The Gasman’s Dilemma

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m not sure I understand your conundrum.

Do you want/need a second camera the same as what you have (albeit an upgrade)?  Or are you wanting to add to your options (better image quality)?

When the T was announced, Leica was very bullish about APS-C.  I suspect it was in reaction to m4/3 and smaller format cameras.  The larger APS-C sensor was certainly an improvement on those.  But without question, the larger the sensor, the better the image quality.  I suspect that Leica’s APS-C foray is gooing to fade away.  I have no information about this, but it seems likely to me - no CL2, few new lenses beyond the standard range already announced, and Leica seems to be concentrating on the fabulous new M and SL lenses..

Why upgrade?  I bought the T, as I wanted a compact EVF based camera.  I’d flirted with Sonys, and hated them.  The T seemed to be the compact camera, compatible with M lenses (which I’d invested in) that I was looking for.  It wasn’t - I dumped the camera and lens shortly after buying it.  The CL just seemed to me to be a less functional T, wrapped in a faux M body (sorry, I don’t mean that to be rude, but the TL2 is just as good, it seems to me).  I then bought the TL2 as Leica seemed to have fixed the problems with it.  I use it with the 35 Summilux-TL and the 11-23 zoom, and my smaller M lenses (28 Summaron and 35 Summilux pre-asph).  With the small M lenses, it fits into my cycling jersey.  I really don’t care one way or the other if Leica discontinues the TL or CL cameras, so long as my TL2 keeps working.

Why the story?  Well, the TL2 serves a purpose.  For so long as it works, I really don’t care about newer models as the TL2 fits my needs.  

I see no point in duplicating cameras.  I have a colour digital M (M10-D), a Monochrom (M9M) and a film M-A.  I also have an SL (the original) as it is compatible with my M lenses, which are the heart of my photography.  I do have the 24-90 zoom, as my one AF full frame zoom.  With that lens, it’s my standard set-up.

Were I in your shoes, I’d stick with the CL you enjoy, and the lenses you have.  If you want to add to what you have, I’d add something different - the Q2 is the obvious choice, as it has a lens dedicated to the sensor, and it has a better sensor - that’s the bit that counts.  Or, look at a Q2M if you like B&W.  Having a CL and a CL2 (if one eventuates) I don’t get.  What are you gaining?  If the CL2 solves a problem you  have with your existing camera, fine.

If Leica makes a TL3, I won’t be interested for so long as my TL2 works (it’s a great camera, by the way), and I won’t be interested in the M11 of any flavour.  I regret selling my X1Dii, but wasn’t using it enough to justify keeping it. If the Q3 comes out with a medium format sensor, I could be very interested …

Just my tuppence.  Good luck with your decision making.

[Advertisement]

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

[Le Chef]

Thanks. The refinement of the thinking has evolved a bit to Q2 = "Alternative", and CL2 = "Extension". Both are valid and would work but there's really no "Goldilocks" solution with both having pluses and minuses, unless I buy a Q2 now and buy a CL2 later. (Heavy emphasis on "gold" with that approach.) 

The first step is to see if my AD can let me borrow a Q2 for a day to see what I think.

 

[IkarusJohn]

I'm rarely convinced by the next upgrade coming soon.  For perfection, the last model in a series is usually the best.  If you look at the M9, M(240) and M10 series cameras, the last models were the best - the M9-P, M-P and M10-R ...