OhOh, future of CL?

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours 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. 

Phil, over on the M11 next camera thread, there's continued assurance by insiders who've actually handled the M11 prototype that a Q3 is on the boards as well.

As you say, the Q2 is quite croppable. Many already think of it as a 26.5-75 mm zoom. One with an even larger sensor all the more so, of course. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by bags27

[Alexander-HH]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

... Around 2 stops of thinner depth of field. But you have to haul a second body. 
 

Well, not if you don't want to take a 28mm with you 😶 I think a 40mm Q would be a great option to have.

[nicci78]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

History teaches us Leica CL was not meant to last.

Hope you’re wrong 😑 

Sadly Leica stopped producing analog CL not because it sold poorly. Quite the contrary ! It was to good for their M5 sake. 

Same story today ? A digital CL too good that it can rival other full frame bodies ?

Hope that current CL can have a descendant.

 

Another history point : X series was kind of axed in favour of Q line. A compact fixed lens APS-C upscale to full frame  

Can we expect the same for TL/CL range ? A compact interchangeable APS-C system upgraded to full frame one  ? 
 

Last history point : Leica has invented 24x36 format. 
Digital medium format 30x45 did not take off. 
APS-C seems not satisfactory for a part of Leica customers. 
Will it make more sense for Leica to be a 24x36 company only ? 
It will be a huge shift from Leica current strategy : being the 3:2 aspect ratio company. Several formats but all in 3:2. 1 inch (C-Lux & V-Lux) cropped m4/3 (D-Lux) APS-C (TL2 & CL) 24x36 (M10 & SL2) 30x45 (S3)

 

 

[NZDavid]

There are too many formats. Cell phones have taken over from small sensor cameras. There's still MFT, APS (several sizes), "full frame", and medium format. Some rationalization is inevitable. 

What is still ardently wished for by many is a high-quality compact interchangeable lens camera with clear controls and simplicity of operation.

 

[Le Chef]

6 hours ago, Al Brown said:

History teaches us Leica CL was not meant to last.

Another baseless claim.

[adan]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Another history point : X series was kind of axed in favour of Q line. A compact fixed lens APS-C upscale to full frame  

Speaking of history:

Back when Leica abandoned the SLR R-system in 2009, either Dr. Kaufmann or Stefan Daniel said something to the effect of "We aren't going to swim with the sharks any more." Meaning "We aren't going to compete head-to-head with Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji with 'me-too' products. We can't build the same things for the same prices."

And at that time, their remaining in-house systems reflected that - things that were so unique to Leica that invidious comparisons (especially on price) weren't easy.

- The manual RF/VF M cameras

- and the S system (classic one-piece mirror-reflex, but with an 1.25x oversize sensor). Which in theory justified a $24,495 intro price, 4X higher than the nearest Nikon SLR.

Nothing competed directly with those.

Today Leica is back in the pool swimming with the sharks - at least as regards the TL/CL system and to some extent the SL system. Mirrorless APS-C or FF EVF systems going head-to-head with pretty similar products from Fuji and Sony (and now Nikon Z and Canon R). In fact, with the L-mount consortium, Leica invited the sharks into the pool.

Is there blood in the water? Something to consider.

Another point is Leica's recent pursuit of more and more resolution as a brand-defining characteristic - 40-50 Mpixels with today's "base" M10-R and Q2 and SL2, 64 Mpixels with the S3, and maybe 60 Mpixels with the M11. And sky-high new APO 35-50-75-90 lenses to match them.

There is not a lot of room, in space or in price, to use that same "unique Leica selling point" with half-frame APS-C cameras. 60 Mpixels on APS-C would require the technology of a 120-Mpixel Q, M or SL sensor. And APO-35 performance for the SL costs $5200 - what would an APO-23mm f/2.0 cost in TL/CL mount?

We'll have to see what kind of shark-repellent Leica can come up with - and at what price.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

47 minutes ago, adan said:

either Dr. Kaufmann or Stefan Daniel

It was Stefan Daniel. I think that we have two incomparable situations here. Back then Leica was in survival mode and restructuring. Now they are building a conglomerate around the L mount with strong partners. There is a need for something like the CL within that palette. Let Panasonic drop an APS sensor in a GX or GH and you are there . Leica could even sell a modified version with fewer buttons. 

[nicci78]

4 hours ago, adan said:

There is not a lot of room, in space or in price, to use that same "unique Leica selling point" with half-frame APS-C cameras. 60 Mpixels on APS-C would require the technology of a 120-Mpixel Q, M or SL sensor. And APO-35 performance for the SL costs $5200 - what would an APO-23mm f/2.0 cost in TL/CL mount?

TL lenses are future proof because they are already build with that kind of tech. According to Peter Larbe they are the first to reach 50% at 60 lp/mm.

