Really? Leica CL in 2021?

[Chilternarts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks,

My first post here as I’ve come across a new Leica CL which has tickled my interest and drawing me into the Leica world. 
 

There are two areas I was hoping to learn more about before making (or not) the purchase of this Leica CL and Leica 35mm 1.4g lens  

1. Image quality/style 

2. Is the Technology going to date fast/already relative to other mirrorless models, and can I expect the value hold well for this model? 
 

Image quality/style

This is the most important aspect to me. I currently use a Nikon D500 which I purchased rather opportunistically in 2018 whilst waiting at an airport lounge after a missed flight 🙄. Since then I have steadily acquired Nikkor lenses (DX: 35mm, 17-54mm 2.8f. FF: 58mm 1.4f, 70-200mm E 2.8f).

What I’m really interested in is if the Leica CL could produce better portraits and people-photos. I do a lot of fashion nude photography, mostly all on-location, and travel photography. I would happily classify myself as an opportunity photographer for the most part, and so far all my work is non-commercial, but now I’m producing a collection for a gallery in London which will be fashion and nudes. 

The only draw back for the CL is that in the back of my mind I was thinking to upgrade to a full frame as some point, perhaps trade-in my D500 + DX lenses for a D850. Obviously the CL is another crop sensor. On the flip-side, the CL is sized to be a formidable out-and-about camera companion, where sometimes I decide to leave the D500 at home because of the bulk. 
 

Dating/value retention

The other important factor is how well the CL stands up to new mirror less models? I understand the CL is 3-4 years old, and I assume tech moves fast in the mirrorless market. The last time I owned it even looked at a mirrorless was when I bought the Panasonic lumix GF1 about 10 years ago. Safe to say that today, it feels very dated (although it still produced a great photo in the right conditions). 
 

So along that same point, can I expect the CL and the 35mm 1.4f lens to reasonably retain their value like Leica’s are well known for? 
 

On a high level I feel like I can better identify with Leica as an artisan tool. I don’t want to spend the funds right now on the full frame model. If I buy this Leica, I will certainly keep my D500 for moments that call for a more robust camera. 
 

Cheers in advance for reading and any feedback. 
 

K Campbell 

[wda]

Welcome to the forum,  K Campbell. You will a lot of different views In this forum, mostly from very satisfied owners. The CL would certainly satisfy your photographic needs. Buying one now is a bit of a gamble unless you can find one heavily discounted. John Lewis had some last week. Most Leica equipment holds its value , better than most, but prices will fall if a successor is launched. We do not know if or when. Only speculation circulating  at present. 

Do not expect a quantum leap in output quality from a possible successor. It is already very good indeed, once you master the interface. The lenses are outstanding. I recently wrote an article, for my website, which might help you. Here is a link https://www.davidaskham.com/my-way-with-the-leica

Please let us know how you proceed.

[Advertisement]

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

[TMorita]

1. The quality of your image is dependent on your skills, not the camera.

2. A camera is not an investment; it will always go down in value. If you are worried about value retention, you should buy something other than a camera.

Toshi

[tommonego@gmail.com]

When I picked up my CL I was also going to get a D500, after using the CL for a while the D500 didn't happen. I decided to work with the CL. My firstCL lens was to 23 f2 TL and that was my main lens until I purhased an 11-23. I also had a 35 f1.4 Summilux M, ilike the size of this lens better than the TL version. I picked up a 55 f1.4 7 Artisan, I also had a 90 f2.8 Elmarit, picked up a 135 Tele-Elmar and a 400 Telyt. I have also used adapted Nikon lenses, mostly a 105 Micro Nikkor, also a 20mm f2.8. I have enjoyed the CL, I think the RAW files are superior to those from my Nikon D300, even images from my Nikon lenses seem better on the CL. 

I don't do many portraits so I will be no help there, but look through the people section of this site, there are several people using CLs and other Leicas.

Yes I agree with Toshi about the camera is only as good as the photographer who uses it.

[bags27]

1 hour ago, TMorita said:

1. The quality of your image is dependent on your skills, not the camera.

2. A camera is not an investment; it will always go down in value. If you are worried about value retention, you should buy something other than a camera.

