CL2 delayed.. anyone thought to buy an S5?

[Rob7P]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, wda said:

I continue to enjoy my Leica CL. That's not a rumour. 

Nor am I considering any heavier alternative camera. And that is also, not a rumour 😂

I hope that answers your question.

I've an old T that's why I'm interested.. so if the S5 will deliver great photos I'm interested too because I can use my 23mm summicron.. That was the question.. I'm not gonna buy now a 4year camera old tech for more than 2k

Edited May 31, 2021 by Rob7P

[LocalHero1953]

43 minutes ago, amd said:

It is really interesting that you regard the CL and SL2-S as complementing one another and using them for different purposes. I find your remark particularly interesting as you opted for the SL2-S rather than the higher megapixel SL2. Once in a while I am tempted by some aspects of full frame cameras like the SL2-S which will always distinguish them from an APS-C system like the CL (i.e. the better high ISO performance of a full frame sensor compared with an APS-C sensor of the same generation and same pixel count). Hence I would be highly interested in your usage of the two systems and why you believe that they cannot substitute one another. Would you mind elaborating on your experience and the respective purposes. Thanks in advance! 

Of course! In short I use the CL for travel, walking/hiking and family/social stuff, where compactness and weight are important. I use the SL2-S when I am playing at being a pro: I do a lot of photography for amateur theatre/drama and (classical) music, shooting rehearsals, headshots and performances for publicity purposes (see my website). The low light performance of the SL2-S (compared to the SL2) is really valuable here, but the size and weight of the body and its lenses are less important; high pixel count is also less important. I also use the SL2-S for other formal portrait sessions, and I've done a couple of weddings for friends/acquaintances. It's weatherproof, built like a tank and the lenses (my most used are the 35, 90 and 90-280) are extraordinary. I do occasional video work for which I mainly use the Sigma fp, but the SL2-S can also provide backup by, say, recording a performance from a fixed tripod. The L-mount family all have their uses and synergies.

• I would not use the CL and TL lenses for the music/drama/portraiture/events because the SL2-S has the edge in IQ, colour and low light.
• I have tried the SL and 24-90 zoom as an all-purpose travel package, but for me it was just too heavy to carry around a city all day as a tourist.
• As a Leica owner I come from a M background and I had the M240 for a while after getting the CL and SL, but it was squeezed out between the two: heavier than the CL and not as versatile as the SL. I got more keepers from the L- system. My photographic equipment has to earn its keep in usage, so I sold it - no room for sentiment!

I hope that helps.

[Advertisement]

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

[amd]

Thank you for your very helpful answer. 

 

I am thinking along similar lines: SL2-S where performance and durability is required, CL when a lightweight, more leisurely camera system is more desirable. I also believe some attractive features like the high resolution EVF will remain exclusive to the SL line. The multishot feature of the SL2/SL2-S seems also attractive as it combines the single frames within the camera into one high resolution photo which is useful for example for architectural photography. I wonder whether this feature might be added to the CL2 when it receives an image stabilising sensor. 
 

In a recent comparison of the CL and SL2-S I was amazed by the quality of the CL and TL lenses especially when considering the price difference. Obviously the SL lenses are still better and high ISO performance is far superior. But still it shows how good the CL system is and that it can produce excellent results too. I makes me feel that image quality wise it might be underrated. 

[Rob7P]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Of course! In short I use the CL for travel, walking/hiking and family/social stuff, where compactness and weight are important. I use the SL2-S when I am playing at being a pro: I do a lot of photography for amateur theatre/drama and (classical) music, shooting rehearsals, headshots and performances for publicity purposes (see my website). The low light performance of the SL2-S (compared to the SL2) is really valuable here, but the size and weight of the body and its lenses are less important; high pixel count is also less important. I also use the SL2-S for other formal portrait sessions, and I've done a couple of weddings for friends/acquaintances. It's weatherproof, built like a tank and the lenses (my most used are the 35, 90 and 90-280) are extraordinary. I do occasional video work for which I mainly use the Sigma fp, but the SL2-S can also provide backup by, say, recording a performance from a fixed tripod. The L-mount family all have their uses and synergies.

• I would not use the CL and TL lenses for the music/drama/portraiture/events because the SL2-S has the edge in IQ, colour and low light.
• I have tried the SL and 24-90 zoom as an all-purpose travel package, but for me it was just too heavy to carry around a city all day as a tourist.
• As a Leica owner I come from a M background and I had the M240 for a while after getting the CL and SL, but it was squeezed out between the two: heavier than the CL and not as versatile as the SL. I got more keepers from the L- system. My photographic equipment has to earn its keep in usage, so I sold it - no room for sentiment!

