Jump to content

Looks like bad news for hopes on CL2


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, LeicaS2 said:

The CL2 solution is the SL2 with TL lenses.

 

 

The SL2 is too heavy, large and expensive to replace a CL. And I dislike paying for a sensor and using only half of it. And if you compare to Apple: the CL is a 11" Macbook Air. Nobody would replace it by a Macbook Pro 15" and tape off half the screen.

 

The mistake made by Leica about the CL is pure marketing. They should have promoted it by a public campaign as the entrance level camera to the Leica family: A true Leica with Leica quality at an "affordable" price. The offering of kits without really advertising them on the general photographic market was a lame and half-hearted attempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LeicaS2 said:

The CL2 solution is the SL2 with TL lenses.

How such a daft mantra continues to be put out by so many otherwise sensible people I fail to understand. It's like saying that the 'solution' to the M is a DSLR. 
Repeat after me: "the CL series is small, light and agile; the SL series is large and heavy".
But I don't suppose it will make any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The culprit ? Leica customers are snobs. That’s the reality. Nothing less than 24x36. 
Even if you can’t see a meaningful difference between SL and CL. They don’t want to be seen with a smaller sensor. 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

The culprit ? Leica customers are snobs. That’s the reality. Nothing less than 24x36. 
Even if you can’t see a meaningful difference between SL and CL. They don’t want to be seen with a smaller sensor. 😅

I don't think its specific to Leica - it's something you see a lot on the internet, in any forum: "I don't want product X, therefore other people shouldn't want product X either". It's related to other behaviours:

  • "if person Y wants product X but I don't, perhaps they are cleverer than me in understanding its value. That can't be true, therefore they must be wrong."  
  • "I can't afford product X, therefore there must be something wrong with it"
  • "I bought product X which is expensive. Person Y bought product Z, which can do the same job but is cheaper. I can't have made a mistake, therefore Z must be inferior"
  • "I lack the talent to judge the performance of product X for myself. I bought it because the specs are higher, therefore it is the better product".
Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s be clear. I will never buy a huge SL2 camera. No matter how good they are. 

My Leica store tried many times to convinced me : several loans of many days. 
After each trial I am just even more convinced to never buy one.

Why ? too big and too heavy. Results are not earth-shattering either. I have not seen a meaningful difference between SL2-S + APO-Summicron-SL 35mm vs CL with the same lens.

Worst I found the APO-SL 35 more fun to use with the CL.

IBIS brings little into how I photographed : leaving persons. High shutter speed is what I need. Not slower ones. 
 

Yes über high ISO is cleaner. But do I need them ? Not every day or night for sure. 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people tend to make that assumption because SL2 has enough megapixels to play around with your TL lenses. Yes, the body becomes heavier with the TL lenses. Still, I liked how my 11-23 and 23 felt on the SL2 body. It wasn’t really ugly or poorly balanced. With the 55-135 and 60 macro however, I didn’t feel the balance was great. I think the 35 would do good too but I haven’t tried that one. 
 

but, I also agree that the CL2 solution is not an SL2! It’s a compromise and the next best alternative if a CL itself feels inadequate for anybody.. I still love my CL and I’ll be fine if there is no upgrade.. 

Edited by aksclix
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

However during my numerous trials. I found CL IQ superior to SL2 in APS-C mode. 
SL2 and Q2 sensor is not very good. Especially in high ISO. 
Cropped they are even worst. 

Why haul a big body with weaker sensor and lower pixel counts  ? Just use TL lenses with CL or TL2. You‘ll be better serve. IBIS is overrated 

BTW : SL and SL2-S are even less suited for TL lenses with only 10MP left. And some are complaining about Q2 crop mode… it is even worst. 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

However during my numerous trials. I found CL IQ superior to SL2 in APS-C mode. 
SL2 and Q2 sensor is not very good. Especially in high ISO. 
Cropped they are even worst. 

Why haul a big body with weaker sensor and lower pixel counts  ? Just use TL lenses with CL or TL2. You‘ll be better serve. IBIS is overrated 

BTW : SL and SL2-S are even less suited for TL lenses with only 10MP left. And some are complaining about Q2 crop mode… it is even worst. 

i did not like that sensor either - had both cameras for some time and sold them (SL2 and Q2)

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nicci78 said:

The culprit ? Leica customers are snobs. That’s the reality. Nothing less than 24x36. 
Even if you can’t see a meaningful difference between SL and CL. They don’t want to be seen with a smaller sensor. 😅

The culprit as Jaap says was Leica’s abysmal marketing of the CL - poor positioning, lack of media support, including not shepherding the DPReview in the way that a company like Fuji would have, and you can extend that to the negligent way they handled the “non-announcementof the CL’s demise. If you graded Leica’s marketing of the CL it would simply be “Fail”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had no photographic knowledge and a wonderful family I want to photograph as they grow up, and money was no object, I would choose the CL first.  The SL is too big and daunting, the Q2 lens is too wide for portaits and school sports / concerts.  As I wrote on here a last year, I witnessed this actual scenario in the Harrods Leica concession.  The salesman did not even show them the CL and let them walk away without buying anything.

Supports Jaap's contention of abysmal marketing.

