OhOh, future of CL?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Speeding said:

More light comes with larger physical aperture.  Larger aperture results in less depth.  Quite simple really.

To you i'm sure but not to me sorry. Reason why i asked if you know optimal formulas explaining your "exchange" idea. There are such formulas to explain DoF of course but what about this exchange idea? Just curious as such an idea does not match my experience (images 1.5 stop darker or brighter due to the crop factor, serious?) but i don't mind to learn new to me things when there are any. 

[Minolta TC-1]

Being a bit new to this topic & exploring my possibilities at the moment... Does anybody have both CL and Q2? The CL is obviously the less obtrusive when used with the 18 or 23 lens. That for me is a major advantage and I'd stick to small lenses to retain it. But a roadmap would be great, as it's no fun buying into a dying system.

FF vs APS-C is not very important to me. I like my X-Pro2 up to 6400ISO. But DOF is. The 18/f2.8 "looks like" a 28/f4 FF lens, which is not very narrow. The 23 fares a bit better, "looking like" a 35/f2.8. Still, f2 would be better.

The Q2 follow-up discussion seems to be more optimistic than the one on the CL. I don't mind cropping to simulate longer lenses, as 48MP is crazy anyway. But 7MP at 70mm is not a lot, so 50mm seems like the maximum. Also, by cropping, the result is exactly the same as for APS-C cameras. Crop the 48MP by half and the 24MP photo is of a 40mm/f2.4. Crop by half again and you get 12MP with an equivalent of 56/f3.4. All slightly better than the CL, but nothing to write home about. My X-Pro2 with 35/f2 (equiv of 50/f2.8) does better and it's not a lot larger.

[Advertisement]

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

[Speeding]

12 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

@adan is Andy Piper.

This depth of field, f/stop/sensor size comes up every few years, and someone sensible like Andy clarifies it.  We almost need a pinned description.  All being equal, the f-stop of a lens is the ratio of its focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.  So, a 50/1.4 lens is still a 50/1.4 lens regardless of the size of the sensor it is attached to.

If you attach a 50 Summilux-M f/1.4 to your CL, the only change will be that the field of view will be the same as a 75 Summilux-M on an M10.  The focal length of the lens doesn’t change, nor does the f number of the lens, or its “light gathering”, whatever that might mean.

If you maintain the same angle of view (moving back with your CL camera to achieve the same image as with your M10), then you’re changing your perspective (as you’re moving the camera) and subject distance, increasing the depth of field.  Your CL will have greater depth of field than larger formats at the same f-number for the same distance of focus and same angle of view since a smaller format requires a shorter focal length (wider angle lens) to produce the same angle of view, and depth of field increases with shorter focal lengths.

Talk of light gathering etc really is an unhelpful myth.  One lens, with one focal length and f-stop gathers the same light, regardless of the sensor size.  If the camera stays in the same place, with the same lens and same f-stop, the only thing which changes with a change in sensor is the angle of view.

Edit - I am ignoring noise for this purpose.  As to EV, no it doesn’t change with format size - the amount of light hitting any photon is the same.  The total light hitting the sensor is less, purely because the sensor is smaller.  What confuses this discussion is that the CL and the M10 both have 24MP sensors, meaning that the photon sites on the CL are smaller.  That changes everything for image quality - but it has no impact on the lens focal length or f-stop.

All correct, the lens does not change the focal length or physical aperture.  What does change is the AOV and effective aperture as you are no longer utilizing the full image circle.  You can choose to ignore the additional noise and lower DR that comes with that greater depth but that doesn't mean it's not there.  

 

[dfdann]

JAAPV as far as I am concerned this thread is out of control as far as my

interest is concerned .  I am going to stop reading it. If anything meaningful 

occurs with the CL, (my favorite of the 5 Leica cameras I own) please start a new thread. Thanks Dan

[Speeding]

1 hour ago, Minolta TC-1 said:

Being a bit new to this topic & exploring my possibilities at the moment... Does anybody have both CL and Q2? The CL is obviously the less obtrusive when used with the 18 or 23 lens. That for me is a major advantage and I'd stick to small lenses to retain it. But a roadmap would be great, as it's no fun buying into a dying system.