Toshi

Many film cameras (especially Leica and most medium format) have appreciated significantly the past couple of years. So have the lenses that go with them. It's older digital technology that's been losing value recently. But maybe it'll have its own sentimental value someday too. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by bags27

[SoCalLeicanator]

My one year old has cut back on my life to the point main form of leisure activity is now going through flickr where every camera, lens etc will find its way on to a photostream.  I can say with complete confidence that to my eye at least that it's rare for me to look at a picture and marvel wow.  I am going to pick up a Q2 in the next month or so mainly for weather sealing.

As fare as your intended purpose, I would give Matt Osborne's You Tube, flickr and web pages a good go through.  He has quite a few model photos taken with a CL and various lenses.  This video gives his rationale as to why it was a good purchase a year ago:

I got a little caught up in the upgrade fever, but I think the current system has quite a bit of life left in it and definitely delivers the "leica look"

[Chilternarts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the comments so far, mostly encouraging towards the CL. I thought it was an obvious given that when I seek to compare the image character/quality to an alternative camera I already have, that I meant other conditions being equal (aka, the photographer). The CL is 50% more expensive than the D500, so it seems reasonable to seek out where the camera itself may contribute to improved imagery.

[Chilternarts]

Anyhow I went ahead and made the purchase so that I can test the camera out properly with some subjects instead of pointing it at random items in the store

One thing I noticed is how the EVF feels very different than the DSLR VF. To me, it really feels like I'm 'viewing' the scene through a TV screen as opposed to 'seeing' it (which to be fair is what's happening, it's just very apparent and I think will take time to get used to). The other really odd feeling is not having instant access to focus controls including S to C and AF to M. 

I am ready however for all those differences to be trumped by falling in love with the photography produced... I'm certainly inspired to organise some shoots! 

[Camaro5]

Seems you've already made a decision but I'll throw in my two cents anyway.   For me going with the CL was about how I intended to use it.  I do my landscapes and anything that would require large prints and/or medium format with my Hasselblad X1D-50C.   With the CL I do automotive, real estate, and street work that (mostly) gets posted online where medium format would be unnecessary.    

I was a long-time Nikon shooter for many years and had quite a few of them, including the D850.  As good as the D850 was, I didn't particularly care for the way it rendered the colors.  The CL, in my opinion, even though it's APS-C blows Nikon out of the water when it comes to colors and image clarity.  Of course, that is entirely subjective.  One thing that can't be overlooked is that the CL is much easier to carry around vs. a D850 and for the kind of work I do, that was an important consideration.  

Edited July 6, 2021 by Camaro5

[TMorita]

6 hours ago, Chilternarts said:

Thanks for the comments so far, mostly encouraging towards the CL. I thought it was an obvious given that when I seek to compare the image character/quality to an alternative camera I already have, that I meant other conditions being equal (aka, the photographer). The CL is 50% more expensive than the D500, so it seems reasonable to seek out where the camera itself may contribute to improved imagery.

Once upon a time there was a man who had a Toyota who was considering an upgrade to a Mercedes.

He posted on an Internet forum, "If I upgrade my Toyota to a Mercedes, how much will this reduce my daily commute time?"

The forum members told him, "Upgrading your car from a Toyota to a Mercedes will not change your daily commute time, because the commute time depends mostly on the driver's skill, and not the car used."

 

[LocalHero1953]

Lots of people get excited by the Leica name, historic associations and 'artisan photography'. In fact the distinguishing features of Leica cameras that make a difference to whether one enjoys a Leica or not are not these, and are not for everyone:

• Few, simple and intuitive controls. They are not cameras for people who want a button for everything and menus for controlling every last aspect. They are cameras that force you to think about image making, not hardware.
• Lens quality. There are individual lenses from other brands that may be better than their Leica comparators, but Leica lenses across the board tend to be better than other brands. Not every agrees on what 'better' means though.
• Colour science. Leica uses the same sensors as everyone else, but they use those sensors to produce better colour than anyone else (IMO).

If you are buying Leica in order to get the latest tech, or you think your photos will be better than from a Nikon, then I suspect you will be disappointed.

You may find Leica gobsmackingly irritating for its obstinate adherence to daft designs, features and practices: the M baseplate, incompatibility with common flash systems, the high price for replacement lens caps (and anything else tiny).

If you are trying to work out whether paying x times as much for a camera or lens will give you x times better results, then you will go mad thinking about it. This applies to photography, golf, life partners or anything else you buy for fun. Market values don't apply unless you are genuinely a professional analysing costs vs income.

If you are buying Leica to free up your innate talent, you may be pleased.

