Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, I have a Q and an M10.

The Q is an almost perfect camera to me but it is the same size of the M10, sometimes even bigger. I was thinking about selling the Q for a CL with 18 or 23 + the M Adapter (no Zoom or Summilux). While the 18 is a pancake, I'm not too sure about the 23; does any of you have a Q and a CL +23 for a comparison? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

Hi everyone, I have a Q and an M10.

The Q is an almost perfect camera to me but it is the same size of the M10, sometimes even bigger. I was thinking about selling the Q for a CL with 18 or 23 + the M Adapter (no Zoom or Summilux). While the 18 is a pancake, I'm not too sure about the 23; does any of you have a Q and a CL +23 for a comparison? 

 

i've had the cl for over a year now and should have been satisfied with it as it is nearly a perfect carry anywhere size and takes m lenses with the adapter. also, it complements my panasonic s1 quite well as i can use the s1 lenses on the cl and vice versa and the crop factor allows for pseudo focal lengths in-between the actual focal lengths.

but i was shopping for a q when i altered course to the cl and i guess i never really completely abandoned the idea because when i had a chance to buy a like-new q2 a few weeks back for a very good price (deal looks even better with the leica price increases) i jumped on it. thus, as you'd imagine, the shiny new toy is getting all the attention. but shooting the cl with the 50mm summicron is such a delightful experience that i have no plans to get rid of it or the s1.

i did buy the 23mm tl with the cl and there's no flies on it. it's not what i consider outstanding, but it's way above average. but shooting with it just doesn't have the magic of shooting with the 50mm summicron and i'm semi-rural, so the 75mm pseudo-crop factor is a pro, not a con for my use. 

/guy

Edited by gteague
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for a superb lens but an all-around small one, that's why I'm not even considering the 35 Lux, way too big for the CL. 

I love both focal length but I prefer the 23 because it is f2 BUT if the difference between the Q and the 23 is not enough, it doesn't make any sense selling the Q.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrea, I have a Q and CL+ 23 Summicron. The shooting experience is slightly different.  With the Q, you are obliged to compose your subject using a cropped down frame, whereas with the CL, you are viewing full-frame with no easy access to seeing outside the frame unless you move the camera. This is no big deal, but a slightly different framing experience.  I enjoy using both cameras.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wda said:

Andrea, I have a Q and CL+ 23 Summicron. The shooting experience is slightly different.  With the Q, you are obliged to compose your subject using a cropped down frame, whereas with the CL, you are viewing full-frame with no easy access to seeing outside the frame unless you move the camera. This is no big deal, but a slightly different framing experience.  I enjoy using both cameras.

Can tou please share a couple of pictures of the two cameras compared in size? Front and above?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both, the old Q and the CL. I like the Q, but I love the CL. Why? The size, the great EVF and the ability to combine it with all these wonderfull M-Lenses and Voigtländer-babies and even R-lenses. I am not a pixel counting Photographer, but i am really happy with Image quality of CL. Never made a direct comparison. I simply enjoy the CL in my hand with nice leather case and a tiny lens on it. When shooting people they often tell me that they feel better with a small camera, whereas the Q is felt like a block.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

Can tou please share a couple of pictures of the two cameras compared in size? Front and above?

This site is useful for comparisons and show what you are looking for:

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/leica-cl-vs-leica-q-typ-116

In the days when we were able to travel, seems like a dim and distant memory, I did a couple of trips with the CL and the Q, was such a good combination I have no idea why I let go of the Q and have many times been tempted to re-purchase🙂.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

Can tou please share a couple of pictures of the two cameras compared in size? Front and above?

 

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Boojay said:

This site is useful for comparisons and show what you are looking for:

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/leica-cl-vs-leica-q-typ-116

In the days when we were able to travel, seems like a dim and distant memory, I did a couple of trips with the CL and the Q, was such a good combination I have no idea why I let go of the Q and have many times been tempted to re-purchase🙂.

 

It is very interesting.  In what situation did you use Q and/or CL?  Or did you go with both cameras to have two focal lengths with you ?   I have M and think of it as my Q but think - if Leica shows they invest in APSC - to add CL2 (when it comes) I have TL2 and am very happy with it but it is not good for my M optics.  I hope CL is and will be much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kim Dahl said:

It is very interesting.  In what situation did you use Q and/or CL?  Or did you go with both cameras to have two focal lengths with you ?   I have M and think of it as my Q but think - if Leica shows they invest in APSC - to add CL2 (when it comes) I have TL2 and am very happy with it but it is not good for my M optics.  I hope CL is and will be much better.

