New to Leica : Still worth jumping in CL System after discontinuation ?

[Ba Erv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, MJB said:

The 23 is definitely one of my favorite lenses on the CL - I think it balances best and just looks and feels the most right on the body.  The 35 is of course another favorite but there's no denying that it alters the handling of the camera.

The 35 was just too big for me.  It completely alters the camera.  I was a little on the "meh" side with the 23 until I started stripping the in-camera optical codes out of the DNG files.  The resolution change was apparent and the barrel distortion minimally noticeable in most shooting.  

[lct]

17 hours ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

I have learned photography with IS and AF .. so even if I am curious to learn manual photo and sometimes I do thanks to all the new hybrid tech, I still feel that I need AF, especially for the price. I feel that used M lenses are still very expensive, and probably worth it, but I do not know if I am ready to invest that much money in a lens without AF

Matter of tastes of course but lenses i use for the CL are mostly less expensive than Leica TL ones (Sigma 18-50/2.8 - VM 15/4.5, 21/3.5, 28/2, 35/1.4, 35/2 - ZM 50/1.5). I wouldn't pay Leica prices on discontinued lenses needing software correction anyway. The next APS-C Leica camera will be full frame with crop mode most probably. Not sure Leica will issue firmware updates for discontinued TL lenses on it, let alone the discontinued CL, but i may be wrong. 

[Advertisement]

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

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Another fan of the 23, but even more so with the 11-23 its only problem is the f4.5 at 23, so I keep the 23. It is the one focal length I use the most. For 35 I have 2 excellent M lenses, the preasph Summilux and the f2.8 Zeiss C-Biogon, both small and keep the handling of the camera, of course with manual focus, I have an M3 and M8 so I am used to it. I did try a 35 f1.4 TT Artisan lens, heck it was $80 it was meh, not bad just meh, it is a tiny light lens. All but a nice 55 f1.4, all my longer lenses are M or optical Visoflex.

[Berel Shoots Cars]

Thanks all for all your nice and very informative answers  

22 hours ago, smcmason said:

I was very interested in the film simulations at first. They are neat, but after a while they felt a little more like they were designed for Instagram rather than useful for creative photography. I tend to prefer uncompressed RAW for everything, although I did shoot RAW/jpeg with Fuji.  I loved the hybrid viewfinder and the quick/intuitive focus magnification of the X-Pro2. At the end of the day, I was just happier with the quality of the Leica images. I found them to be a bit more predictable in terms of how colors are processed. As someone else mentioned, the CL body and lenses do feel less fragile as well. If you don't want to drop tons of cash on M lenses, there are plenty of high-quality R lenses too. That is what I adapt to the L Mount with a Novoflex adapter since I shoot an R film body too. The 18mm f2.8 TL is a wonderful walk-around lens. Not dirt cheap, but fairly widely available for $700-$900. My most used lens on the CL is probably the 18-56. You get so much quality and usability in such a small package. 

I think that I should try to manipulate a little bit a X-Pro3 and maybe a Leica CL to see what is the difference in hands and feels. To be honest, I have not even held a Leica in my whole life. Just looked at them on the shelves  

What R lenses do you own and use ? Do you have any recommandations ?

18 hours ago, MJB said:

Regarding Fujis, I do think that they are worth consideration.  I actually bought an X-Pro 3 before I even knew the CL existed, but right after I bought it I discovered the CL, and that it could be had secondhand for about the same money.  After comparing them for about a week I was hooked on the CL and returned the Fuji.  That said, it was not a bad camera at all.  It was very well built, maybe not quite as much as a Leica, but that's splitting hairs a bit.  I currently own an X-E3 as well, and it is noticeably more plasticky-feeling, although not "cheap" and still a good performer, to be fair.  I do like Fuji's pseudo-analog design approach, and am never confused as to how to set aperture or shutter speed, or dial in some exposure compensation.  Ergonomically, I did not care for the X-Pro 3 - it felt like a brick, and the viewfinder magnification of 0.66x was not good enough for me, especially in a camera that purported to replicate an analog experience.  And, I don't know, there are just far too many fiddly little buttons for my taste - I much prefer the cleaner design of the Leicas.

In terms of image quality, I don't think you're necessarily going to get better results with a Leica, however.  I think there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo and self-congratulatory pixel-peeping that goes around in Leica circles (perhaps to justify spending an unreasonable amount of money on camera gear!), but at the end of the day, good photographs are made by good photographers, not gear.  And with software color profiles, you can get almost any look out of any camera.  I personally use DxO film simulations for every digital image that I shoot and I think can achieve quite a consistent look across the many different cameras I've used.

