Help: Leica CL vs Micro 43, color and B&W

[pascal_meheut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I'm using 2 systems: a Leica M10 and a set of micro 43 bodies & lenses.
I use the M10 for street photography, convert color to B&W 90% of the time, prefer this to a monochrome body. 
I use the micro 43 for everything else: landscapes, social events, theater...

When I travel, I usually get the M10 for cities and a EM5-III + 2 or 3 lenses from 16mm FF equivalent to 200 or 300mm.

Sometimes, I would like to make things simpler and lighter and use only one system (except for real street photography where I plan to use the M system as long as I can).
This is an old dream of mine and unfortunately, I also have GAS 

Anyhow, I had a look at APS-C systems and I'm not attracted by Fuji (excellent quality but too big for me), Sony (not enough lenses, do not like the ergonomics...).
So I'm considering the Leica CL and maybe if it arrives, the CL2.

The pros of the micro 43 system is that the color pictures are great, the B&W need a lot more post-processing to come close to the M10. It is also relatively cheap, lot of available lenses. Ergonomics are not so great and of course, we do not know what the future of the system will be but this is not really important to me.

I'm attracted by the Leica APS-C L system because it is small, ergonomics are very close to the M10 and this is what I like.
The cons are the crazy prices (but I can swallow that pill), the future of the system if I invest now and the relative lack of lenses.
But with a Sigma 18-50/2.8, the 11-23, 55-135 and a 23mm/2, I can do whatever I want.

What's keeping me is the IQ gain I can expect from micro 43 especially when it comes to B&W. 
So I was wondering if anybody around has some experience? A few hours searching the Internet bear no fruits as the CL is quite rare.

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

Here is a good place to start looking: https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/cl-mastershots.html

[Guytou]

Thank you David for this link and these beautiful photos ! 😃

 

Guytou

[Kim Dahl]

With your description, I think the Leica CL will fit really well.  I am super happy with my TL2.  I would like a CL.  But it is true that no one (other than Leica) knows if the APSC system will continue.  It really is a shame.  But it has certainly something to do with sales figures.  But APSC is fine for the most part.  CL is still an ok camera.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have found thecolor and clarity of the CL images photographed in DNG to be excellent, I find very little PP is necessary. I like color I find I like film better for b&w, and the handling of my M3 works for me. I have a 23, which is a nice street lens,the 11-23, and then several primes, a 55 f1.4 7 Artisans, a 90 Elmarit, an adapted f2.8 105 Micro Nikkor, 135 Tele Elmar and a 400 f5.6 Telyt. If I want a 50ish focal legnth I use my 35 pre asph Summilux, but that generally lives on my M3. I would also think if you have the 11-23, 23 and 55-135 all you need in between the shrter and longer focal lengths is a fast 35 from your M set. Just my opinion. 

[ramarren]

One less-expensive way to go into the CL is to buy just the body and the Leica M Adapter L, use your existing M lenses on it. That's what I've done, and I've not seen any need whatever to buy AF (TL or SL) lenses for it. But I digress...  

I have a fairly complete Micro-FourThirds system too (Panasonic GX9, Olympus E-M1, six or seven lenses). Both work very well. I'm not so enamored of the GX9 body ... mediocre EVF, too many features, too complicated user interface and cramped ergonomics. I bought it because I had the lenses and it was a cheap and small body. I've had the Olympus E-M1 since it was released (2013..??) and still can't bring myself to sell it ... It was my upgrade from the E-5 SLR (still have the older E-1, another camera I still can't contemplate selling), works with the E-System SLR lenses as well as mFT lens line, and produces beautiful results. It is also a much more complex camera than the CL with a vast menu system—highly configurable/customizable operation—but with excellent ergonomics. 

The CL is much simpler without being devoid of the niceties that one might want, has a better sensor then either (more resolution, lower noise at higher ISO settings), and works beautifully with both my M-mount and R-mount lenses—better than the mFT bodies by a good bit. The CL works as well for my uses as my M-P 240 and M-D 262 did, and is much more versatile (use with long lenses, ultrawides, and macro/close up) due to the TTL viewing and focusing system. It gives up a stop or so on high ISO noise compared to the M10, and of course you use one focal length shorter in the Leica M/R lens range for every field of view choice you want, compared to an R or M body; I don't find these limitations an obstacle for my use.