Edited July 7, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[ramarren]

On 7/6/2021 at 5:27 AM, Chilternarts said:

Hi folks,

My first post here as I’ve come across a new Leica CL which has tickled my interest and drawing me into the Leica world. 
 

There are two areas I was hoping to learn more about before making (or not) the purchase of this Leica CL and Leica 35mm 1.4g lens  

1. Image quality/style 

2. Is the Technology going to date fast/already relative to other mirrorless models, and can I expect the value hold well for this model? 
 

Image quality/style

This is the most important aspect to me. I currently use a Nikon D500 which I purchased rather opportunistically in 2018 whilst waiting at an airport lounge after a missed flight 🙄. Since then I have steadily acquired Nikkor lenses (DX: 35mm, 17-54mm 2.8f. FF: 58mm 1.4f, 70-200mm E 2.8f).

What I’m really interested in is if the Leica CL could produce better portraits and people-photos. I do a lot of fashion nude photography, mostly all on-location, and travel photography. I would happily classify myself as an opportunity photographer for the most part, and so far all my work is non-commercial, but now I’m producing a collection for a gallery in London which will be fashion and nudes. 

The only draw back for the CL is that in the back of my mind I was thinking to upgrade to a full frame as some point, perhaps trade-in my D500 + DX lenses for a D850. Obviously the CL is another crop sensor. On the flip-side, the CL is sized to be a formidable out-and-about camera companion, where sometimes I decide to leave the D500 at home because of the bulk. 
 

Dating/value retention

The other important factor is how well the CL stands up to new mirror less models? I understand the CL is 3-4 years old, and I assume tech moves fast in the mirrorless market. The last time I owned it even looked at a mirrorless was when I bought the Panasonic lumix GF1 about 10 years ago. Safe to say that today, it feels very dated (although it still produced a great photo in the right conditions). 
 

So along that same point, can I expect the CL and the 35mm 1.4f lens to reasonably retain their value like Leica’s are well known for? 
 

On a high level I feel like I can better identify with Leica as an artisan tool. I don’t want to spend the funds right now on the full frame model. If I buy this Leica, I will certainly keep my D500 for moments that call for a more robust camera. 
 

Cheers in advance for reading and any feedback. 
 

K Campbell 

The Leica CL is a superb performer. It was in 2018 and is no less a performer in 2021. Whether other cameras surpass its performance ... Well, the CL already performs better than is needed for 99.9% of any photographer using it, so what does that really matter? 

If the camera's feature set is suitable for your uses and you enjoy using it, it's a fine purchase regardless of what it costs or what its monetary value might be in the future. 

By and large, lenses for Leica M cameras retain their value far better than lenses for any other Leica camera mounts, and better than most other brands of lenses as well. Leica M bodies retain their value better than any other Leica camera model bodies as well. But I find that basing a purchase on the presumed future value of a piece of camera equipment is a poor approach to selecting what equipment to use. I buy my equipment based on what the equipment performs like ... I'm only concerned with its monetary value at the point where I'm buying it and again at the point where I consider selling it. The only value that matters in the course of owning it is rated by how well it performs and how often I use it.

G

[nicci78]

Is there any better alternative to the CL ? 
Nikon just announced the Z fc. It is cheaper. Yes any other brand is cheaper than Leica. Get over it. Small production in Germany will always be more expensive than bigger runs in Thailand or China. 
Does the Z fc better than the CL ? 
Nope. 
In some cases it is worst. 
Slower maximum shutter speed. Only 1/4000th instead of 1/8000th. 
No electronic shutter available for faster shutter speed. Such as 1/25000th for CL. Very nice for using Noctilux wide open. 
Only 20.7 effective MP instead of 24MP. For the same high ISO performance. 
 

However Z fc has some advantages : PDAF, weather sealing (but DX lenses did not) and vario-angle screen.

And same weaknesses : 2.36M dots OLED EVF and no IBIS. 
 Bear in mind that CL is tiny compare to big Fuji X-T4 with IBIS.

So no fundamental progress has been made since 2017.
Even Fujifilm 26MP X-Trans BSI sensor is on par with Leica CL 24MP. 
 

 

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!

[gotium]

Gawd that Nikon is ugly

[Simone_DF]

Love the new Nikon, but I'll wait for the second generation that may fix the most glaring omissions like IBIS and the rest.

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

Image quality/style  This is the most important aspect to me...

