor could also be lifted slightly.  
 

Not least if a company does not develop on their products then future buyers believe that the series will not continue. I don’t hope os. I invest in Leica. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Thicker cover glass over the sensor on the Panny, increasing diffraction at the edges with some rangefinder lenses...

You're right Jaap. ☺️
Some M optics work fine on other brands.  If you or others know which ones work perfectly with thicker front glass it might be obvious with a thread where the lenses were listed.  I would use it if I had to buy a new M glass. 👍🏻

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.l-rumors.com/leaked-image-of-the-new-sigma-18-50mm-f-2-8-aps-c-l-lens/

Sigma is going to launch a new APS-C 18-50mm f2.8 lens for L-Mount this week.

Although I believe Sigma is aiming for Sony E-mount users and also selling the L-Mount version as complimentary.

Yet, part of me is hoping that this is a sign of at least one L-Mount Alliance company will be releasing a new APS-C camera soon.

 

Edited by Dex_Keshin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bags27 said:

I'm almost certainly selling my CL and TL lenses. I'm holding them hostage with some other stuff to swap toward the M11, if the rumors about that camera are close to true. 

But my photographic habits have changed a lot since buying the CL, and I really, really did like it when I used it. (I felt I could sell the Q and have no regrets.)

So I don't understand how a CL2 would be such an improvement. A sensor with 8 more mps? It can't be fully weatherproofed if the TL lenses aren't. Okay, IBIS would be great if you're shooting long, but the 150-600 already has stabilization. There are 16 pages to this thread, so I apologize if I've overlooked something essential that couldn't be otherwise fixed with an intelligent firmware update. To my mind, the CL is a terrific camera as is. 

I have a TL2 and Cl, plus a couple of TL lenses, Sigmas and my old M-mounts. I'm hanging on to all of it, but, like others, I've been hanging about waiting for information on the putative CL2. If that ever becomes available, I'll decide the next move.

Meanwhile, I've looked at the Lumix S5, which wouldn't be much of learning curve as I have experience of Pany menus. The alternative is a "doorstop" 2nd hand SL or the SL2-S. As the latter has much the same menu structure as the updated software for the CL, I might go that route.

It's certainly a waiting game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gotium said:

Sure, if you wan to be pedantic, but “some” = “most” in this case. 

Not really. Mostly older 35 mm and shorter. And even then… The S5 has no AA filter. Anyway, it is of little interest to me. It is not the use I am buying the camera for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Not really. Mostly older 35 mm and shorter. And even then… The S5 has no AA filter. Anyway, it is of little interest to me. It is not the use I am buying the camera for. 

Well aside from my lens concerns, I think the S5 is about the most attractive proposition out there - they got the size and the price right. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 9:49 AM, Le Chef said:

l like facts, not hearsay. If you’re going to claim an inside source then do yourself a favor and ask them for the facts to prove it, otherwise you’re the one who looks less than credible.

there is not 1 credible fact in this entire thread regarding a CL2!! 

Unless someone records the conversation and then posts it in here - you’ll have no facts. 
 

Nobody knows until Leica tell us. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mmanda said:

there is not 1 credible fact in this entire thread regarding a CL2!! 

Unless someone records the conversation and then posts it in here - you’ll have no facts. 
 

Nobody knows until Leica tell us. 
 

 

And you claim someone from Leica told you. But still no facts....

Edited by Le Chef
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I guess you have some time on your hands. Are you going to work through this and every other speculation thread in the forum and respond to the many similar posts with the same comment?🙄

No - I’m not wasting my time. Most people here use personal conjecture and observation on what they think might happen, when it might happen etc. If you claim a source (a Leica Manager) a Leica manager for what - a city store, the country, SEA? Wouldn’t you want to have a sense of their authority to make statements like this?

Wouldn’t you also ask more questions? If there’s going to be no CL2 what did they say about CL production? How long will it carry on for? Has the development of the CL2 passed to a third party like LUMIX or Sigma? What happens to the TL lenses? Will Leica still make them and sell them under their own name, or will they transfer production to a third party or simply shut down production and walk away? With answers to those questions at least then the statement “There will be no CL2” has some context and validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

No - I’m not wasting my time. Most people here use personal conjecture and observation on what they think might happen, when it might happen etc. If you claim a source (a Leica Manager) a Leica manager for what - a city store, the country, SEA? Wouldn’t you want to have a sense of their authority to make statements like this?

Wouldn’t you also ask more questions? If there’s going to be no CL2 what did they say about CL production? How long will it carry on for? Has the development of the CL2 passed to a third party like LUMIX or Sigma? What happens to the TL lenses? Will Leica still make them and sell them under their own name, or will they transfer production to a third party or simply shut down production and walk away? With answers to those questions at least then the statement “There will be no CL2” has some context and validity.

Yes, I would ask about the source, but I would not be surprised if I didn't get enough detail to confirm the information as 'facts'. Nor would I respond to the person passing on the information, as you did "I think we can dismiss this as simply gossip for the sake of attention.". Unless you make it clear that you are referring to the original source, and not the person making the post, this just appears offensive.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yes, I would ask about the source, but I would not be surprised if I didn't get enough detail to confirm the information as 'facts'. Nor would I respond to the person passing on the information, as you did "I think we can dismiss this as simply gossip for the sake of attention.". Unless you make it clear that you are referring to the original source, and not the person making the post, this just appears offensive.

I was referring to the person who brought this information to the attention of the OP, not the OP herself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...