Options to replace the CL

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Increasingly Leica has been saying the Q2 with its 35/50 crop modes and abundance of pixels for cropping can become the only camera for some people.  While that doesn't suit my needs (I prefer the compactness of the CL and its ability to mount M lenses), the Q2 can legitimately become the compact AF solution for many.

My local Leica store told me they sell more Q2 than CL which I didn't find surprising.

As to Ricoh, anything they put out under the GR line is worth a look.  They have an ethos closest to Leica since the film days and the products are wonderful performers and are never gimmick.  The Ricoh GXR was my APS-C solution for M lenses for many years and I loved it.  

[LocalHero1953]

My thoughts are coalescing around the Q2 as a replacement for the CL. It's main limitation is that I would no longer have anything at 90mm portrait focal length. On the other hand the simple one body one lens model is attractive, as is the IS and the macro mode. It would work out cheaper than some alternatives of new body and several lenses. And it could be a stopgap till a more obvious CL successor emerges. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

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

[rob_w]

The Ricoh is very good but I stopped using mine and eventually sold it once I had the CL.  The advantage of compactness is mostly addressed by the CL in any case (for me).  I did try the Q2 but have to say I did not like the lens as much as I expected.  I realise that places me in a minority (of one?) but the fact I could never change the lens for one that might draw differently was a big restriction.

Since all of us here seem in agreement that "full frame" is indistinguishable from APS-C for our purposes, using Leica, it's hard to see why the advantages of the smaller format are not championed by the manufacturer.  After all, this thinking is what led to the original Leitz camera and the use of 35mm movie film rather than larger rolls.

I am on holiday this week, including a tramp around the Atlas Mountains.  I could never see me lugging an SL2 outfit up these hills.

[SoarFM]

On 11/4/2021 at 3:53 PM, Louis said:

Not only I love my TL lenses, I am also using half dozen manual Nikkor. Not comparable!

Cameras come and go.

A good lens will outlive numerous camera bodies. Except for the Q's... 

I have an SL2 and an SL24-90. I also have the TL-18-56 from my CL. The 18-56 on the SL2 gives me a significantly smaller package, IBIS and a 20mp image that doesn't need software uprezzing to produce a sizable high quality file with almost the same zoom as the SL lens. This applies to every lens in the CL line. It won't be quite as small a package as the CL but the TL lenses see use when I don't want to be swinging around the big honking SL lenses. And you can also use M lenses, some of which many of us already have. The reason I use Leica systems are for the lenses. Sometimes big is OK, other times not. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by SoarFM

[cirke]

On 11/2/2021 at 2:11 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

I posted in another thread about why, despite my CL still working fine, I am thinking about alternatives if there is to be no CL2 (which remains a matter of speculation).
I asked: what's the solution, if you want a small, light, high quality modern camera, of simple, easily controlled design, that can bear comparison with the latest sensor technology for IQ?

• Fuji? Too alien a system for someone used to Leica?
• M10R / M11? Too heavy, too wedded to tradition, poor framing?
• Q2? Not enough pixels at 50-75mm?
• Ricoh GRIII? Limited to wide angle?
• Sigma fpL? Poor ergonomics for handheld?

What else? Sony doesn't come into the equation for me - interface too messy. Sigma might come up trumps if they reshape the fp and integrate an EVF - they are my wildcard.

If Leica made a Q 40 or 50 I think I'd throw everything else away
I used TL lenses on the SL2 but I find this camera (much better than the CL) too big and I sold it

[cpclee]

1 hour ago, cirke said:

If Leica made a Q 40 or 50 I think I'd throw everything else away
I used TL lenses on the SL2 but I find this camera (much better than the CL) too big and I sold it

The Zeiss ZX1 with its 35/f2 might be close to your needs.  But it seems to be less a mature product than the Q2.

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

when Zeiss came out with the ZX1 i thought it was my camera but as you say  its not mature enough

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, cirke said:

If Leica made a Q 40 or 50 I think I'd throw everything else away
I used TL lenses on the SL2 but I find this camera (much better than the CL) too big and I sold it

That is why I bought the S5   Still bigger and heavier, but acceptably so. (IMO)  The CL remains first choice for light daily use, but the Panasonic for everything else.

[lmans]

On 11/4/2021 at 4:30 PM, jaapv said:

I don't think it can be a CL replacement. The strength of the CL is its versatility in a small package.

The GRIII is a small package..... much smaller than the CL and when you stick a lens on the CL, then the 'much smaller' becomes a 'much much smaller'....

I have my share of Leica's but don't consider any of them to be small.

[frame-it]

On 11/15/2021 at 7:21 PM, cpclee said:

The Zeiss ZX1 with its 35/f2 might be close to your needs.  But it seems to be less a mature product than the Q2.

have you tried it?

