Have any M users found that the CL takes over?

[Peter Wright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got a CL about a year back to use as a supplement to my M system.  (I have a M 240, M246, a film M and a good collection of lenses.)  I got the CL for those times when zoom, electronic viewfinders, and AF are useful.  I have still predominately used my M cameras over the last year, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the CL is all that I really need, and might trade out the M240 for a CL2 when it arrives if I like the additional features.  I am also thinking of trading out the M246 for the Q2M as almost all my mono work is between 28-50mm, and if I need to get outside that range then the CL could handle it.  I would keep my M lenses as they work well on the CL, but I am a bit nervous about giving up digital M camera capability altogether.  Anyone else been down a similar path?

[jaapv]

Well, I sold my M240, but retained my two never-sells: the M9 and M9M. However, their use has dropped considerably since I use the CL/TL system for almost everything. I do use specific M lenses when I feel the need. They complement the TL series.  And I switch to M for wide-angle shots, Having lenses like the Summilux-M 24, Super-Elmar 18 and Ultra-wide Heliar 12 is more practical than buying the 11-23 for me  

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

As much as  like my crop cameras they cannot replace a full frame and as much as i like my EVF cameras they cannot replace a rangefinder either. I would then keep at least one M body. 

[ramarren]

I bought the CL body only to use for those needs where TTL focusing and framing are essential (macro, tabletop, long tele work). I quickly came to the conclusion that it did everything I needed an M for as well as the M, so I sold the digital M body ... kept the M4-2. No regrets at all. I use the CL with my same M and R mount lenses as I did when I bought it. 

G

[Marac]

I am always swapping gear around but the one's that remain have been the CL and a CCD M camera (M9 & M9M)

The CL is my 'go to' camera for almost anything I do. I use it with Sigma lenses for AF but really enjoy using it with my M lenses too.

My M9 is having the sensor glass replaced at the moment so my gig bag consists of a Leica M9M, a CL and the Voigtlander 21, 35, 50, 75, 90 lenses.

If it is a CL only day then I use my Sigma kit 16mm f1.4, 45mm f2.8, (100-400 pending) and also I have an 80-200 Leica-R ROM lens that I use standalone or with the Sigma TC1411.

When the M9 comes back I will then make a decision which one to sell, M9 or M9M, I'd love to keep everything but financially I cannot.

 

The CL, for me, has offered everything I wanted in a 'Mini M' without RF of cause. It is a fantastic little camera, both my Wife & I have one. It cannot 'replace' the Leica M but it certainly comliments the M perfectly.

[dfdann]

I have been using the CL with TL, M, and Nikor lens for three years. It  has almost completely replaced my M7 and M8. It is for me a true mini M and has re-awakened my lifelong interest in photography.

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My CL + L-mount lenses have replaced my M10. 
I sold it without looking back. 
 

If I were not so stupid to accept exchanging my corroded original M Monochrom for an M10. I would have kept it forever. Best digital M ever. 

[Peter Wright]

Thanks all for the replies so far.  I will take my time in making the decision.  I don't like large cameras or looking after tons of gear: it was the simplicity of the Leica M system that got me into those cameras to start with.  The M240 and M246 are about the most used cameras I have ever owned, (and I started using range finders back in the late 1960's 😳).  I have also done some of the work I am most pleased with using the M246. So big decision, but I suppose I could always bite the bullet and get an M10M, if I turn out to be making a mistake.  I won't be selling my M lenses or Leica MP.   So my prospective future kit looks like:  Leica CL(2) with AF lenses, Leica M lenses on the adaptor, Leica Q2M for monochrom (where I do most of my work), and the Leica MP for nostalgia.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, my M240 was squeezed out between my CL and SL. I am ruthless with kit I don't use, so it was all sold to fund the expansion of my L system. I still have the Thambar😁.

[didier]

I was using my M(240) much less when I bought the CL. I soon sold the M(240) and got the M10M. I think I will never sell the M10M as I love the rangefinder and the fantastic results I get form this camera.

My CL get little use right now compared to my SL for color and may M10M which I currently use for 70% of my pictures.

I however like the CL for travel and as a ‘go to’ camera with is 18/2.8 pancake lens. I also like to use it with the Summilux M Asph 50.