I don't find that the mFT bodies output require much more processing than the CL (or my older M or SL) body to produce good B&W renderings, but they have slightly lower limits due to the smaller, lower resolution sensor format with respect to noise and resolution. But then I've been tuning my digital capture to monochrome rendering technique across a huge range of cameras for the past 25 years... The CL sensor's improved dynamic range and resolution are the bottom line to why it makes better finished results.

...The same can be said when comparing to the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c output—that big sensor with its 16bit .3FR raw files simply has a huge advantage when rendering. The difference in that instance is so great that I can consider how to expose properly from a completely different footing vs evaluating exposure settings for any of my other cameras.  

G

[pascal_meheut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the answers. 

[V2cruise]

I just sold all my Olympus equipment after foolishly stopping by the Leica store to check out the CL and SL cameras as well as the Summilux-TL. I bought the TL2 last year and was thinking of trading it in for the CL and also looking at the size of the Summilux. As nice as the CL is and as clearly as how much better the features are on it, I really liked the ergonomics of the TL2.  The original SL was available at a very reasonable price and it still seemed pretty awesome considering how old it was. 

It was obvious however that the SL could not replace an APS-C camera for carrying around everyday and everywhere so a decision had to be made. I also shoot Fujifilm so my two choices were to either sell my Olympus gear or my Fuji gear and get the SL.

Some background…I'd been shooting with Leica rangefinder cameras since the early 2000s and avoided moving to digital for as long as I could. When Leica first ventured into digital it appeared as though my favorite lenses would have an issue being used on the M9 or at least that's what I was led to understand. The Summicron DR and 21mm had issues being adapted to digital plus all the lenses HAD to be sent back for coding. When Olympus introduced the E-P1, I jumped at it. The lens lineup was scant and the camera was not very agile but nonetheless it became my daily carry. Still I kept all my Leica gear figuring I'd still use it since I was never in a rush to get photos done.  Then the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 came out!

The X-Pro 1 led to GAS and although the Olympus was pushed to the side, it was still around. Eventually the EM-5 made its appearance with some fast fast primes and more GAS. The Fujifilm gear kept growing as well.

Trying not to drag this post on any longer, When I bought the TL2 last year I promised my wife that one system would have to go if I decided to stick with Leica. The Olympus had become my system for video projects and sports while Fujifilm was what I used for pretty much everything else. With sights on the SL I couldn't drag my feet any longer. 

The Olympus system offers incredible video, great color, fast and accurate autofocus, focus stacking, keystone correction, live composition, and other features. Lens quality is excellent and the size and weight are very attractive. The Fuji system offers excellent JPG  processing, familiar user interface and customization, well placed controls, excellent optics, very advanced and useable video features and still at an attractive size. 

I decided to keep the Fuji system most likely because I like old school controls. What I will miss most about Olympus is the incredible video and advanced (though seldom used) features. 

Where you may miss the Olympus system most would be with flash photography and telephoto reach if you do such things. I think you'll be happy with the color, monochrome and low light performance of the CL.

[pascal_meheut]

6 hours ago, V2cruise said:

 

Thanks. My wife lost the war a long time ago so I can buy the CL and keep the Olympus and the M10. But my "inner wife in my subconcious" is telling my that my GAS is becoming more acute, that when it comes to what I like, i.e. street pictures mainly in B&W, I already have the M, more than 30 years of experience with it and that I should spend more time shooting, printing and visiting exhibits, reading photography books instead of spending money into a 3rd system.

One day, I may have trouble focusing with the M and/or need to carry as little weight as possible and then, something like the CL with 1 or 2 lenses will be  my choice. But for now, I'll try to stick with what I have if I find the courage, if the force is with me, if God (or any other very powerful entity) helps me, etc. 😉

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by pascal_meheut

[V2cruise]

14 hours ago, pascal_meheut said:

Thanks. My wife lost the war a long time ago so I can buy the CL and keep the Olympus and the M10. But my "inner wife in my subconcious" is telling my that my GAS is becoming more acute, that when it comes to what I like, i.e. street pictures mainly in B&W, I already have the M, more than 30 years of experience with it and that I should spend more time shooting, printing and visiting exhibits, reading photography books instead of spending money into a 3rd system.

