Looks like bad news for hopes on CL2

[Enrique Santa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All of you saying Leica must earn money, are right, BUT unloyalty with coustomers have also a price a big price. How on earth Must I be confident with any Leica product in future with the exception of M line?. I can't . Beeing coustomer friendly is as easy as inform them , give alternatives to them (no S isn't an alternative), or simply telling us the truth.

For those APSC heaters: live in peace dream your wet ff dreams every night   you are in your right and don't worry for us, simple people that are absolutly served with apsc.

[jaapv]

16 hours ago, bandrews said:

Alternative is EVF-only camera with native M mount..

Why not increase the functionality by giving is a dual mount (L and M)  ?  

[Advertisement]

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

[bandrews]

24 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Why not increase the functionality by giving is a dual mount (L and M)  ?  

I'm not sure how that would work but sure.... why not.

[jaapv]

It works. - it is called the L-M adapter...

[MediaFotografie]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

It works. - it is called the L-M adapter...

and it works very well - even transmitting the 6 bit code

[bandrews]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

It works. - it is called the L-M adapter...

I'm well aware of it. I have one. But that's not really a "dual" mount is it which would suggest a camera capable of taking two different lens mounts natively. But as with many cyclical conversations, that takes it back to the previous comment that a FF CL/ILC Q would be too "front heavy" with FF L mount lenses attached.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why not increase the functionality by giving is a dual mount (L and M)  ?  

No problem for me - I would prefer a L mount, to be used with a L-M adapter.

The oddity is that the M11 appears to be preparing its market for an EVF version, with its full-time liveview (even if visible LV is optional). Making a M body into L-mount would require the sensor moving forward; this might actually create useful space inside the M body (for IBIS?), but would also push out the position of M lenses - it would look and feel different from the M11. Safer to keep the M-mount, though this would be an evolutionary dead end IMO.

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, bandrews said:

camera capable of taking two different lens mounts natively.

Which is, in reality, exactly what adapter does.  The only thing missing is the automatic magnification - but that would be missing on an M mount EVF camera as well.

[LocalHero1953]

20 minutes ago, bandrews said:

I'm well aware of it. I have one. But that's not really a "dual" mount is it which would suggest a camera capable of taking two different lens mounts natively. But as with many cyclical conversations, that takes it back to the previous comment that a FF CL/ILC Q would be too "front heavy" with FF L mount lenses attached.

I occasionally use L-mount lenses on my CL. In fact I put a 35 on the CL and it was a couple of weeks before I realised I had picked up the L (full frame) version instead of the TL version. So the Summicron primes would not be a problem for me. I have tried the zooms, and that is a different matter entirely😬. 

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, bandrews said:

But as with many cyclical conversations, that takes it back to the previous comment that a FF CL/ILC Q would be too "front heavy" with FF L mount lenses attached.

Most Sigma DG DN lenses are small and light. The 45mm is 215g, the 35mm f/2 is 325g, the 90mm is 295g. Panasonic prime lenses are bulkier but very light, they are all about 300g.

For comparison, most Leica fast lenses in M mount are heavier than these. The 35 and 50 Summilux M are 325g, just like the 35mm above. The 90 Summicron M is 500g.

If you can use M lenses (+ the weight of the adapter) on your CL, you can definitely use Sigma or Panasonic FF lenses too.

The problem is only with the zooms, and even there Sigma came up with the 28-70 f/2.8 at 470g

[bandrews]

50 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I occasionally use L-mount lenses on my CL. In fact I put a 35 on the CL and it was a couple of weeks before I realised I had picked up the L (full frame) version instead of the TL version. So the Summicron primes would not be a problem for me. I have tried the zooms, and that is a different matter entirely😬. 

Using my Sigma 100-400mm with my CL is what nudged me to buy an SL2-S. Felt so unbalanced.

 

[bandrews]

2 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Most Sigma DG DN lenses are small and light. The 45mm is 215g, the 35mm f/2 is 325g, the 90mm is 295g. Panasonic prime lenses are bulkier but very light, they are all about 300g.

For comparison, most Leica fast lenses in M mount are heavier than these. The 35 and 50 Summilux M are 325g, just like the 35mm above. The 90 Summicron M is 500g.

If you can use M lenses (+ the weight of the adapter) on your CL, you can definitely use Sigma or Panasonic FF lenses too.

The problem is only with the zooms, and even there Sigma came up with the 28-70 f/2.8 at 470g

But that's all compromise. Can you really see Leica promoting that? "You have three options - TL lenses from our discontinued APSC line, our own FF L mount lenses that completely cancel out the svelte body of this new camera, or if you want something smaller, you'll have to go to one of our partners."

Would look great in the marketing photos. 🙄

 

 

[Simone_DF]

24 minutes ago, bandrews said:

But that's all compromise. Can you really see Leica promoting that? "You have three options - TL lenses from our discontinued APSC line, our own FF L mount lenses that completely cancel out the svelte body of this new camera, or if you want something smaller, you'll have to go to one of our partners."