Edited by rob_w
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime I have been wanting to buy a portrait lens for my CL for more than a year but became reluctant to invest further in APS-C lens stock.  So I purchased the APO-Summicron-SL 50/2.   It is a marvellous lens, maybe the best 50 that Leica (or anyone) makes.  Not too big on the CL and it will hold its value better than TL lenses.  If there is no CL2 and eventually I am forced to the SL line, I have a nifty 50 ready to go.  I posted some early results in the CL photos thread.  Very pleased.

Edited by rob_w
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rob_w said:

In the meantime I have been wanting to buy a portrait lens for my CL for more than a year but became reluctant to invest further in APS-C lens stock.  So I purchased the APO-Summicron-SL 50/2.   It is a marvellous lens, maybe the best 50 that Leica (or anyone) makes.  Not too big on the CL and it will hold its value better than TL lenses.  If there is no CL2 and eventually I am forced to the SL line, I have a nifty 50 ready to go.  I posted some early results in the CL photos thread.  Very pleased.

I have posted before how I inadvertently grabbed the Summicron-SL 35 and put it on the CL instead of the Summilux-TL 35, and just didn't notice any mismatch.
(Both are great lenses, but I like the f/1.4 option on the TL lens).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

The SL2 is too heavy, large and expensive to replace a CL. And I dislike paying for a sensor and using only half of it. And if you compare to Apple: the CL is a 11" Macbook Air. Nobody would replace it by a Macbook Pro 15" and tape off half the screen.

 

The mistake made by Leica about the CL is pure marketing. They should have promoted it by a public campaign as the entrance level camera to the Leica family: A true Leica with Leica quality at an "affordable" price. The offering of kits without really advertising them on the general photographic market was a lame and half-hearted attempt.

Nailed it, jaapv.  It's as though Leica was never fully invested in the CL. They failed to promote it adequately right from the start and at the end, let it die alone and in silence, like a poor homeless person on the street. Quite possibly, the CL was never embraced by certain members of Leica's decision making team, and when it failed commercially--by design-- those people could strut and say "I told you so." Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, but I think it has the ring of truth.

Edited by robgo2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: CL marketing

Further evidence of treating the CL as the bastard Leica child:

Having just purchased a CL as my first Leica, I explore the Leica websites and see that by registering a new camera I can get an additional year of warranty coverage and 3 issues of LFI magazine.  But on closer reading I see those offers do not apply to the lowly CL.

 

As mentioned previously, I bought the CL after considering other brands and deciding I would appreciate the minimal – but customizable – controls of the CL as well as the smaller size and lower weight.  Maybe I’ll feel less of a sap if I cover up the Red Dot and pretend it’s not a Leica.  Wouldn’t want my camera to insult all the SL, Q and M cameras out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 1stLeica said:

Re: CL marketing

 

Further evidence of treating the CL as the bastard Leica child:

 

Having just purchased a CL as my first Leica, I explore the Leica websites and see that by registering a new camera I can get an additional year of warranty coverage and 3 issues of LFI magazine.  But on closer reading I see those offers do not apply to the lowly CL.

 

 

 

As mentioned previously, I bought the CL after considering other brands and deciding I would appreciate the minimal – but customizable – controls of the CL as well as the smaller size and lower weight.  Maybe I’ll feel less of a sap if I cover up the Red Dot and pretend it’s not a Leica.  Wouldn’t want my camera to insult all the SL, Q and M cameras out there.

 

There is no insult, many of us know how wonderful the CL is.  Have a look at the CL images thread (ignore mine) there are some fabulous images in there.  There are more than a few people with SLs and Ms who use their CLs regularly.  It is that good. 

Edited by Sjz
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

@rob_w. @LocalHero1953 and I have the SL 75 f/2 I use on the CL.. this is a great focal length in the APS-C format.. now we just need someone who uses the 90 on the CL 😀 

I have the 50 and 90 SL and they get plenty of use on the CL😊   However, not too sure about @rob_w thoughts that they will keep their value better than the TL lenses, looking at what they can be found for used on dealer's sites in the UK recently I know I wish I'd bought used.  Also not the best performers for video or in manual focus, both of mine are very noisy, but I forgive them all of that when I look at the images, especially the 90mm.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Boojay
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last couple of months which camera is the closest to replacing the CL in my hands in the same usage scenarios? The SL2? The M11? The Q2?
No, it's a IIf, a II (Model D) (now gone for CLA) and a Standard (arriving tomorrow).
Why: because they are small, light, unobtrusive (my hand can fold around them), agile and....fun.

That says something about how Oskar Barnack's original vision is not shared by Leica now. The SL, M and Q all have their place, but without the CL that leaves a big gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sjz said:

There is no insult, many of us know how wonderful the CL is.  Have a look at the CL images thread (ignore mine) there are some fabulous images in there.  There are more than a few people with SLs and Ms who use their CLs regularly.  It is that good. 

Don’t really care how my CL purchase or the camera itself is viewed by others – Leica owners or not. Or appreciated by Corporate Leica.  I’m delighted with the CL.  Just musing as to whether the weak marketing of the CL was due in part to a snobbishness at Leica.

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...