OhOh, future of CL?

[Minolta TC-1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Another option is the Leica CL, haha. Sorry if we got so far off topic! But I do think all of these "small camera questions" are in a way related.

Exactly, and that's how we ended up off-topic 😀 Anyway, the CL was indeed the camera that attracted me to this discussion.

I'm always curious by rumours of some lenses being "not as good". Frequently, these lenses collect avid fans, exactly because of their rendering. Sometimes, they sacrifice detail for more nostalgic or retro rendering. If that's the case for the 23, then I'm picking it up instantly. Matt Osborne also sees no problem whatsoever with the 18.

One thing that I find offputting with the whole L mount is the size of the lenses. Why is the Summicron 35/f2 10cm long when on M, it's only 4cm? Motors can frequently be wrapped around the lens so they become thicker, not longer... These lenses basically negate the whole size advantage of the CL.

[robgo2]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:27 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

You asked for alternatives...the Ricoh GRIIIx is the best use case for APS-C, in my mind. The GRIII if you want a wider lens. But compared to the other cameras mentioned, it is the only one that is truly pocketable, and it has a superb lens with built in stabilization. Of all of them, it is the best pocket camera for bringing everywhere. I have the Q2 as well, and though it takes better pictures, it is much larger and bulkier, so hard to compare. I think given your username, you should give it a try. It is very cheap compared to all of them, and it is the best pro photographer's snapshot camera of the bunch. It is the camera I wish Leica made instead of the TL.

Seriously, the Ricoh is a fixed-lens camera without an EVF. As such, it is not comparable to the CL. For those who want (and can afford) the best fixed-lens 28mm camera, there is nothing to compare with the Q2, even though it may not be pocketable. For pocketability,  any new cell phone camera will do, and almost everyone carries one all the time. Not APS-C, but good enough for most basic purposes.

[jaapv]

21 hours ago, Minolta TC-1 said:

Exactly, and that's how we ended up off-topic 😀 Anyway, the CL was indeed the camera that attracted me to this discussion.

I'm always curious by rumours of some lenses being "not as good". Frequently, these lenses collect avid fans, exactly because of their rendering. Sometimes, they sacrifice detail for more nostalgic or retro rendering. If that's the case for the 23, then I'm picking it up instantly. Matt Osborne also sees no problem whatsoever with the 18.

One thing that I find offputting with the whole L mount is the size of the lenses. Why is the Summicron 35/f2 10cm long when on M, it's only 4cm? Motors can frequently be wrapped around the lens so they become thicker, not longer... These lenses basically negate the whole size advantage of the CL.

M lenses are designed for small size because of the rangefinder and it shows in the price.  M lenses have a longer register distance, making them shorter and don't have to fit AF motors in. 

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, robgo2 said:

Seriously, the Ricoh is a fixed-lens camera without an EVF. As such, it is not comparable to the CL. For those who want (and can afford) the best fixed-lens 28mm camera, there is nothing to compare with the Q2, even though it may not be pocketable. For pocketability,  any new cell phone camera will do, and almost everyone carries one all the time. Not APS-C, but good enough for most basic purposes.

This is where we disagree. For example, cost aside, I cannot see any reason to choose a CL other than its compactness…the Q2, M series and SL series all have better image quality due to their larger sensors and better lenses (at least the best of them are better than CL lenses). So if the only real reason to use the camera is compactness and smaller weight, then it makes sense to evaluate other cameras that have that attribute. For me the GRIIIx makes the most sense, as it has dramatically better image quality than a phone, while being substantially more compact than any other APS-C camera. I am of course willing to concede that the CL is more flexible since it takes other lenses, but for me, I would just use the SL2 if I needed that flexibility or the Q2 if I wanted a easy to carry camera with an even higher level of quality. I fully recognize that others would come to a different conclusion, especially in a CL thread!

[Le Chef]

Your argument forgets that "only" is a subjective weighting of the decision-making process. For some buyers weight is of significant importance, not of lesser importance. Second the CL, but more importably, the TL range of lenses provides owners with the flexibility to change perspectives and to do so without the burden of a sackful of heavy lenses and a traveling physiotherapist. The GRIII while light has one perspective and one only.

The sad thing is that if you want a compact FF camera then Sony shows what can be done when the designers and engineers put a little effort into the process of developing a range of cameras and lenses that provides great IQ and don't require you to travel with a sherpa, unlike the SL2/S.

There is space in the market for another system of compact APSC cameras and lenses besides Fuji. It's just sad that Leica does not seem to have the resources to continue developing their's. Let's hope another company with deeper pockets and a greater commitment can challenge Fuji.

[robgo2]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

This is where we disagree. For example, cost aside, I cannot see any reason to choose a CL other than its compactness…the Q2, M series and SL series all have better image quality due to their larger sensors and better lenses (at least the best of them are better than CL lenses). So if the only real reason to use the camera is compactness and smaller weight, then it makes sense to evaluate other cameras that have that attribute. For me the GRIIIx makes the most sense, as it has dramatically better image quality than a phone, while being substantially more compact than any other APS-C camera. I am of course willing to concede that the CL is more flexible since it takes other lenses, but for me, I would just use the SL2 if I needed that flexibility or the Q2 if I wanted a easy to carry camera with an even higher level of quality. I fully recognize that others would come to a different conclusion, especially in a CL thread!

It should go without saying that every camera and lens choice involves compromise of some sort. If pocketability is of the highest priority, then the GRIIIx is a reasonable option. However, if versatility is of an equal or slightly higher priority, then the CL is a better one. Horses for courses.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

On 12/3/2021 at 7:49 PM, Minolta TC-1 said:

One thing that I find offputting with the whole L mount is the size of the lenses. Why is the Summicron 35/f2 10cm long when on M, it's only 4cm? Motors can frequently be wrapped around the lens so they become thicker, not longer... These lenses basically negate the whole size advantage of the CL.