I would even go so far as to say that, if you're shopping for an APS-C camera, Fuji is the most rational option.  

By the way, if you're dead-set on shooting .jpeg, I wouldn't even think twice about it and just go get a Fuji.  I personally only ever shoot RAW and cannot be convinced that .jpeg shooting is a reasonable alternative for anyone who wants full creative control over their work, but I also enjoy the editing process as much as any other aspect of photography.  But I understand some people feel differently, and I think that Fuji does a better job of handling .jpegs, if for no other reason than because they prioritize it more.  I think that Leica expects their users to shoot RAW, and Fuji perhaps expects the opposite.

It is also nice to hear a different opinion on Fuji cameras. As you mention, there are plenty of cameras and lenses, at all budget, all being more affordable than Canon full frame. It seems to be the most rational option, but I am also looking for something I want to enjoy using and carrying around. What lenses do you use ? The more I think about it, the more i think i will remain shooting raws, it is also important to be able retrieve the best from my motoring photography before posting them on social media. 

10 hours ago, Torpille said:

Hi to you Belgian friend.

If your dream is a Leica then don't hesitate. 
You won't get the latest technology (for that I recommend the Sony a7c or a Fuji XE_4) but you will get a real Leica with great lenses and full compatibility with M lenses. 

If you are a screen shooter, the TL2 is a good option which will cost you 50% of the price of the CL. 
If you want to shoot via an EVF, then get the CL.

Concerning the optics, the TL zooms are very good. 
For primes, you can go with your eyes closed too, even if they are not perfect, you will have excellent results.

I sold my Panasonic 50/1,8 which exhausted the battery in a few minutes on the CL and which made a lot of noise at the aperture level on the TL2. 
Too bad because the lens is good. 
So I took a TL 35mm.



The LEICA lenses are very good and the prices are about 50% of new in perfect condition. 

In my opinion it's a bargain. 

Concerning the maintenance of the value over time, it's hard to say but Leica holds its value better than its competitors. What is sure is that the CL will remain an icon at Leica.


The only one from Leica that can come close to the CL is the Q2, but it is bigger.
If that's the one you want then get it without going through the CL.

Are you also Belgian ?  

To be honest, I would not say it is a dream, but there is such an aura and legend about this brand that I feel that you have to try it once. People who have them love them, and I want to feel that as well. It feels like really thoughts and designed objects, which I love. It feels like some models of cars, that were very thought after, designed right and hit the users straight in the heart, even if they are not perfect by rational criteria. 

Thank for the suggest of the TL2, as someone mention here in terms of pure design it is magnificent but I am more attracted by classic ergonomics, and no viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.

I have read several times that big or stabilized lenses drain the batteries, do you have more info or facts on that ? Seems that it must be taken in consideration when buying something.

5 hours ago, MJB said:

This.  People are worried about the lenses losing value, but I think that's exactly what makes them an interesting proposition right now - they will only drop so far before they level off and probably even bounce back a little.  Look at the used market - EVERYTHING Leica holds value.  So long as you don't pay full MSRP for these lenses, I think you could pretty much break even when you sell them.  I haven't paid full price for a single one, and I personally think I will hold on to mine.  I may even keep an eye out for that 60mm!

5 hours ago, lct said:

Matter of tastes of course but lenses i use for the CL are mostly less expensive than Leica TL ones (Sigma 18-50/2.8 - VM 15/4.5, 21/3.5, 28/2, 35/1.4, 35/2 - ZM 50/1.5). I wouldn't pay Leica prices on discontinued lenses needing software correction anyway. The next APS-C Leica camera will be full frame with crop mode most probably. Not sure Leica will issue firmware updates for discontinued TL lenses on it, let alone the discontinued CL, but i may be wrong. 

I tend to think that maybe this system will remain quite popular due to unmatched form factor and satisfaction ... therefore it is maybe still worth investing in it.I should check the classifieds for 11-23 and 23mm or 30mm. But surely I will buy second hand : as mentioned a Leica CL is 1000€, and the sigma 18-50 2.8 is 500€ new. I even found a CL + 18-56 for 1700€, which is I think a bargain. In the end, I am just a hobbyist with not even 10 years of practice, so it is also important to look on the money side.

I have one other important question :
Are you using the additionnal grip and the "thumbs" extension on yours ? I am 1.90m, so my hands are quite long, though not big. But I do not like "flat" cameras, it really bothered me on the XE-4.

[wda]

51 minutes ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

Thanks all for all your nice and very informative answers  

I think that I should try to manipulate a little bit a X-Pro3 and maybe a Leica CL to see what is the difference in hands and feels. To be honest, I have not even held a Leica in my whole life. Just looked at them on the shelves  

What R lenses do you own and use ? Do you have any recommandations ?