Would look great in the marketing photos. 🙄

So they are going to stick to huge, heavy cameras because that's how they started and they can't stop now? 

Pretty sure that sooner or later either Panasonic or Sigma will come up with a small camera. The FP is interesting but too clunky and geared for video, the S5 is basically there already. Guess what will happen to all the Leica customers that want a smaller camera? I know I'll ditch my SL2s the moment there's a new Panasonic S52.

[ruskkyle]

20 hours ago, ramarren said:

Another thread on the discontinuation of the CL and other APS-C models? Why? Hasn't the topic been beaten to death about five times over on the three or four other "death of the CL" threads? 

I'm happy with my CL and see little to update on it. When Leica produces another camera in the size/performance/price range that interests me, I'll buy it ... in the meanwhile, I'm happy to use the CL I have until it stops working.

If that happens, THEN I'll go looking for another camera that I can re-use my Leica M and R lenses on, again. Probably another M, or another SL, at that point, if they've decided that APS-C format isn't what they can make a profit with. Really doesn't matter to me. I don't have any particular need for vastly more than the 24Mpixel sensor that the CL has (although 50Mpixel is nice with the Hasselblad 907x); in fact, I get away with 5Mpixel using my Olympus E-1 occasionally with rather nice results.

I don't really understand the obsession with the fact that a manufacturer might cancel a particular line of cameras. 

G

I should have thought this was fairly self-evident. The CL is a system camera. Most of the people on this subform have invested quite heavily into this system, both in terms of body or bodies, lenses, accessories etc. So you have chosen not to buy the lenses (and have explained that fact countless times now on different threads) and that is fine. For the majority though it is a concern that, when at some point in the future their current body wears out or feels outdated, there may no longer by an appropriate body offered by Leica with which to use those lenses.

Literally nobody is saying their current CL is suddenly going to become obsolete or go up in a puff of smoke. But calling this topic of discussion an 'obsession' is just wrong.

[ramarren]

You're entitled to your own opinion. As I am.

I bought the CL body only because I already owned all the lenses I needed and I really don't care about autofocus at all: I just needed a TTL viewing/focusing body for macro and long lens use. If you buy any system with a set of electronically controlled, dedicated lenses that you depend upon for features that you want, well, you are automatically buying into a system obsolescence factor ... no system of complex, interdependent components in an environment of radical, fast development is going to last forever. And even if the system lasts a long long time, there are inevitably features that come into being with later components that earlier components cannot support. If those features are significant/important to you, you accept that cost and that obsolescence factor.

To me, this is obvious. But I don't need all that complex interdependency in my system for my photography ... never have, never will. I have bought into some of it to explore whether it is of value to me, and when it has proved not to (every time) I eat the cost as part of my educational expenses. And I just accept that because there isn't anything that can be done about it that isn't just a lot of pointless complaining, when all is said and done. (And I will say that a couple of those systems... my Olympus E System/mFT system, Hasselblad 907x X-system, Light L16... perform quite brilliantly. But I don't worry much about whether they are going to march forward with the decades ... I just use them and enjoy what I can do with what I bought.)

Intimating that I should not be participating in a discussion when I disagree with the opinions of the participants in that discussion is kind of saying "we enjoy your participation as long as you agree with us." That, to me, is counter to the whole notion of why we have a discussion forum in the first place: to voice our differences of opinion and different insights, offer solutions to problems, regarding an activity that we all share a passion for. If everyone always agreed about everything, what would be the point of having a discussion? 🤔

G

[Le Chef]

5 minutes ago, ramarren said:

But I don't need all that complex interdependency in my system for my photography ... never have, never will.

So you do not own an L-M adaptor or any M-mount lenses?

[ramarren]

What is the point of your question?

I have owned an M Adapter T since before I owned my Leica SL body, and fitted that adapter to my CL when I bought it, never take it off. This allows me to use my existing dozen M-mount and the other dozen R-mount lenses plus macro equipment (the latter with the addition of the R Adapter M) on the CL. These simple lenses do not need any body-managed electronic control support. For convenience, Leica offers lens profiles (available through this adapter chain) that help optimize the lenses' behavior to maintain their original rendering design, but the use of those profiles is optional and not necessary to good results or use.

I bought the CL because I knew I could use my simple lenses on it in this manner. If I hadn't been able to, I'd have bought something else. Or I could easily make my own adapters if none existed, like I've done with several other camera bodies.

G

Edited January 18, 2022 by ramarren

[Le Chef]

So you do have "complex interdependency" in your system.

[ramarren]

3 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

So you do have "complex interdependency" in your system.

None of my lenses have a dependency on the body for their operation. The body is not dependent upon the functioning of the lens to provide whatever functions I need. The simple dependency of requiring a lens mounting to work is not what I'd call a "complex interdependency", by definition. 

G

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ruskkyle]

Around and around we go…