One day, I may have trouble focusing with the M and/or need to carry as little weight as possible and then, something like the CL with 1 or 2 lenses will be  my choice. But for now, I'll try to stick with what I have if I find the courage, if the force is with me, if God (or any other very powerful entity) helps me, etc. 😉

 

I think I need an inner wife!

[mikeLD]

On 11/1/2021 at 3:55 AM, pascal_meheut said:

Hi,

I'm using 2 systems: a Leica M10 and a set of micro 43 bodies & lenses.
I use the M10 for street photography, convert color to B&W 90% of the time, prefer this to a monochrome body. 
I use the micro 43 for everything else: landscapes, social events, theater...

When I travel, I usually get the M10 for cities and a EM5-III + 2 or 3 lenses from 16mm FF equivalent to 200 or 300mm.

Sometimes, I would like to make things simpler and lighter and use only one system (except for real street photography where I plan to use the M system as long as I can).
This is an old dream of mine and unfortunately, I also have GAS 

Anyhow, I had a look at APS-C systems and I'm not attracted by Fuji (excellent quality but too big for me), Sony (not enough lenses, do not like the ergonomics...).
So I'm considering the Leica CL and maybe if it arrives, the CL2.

The pros of the micro 43 system is that the color pictures are great, the B&W need a lot more post-processing to come close to the M10. It is also relatively cheap, lot of available lenses. Ergonomics are not so great and of course, we do not know what the future of the system will be but this is not really important to me.

I'm attracted by the Leica APS-C L system because it is small, ergonomics are very close to the M10 and this is what I like.
The cons are the crazy prices (but I can swallow that pill), the future of the system if I invest now and the relative lack of lenses.
But with a Sigma 18-50/2.8, the 11-23, 55-135 and a 23mm/2, I can do whatever I want.

What's keeping me is the IQ gain I can expect from micro 43 especially when it comes to B&W. 
So I was wondering if anybody around has some experience? A few hours searching the Internet bear no fruits as the CL is quite rare.

Hi, I went through a similar dilemma.  I've been shooting the Lumix cameras for some time GX8, G9, GX9, LX100 II.  While I loved them and knew most of the features well, there was always a disappointment that the best photos were with the Leica blessed lenses such as the 12-60 Leica version vs the stock 12-60mm.  These lenses were heavier and larger but performed visibly better.  So I switched recently to the Leica APS-C:  T then TL then TL2 and now my CL.  The only Lumix I keep is the LX100 II which is all but in markings a D-LUX-7 and a great low light, compact street camera for me.  That all said having shot the CL with TL23mm, TL135mm, TL18-56 I love the results but not the lenses so much.  So now I've totally refreshed my CL kit to a Sigma 18-50mm and a Sigma 90mm both of which satisfy all my needs.  But I do still carry my LX100 II as my backup camera because of its excellent low light and zoom capabilities f1.7-2.8 zoom.  I do prefer the APS-C over the Micro 4/3 because it gives me more to work with, even though I do not crop (Bresson follower).  I do use a tool that I will mention because it is open source and free:  LightZone (http://lightzoneproject.org/).  It's most important features for me are that it implements Ansel Adams zone system in a very effective way and uses non destructive tools which are applied in a stack way like we used to do with filters...  Sorry if this is Too Much Information.. Cheers mike  

[jaapv]

I have a GX8 and a CL. The GX8 is pretty good, but there is a clear quality gap to the CL. For one thing, one must be very careful when processing MFT files, as they fall apart far more easily than the CL files, and the CL has a far smoother rendering, very close to full-frame.  The CL lenses are designed by Leica to be industry standard - and they are.

[mikeLD]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I have a GX8 and a CL. The GX8 is pretty good, but there is a clear quality gap to the CL. For one thing, one must be very careful when processing MFT files, as they fall apart far more easily than the CL files, and the CL has a far smoother rendering, very close to full-frame.  The CL lenses are designed by Leica to be industry standard - and they are.