FF vs APS-C is not very important to me. I like my X-Pro2 up to 6400ISO. But DOF is. The 18/f2.8 "looks like" a 28/f4 FF lens, which is not very narrow. The 23 fares a bit better, "looking like" a 35/f2.8. Still, f2 would be better.

The Q2 follow-up discussion seems to be more optimistic than the one on the CL. I don't mind cropping to simulate longer lenses, as 48MP is crazy anyway. But 7MP at 70mm is not a lot, so 50mm seems like the maximum. Also, by cropping, the result is exactly the same as for APS-C cameras. Crop the 48MP by half and the 24MP photo is of a 40mm/f2.4. Crop by half again and you get 12MP with an equivalent of 56/f3.4. All slightly better than the CL, but nothing to write home about. My X-Pro2 with 35/f2 (equiv of 50/f2.8) does better and it's not a lot larger.

If you shoot 28-40mm mostly then the Q2 + cropping is your best bet for sheer convenience and IQ.  If you employ the Sigma APS-C lenses on the CL you get some interesting options:

24mm FOV -----> CL + Sigma 16/1.4 =  24mm/2.1 @ 24MP vs....

28mm FOV -----> CL + Sigma 16/1.4 =  28mm/2.5 @ 17MP vs Q2 = 28mm/1.7 @ 47MP

35mm FOV -----> CL + Leica 23/2 = 35mm/3 @ 24MP vs Q2 = 35mm/2.1 @ 30MP

40mm FOV: -----> ...vs Q2 = 40mm/2.5 @ 23MP

45mm FOV -----> CL + Sigma 30/1.4 = 45mm/2.1 @ 24MP vs Q2 = 45mm/2.7 @ 18MP

50mm FOV -----> CL + Sigma 30/1.4 = 50mm/2.3 @ 20MP vs Q2 = 45mm/2.7 @ 18MP

Essentially you have the Q2 vs the CL with 3 lenses (Sigma 16, Leica 23, Sigma 30).  The CL wins at 24mm, 45mm and 50mm.  The Q2 wins everywhere in between.  The Sigma 16 isn't exactly small though.  That's a tough one.  I would probably stick to the Q2 as an all-in-one solution.  

Personally, I use the CL with the Leica 18/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4 and Sigma 56/1.4 a lot as those three focal lengths suit the majority of my interest.  

[jaapv]

31 minutes ago, dfdann said:

JAAPV as far as I am concerned this thread is out of control as far as my

interest is concerned .  I am going to stop reading it. If anything meaningful 

occurs with the CL, (my favorite of the 5 Leica cameras I own) please start a new thread. Thanks Dan

No, if there is one more post on this subject, I'll split it off.

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 hours ago, hamey said:

Thank you Michael, I fully agree, in the last few years I have switched to Fuji Digital and I simply couldn't ask for more, if only Leica could equal Fuji.

Ken.

Are you referring to SOOC jpegs or raw/dng files viewed in a raw editing program. If the former, then you may be right about Fuji having superior color, but as a raw shooter, I could hardly care less. If the latter, then the choice of color profile in the raw editor is all important. Experiment with that or even consider creating or purchasing custom profiles. As for myself, I have started using custom profiles from Cobalt both for my CL and Q2. The results are superb in Capture One. 
 

Fuji cameras produce too many artifacts for my tastes. 

[RM8]

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

Do you actually read posts like Andy’s ? In fact, the only thing that happens from APS to FF -everything else being equal- is that the noise floor is raised one EV level, reducing the photographic dynamic range by approx one EV stop. Given that for instance the CL has a PDR of about 13 EV values, (similar to negative film) this would only make any noise visible when the DR of the subject exceeds the PDR of the camera. 

Who is Andy?

[Minolta TC-1]

4 hours ago, Speeding said:

If you shoot 28-40mm mostly then the Q2 + cropping is your best bet for sheer convenience and IQ.  If you employ the Sigma APS-C lenses on the CL you get some interesting options:

Essentially you have the Q2 vs the CL with 3 lenses (Sigma 16, Leica 23, Sigma 30).  The CL wins at 24mm, 45mm and 50mm.  The Q2 wins everywhere in between.  The Sigma 16 isn't exactly small though.  That's a tough one.  I would probably stick to the Q2 as an all-in-one solution.  