It is also nice to hear a different opinion on Fuji cameras. As you mention, there are plenty of cameras and lenses, at all budget, all being more affordable than Canon full frame. It seems to be the most rational option, but I am also looking for something I want to enjoy using and carrying around. What lenses do you use ? The more I think about it, the more i think i will remain shooting raws, it is also important to be able retrieve the best from my motoring photography before posting them on social media. 

Are you also Belgian ?  

To be honest, I would not say it is a dream, but there is such an aura and legend about this brand that I feel that you have to try it once. People who have them love them, and I want to feel that as well. It feels like really thoughts and designed objects, which I love. It feels like some models of cars, that were very thought after, designed right and hit the users straight in the heart, even if they are not perfect by rational criteria. 

Thank for the suggest of the TL2, as someone mention here in terms of pure design it is magnificent but I am more attracted by classic ergonomics, and no viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.

I have read several times that big or stabilized lenses drain the batteries, do you have more info or facts on that ? Seems that it must be taken in consideration when buying something.

I tend to think that maybe this system will remain quite popular due to unmatched form factor and satisfaction ... therefore it is maybe still worth investing in it.I should check the classifieds for 11-23 and 23mm or 30mm. But surely I will buy second hand : as mentioned a Leica CL is 1000€, and the sigma 18-50 2.8 is 500€ new. I even found a CL + 18-56 for 1700€, which is I think a bargain. In the end, I am just a hobbyist with not even 10 years of practice, so it is also important to look on the money side.

I have one other important question :
Are you using the additionnal grip and the "thumbs" extension on yours ? I am 1.90m, so my hands are quite long, though not big. But I do not like "flat" cameras, it really bothered me on the XE-4.

As I suffer with arthritis in my hands, I always add a Leica handgrip. It gives me reassurance in holding and using the camera. The only negative is that it lacks a tripod bush, so the grip has to be removed. Not a big deal, because I rarely use this camera on a tripod.

[smcmason]

55 minutes ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

Thanks all for all your nice and very informative answers  

I think that I should try to manipulate a little bit a X-Pro3 and maybe a Leica CL to see what is the difference in hands and feels. To be honest, I have not even held a Leica in my whole life. Just looked at them on the shelves  

What R lenses do you own and use ? Do you have any recommandations ?

I have one other important question :
Are you using the additionnal grip and the "thumbs" extension on yours ? I am 1.90m, so my hands are quite long, though not big. But I do not like "flat" cameras, it really bothered me on the XE-4.

I found the X-Pros to be much more angular. The CL is quite small for me without a case (I also have long hands). I actually started a thread about my favorite case a few days ago right here. I did have the thumbs-up grip on my previous CL, although I don't find it as necessary as the half case that adds some volume and a bit of grip on the front. 

My R collection currently consists of the 35-70 f4 and the 135mm f2.8. It's been challenging for me to find higher quality wide angle R glass, though. Of course, Voigtlander makes some wonderful M lenses that are also easily adapted. They can also be found at great prices, and the M to L adapter is much smaller than the R to L adapter. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

Are you using the additionnal grip and the "thumbs" extension on yours ? I am 1.90m, so my hands are quite long, though not big. But I do not like "flat" cameras, it really bothered me on the XE-4.

I don't like hand grips but i've been using both Leica Thumb Support (1st pic) and Match Technical Thumbs Up (2nd pic) on the digital CL. See below together with Match Technical Thumbs Up for Fuji X-E2 to compare. I found the Match Technical too short and the Leica Thumb Support perfect when turning the left wheel a-la Leica M i.e. with the index finger.

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!

 

Another solution would be the Steve Barnett's Thumbie that i use on my M11 but i don't know if it is still available for the digital CL.

Edited September 20, 2022 by lct

[MJB]

I personally use the Leica-branded thumb grip, hand grip, and finger loop.  It seems like overkill for such a small camera, but it really gives me a feeling of incredible control - I find that I often don't even need to use a wrist strap with the camera, because it's basically impossible to drop - although, if I intend to use it for more than a few minutes I often will use a strap of some kind as well.

The first Leica CL I bought came with a third party thumb grip.  I returned that camera because of an undisclosed paint chip, but I remember being unhappy with the design of that thumb grip - it really hindered access to the thumb wheels.  When I bought my current CL (from KEH), they also had a used Leica thumb grip at a much less crazy price than brand new, so I decided to try it.  I've found that it's much better suited to the camera, and doesn't obstruct the thumb wheels.  