Thank you, I agree, that is why I moved to the CL.  I had no problem with the CL Lenses.  The reason I went to the Sigma lenses is that I prefer to shoot with a zoom lens like the T 18-56mm but the 18-50mm Sigma at F2.8 was too good to resist and the quality is pretty good though not quite as good as the 18-56mm in detail.  I highly praise Leica for organizing the L-Mount alliance as a way to extend the choices for many of us and preserve our APS-C as one aspect.  I understand as a totally unique firm of unchallenged design and quality in its products, they must make choices needed to continue the legacy. 

[pascal_meheut]

20 hours ago, mikeLD said:

...  Sorry if this is Too Much Information.. Cheers mike  

This is not too much. This is very valuable. I have PEN-F, EM-1 II, EM-5 III but I also carry the LX100 II. This is a very nice camera but I really do not like the ergonomics.The same with a zoom ring, less buttons but bigger ones would be perfect for me.

20 hours ago, jaapv said:

The GX8 is pretty good, but there is a clear quality gap to the CL. For one thing, one must be very careful when processing MFT files, as they fall apart far more easily than the CL files, and the CL has a far smoother rendering, very close to full-frame.

Thanks to you too. This is my feeling exactly: micro 43 gives me excellent results but the files contain less information somehow and I'm not talking details but tones.

On one hand, I'm attracted to the CL but on the other, I think it would be smart to wait for at least a few months and see how each system evolves: will Leica release the CL2 or stop its APS-C line? Will new micro 43 cameras have a better sensor?

[jaapv]

I find it hard to describe, but MFT appears to be more "gritty" 

[pascal_meheut]

On 11/7/2021 at 3:52 PM, jaapv said:

I find it hard to describe, but MFT appears to be more "gritty" 

Indeed. I had some holidays so I took a walk with the M10 + Summarit 35mm/2.4 as well as the EM5-III + 12-100/4 (which is as good as any other MFT lens I own).

And I shot the same scene, same moment, ISO 200 on both cameras, 1/500 f/8 for the Leica, 1/2000 f/4 for the Olympus so same DOF and exposure.

I loaded both files into Capture One, aligned the color temperature on the same spot, did the automatic exposure and corrected it a bit to get the histograms as close as possible. Then saved them as TIFF 16 bits converted them both with the same parameters in Photoshop/Silver Efex.

Here is the Leica, 100% crop of the center:

 

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!

Edited November 9, 2021 by pascal_meheut

[pascal_meheut]

And now the OIympus. First of all, because of the sensor dynamic, local exposure is not the same. We will fix this. As you can see, the Leica is sharper with more details but I can live with that. But the sea, the hat, the pant leg on the left show less nuance and as jaapv said, the image is more gritty.

 

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!

Edited November 9, 2021 by pascal_meheut

[pascal_meheut]

So before converting to TIFF again, I lowered the exposure to match the center only but also set the Clarity to -20 and the Structure to -10. The idea is to lower the smaller capter higher micro-contrast (for lack of a better word).

Same conversion. This is better, closer the the M10 but still, the difference is a lot to me. 

When comparing the 2 color shots, one can see that the Leica is sharper but not such a big difference when it comes to the way the image is rendered.

P.S: maybe the differences are harder to see here than in Photoshop, full size especially between the 2 Olympus post-processing options but this does not change the conclusions.

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!

Edited November 9, 2021 by pascal_meheut

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

On 11/6/2021 at 6:09 PM, jaapv said:

I have a GX8 and a CL. The GX8 is pretty good, but there is a clear quality gap to the CL. For one thing, one must be very careful when processing MFT files, as they fall apart far more easily than the CL files, and the CL has a far smoother rendering, very close to full-frame.  The CL lenses are designed by Leica to be industry standard - and they are.

Exactly this. I had the M240 and bought the Olympus EM5-ii and a couple of the better lenses for a light carry-around camera. I loved it's size, weight and jewel-like quality. The images SOOC were bright and attractive but could bear little processing however, and I was often dissatisfied with them. I also found the graphical menu impenetrable and could never get the settings to stay as I wanted them - presets/user profiles just did not match my concept of labour-saving devices. I sold it after I got the CL.

I find the CL images match my SL2-S images very well except in low light/high ISO.  

Edited November 9, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[oldwino]

On 11/7/2021 at 6:52 AM, jaapv said:

I find it hard to describe, but MFT appears to be more "gritty" 

For me, when I had my MFT system, the word was “brittle”.