Personally, I use the CL with the Leica 18/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4 and Sigma 56/1.4 a lot as those three focal lengths suit the majority of my interest.  

Thanks for your elaborate analysis! Let me say where I come from. I like my X-Pro2 but I notice I’m not taking it out as frequently as I'd like to because of its size and weight. That's partly down to my personal selection of lenses (Samyang 12/f2, XF35/f2, 55-200). I did those lenses on purpose - I wanted to try out an ultra wide and I thought I needed a tele zoom. Failed experiment.

The X-Pro2 itself is much better than the plastik wunderbrick feeling I had with the Olympus E-420 a long time ago, but it's still a long way away from the focused experience of my first cameras (Olympus OM) and the best cameras I remember (Zorki, Minolta TC-1). These combined a small take-everywhere form factor with a very simple and photography oriented way of working. As some say here, it's not making photos with a computer. And I want to go back there.

As for focal lengths, I have worked a lot with a 28/50/90 combo. The gaps between the lenses in that setup are too large for me, so I'm considering a 28/40/75 or 35/50-60 combo. I don't mind skipping on long teles, but I like having a short tele available, preferably with a reasonably narrow DOF.

I really like what I read about the Q2. It seems to have that grabability (even if it's nearly as large as my X-Pro2+35/f2) and photography focus. But it doesn't have the short tele. On the other hand, the CL carries the risk that I overcomplicate it again with the lenses. Also, the camera is getting a bit old and there's no news about a successor. The good news is that I have time, because I have a system that works. I'm just looking for a serious improvement in how it feels.

[adan]

Quote

Who is Andy?

Me. (Usually).

Edited December 1, 2021 by adan

[LocalHero1953]

I was thinking of alternative small cameras today (I'm going to a dinner on Friday night for which a high quality camera I could slip into my pocket would be handy) and rediscovered my wife's Rollei B35. Now that was from the day when small full frame pocketable cameras were common: the full gamut of Rollei 35s and Minox, and, not much bigger, Contax T, Leica CM - the CL is a monster in comparison. I thought the electronic and digital revolution was supposed to make everything smaller. 

[cpclee]

14 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I was thinking of alternative small cameras today (I'm going to a dinner on Friday night for which a high quality camera I could slip into my pocket would be handy) and rediscovered my wife's Rollei B35. Now that was from the day when small full frame pocketable cameras were common: the full gamut of Rollei 35s and Minox, and, not much bigger, Contax T, Leica CM - the CL is a monster in comparison. I thought the electronic and digital revolution was supposed to make everything smaller. 

I have the Contax T3 and TVS III and absolutely love them.  The 1990s gave us so many wonderful compact P&S with super high quality lenses that today we really don't have their equivalents in digital. 

I've always considered the experience of shooting any digital camera to be quite inferior to any film camera until the CL.  Something about using it that is very satisfying.  Could be the simplicity or the way it lets you concentrate on the picture.  Don't know.

[robgo2]

2 minutes ago, cpclee said:

I have the Contax T3 and TVS III and absolutely love them.  The 1990s gave us so many wonderful compact P&S with super high quality lenses that today we really don't have their equivalents in digital. 

I've always considered the experience of shooting any digital camera to be quite inferior to any film camera until the CL.  Something about using it that is very satisfying.  Could be the simplicity or the way it lets you concentrate on the picture.  Don't know.

I had a Contax T2 with a 37mm Zeiss lens. Loved that camera so much the I subsequently bought a Contax G2 and many of the Contax G lenses. It still may be my favorite camera of all time, although I have no desire to return to shooting and scanning film.

[Minolta TC-1]

9 hours ago, cpclee said:

I have the Contax T3 and TVS III and absolutely love them.  The 1990s gave us so many wonderful compact P&S with super high quality lenses that today we really don't have their equivalents in digital. 

I've always considered the experience of shooting any digital camera to be quite inferior to any film camera until the CL.  Something about using it that is very satisfying.  Could be the simplicity or the way it lets you concentrate on the picture.  Don't know.