I hope that helps.

If you put a TL lens to your SL2-S what will be the result? better?

P.S. second question: a TL23mm summicron on a full frame il be a 23mm photo right?

[LocalHero1953]

2 minutes ago, Rob7P said:

If you put a TL lens to your SL2-S what will be the result? better?

P.S. second question: a TL23mm summicron on a full frame il be a 23mm photo right?

I would expect a TL lens to be worse because of vignetting - it will not have an image circle big enough to cover the full frame sensor. Aside from that, I don't know - I haven't tried. I use the Summilux-TL 35 much of the time on the CL and that is superb in its own right. 

Yes, it will remain a 23mm lens on the SL2-S.

I sometimes do the opposite: put the Summicron-SL 90 on the CL, which gives it the same scene/angle of view of a 135mm. I have tried the 90-280 zoom (giving 24mp effectively at 135-420) but it is just too unbalanced for me. 

[ruskkyle]

2 hours ago, Rob7P said:

If you put a TL lens to your SL2-S what will be the result? better?

P.S. second question: a TL23mm summicron on a full frame il be a 23mm photo right?

The result will be an automatic APS-C crop of the SL2-S sensor. You cannot view a TL lens in ‘full frame’ on an SL body.

To your second question, the 23mm TL will behave exactly as it would on a CL and give you an ‘equivalent field of view’ of a 35mm on a full frame camera. Though this will give you a lower resolution file on the SL2-S than on the CL, which can use its whole sensor.

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Rob7P said:

If you put a TL lens to your SL2-S what will be the result? better?

P.S. second question: a TL23mm summicron on a full frame il be a 23mm photo right?

The 23mm Summicron is a crop sensor lens, and it will not use the full frame. So when you put it on the S5, it will crop the sensor down to 10.5 megapixels.

I have the 23mm Summicron and the 24mm Sigma DC DN...the Sigma is full frame and a much better lens...at least my copy is much better than the 23mm. So if you want to move up, you can sell your 23mm and keep the change after you buy the Sigma 24mm, which is only 550 dollars (have a look, pretty much everyone who has one on L mount seems to love it).

Comparing the S5 to the CL is probably not the most fair competition if you are talking specs/performance. The 24mp sensor in the S5 is one of the best ever made, it is a full frame, high sharpness, low noise, large DR sensor with massively better video specs, stabilization and weather sealing, pixel shift, better battery life etc. The main advantage of the CL is that it is smaller and lighter, and it has an all Leica interface, if that is something you prefer. The main advantage of the S5 is everything else.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[lct]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The main advantage of the CL is that it is smaller and lighter

And can use any M lens, or at least most of them.

Edited May 31, 2021 by lct

[Stuart Richardson]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

And can use any M lens. 

It is a bit of a trade off though, isn't it? The CL has no M lens restrictions, but it is an APSC camera so they are heavily cropped...the S5 can use an M lens with an APS-C view and no issues as well, but it will not be as high res as the CL (24 to 10mp). BUT, it can use every M lens on full frame as well and anything in between, and only certain lenses will be impacted by the cover glass. Other than the wide angles 28mm and wider, most lenses do just fine. The 50mm 1.4 Summilux is one of the rare ones that is longer than 28mm that fares poorly. I use the 35mm 1.4 FLE on the S1 and it is great. But yes, if you primarily have wide angle M lenses, then you can use them with higher resolution on the crop CL.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[lct]

1 minute ago, Stuart Richardson said:

the S5 can use an M lens with an APS-C view and no issues as well

I have no experience with the S5 but i guess it does not recognize 6-bit coded lenses nor adapters. All this with a thick sensor stack in a body bigger than A7 cameras... Now a Kolari mod S5 could do it perhaps, i have no idea...

[Rob7P]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The 23mm Summicron is a crop sensor lens, and it will not use the full frame. So when you put it on the S5, it will crop the sensor down to 10.5 megapixels.

I have the 23mm Summicron and the 24mm Sigma DC DN...the Sigma is full frame and a much better lens...at least my copy is much better than the 23mm. So if you want to move up, you can sell your 23mm and keep the change after you buy the Sigma 24mm, which is only 550 dollars (have a look, pretty much everyone who has one on L mount seems to love it).

