Leica CL-2

[Rick in CO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So...this has gotten a bit off track, but just to reiterate for clarity:

Leica M lenses are manual focus and on the CL are manual focus only, no AF capability (of course - leaving out third party adapters).

Focus peaking, with magnification,  in Live View and the EVF are available with manual focus M-mount lenses.

6-bit coding allows identification of the encoded lens, but does not provide for some automated features (like P, S, and Scene modes).  Aperture-preferred metering works without any problem.

Wide angle M lenses on the CL do not provide for sensor pixel corrections in the extreme field - or do they?  Since due to the crop factor only the central portion of the lens field is used, is this critical? 

Anything else relevant?

[lct]

44 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

Wide angle M lenses on the CL do not provide for sensor pixel corrections in the extreme field - or do they?  Since due to the crop factor only the central portion of the lens field is used, is this critical? Anything else relevant?

Distortion correction.

[Advertisement]

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

[NZDavid]

If the CL-2 had a traditional analog shutter speed dial like the M and Q — and maybe an analog aperture dial on the top plate like the X (necessary because of CL lens design) I’d buy it straightaway. I realize I may be in the minority here.

[RM8]

1 hour ago, NZDavid said:

If the CL-2 had a traditional analog shutter speed dial like the M and Q — and maybe an analog aperture dial on the top plate like the X (necessary because of CL lens design) I’d buy it straightaway. I realize I may be in the minority here.

Minority +1

[wda]

1 hour ago, NZDavid said:

If the CL-2 had a traditional analog shutter speed dial like the M and Q — and maybe an analog aperture dial on the top plate like the X (necessary because of CL lens design) I’d buy it straightaway. I realize I may be in the minority here.

Meanwhile, enjoy your X Vario,  despite its other limitations. 

[RM8]

Just now, RM8 said:

Minority +1 !

This said, here my own other "must have" improvements for a CL2
- in-body image stabilization (IBIS)
- GPS data
- sturdier construction of the battery cover

and some "nice to have" ones
- option to turn off the EVF eye sensor whenever in Play Mode
- stronger detents on the directional pad keys

and if there's time left
- green dot on top next to the red one, indicating "camera on" 😉
 

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And Same battery than Q2 and SL2

[Le Chef]

Are we getting closer to the CL2 launch? 

We’re back to price offers on CL and TL2 bundles.

An article extolling the virtues of the CL some 4 years after launch.

Are these things just a rustling of the leaves or the sign of something more significant happening?

 

[RM8]

On 4/20/2021 at 9:50 AM, jaapv said:

This is quite fanciful and  would be a rather esoteric way of transmitting an aperture value. No, Leica does not use this in their M bodies.
The M cameras have an outside light metering cell, which -amongst other things- enables the camera to compare the ambient light with the amount of light falling onto the sensor, to calculate the aperture value. This calculation is imprecise at best.
The six-bit coding only identifies the lens type to the camera. Nor is there any way of setting the lens aperture -which is mechanical- by the camera.
 

Diaphragm value recognition

"Patent number: 8269882, Filed 2007, granted 2012

Abstract: A method for determining the current camera aperture (working aperture) of lenses on digital cameras having a viewfinder eyepiece and internal exposure measurement through the lens wherein a further external exposure measurement is carried out past the lens and the value of the working aperture is determined from a reference table stored in the digital camera from the difference (BV) between the two measured exposure values BV(int) and BV(ext)"

Patent filed by ... Leica. So much for esoteric 😉

[jaapv]

Thanks for the confirmation - I used "esoteric" for a supposed system of measuring aperture characteristics in the post above the quoted one, and explained exactly the system the patent refers to, which is used on digital Ms.

I think you misread  

[RM8]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Thanks for the confirmation - I used "esoteric" for a supposed system of measuring aperture characteristics in the post above the quoted one, and explained exactly the system the patent refers to, which is used on digital Ms.

I think you misread  

"...imprecise at best" hahahahahaha 😀

[RM8]

4 hours ago, cirke said:

And Same battery than Q2 and SL2

Expecting 31 Mp APS- C sensor

[AllanC]

Wouldn't a new CL be the CL3?

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!

[cboy]

Suggestion..How about a LR...fullframe L mount  rangefinder body. I doubt itll take market share off the M lineup as people would still want the rangefinder experience.

Theres no reason its not physically possible; much like the fuji gxf series and sigma fp..gxf100, gfx 50r & gxf 50s. The SL would still be their flagship and the LR would be a compact lower tier alternative.

[lct]

4 hours ago, cboy said:

Suggestion..How about a LR...fullframe L mount  rangefinder body. I doubt itll take market share off the M lineup as people would still want the rangefinder experience.

