Jump to content

OhOh, future of CL?


PDP

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suspect Leica have been pondering a Q with fixed 40mm Summicron ; a QL and new lens sub-series seems like a lot more work.

This would be a strategy somewhat like Ricoh with the GR-III and GR-IIIx.

However a 40mm Q would eat into both M and SL sales, a 50mm Q even more so, so that brings us back to the advantage of CL2 and bolstering the TL lens line with a faster medium wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2021 at 11:31 AM, jaapv said:

Yes-but the CL is in the core of their historical design philosophy: small camera, big images. It is even proportioned like a Barnack camera. It would be logical to replace it by a similar design and form in full frame in the case that you describe. The miniaturization of the last years should make that possible, even if it would mean some restrictions like no IBIS. Suddenly the SL would have a compact entry level cousin. Set the MP count high enough to offer >20MP TL lens compatibility. 

This is an aside to the main conversation, but you mentioned the no IBIS.  I've been shooting cameras with both lens (ILIS) and in body ibis, mostly Lumix for some time.  Now that I am shooting a Leica CL and have tried it with both TL Lenses and Sigma 10-50 and 90mm (135mm on the CL) I have yet to encounter a need for IBIS or ILIS.  What am I missing???  The only wish I have for the CL would be the USB cable interface like the Lumix LX100 ii (nee Leica D-Lux-7), because it make recharging and image transfers sooo much faster & easier.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

I suspect Leica have been pondering a Q with fixed 40mm Summicron ; a QL and new lens sub-series seems like a lot more work.

This would be a strategy somewhat like Ricoh with the GR-III and GR-IIIx.

However a 40mm Q would eat into both M and SL sales, a 50mm Q even more so, so that brings us back to the advantage of CL2 and bolstering the TL lens line with a faster medium wide.

Leica commented on the possibility of a 35mm or 50mm Q some time ago.  They said something about the lens would become larger as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikeLD said:

This is an aside to the main conversation, but you mentioned the no IBIS.  I've been shooting cameras with both lens (ILIS) and in body ibis, mostly Lumix for some time.  Now that I am shooting a Leica CL and have tried it with both TL Lenses and Sigma 10-50 and 90mm (135mm on the CL) I have yet to encounter a need for IBIS or ILIS.  What am I missing???  The only wish I have for the CL would be the USB cable interface like the Lumix LX100 ii (nee Leica D-Lux-7), because it make recharging and image transfers sooo much faster & easier.

IBIS or OIS would be nice for the 55-135.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Foveon sensor, while having significant ISO limitations, produces astonishing image quality. It would be comforting to believe that Sigma will produce its long (2019) promised FF Foveon L mount camera body. But the owner/CEO of Sigma has been increasingly circumspect about that possibility, alas. I don't know whether there's any reason optically why, as an interim measure, they couldn't rebuild their current sd Quattro cropped sensor as a TL/L mount. 

 

 

Edited by bags27
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that full frame Foveon proved to be much harder than APS-C/-H size one. 
maybe it cost too much. Maybe noise level is again way too high. 
Maybe IQ is no better than latest 60MP BSI sensor from Sony. 
Maybe Foveon is a stupid idea just like X-Trans. 
 

I think that Bayer will rule forever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

I suspect Leica have been pondering a Q with fixed 40mm Summicron ; a QL and new lens sub-series seems like a lot more work.

This would be a strategy somewhat like Ricoh with the GR-III and GR-IIIx.

However a 40mm Q would eat into both M and SL sales, a 50mm Q even more so, so that brings us back to the advantage of CL2 and bolstering the TL lens line with a faster medium wide.

I’ll buy at once a Q40 or 50

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This Q debate is a bit like the "should I buy a M2 or M3?" debate: you could have wide or long, but not both, till the M4 came along.
No need for different Q models: with enough pixels and a zooming, WYSIWYG EVF for each selected FL, you could have a Q that went easily from 28 to 90, which might satisfy me as a CL replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

This Q debate is a bit like the "should I buy a M2 or M3?" debate: you could have wide or long, but not both, till the M4 came along.
No need for different Q models: with enough pixels and a zooming, WYSIWYG EVF for each selected FL, you could have a Q that went easily from 28 to 90, which might satisfy me as a CL replacement.