Jayne, I am surprised you sold your Q. Such a beautiful camera. But your ambitions outstretch mine and I have reached contentment with what I have. (Except if a stabilized CL2 should arrive one day) 😀

Kim, on my last trip with the Q and CL, Autumn 2019, such a long time ago, I used the standard zoom on the CL where I anticipated a need for a higher resolution 50 mm and longer focal lengths. I also carried an M-mount converter and  a 75 mm or 90 mm M-lens (over 100 mm effectively), for detail and portraiture opportunities. That compact kit covers many unforeseen situations. I find that the two cameras work very well together. I have not felt the need to upgrade my original Leica Q.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kim Dahl said:

It is very interesting.  In what situation did you use Q and/or CL?  Or did you go with both cameras to have two focal lengths with you ?   I have M and think of it as my Q but think - if Leica shows they invest in APSC - to add CL2 (when it comes) I have TL2 and am very happy with it but it is not good for my M optics.  I hope CL is and will be much better.

Kim even though my photography is mainly just hobby stuff these days and I'm getting to the point where I bore myself with my images, I nearly always carry two camera's when I have my daily walkabout, to cover different focal lengths.  It would have been the Q's 28, now it's an M and a zoom on the CL or SL2.   I always found the Q and the CL with 55-135 a wonderful walk around combination.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wda said:

Jayne, I am surprised you sold your Q. Such a beautiful camera. But your ambitions outstretch mine and I have reached contentment with what I have. (Except if a stabilized CL2 should arrive one day) 😀

 

You're right David, and I have kicked myself on more than one occasion that I did, I totally agree the Q is a beautiful camera.  

I'm not sure it is anything to do with ambitions it just felt ridiculous at the time that I had the CL an M and had added the SL2, which while I don't regret it, is probably completely over the top for my needs.  Want is so very different to need though isn't it 🙂.   

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a CL and was considering a Q but then bought the 11-23 TL zoom, the lens is slow but the images are wonderful. With the 23 the CL is more portable, the 23 is also a very good lens.  The zoom isn't that heavy or big, just won't work as a pocket camera. I am keeping the 23 because it is better than the zoom at f2 - f4. I also have other lenses from 35mm to 400mm that I use on the CL, just one very versitile camera.

Edited by tommonego@gmail.com
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Size comparison of the two with the TL23 on the CL

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

Thank you so much!

It looks almost the same without the hood, I think the 18mm should be better. Whithout comparing it to the 28mm, do you think the pancake is a good lens? 

You're welcome. The TL18 is a sweet little lens and doesn't get much love on the forum because it came late to the party but I really like mine and there are plenty of others who do as well.

Here's how it would look on the CL. I have mine on a TL2 and it's even more compact which is the reason I bought it. It will easily fit in a jacket pocket or my wife's handbag.

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 Reggie
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Andrea Bianchi said:

Thank you so much!

It looks almost the same without the hood, I think the 18mm should be better. Whithout comparing it to the 28mm, do you think the pancake is a good lens? 

I would choose the 23mm every time without question over the 18mm. The lens on the Q however is a significant step up from both those lenses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to compare lens quality across sensor (film) formats. According to Peter Karbe the APS-C lenses have been, of necessity, been built to a higher state of correction than the full-frame lenses. Equally, medium format lenses have to meet lesser standards than 135 format ones.  The lens of the Q is different again, as it is a hybrid design for full-frame, being optimized both optically and digitally.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say, as you are comparing sensors at the same time. There is a clear difference between an interchangeable APS 18 (24 equ.) and APS 23 (35 equ) and an integrated 28 mm lens-sensor system. Different lens speeds too. Apples and oranges come to mind. 
The king of  28 is the Summilux M  28 asph, which in turn is easily surpassed optically by the APO Summicron SL 28, which is handicapped by size. 
And then, of course, there is the Digilux2, which is arguably the best short zoom ever built, albeit on a 1" sensor and fixed to the camera.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...