[ramarren]

On 11/15/2021 at 1:08 AM, cirke said:

If Leica made a Q 40 or 50 I think I'd throw everything else away
I used TL lenses on the SL2 but I find this camera (much better than the CL) too big and I sold it

A Q2M with a 40mm f/2 lens would be it for me.

G

[frame-it]

Just now, ramarren said:

A Q2M with a 40mm f/2 lens would be it for me.

G

Q2M+50mm f1.4 for me

[Le Chef]

I’ve got a CL and a number of TL lenses so don’t really want to throw that away. I’m going to add a (pre-owned?) Q2 to give me better low light capabilities from FF and IBIS. Hopefully that will bridge me over until Leica or someone offers a CL-sized camera that will make good use of my TL lenses.

[thedruid]

Interesting to see that B&H in the US just sent out an email promo and have taken another $500 off the price of the TL2 + 18-56mm kit for the holidays,  it's now priced at $1995.

Of course you can get an S5 with 20-60mm for a similar price.

[nicci78]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

I’ve got a CL and a number of TL lenses so don’t really want to throw that away. I’m going to add a (pre-owned?) Q2 to give me better low light capabilities from FF and IBIS. Hopefully that will bridge me over until Leica or someone offers a CL-sized camera that will make good use of my TL lenses.

My Q then Q2 and CL are fighting each other for supremacy. 
But guess what they are almost neck to neck. 
Q2 has some advantages over CL. 
CL has some advantages advantages against Q2. 

You really need both. But Q2 will not replace CL or the other way around  

Same UI they are made for each other as a couple. Not as enemy. 
 

I cannot part from Q2 neither from CL. 
Tried huge behemoth like SL2 and SL2-S. In the end I prefer the APO-SL lenses on the CL rather than on SL2. 
TL lenses on SL2 make no sense. IBIS is overrated. It almost never activate with the SL2. My style of photography did not take advantage of it. I need fast shutter speed for my living subjects. 

Q2 OIS is also pretty much useless for photos. It is barely ok for steady image at 1/30th. Forget it for 1/15th or lower. But it is handy for videos  

Q2 will not offer better low light capabilities: over 6400 it is quite ugly. And you need 1/250th minimum for sharp image. 
CL can reach 12500 or 25000 for the same level of noise. 

Nothing is better than CL yet.

Even did not rush to replace its  24MP FSI APS-C line up with 26MP BSI variant. Because 24MP is still superior ! 
 

Fujifilm has to use it. Because it is a necessary by product of their 100 MP 33x44 MF sensor  

 

And almost every other APS-C are bigger than CL. Especially the one with IBIS. X-T4 is so huge. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by nicci78

[cirke]

42 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

 

Nothing is better than CL yet.

 

why do you sell it then ...?   

[Simone_DF]

12 hours ago, nicci78 said:

It is barely ok for steady image at 1/30th. Forget it for 1/15th or lower.

Weird, I shot many sharp pictures as low as 1/4s handheld with the Q2. 

[Viv]

I can't find a viable CL replacement. But I'm not worried.

I'll just keep my CL.

[wda]

25 minutes ago, Viv said:

I can't find a viable CL replacement. But I'm not worried.

I'll just keep my CL.

A wise and sensible decision.  Continue to enjoy it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[cpclee]

15 hours ago, nicci78 said:

My Q then Q2 and CL are fighting each other for supremacy. 
But guess what they are almost neck to neck. 
Q2 has some advantages over CL. 
CL has some advantages advantages against Q2. 

You really need both. But Q2 will not replace CL or the other way around  

Same UI they are made for each other as a couple. Not as enemy. 
 

I cannot part from Q2 neither from CL. 
Tried huge behemoth like SL2 and SL2-S. In the end I prefer the APO-SL lenses on the CL rather than on SL2. 
TL lenses on SL2 make no sense. IBIS is overrated. It almost never activate with the SL2. My style of photography did not take advantage of it. I need fast shutter speed for my living subjects. 

Q2 OIS is also pretty much useless for photos. It is barely ok for steady image at 1/30th. Forget it for 1/15th or lower. But it is handy for videos  

Q2 will not offer better low light capabilities: over 6400 it is quite ugly. And you need 1/250th minimum for sharp image. 
CL can reach 12500 or 25000 for the same level of noise. 

Nothing is better than CL yet.

Even did not rush to replace its  24MP FSI APS-C line up with 26MP BSI variant. Because 24MP is still superior ! 
 

Fujifilm has to use it. Because it is a necessary by product of their 100 MP 33x44 MF sensor  

 

And almost every other APS-C are bigger than CL. Especially the one with IBIS. X-T4 is so huge. 

I'm missing something.  If you've ruled out the SL2 cameras, then why go for the APO SL lenses on the CL as opposed to the 35/1.4 TL or the 60/2.8 TL?  The latter are just as good and much cheaper?