The only draw back for the CL is that in the back of my mind I was thinking to upgrade to a full frame as some point...

the CL is another crop sensor...

@Chilternarts Your thoughts are indicating to me that you need to take a hard look at the Q2.

Some photographers get hung up on the fact that with the Q2, they are "stuck" with "only" a 28mm lens.  It all comes down to learning how to correctly use the 28mm lens.  Put in a little time learning to maximize the 28mm for each type of image you want to make and you will not regret it, even when shooting portraits.  Look at the Q2 and Q2 Mono image threads and back issues of LFI magazine and you will see what the Q2 is capable of.  There are a lot of excellent portraits that have been made with the Q2.

Quote

What I’m really interested in is if the Leica CL could produce better portraits and people-photos...

The answer to that is no.  The responsibility to make better portraits and people photos rests solely on the shoulders of the image maker.  It all comes down to the photographer's ability, photographic knowledge, experience and creativity and one fact:  The photographer who has learned to maximize the camera and lens he/she is using will create better images.  Learning how to get the most out of a given camera and lens is priceless.  Again, take a look at the travel and documentary work in LFI magazine that has been created with the Q2 and Q2 Mono (you can find these images online if you don't have hard copies of LFI at hand).

If you want to make very large prints (larger than 11x14 inches), the Q2 will give you better printed image quality at a given print size.  Why?  Sensor size and resolution.  The Q2 has a 47.3 megapixel 24x36mm sensor.  The CL has a 24.2 megapixel 23.6 x 15.7 mm sensor.  At very large print sizes, the Q2 prevails in terms of printed image quality.

The Q2 is larger than the CL - but in my experience, it is not bulky, heavy or unwieldy.  I carry my Q2 every day and it is a joy to wear.  It is feather light compared to my M-P 240 and 35mm Summicron.  It is even lighter than my M10 Mono with either my 28/2.8 Elmarit or my 50/2.4 Summarit.

The CL certainly has its place in the scheme of things and it is a good camera.  All I'm saying is don't overlook the Q2.  It has a lot to offer.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[hdmesa]

4 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

@Chilternarts Your thoughts are indicating to me that you need to take a hard look at the Q2.

Some photographers get hung up on the fact that with the Q2, they are "stuck" with "only" a 28mm lens.  It all comes down to learning how to correctly use the 28mm lens.  Put in a little time learning to maximize the 28mm for each type of image you want to make and you will not regret it, even when shooting portraits.  Look at the Q2 and Q2 Mono image threads and back issues of LFI magazine and you will see what the Q2 is capable of.  There are a lot of excellent portraits that have been made with the Q2.

The answer to that is no.  The responsibility to make better portraits and people photos rests solely on the shoulders of the image maker.  It all comes down to the photographer's ability, photographic knowledge, experience and creativity and one fact:  The photographer who has learned to maximize the camera and lens he/she is using will create better images.  Learning how to get the most out of a given camera and lens is priceless.

If you want to make very large prints (larger than 11x14 inches), the Q2 will give you better printed image quality at a given print size.  Why?  Sensor size and resolution.  The Q2 has a 47.3 megapixel 24x36mm sensor.  The CL has a 24.2 megapixel 23.6 x 15.7 mm sensor.  At very large print sizes, the Q2 prevails in terms of printed image quality.

The Q2 is larger than the CL - but in my experience, it is not bulky, heavy or unwieldy.  I carry my Q2 every day and it is a joy to wear.  It is feather light compared to my M-P 240 and 35mm Summicron.  It is even lighter than my M10 Mono with either my 28/2.8 Elmarit or my 50/2.4 Summarit.

The CL certainly has its place in the scheme of things and it is a good camera.  All I'm saying is don't overlook the Q2.  It has a lot to offer.

I second this. If you're already ok with the cost of a Leica and the resolution of the CL, then the crop mode of the Q2 will be of great value to you.

[Chilternarts]

Thanks to everyone for their feedback. 

12 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Quote

What I’m really interested in is if the Leica CL could produce better portraits and people-photos...

The answer to that is no.  The responsibility to make better portraits and people photos rests solely on the shoulders of the image maker. 

I want to point out that I wasn't clear in my meaning. I didn't mean will the camera itself make me a better portrait photographer (or any other type). I literally meant the same images side by side. I can't say that I particularly ever loved the colour rendering when shooting portraits with my Nikon D500, although that may have just been in my mind, either way I thought it.  As I  have both now I am going to take some side-by-sides for some casual compare and contrast. 

