Leica CL vs Leica M (Typ 262)

[double00]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently have the CL and am also interested in the 262. Do any of you have both? I know one is aps-c and the other full frame, etc. I am more interested in the image quality comparing the two.

I believe the IQ of the CL is great - just wondering how the 262 compares. Are they both going to be about the same. 

Any additional information regarding the 262 (negative or positive) would be greatly appreciated.

[SrMi]

I do not have 262, but I think the main differentiator will not be the image quality. According to PhotonsToPhotos, the PDR is a similar at higher ISOs.

[Advertisement]

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

[double00]

Thank you for the quick response. You obviously have much more experience than I do regarding PDR, etc.

I am not sure what the chart indicates. I know the CL has more ISO range than the 262 and can can take photos in lower light with less noise. What else does the chart tell us comparing the two?

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, double00 said:

Thank you for the quick response. You obviously have much more experience than I do regarding PDR, etc.

I am not sure what the chart indicates. I know the CL has more ISO range than the 262 and can can take photos in lower light with less noise. What else does the chart tell us comparing the two?

Simplified, the charts tell us how noisy the images are. The higher the PDR value, the less noise there is, and typically the image should be better. However, there are other factors that are not easily measurable.

[lct]

No experience with the M262 but i own both M240 and digital CL. Main differences IQ wise the CL has less banding at 6400 iso and less issues with clipping reds than the M240. Now i set both cameras the same way in auto iso mode i.e. with max 3200 iso. I don't use NR softwares with either camera though. FWIW.

[cboy]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, double00 said:

I currently have the CL and am also interested in the 262. Do any of you have both? I know one is aps-c and the other full frame, etc. I am more interested in the image quality comparing the two.

I believe the IQ of the CL is great - just wondering how the 262 compares. Are they both going to be about the same. 

Any additional information regarding the 262 (negative or positive) would be greatly appreciated.

I had both the M-D typ 262 and CL together for some time. Aside from FoV differences, the photos made with both cameras using the same lens are virtually identical. 

The differences, to me, are in versatility and adaptability. I bought the CL body to be able to use its TTL viewing and focusing with macro and tele lenses, I was quite happy with the M-D 262 for the usual M style shooting, mostly with 35-50-90 mm lenses. What I found, however, is that the lighter weight of the CL and the versatility of the CL viewfinder and focusing system meant I used it more and more of the time, and the M-D was just sitting on the shelf. I don't usually regret selling a camera or miss one once sold, but I probably should have just kept it ...

G

[double00]

14 minutes ago, ramarren said:

the photos made with both cameras using the same lens are virtually identical. 

Thank  you for sharing your thoughts - very helpful. That's the information I needed.

[Gregm61]

Have and use both extensively. Love both of them. From ISO 200-800 and with lenses like the 35/1.4 FLE, 21mm SEM and 75mm f2, I have much more fun using the M262.

Primary difference comes down to raw file flexibility. The newer CL sensor performs substantially better from ISO 3200. The CL files also respond to underexposure and raising in post much more effectively. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Gregm61

[cpclee]

For me, my digital needs are pretty much entirely covered by SL (portraits/projects) + CL (travel / leisure).  I use the M only for film and I love it.  I doubt I will ever sell my M6.  

[ramarren]

34 minutes ago, cpclee said:

For me, my digital needs are pretty much entirely covered by SL (portraits/projects) + CL (travel / leisure).  I use the M only for film and I love it.  I doubt I will ever sell my M6.  

Interesting thoughts arise ... forgive me if I digress a bit and think out loud.  

I don't generally segregate my photographic "needs/desires" along the line of film vs digital cameras. I have far more film cameras than digital cameras because I've accreted many over the past 55 years and they pose far more differentiation in terms of what I can do with the film media's varied formats (8x11mm to 6x9cm) than I see in digital sensor formats from FourThirds to APS-C to FF, and the digital sensor evolution over the past 18-19 years that I've been using them has been astoundingly fast, forcing me to sell older gear to be able to afford newer gear.

Sensor development of significance has slowed now to a more reasonable pace, so the digital cameras I do have (Light L16, Leica CL, Olympus E-M1, Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c) represent very different options in capabilities, use, and image rendering workflow ... just like many of the film cameras. 

That said, the only M camera I have currently is a 1978 Leica M4-2. While I enjoy shooting with it, when I do, I actually tend to prefer the 1954 Kodak Retina IIc for my more frequent 'grab and go' shooting as its folded form factor is more compact and handier to carry for casual shooting needs. It's a slower operating camera than the M4-2, however, and less versatile ... so it all depends on what I am looking to do on my photo outing.

G