Comparing the S5 to the CL is probably not the most fair competition if you are talking specs/performance. The 24mp sensor in the S5 is one of the best ever made, it is a full frame, high sharpness, low noise, large DR sensor with massively better video specs, stabilization and weather sealing, pixel shift, better battery life etc. The main advantage of the CL is that it is smaller and lighter, and it has an all Leica interface, if that is something you prefer. The main advantage of the S5 is everything else.

Thanks for the feedback! ..there is also a scheduled lumix 50 1.8 which is compact

[Stuart Richardson]

It has quite a simple touch screen selection for the focal length where you can choose any focal length you want (I used 350mm and it worked fine) with a quick selection for 28, 35 and 50mm, if I recall correctly. This is recorded in exif and helps make sure the stabilization is set for the right focal length. It defaults to whatever the last used lens was. Believe me, I am huge Leica fan...I had a T, I currently use the SL2 and a number of other Leicas. The S1 remains one of the best cameras I have ever used. I likely would have bought the S5 if it was out when I got the S1. Just from my perspective, I cannot see a reason to get the CL over the S5, unless absolute compactness and portability are the main goals. As an all around camera, the S5 is just better...

Edited May 31, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Rob7P]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It has quite a simple touch screen selection for the focal length where you can choose any focal length you want (I used 350mm and it worked fine) with a quick selection for 28, 35 and 50mm, if I recall correctly. This is recorded in exif and helps make sure the stabilization is set for the right focal length. It defaults to whatever the last used lens was. Believe me, I am huge Leica fan...I had a T, I currently use the SL2 and a number of other Leicas. The S1 remains one of the best cameras I have ever used. I likely would have bought the S5 if it was out when I got the S1. Just from my perspective, I cannot see a reason to get the CL over the S5, unless absolute compactness and portability are the main goals. As an all around camera, the S5 is just better...

Not a big difference with a lux.. (the 50 1.8 is similar to the 85 in the image)

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!

[LocalHero1953]

11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I would expect a TL lens to be worse because of vignetting - it will not have an image circle big enough to cover the full frame sensor. Aside from that, I don't know - I haven't tried. I use the Summilux-TL 35 much of the time on the CL and that is superb in its own right. 

................ 

My apologies for incorrect information - suffering from brain fade. As others have pointed out, the 23mm will be automatically cropped to APS-C, so 'vignetting' as such does not come into the question. And so a 23mm on the S5 would give you exactly the same image as on an APS-C camera: so it would still behave like a 35mm lens.

Edited June 1, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[amd]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Of course! In short I use the CL for travel, walking/hiking and family/social stuff, where compactness and weight are important. I use the SL2-S when I am playing at being a pro: I do a lot of photography for amateur theatre/drama and (classical) music, shooting rehearsals, headshots and performances for publicity purposes (see my website). The low light performance of the SL2-S (compared to the SL2) is really valuable here, but the size and weight of the body and its lenses are less important; high pixel count is also less important. I also use the SL2-S for other formal portrait sessions, and I've done a couple of weddings for friends/acquaintances. It's weatherproof, built like a tank and the lenses (my most used are the 35, 90 and 90-280) are extraordinary. I do occasional video work for which I mainly use the Sigma fp, but the SL2-S can also provide backup by, say, recording a performance from a fixed tripod. The L-mount family all have their uses and synergies.

• I would not use the CL and TL lenses for the music/drama/portraiture/events because the SL2-S has the edge in IQ, colour and low light.
• I have tried the SL and 24-90 zoom as an all-purpose travel package, but for me it was just too heavy to carry around a city all day as a tourist.
• As a Leica owner I come from a M background and I had the M240 for a while after getting the CL and SL, but it was squeezed out between the two: heavier than the CL and not as versatile as the SL. I got more keepers from the L- system. My photographic equipment has to earn its keep in usage, so I sold it - no room for sentiment!

I hope that helps.

Another off topic question: when I tested the SL2-S it was still running on a 1.x firmware. How do you regard the improvements of firmware 2.0 especially with regards to focusing accuracy and speed? I also read that firmware 2.0 introduced a special low light live view. Does this help focusing and auto focus in low light situations? Is there a significant difference in the autofocus performance between the CL and SL2-S? If there is how would you describe it?

Thank you so much for your feedback!