 

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

M lenses are designed for small size because of the rangefinder and it shows in the price.  M lenses have a longer register distance, making them shorter and don't have to fit AF motors in. 

AF lenses are not just manual focus lenses with a motor attached (or at least they shouldn't be). If they were, we would be complaining about AF speed even more than we do now. To get fast AF speed you need to move a lens element that is as light as possible the shortest practical distance. I am not a lens designer but I'm willing to bet that part of the bulk of an AF lens is down to the design compromises this enforces.     

[jaapv]

Of course they aren’t. Motors for AF and aperture actuation, sensors for manual focus by wire, iinternal focusing, electronic prints, wiring, contacts, it all takes space. 

[ECohen]

To refocus the point, planing my 2022 camera and lens purchases would be a lot easier if my favorite camera manufacture would be less secretive .

Nobody knows nothing;-)

 

[IkarusJohn]

9 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Your argument forgets that "only" is a subjective weighting of the decision-making process. For some buyers weight is of significant importance, not of lesser importance. Second the CL, but more importably, the TL range of lenses provides owners with the flexibility to change perspectives and to do so without the burden of a sackful of heavy lenses and a traveling physiotherapist. The GRIII while light has one perspective and one only.

The sad thing is that if you want a compact FF camera then Sony shows what can be done when the designers and engineers put a little effort into the process of developing a range of cameras and lenses that provides great IQ and don't require you to travel with a sherpa, unlike the SL2/S.

There is space in the market for another system of compact APSC cameras and lenses besides Fuji. It's just sad that Leica does not seem to have the resources to continue developing their's. Let's hope another company with deeper pockets and a greater commitment can challenge Fuji.

How, exactly?  Surely the only thing that changes perspective is your feet?

[Le Chef]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

How, exactly?  Surely the only thing that changes perspective is your feet?

I guess you’ve never used a zoom lens then.

[RM8]

4 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I guess you’ve never used a zoom lens then.

A few days ago Jaapv educated me saying to my surprise neither zoom nor cropping changes perspective. He is right. Only your feet can do that.

[Le Chef]

Then I should have been more precise and said “field of view”.

[robgo2]

6 hours ago, RM8 said:

A few days ago Jaapv educated me saying to my surprise neither zoom nor cropping changes perspective. He is right. Only your feet can do that.

To be more precise, perspective is determined by the distance between the camera and the subject.

[LocalHero1953]

We get a bit pernickety about the meaning of perspective, which I have always felt a bit unfair, as I often use the word in a way which is incorrect according to optics. So I did a quick google search and according to the internet (who could disagree?) there are two meanings:

Quote

1. the art of representing three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other.
"the theory and practice of perspective"
2. a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something; a point of view.
"most guidebook history is written from the editor's perspective"

So, yes, shots taken from one spot using lenses of different focal lengths could have a different perspective.

If I were Lars I would sign off as "The old man from the age of pedantry" *

 

*But I'm not really that old, according to a pretty girl I met the other night.

[Daedalus2000]

Paul

to give you my input in terms of alternative systems, the two APS-C systems that I found really good when I tried them are:

GR III and Nikon Z50

The nikon kit zoom lenses are very good imho, and now the system also has a couple of small lenses the 28mm and 40mm if I remember well. And of course you always have the larger full frame lenses that are very good.

in terms of full frame and small size, Sigma FP (which you know), Canon RP and Sony A7C can be candidates.

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

38 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

We get a bit pernickety about the meaning of perspective, which I have always felt a bit unfair, as I often use the word in a way which is incorrect according to optics. So I did a quick google search and according to the internet (who could disagree?) there are two meanings:

So, yes, shots taken from one spot using lenses of different focal lengths could have a different perspective.

If I were Lars I would sign off as "The old man from the age of pedantry" *

 

*But I'm not really that old, according to a pretty girl I met the other night.

It’s kind of relevant pernickety, though, don’t you think?

Perspective is the relationship between objects, which doesn’t change if you stay in the same place.  Even metaphorically, in a discussion if you say “I have a different perspective on that”, you can only mean that you are considering the issue from a diferent point of view.

I have no aspirations to Mr Berquist’s much vaunted position of authority (may he rest in peace), but may I just say words matter.

Edited December 5, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Paul

to give you my input in terms of alternative systems, the two APS-C systems that I found really good when I tried them are:

GR III and Nikon Z50

The nikon kit zoom lenses are very good imho, and now the system also has a couple of small lenses the 28mm and 40mm if I remember well. And of course you always have the larger full frame lenses that are very good.

in terms of full frame and small size, Sigma FP (which you know), Canon RP and Sony A7C can be candidates.

 

 

Apart from CL, my favorite APS-C cameras are Pentax K3-III (great camera, small primes), X100V (OVF), and GR III (small size).

[Daedalus2000]

3 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Apart from CL, my favorite APS-C cameras are Pentax K3-III (great camera, small primes), X100V (OVF), and GR III (small size).

I have never tried the K3-III and with respect to the X100V, yes it is a great camera, but somehow I prefer the output I get from Leica cameras. I never really liked the output from the Fuji cameras that much, but I cannot really explain why. Maybe the sensor architecture, maybe the colors, not sure.

For me, I agree the ideal would be an updated CL. I do not think it would happen though...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

On 12/5/2021 at 10:16 AM, Le Chef said:

I guess you’ve never used a zoom lens then.

A zoom lens does not change the perspective if you don't move...