So don’t worry. 
 

What about competition ? Leica can compete. SL2, SL2-S, M10-R, M10 Monochrom have excellent tech. 
Making a CL2 won’t cost anything for Leica. Because all the mirrorless top technology build for SL line up can be used into CL and Q range too. 

[nicci78]

12 hours ago, bags27 said:

Phil, over on the M11 next camera thread, there's continued assurance by insiders who've actually handled the M11 prototype that a Q3 is on the boards as well.

As you say, the Q2 is quite croppable. Many already think of it as a 26.5-75 mm zoom. One with an even larger sensor all the more so, of course. 

I love my Q2 for its crop 28+35+50+75mm.
But TL 18-56mm is even better for everyday shots with CL own crop :
28-85+105+150mm. 
Outdoor CL still win with a lighter set up and double the reach. With same MP counts at 150mm crop than Q2 75mm. 
 

Obviously Q3 is on the work for sure. 
 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by nicci78

[jaapv]

That is something entirely different. The CL was a panic reaction to the M5 fiasco developed and built by Minolta. It was never intended to be more than one single release. In fact, Minolta took over after the initial series. 

[lct]

10 hours ago, adan said:

In fact, with the L-mount consortium, Leica invited the sharks into the pool.

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

Now they are building a conglomerate around the L mount with strong partners.

Conglomerate with partners or opponents? Not clear (to me) whether the L alliance protects Leica vs its partners / competitors. 

[cpclee]

31 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That is something entirely different. The CL was a panic reaction to the M5 fiasco developed and built by Minolta. It was never intended to be more than one single release. In fact, Minolta took over after the initial series. 

In the 70s Minolta was a leader in auto exposure cameras and also knew more about SLR zoom lens designs than Leica.  So the collaboration with Minolta complemented Leica where they were weak.  

The Minolta side saw the collaboration as validation of the entire Japanese photographic industry.  In then CEO Sam Kusumoto's autobiography (My Bridge to America), he talks about how between the years of the M3 and the CL, they went from "we can never compete with the Germans" to "we finally made it and the Germans now need us!"

[jaapv]

34 minutes ago, lct said:

Conglomerate with partners or opponents? Not clear (to me) whether the L alliance protects Leica vs its partners / competitors. 

That is always a grey area. Competitors will get together for the common good.
 I guess that all participants aim at expanding markets. The dropping of a format does not fit in, so I guess that the last word has not been said-internally. 

[lct]

25 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Competitors will get together for the common good

Or eat each others for the winner's good... What i don't see clearly is whether the L alliance is limited to sharing the same mount or provides some agreement about bodies and/or lenses. Interesting to notice that the latest APS Sigma 18-50/2.8 has been launched in L mount while Leica was announcing or whispering the demise of APS-C. Perhaps a coincidence...

[geoffreyg]

Long time M user, bought into the R9 and DMR (used), a new M8,  excited for a while, but found its low light capabilities limited. Skipped the M9, tried the 246 (good, but too heavy)... Got back in with the CL. Very happy with CL, and sad to hear thoughts of its possible ending. Hope the lenses are still usable with something newer? 

The lack of a new version doesn't really affect a current user. But it seems Leica is oddly at a difficult point: the CL, M10, Q2, and SL2 are all good products, developed (it seems) with a single vision coordinated across a broad market spectrum. And oddly enough, to my mind, they all work very very well and complement each other.

The problem is what do you evolve, what do you replace, and what is your new overall market strategy? Leica has always been hot/cold on developing contemporary smaller sensor products outside of the M - the SL, Q make sense and work along the M ... the APS line is a bit different (leaving their compact cameras aside...). To many of us the CL captures the Leica ethos nicely - a small compact camera that punches above its weight. I suppose to some it seems like an outlier - not full frame, and needing separate lenses (although nicely uses M glass...). 

Giving up on it would be a shame, but one can see how they could rationalize backing off of it. I'd then use the CL for as long as comfortable, possibly then migrate to a Q.... but would still be mad about it. Those lenses aren't cheap. Has anyone checked their image circle to see if they could work on a larger sensor?

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by geoffreyg

[jaapv]

The weight difference between M 246 and M10 is 20 grams...

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, lct said:

Or eat each others for the winner's good...

Leica would have been rather naive in sharing the mount specification in that case.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Leica would have been rather naive in sharing the mount specification in that case.

Not my words .

[geoffreyg]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The weight difference between M 246 and M10 is 20 grams...

Then it was the size. Initially it felt fine, but somehow overtime, it just didn't feel right. Odd but true. The M10 feels better. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Le Chef]

“Frenemies” is a well-understood term in business where you share anything and everything from design to manufacture to reduce risk and defray costs. The L-Alliance is just that and it may yet save Leica’s bacon.