I won’t sell it.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Peter Wright said:

Thanks all for the replies so far.  I will take my time in making the decision.  I don't like large cameras or looking after tons of gear: it was the simplicity of the Leica M system that got me into those cameras to start with.  The M240 and M246 are about the most used cameras I have ever owned, (and I started using range finders back in the late 1960's 😳).  I have also done some of the work I am most pleased with using the M246. So big decision, but I suppose I could always bite the bullet and get an M10M, if I turn out to be making a mistake.  I won't be selling my M lenses or Leica MP.   So my prospective future kit looks like:  Leica CL(2) with AF lenses, Leica M lenses on the adaptor, Leica Q2M for monochrom (where I do most of my work), and the Leica MP for nostalgia.

You could consider getting an(updated sensor) M9M. IMO the king of the Monochroms. 

[Ray Vonn]

Probably a coincidence, only an observation and likley not relevant but it mostly seems to be M240 owners going with the CL full time, at least in terms of people I know and in forums.  I suppose from the biggest M it wouldn't be difficult to appreciate the difference to the smallest and much newer Leica ILC which'll use your M lenses as second nature.

[didier]

15 hours ago, Ray Vonn said:

Probably a coincidence, only an observation and likley not relevant but it mostly seems to be M240 owners going with the CL full time, at least in terms of people I know and in forums.  I suppose from the biggest M it wouldn't be difficult to appreciate the difference to the smallest and much newer Leica ILC which'll use your M lenses as second nature.

Another reason could be the (very) slow operating of the M(240). In the End I found that annoying.

The CL in regard is much faster. I also find its files are cleaner, particularly mid/high ISO have better color / dynamic range.

[lct]

2 hours ago, didier said:

Another reason could be the (very) slow operating of the M(240). In the End I found that annoying.

The CL in regard is much faster. I also find its files are cleaner, particularly mid/high ISO have better color / dynamic range.

What do you mean by "slow operation" and "much faster" if i may ask? Just curious as i have both M240 and CL and i can't seem to recognize my babies .

[Einst_Stein]

X Vario and X-U  are my most used cameras. They are not necessary better in IQ than M240 or SL, but good enough to put M and SL in the "serious works only" cabin. --- the bar to pass the "serious work" unfortunately is very high and getting higher.    

Edited April 7, 2021 by Einst_Stein

[Studienkamera]

I entered the Leica world with analog M cameras. I hesitated to buy a digital M because of the comparably high prices. I bought a CL instead to use my M lenses in the digital world. However, I missed the rangefinder experience, wide angle lenses (my 24mm became a 35mm lens) and the slightly larger case of the M camera (I have large hands). Therefore I recently added an M10. Now I am using both cameras on parallel with my M lenses with no intention to sell either of them.   

[didier]

21 hours ago, lct said:

What do you mean by "slow operation" and "much faster" if i may ask? Just curious as i have both M240 and CL and i can't seem to recognize my babies .

Once I had the SL and the CL I found the M(240) lacking responsiveness. Be it start-up time, writing speed as soon as you shoot 2 or 3 pictures in a row, ...

[lct]

44 minutes ago, didier said:

Once I had the SL and the CL I found the M(240) lacking responsiveness. Be it start-up time, writing speed as soon as you shoot 2 or 3 pictures in a row, ...

+1 on those two points. Do you see other ones? Just curious as i'm so used to those bodies that i can't seem to perceive significant differences but i may be wrong.   

[didier]

7 hours ago, lct said:

+1 on those two points. Do you see other ones? Just curious as i'm so used to those bodies that i can't seem to perceive significant differences but i may be wrong.   

Apart from that, the main reason for me was to come back to a kind of purity with the M experience. B&W, form factor, simple UI with the ISO knob, ... hence the M10M.

The other reason I sold the M(240) was high iso capability for color, where I find  the SL much better, and even the CL : Dynamic Range and Color Accuracy above iso 1600/2500 are way better with the newer bodies.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

5 hours ago, didier said:

Apart from that, the main reason for me was to come back to a kind of purity with the M experience. B&W, form factor, simple UI with the ISO knob, ... hence the M10M.

The other reason I sold the M(240) was high iso capability for color, where I find  the SL much better, and even the CL : Dynamic Range and Color Accuracy above iso 1600/2500 are way better with the newer bodies.

Haha what interested me in the M240 is its lack of purity (video in a rangefinder!), to each his own . But i don't share exactly the same experience as yours, or at least the same feeling about colors. Both M240 and CL are limited to 3200 iso in my practice but there is indeed one point of inferiority in the M240 it is its reds which clip too easily.