CL vs Q116

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forum team,

I'm doing a lot of traveling lately for work and vacation. I'm a regular M10M and M10R user. But, I want to buy a "cheaper" camera that I can simply not care about whether that means auto focus or just jamming in luggage, etc. 

I'm considering the CL + 18-56 (or maybe just the 23mm) or the Leica Q V1 (116)

We (my wife) has a D-lux typ 109 but I don't get along with that camera at all. I'm leaning toward the CL because of the slightly smaller size and the advantage interchangeable lenses that I can use should I upgrade to a later CL version. The Q is long in the tooth but I think still a beautiful camera. 

What do you all recommend? Is one tougher than the other? Has anyone else made a similar decision? Anything else I should consider?

[wda]

For me, they are complementary tools. One does not replace the other. 

[Advertisement]

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

[grahamhoey]

For me the sensor size is a major factor. However I have had both and the interchangeable lens on the CL won the day. However if you need a fast lens the quality of the Q lens is so much better than the 23mm of the CL. The 18-56 on the CL was for a while my travel package with the 35mm when I needed a faster lens. 

[dkmoore]

1 hour ago, wda said:

For me, they are complementary tools. One does not replace the other. 

My main cameras are the Ms. I'm likely not going to buy a Q and CL. I still appreciate the response. 

[dkmoore]

31 minutes ago, grahamhoey said:

For me the sensor size is a major factor. However I have had both and the interchangeable lens on the CL won the day. However if you need a fast lens the quality of the Q lens is so much better than the 23mm of the CL. The 18-56 on the CL was for a while my travel package with the 35mm when I needed a faster lens. 

If I go with the CL I will probably either buy the kit with 18 2.8 or 18-56. Trying to figure that out as well. I'm sure I'll end up buying the other lenses at some point. I'd probably skip the 23 and go 18, 35, and 60.

Or, get the 11 zoom and 18-56 zoom.

[grahamhoey]

I found if I wasn’t usung the 18-56 I wanted a faster lens. So the 35 was perfect for that. I now use the SL2 as for health reasons I need the image stabilization. 

[henry lesesne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both.

I packed both for a ten day trip through the Holy Land recently. The Leica Q in-body stabilization was a life saver in dark interior spaces. If I had to choose one over the other, the Leica Q wins. However, I was very happy with the CL for outside photography. Enjoy ! cheers, Henry

Edited July 26, 2021 by henry lesesne
spelling

[Shawn30]

I think Matt on Mr Leica YouTube did a cool comparison of both cameras except the CL had the 18mm lens. 
For me it comes down to being able to change a lens, so I have a CL. I took the 23mm and 55-135 to Hilton Head for a family thing. The 23 is a good lens, and the APO 55-135 is quality. The 18mm is no slouch and a small package.

[gotium]

I’ve had both, still have the CL and a Q2, find the Q series much more versatile for 28 or 35 mm equivalent with a much better lens (than the TL 18), faster aperture, and a full-frame sensor. Really like the CL too though and would use that if you want longer or M lenses.

[IanH]

Although not mentioned by the OP I’d suggest the Ricoh GR ii or iii if you want to travel light, enjoy 28mm and don’t need a viewfinder to frame the image. The lens is also very pleasing but not as fast as the Q. I’ve had GRs for years now and they go everywhere because they fit in a pocket. Not my main focus, but they are affordable and can create B&W images nearly on par with a 28mm elmarit ASPH and an M. 

Hopefully this comment doesn’t see me being kicked out of the forum! 

 

[dkmoore]

I ended up buying a Q V1 for the family trips. I’m in LA, California and the choice has worked out so far. 

[Driften]

53 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

I ended up buying a Q V1 for the family trips. I’m in LA, California and the choice has worked out so far. 

Congrats on the Q. I enjoy mine, but am adding a CL to go with it. The Q is great for 28/35mm and low light, but when you need more reach having a CL would come in handy.

[dkmoore]

1 hour ago, Driften said:

Congrats on the Q. I enjoy mine, but am adding a CL to go with it. The Q is great for 28/35mm and low light, but when you need more reach having a CL would come in handy.

I use the M cameras with longer lenses but I agree the CL would be a nice compliment. 

[Driften]

52 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

I use the M cameras with longer lenses but I agree the CL would be a nice compliment. 

Then you're already set! For me the Q was my first and gate way to Leica. I have the CL with an 18-56 coming tomorrow to compliment my Q. 

[dkmoore]

1 hour ago, Driften said:

Then you're already set! For me the Q was my first and gate way to Leica. I have the CL with an 18-56 coming tomorrow to compliment my Q. 

I like the EVF of the CL better than the Q and the 18-56 almost swayed me toward the Q. Both awesome cameras. I was using the Q today like a point and shoot, tourist style. Was kinda nice. 
 

leica has to get in the tilt screen game for both Q and CL! Enjoy your new CL. 

[Driften]

1 minute ago, dkmoore said:

I like the EVF of the CL better than the Q and the 18-56 almost swayed me toward the Q. Both awesome cameras. I was using the Q today like a point and shoot, tourist style. Was kinda nice. 
 

leica has to get in the tilt screen game for both Q and CL! Enjoy your new CL. 

Heck yea! I love the tilt screen on my Fujifilm X-E4. It might now be as flush but it comes in handy. Maybe if we are really lucky the CL2 will have a tilt screen and IBIS. I think we are years off for a Q3.

[Ecaton]

The Q2 with all the benefits of the Q1 plus its cropping power  would be my answer. If focal lengths of 28 to about 85 (the cl zoom) is all you need, the Q2's could be the one body solution.