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, amd said:

Another off topic question: when I tested the SL2-S it was still running on a 1.x firmware. How do you regard the improvements of firmware 2.0 especially with regards to focusing accuracy and speed? I also read that firmware 2.0 introduced a special low light live view. Does this help focusing and auto focus in low light situations? Is there a significant difference in the autofocus performance between the CL and SL2-S? If there is how would you describe it?

 

Thank you so much for your feedback!

 

I didn't have too many problems with AF in v1 f/w, but my ownership of it has coincided with Covid and limited opportunities to use it in real world people photography. V2 has brought an improvement, but for me it hasn't been a massive difference, just a useful improvement. I mostly shoot using the iAF mode which uses AFs, AFc as it judges best. Last week was the first drama rehearsal I have shot since getting the SL2-S and I found AF and low light performance excellent. In dim light the EVF showed the scene much brighter than the actual lighting, and I was surprised how easily it locked on to faces. I doubt that I am a representative AF shooter though (is anyone?): I hardly use AFc (except when iAF uses it) and I have no experience of the supposed gods of AF: Sony, Nikon and Canon etc. 

The SL2-S is much better at AF than the CL although, as I explained, I don't use them in the same scenarios, so my comparison is limited. The CL is more likely to fail to lock on in difficult situations, and it does not have iAF, which I find very useful. I usually set the CL to face recognition, which defaults to multi-field focusing when it can't find a face. The CL needs a face-on face of reasonable size to work properly - it doesn't recognise heads side-on, while the SL2-S recognises bodies, heads in different orientations and eyes.

[wda]

Paul, that is an interesting comparison concerning AF performance. Possibly an  area for improvement in a potential CL2?

[amd]

9 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I didn't have too many problems with AF in v1 f/w, but my ownership of it has coincided with Covid and limited opportunities to use it in real world people photography. V2 has brought an improvement, but for me it hasn't been a massive difference, just a useful improvement. I mostly shoot using the iAF mode which uses AFs, AFc as it judges best. Last week was the first drama rehearsal I have shot since getting the SL2-S and I found AF and low light performance excellent. In dim light the EVF showed the scene much brighter than the actual lighting, and I was surprised how easily it locked on to faces. I doubt that I am a representative AF shooter though (is anyone?): I hardly use AFc (except when iAF uses it) and I have no experience of the supposed gods of AF: Sony, Nikon and Canon etc. 

The SL2-S is much better at AF than the CL although, as I explained, I don't use them in the same scenarios, so my comparison is limited. The CL is more likely to fail to lock on in difficult situations, and it does not have iAF, which I find very useful. I usually set the CL to face recognition, which defaults to multi-field focusing when it can't find a face. The CL needs a face-on face of reasonable size to work properly - it doesn't recognise heads side-on, while the SL2-S recognises bodies, heads in different orientations and eyes.

Thank you for your helpful answer. This gives me a good idea of what to look for when I may test the SL2-S again.

[amd]

Just now, wda said:

Paul, that is an interesting comparison concerning AF performance. Possibly an  area for improvement in a potential CL2?

I was pondering what kind of auto focus improvements a CL2 might bring if it will ever arrive. I am not sure if APS-C sensors provide the same readout speeds as full frame sensors. A speed contrast based auto focus requires high speed sensor readouts and a fast processor according to my understand. I am not sure if a CL2 will receive a Maestro 3 processor like the SL2/SL2-S.

Do you believe Leica will go this route and provide the CL2 with auto focus that is comparable to SL2/SL2-S standards?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

14 minutes ago, amd said:

I was pondering what kind of auto focus improvements a CL2 might bring if it will ever arrive. I am not sure if APS-C sensors provide the same readout speeds as full frame sensors. A speed contrast based auto focus requires high speed sensor readouts and a fast processor according to my understand. I am not sure if a CL2 will receive a Maestro 3 processor like the SL2/SL2-S.

Do you believe Leica will go this route and provide the CL2 with auto focus that is comparable to SL2/SL2-S standards?

I'm sure you're right - it would take more processing power to improve the CL's AF performance. It is a race between higher demands on the battery (for processing power, better EVF etc), more energy-efficient processors and improved battery capacity (in the same size) and heat dissipation. The CL is already at the low end of satisfactory battery consumption, and I would not want to see it get bigger just to hold a physically bigger battery.

In answer to your last question: no! I think there will always be a trade-off between body and sensor size on the one hand, and battery capacity/size, processor size and heat dissipation requirements on the other.