I’d say no needs for a fixed 28mm if you never use it, I don’t like that focal length and will never buy a camera with it even if we get up to 200mp

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cirke said:

I’d say no needs for a fixed 28mm if you never use it, I don’t like that focal length and will never buy a camera with it even if we get up to 200mp

Unfortunately for me, I use the CL mainly with the 11-23 zoom and the 60. It would certainly have to be >100MP at 28mm to achieve even 10mp at 90mm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let’s imagine that Leica axed the CL for another Q with another focal length 

Is Q2 40mm f/1.7 really makes more sense than Q2 28mm f/1.7 cropped at 40mm = 23,5 MP f/2.4.
Around 2 stops of thinner depth of field. But you have to haul a second body. 
Whereas a CL can give us any additional focal length you desire at a much lower cost. 

Edited by nicci78
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Unfortunately for me, I use the CL mainly with the 11-23 zoom and the 60. It would certainly have to be >100MP at 28mm to achieve even 10mp at 90mm. 

Of course if you use 10 to 90m it will never work , I never use something under 35mm FF, I consider wide angles being for fish only 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Ok let’s imagine that Leica axed the CL for another Q with another focal length 

Is Q2 40mm f/1.7 really makes more sense than Q2 28mm f/1.7 cropped at 40mm = 23,5 MP f/2.4.
Around 2 stops of thinner depth of field. But you have to haul a second body. 
Whereas a CL can give us any additional focal length you desire at a much lower cost. 

You  can turn it as you like (as always) our needs are different 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cirke said:

Of course if you use 10 to 90m it will never work , I never use something under 35mm FF, I consider wide angles being for fish only 😊

10-90? You're getting crop and FF sensors mixed up. No, 28-90 at FF would be good for me, or 18-60 at APSC.
But I'd prefer a CL2.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lct said:

A FF camera with crop mode and interchangeable lenses would not need huge sensors. Suffit it to buy 2 lenses, say a 24 and a 50, to cover 24, 35, 50 and 75mm FoVs.

Yes. As I've written elsewhere, I am unlikely to find an exactly matching alternative to the CL, if I choose to get one. The Q2 is a good alternative with some major benefits: full frame, single body/lens package for social/travel/family use, but deficient at the wide and long ends for my use. I don't rule it out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, lct said:

A FF camera with crop mode and interchangeable lenses would not need huge sensors. Suffit it to buy 2 lenses, say a 24 and a 50, to cover 24, 35, 50 and 75mm FoVs.

If you need 24 mm yes , if not:  a Q35/40 with 60mp covers everything 

Edited by cirke
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cirke said:

If you need 24 mm yes , if not:  a Q35/40 with 60mp covers everything 

A second camera would be requested for wide and/or ultra wide then. Hard to sell at Leica prices i fear but i'm no armchair CEO :cool:. Realistically, the only solution to a possible demise of APS would be FF in crop mode how i i feel it but again i may be wrong and i see well why it would not please everybody.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nicci78 said:

I think that full frame Foveon proved to be much harder than APS-C/-H size one. 
maybe it cost too much. Maybe noise level is again way too high. 
Maybe IQ is no better than latest 60MP BSI sensor from Sony. 
Maybe Foveon is a stupid idea just like X-Trans. 
 

I think that Bayer will rule forever. 

The technical problem is that the chip maker Sigma relied on for the new fabrication turned in vastly below-par models. Originally, Yamaki-San--certainly the most transparent of all photographic corporation CEO's- thought he could find a new manufacturer quickly. But the pandemic hit and with the sudden crisis in chip manufacturing, that has proved more difficult. He is now hoping for 2023 for prototypes. Just like Leica, Sigma is a small, privately held company, and cannot afford not to get it right.

Foveon sensors are, within their sharply restricted ISO limits, so astonishingly superior to Bayer sensors that for landscape and other more static subjects, there really is no comparison, in my mind. Barring technical breakthroughs it will remain a niche product, but an extraordinary one

Edited by bags27
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...