It’s exactly why I picked my screen name. On a visit to Singapore, I thing in 1999, I picked up a brand new Minolta TC-1. It completely changed how I looked at camera. It has a fixed 28/f3.5 but used hole punches instead of a diaphragm for the aperture. That gave incredible bokeh, of course, and no sun stars. It was aperture prio only and had no features except for a tiny flash that, with some flexible use of the ISO and aperture settings, worked great as a fill-in. Just having a superb camera in a belt case ready for the shot without distractions was a breath of fresh air. I’m certain it led me to a Barnack (in the shape of a Zorki that beat the Leica iii I bought afterwards). It’s still causing me trouble finding a decent camera because everything on the market seems to adhere to the bigger-faster-heavier mentality…

[cpclee]

48 minutes ago, Minolta TC-1 said:

It’s exactly why I picked my screen name. On a visit to Singapore, I thing in 1999, I picked up a brand new Minolta TC-1. It completely changed how I looked at camera. It has a fixed 28/f3.5 but used hole punches instead of a diaphragm for the aperture. That gave incredible bokeh, of course, and no sun stars. It was aperture prio only and had no features except for a tiny flash that, with some flexible use of the ISO and aperture settings, worked great as a fill-in. Just having a superb camera in a belt case ready for the shot without distractions was a breath of fresh air. I’m certain it led me to a Barnack (in the shape of a Zorki that beat the Leica iii I bought afterwards). It’s still causing me trouble finding a decent camera because everything on the market seems to adhere to the bigger-faster-heavier mentality…

I had a Minolta TC-1 briefly until it was stolen but what a mechanical wonder of a camera it was.  The way the lens cover slides away, how the lens comes out, and the eccentric aperture control. Everything about that camera exudes quality.  It's easy to forget now but the price of the Minolta when new was near that of an Leica M6!

[Minolta TC-1]

22 minutes ago, cpclee said:

I had a Minolta TC-1 briefly until it was stolen but what a mechanical wonder of a camera it was.  The way the lens cover slides away, how the lens comes out, and the eccentric aperture control. Everything about that camera exudes quality.  It's easy to forget now but the price of the Minolta when new was near that of an Leica M6!

Yeah, it was very expensive. It also had a reputation. I was travelling in Japan, carrying the TC-1 on my belt and  my OM-4T with a simple 50/f1.4 in my hand when another photographer approached me and asked me which magazine I worked for and what my "real work" camera was. He was shooting medium format (Mamiya, I believe) for something reputable and assumed I was there for the same purpose, just because I had the TC-1.

[RickP]

I just came across this review.. it reminded me of how wonderful the CL camera really is.  I am not at all worried about the future of the CL..I am thrilled with what it is NOW.  This reviewer is a pro ..  and his opinions are based on using the CL...  not about the bells and whistles that it does not have.  He compares it to a full frame M 240.. and why it is easier to use and why he likes it better than the 240 (for his use.)  

watch it.. and feel better about the CL you have now!

Rick

 

🔴 Leica M240 vs Leica CL Review (12 Months) Why I Prefer the Leica CL Digital (Mirrorless) - Bing video

[Louis]

Rick, thanks for the link and now, I hope Leica AG would also see this review!  

[gotium]

On 12/1/2021 at 5:18 AM, Minolta TC-1 said:

Being a bit new to this topic & exploring my possibilities at the moment... Does anybody have both CL and Q2? The CL is obviously the less obtrusive when used with the 18 or 23 lens.

It's not less obtrusive once you hear the shutter

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Michael Markey]

4 hours ago, RickP said:

I just came across this review.. it reminded me of how wonderful the CL camera really is.  I am not at all worried about the future of the CL..I am thrilled with what it is NOW.  This reviewer is a pro ..  and his opinions are based on using the CL...  not about the bells and whistles that it does not have.  He compares it to a full frame M 240.. and why it is easier to use and why he likes it better than the 240 (for his use.)  

watch it.. and feel better about the CL you have now!

Rick

 

🔴 Leica M240 vs Leica CL Review (12 Months) Why I Prefer the Leica CL Digital (Mirrorless) - Bing video

Matt has always liked the CL and been an enthusiastic advocate from the start .

Always a down to earth , practical approach .