Either way, I can't say I completely agree with your statement. I purchased an old cheap-as-chips Canon T70 film camera with the purpose to create different image character and to make me a better photographer. Using this camera has succeeded in both. I just printed my first roll and the portraits have substantial different look and feel than the digital, and working with a simplistic camera with limited shutters where I had to spend more time considering the frame has, I feel, helped improve my overall approach. So a different camera has helped me produce better photos, at least to me it has. 

On 7/6/2021 at 7:33 PM, Camaro5 said:

was a long-time Nikon shooter for many years and had quite a few of them, including the D850.  As good as the D850 was, I didn't particularly care for the way it rendered the colors.  The CL, in my opinion, even though it's APS-C blows Nikon out of the water when it comes to colors and image clarity.  Of course, that is entirely subjective.  One thing that can't be overlooked is that the CL is much easier to carry around vs. a D850 and for the kind of work I do, that was an important consideration.  

Really appreciated this feedback as it was directly relevant to the situation I was in. Although I haven't sold my Nikon gear yet, I am very impressed with the colour rendering of the Leica. I took some casual snaps on the Leica and Nikon of my posing cat in a frame with substantial dynamic range of shadow in the left and window on the right. The transition from dark to light was more aseptically pleasing on the Leica. 

On 7/7/2021 at 8:51 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

Lots of people get excited by the Leica name, historic associations and 'artisan photography'. In fact the distinguishing features of Leica cameras that make a difference to whether one enjoys a Leica or not are not these, and are not for everyone:

• Few, simple and intuitive controls. They are not cameras for people who want a button for everything and menus for controlling every last aspect. They are cameras that force you to think about image making, not hardware.
• Lens quality. There are individual lenses from other brands that may be better than their Leica comparators, but Leica lenses across the board tend to be better than other brands. Not every agrees on what 'better' means though.
• Colour science. Leica uses the same sensors as everyone else, but they use those sensors to produce better colour than anyone else (IMO).

If you are buying Leica to free up your innate talent, you may be pleased.

If they are what make a Leica 'special', then I'll certainly settle for them. In particular point 2 & 3 are what I considered part of producing a better photo over a competitor model. 

 

On 7/8/2021 at 9:40 AM, nicci78 said:

So no fundamental progress has been made since 2017.
Even Fujifilm 26MP X-Trans BSI sensor is on par with Leica CL 24MP. 

Thanks nicci, that directly answers my wondering as to how whether the net tech has dated since 2017/18. 

[Chilternarts]

So as I mentioned a few days ago, I went ahead with the purchase of the Leica CL and 35mm f1.4 lens. I'm open to the CL perhaps being a bridge between a full-frame Leica in some time. I got the whole set for £2800 brand new, so the time-value of enjoying the camera + any potential trade-in will be well worth it if that happens. 

So far I've taken the CL out everyday and greatly enjoy not having a swinging Nikon brick around my neck. I have only taken casual photos so far, but I'm definitely inspired to get creative with it and have been busy scouting out unique location spots for some upcoming shoots. 

40 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Your thoughts are indicating to me that you need to take a hard look at the Q2.

Some photographers get hung up on the fact that with the Q2, they are "stuck" with "only" a 28mm lens.  It all comes down to learning how to correctly use the 28mm lens.  Put in a little time learning to maximize the 28mm for each type of image you want to make and you will not regret it, even when shooting portraits.  Look at the Q2 and Q2 Mono image threads and back issues of LFI magazine and you will see what the Q2 is capable of.  There are a lot of excellent portraits that have been made with the Q2.

Whilst considering the purchase I didn't really look at any other models because the FF options were significantly more expensive.  The Q2 is certainly an appealing camera to think about in the future though. I like the concept and practise of a single focal point for the reasons you mentioned. I also find it helps reduce choice paralysis when leaving the house  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Marac]

Hi there. Congratulations, excellent combi.

I have the CL as does my Wife, we use a selection of Sigma lenses in L mount 16/24/30/45 and also a selection of M-mount lenses from Voigtlander 10/21/35/50/75, the M lenses work really well with the CL alongside my M9/M9M

I also have a Nikon 7500 that I use with the 200-500 for nature & wildlife/Birding.

 

I think both systems are very good but for me the Leica CL is my everyday 'go to' camera especially with the manual focus M lenses, for portraiture the 35 and 50 are both f1.2