Theres no reason its not physically possible; much like the fuji gxf series and sigma fp..gxf100, gfx 50r & gxf 50s. The SL would still be their flagship and the LR would be a compact lower tier alternative.

You mean an L mount body sans rangefinder i guess. Automatic image magnification would not work for lack of mechanical link between the focus cam of M lenses and the body. Such a camera would fit M lenses the same good enough way as SL bodies currently. Also why putting an L mount on a manual body? If the aim is to make another AF camera there are plenty of them at Leica already. What we (at least i) miss is a mirrorless camera dedicated to M lenses, hence an M mount body. Take an M body, remove the RF put an EVF instead et voila . But such a camera would be full frame and would have nothing to do with the CL anyway.

[RM8]

2 hours ago, lct said:

You mean an L mount body sans rangefinder i guess. Automatic image magnification would not work for lack of mechanical link between the focus cam of M lenses and the body. Such a camera would fit M lenses the same good enough way as SL bodies currently. Also why putting an L mount on a manual body? If the aim is to make another AF camera there are plenty of them at Leica already. What we (at least i) miss is a mirrorless camera dedicated to M lenses, hence an M mount body. Take an M body, remove the RF put an EVF instead et voila . But such a camera would be full frame and would have nothing to do with the CL anyway.

Great analysis, agree with conclusion too except it could be achieved with a CL2 (3?) with aim to the future. Main bottleneck to your solution indeed is that current generation of M lenses (of which I don't own any) are not able to pass any data from those magnificently engineered optics to the camera (bar those miserable 6 painted-on read-only bits). Am clueless as to whether Leica's R&D involves a next generation M-lens architecture keeping those optics (critical) and adding electronics inside the barrel. Open slit in the M-mount flange where those paint-on "data" now sit, change the programming of the 6 sensors now reading the 6-bit code, etc. et voilà 😜 --all while preserving ruggedness and reverse compatibility of course. I'm stopping here before I'm considered too fanciful and esoteric haha

[lct]

1 hour ago, RM8 said:

Great analysis, agree with conclusion too except it could be achieved with a CL2 (3?) with aim to the future. Main bottleneck to your solution indeed is that current generation of M lenses (of which I don't own any) are not able to pass any data from those magnificently engineered optics to the camera (bar those miserable 6 painted-on read-only bits). Am clueless as to whether Leica's R&D involves a next generation M-lens architecture keeping those optics (critical) and adding electronics inside the barrel. Open slit in the M-mount flange where those paint-on "data" now sit, change the programming of the 6 sensors now reading the 6-bit code, etc. et voilà 😜 --all while preserving ruggedness and reverse compatibility of course. I'm stopping here before I'm considered too fanciful and esoteric haha

I'm no techie at all but M lenses would "gain" some bulk and weight this way so my question would be why. They would not be AF anyway would they. What the CL needs to know when using M lenses is the ID of the lens and 6-bit coding is enough for that don't you think so? 

[RM8]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I'm no techie at all but M lenses would "gain" some bulk and weight this way so my question would be why. They would not be AF anyway would they. What the CL needs to know when using M lenses is the ID of the lens and 6-bit coding is enough for that don't you think so? 

Aperture maybe, focal length for zoom lens? Just guessing. AF in future Ms, who knows. As I said have no clue how (or if at all) the CL product may affect design of those.

[lct]

56 minutes ago, RM8 said:

Aperture maybe, focal length for zoom lens? Just guessing. AF in future Ms, who knows. As I said have no clue how (or if at all) the CL product may affect design of those.

AF is a feature of L and TL lenses as you know. The only way to get AF on M lenses is to use a Techart adapter on Sony A7 bodies currently. Would not be impossible on Leica bodies but the problem is register distance which is longer on Leica than Sony bodies. The CL mount, for example, would have to be recessed or replaced by an adapter accordingly. As for zoom lenses there is only one in the M range currently, the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21/4. It costs about $6k and i'm not sure its owners would be happy if it were any more bulky or hefty. I'm sure i would not personally but it's just me .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

On 4/23/2021 at 11:10 AM, RM8 said:

Great analysis, agree with conclusion too except it could be achieved with a CL2 (3?) with aim to the future. Main bottleneck to your solution indeed is that current generation of M lenses (of which I don't own any) are not able to pass any data from those magnificently engineered optics to the camera (bar those miserable 6 painted-on read-only bits). Am clueless as to whether Leica's R&D involves a next generation M-lens architecture keeping those optics (critical) and adding electronics inside the barrel. Open slit in the M-mount flange where those paint-on "data" now sit, change the programming of the 6 sensors now reading the 6-bit code, etc. et voilà 😜 --all while preserving ruggedness and reverse compatibility of course. I'm stopping here before I'm considered too fanciful and esoteric haha

Why do I have a vision of a flying pig, reading this?