I also found a lightly-used hand grip, which I feel is necessary because the camera is actually a little bit too small for my hands, as well as very flat and a bit slick.  The hand grip really improves the ergonomics, and I wouldn't be without it, even if it does diminish the design somewhat, I suppose.  As mentioned, it does not have a tripod socket, but that is not an issue for me at all, as I never use one.  More annoying is the lack of battery and SD card access, but I got over that pretty quickly.  There are I think third party grips and cases that have a cutout or flap to access the battery door, if that's a deal breaker, but as I said I found the Leica version at a good price so figured I would try it.  I think it matches the camera very well and even has a bit of the same leatherette covering.

The finger loop seemed like a gimmick to me.  The main reason I wanted one was because the hand grip has a threaded insert for one and it looked naked or unfinished to me.  This is one item I bought new, because I wanted to be able to easily return it, and indeed I went through a couple before I settled on the right size for me.  What I can say is that a feature that seemed like a gimmick now seems like a really great idea - it quite literally provides a physical connection to the camera and makes it basically impossible to drop.

I use all three of the above items all the time, with every lens.  Once or twice I have removed them when using the camera with the 18mm pancake lens, just to make the whole set up as compact as possible, but generally I still find them useful.

Regarding lenses, I generally only ever use the native TL lenses.  I think they are really great optically, and nicely constructed, all metal and glass.  The focus ring is by-wire, but nicely damped, and overriding autofocus with manual adjustments is just seamless.  I did find an M-mount adapter, also used, which I have used a few times.  I have a Summicron-C 40mm (for the original CL) that I've been meaning to try with the camera, as well as a Jupiter-8 50mm - both are quite small and would suit the body well, I think.  I have used a Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.1 as well as a Konica M-Hexanon 28mm on the CL.  I'm accustomed to manual focusing and actually enjoy it.  My biggest problem with adapting lenses is the crop factor, it bothers me that I can't use them as intended.  For example, I have a set of Contax G lenses in 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm lenses that are quite compact and would make a fantastic travel kit with the CL, I wouldn't need any other lenses on a trip - but the 28mm doesn't fit, and the 45mm and 90mm become 68mm and 135mm, which is not really ideal.  All three lenses work great on my SL, and indeed their small size makes that big camera more user-friendly for me.  The native TL lenses provide coverage from around 17mm-200mm (in 35mm terms), which is about all I could ever imagine needing, but they are too many to really carry as a set practically.

 

[Enrique Santa]

Hi Berel. I have sold all my CL kit in the last two months. The CL  is the best cam I have ever have and the same goes in particular for the 11-23 an stellar lens, specially for car shooting. And why you have sold them, you could argue?. Tha's a different story my friend I have loose my faith and ilusion for Leica as a brand. 

If you still feel the "charm" of Leica , go for it...but I think is not a good idea, you are going to invest in a dead system with an unclear future, I mean no future from Leica unless you buy an SL2 ff and goes for croped mode, same from Pana's S1 and sigma FPL 1 . None of this brands have at the moment plans for a future apsc cam or even a compact  FF cam.

It's a real shame Leica have killed such a great system .

Your inversion will have more sense to me if you buy TL lenses and use it in a Sigma FPL1 or a Pana body, but you are going to do the opossite, buy a nice but very outdated cam , the CL, in terms of AF, Ibis and W.S and go for sigma lenses, instead of the supeb TL ones, and now even more, they are cheap in the second hand market. Think that Cl now almost 6 years old. It has a great sensor, a nice dynamic range but is really outdated.

Best Luck!!!

[IPahwa]

I have been using Leica CL with 18-56 leica zoom for the last three years. I am very satisfied with the results and the combo us compact enough to carry everywhere I go. Since there are so many knowledgeable folks trying to help each other, I thought of asking a question that I could not find the answer so far. Since both Leica zoom lenses for CL are made in Japan, do we know which company made them for Leica, Panasonic? Not that it matters as lot of camera mnfrs outsource their lenses to third party manufacturers but I am just curious to find out. Thanks. 

[Herr Barnack]

@Berel Shoots Cars I am at a loss to understand Leica's decision to ditch the CL System. 

It seems to be a popular camera amongst Leica shooters, so it doesn't add up that the CL was ditched based solely on sales numbers.  I don't get the logic of ditching it because it is APS-C format, either.  That format will do everything a photographer needs to accomplish, except perhaps making very large exhibit quality prints.  In my printing experience, the APS-C format would still be capable of making exhibit quality prints up to 10x15 inches, which is larger than the minority who make prints need, so the decision to ditch the CL was most likely not based on a chorus of complaints from print makers.  The CL does not seem to be a redundant system in the Leica portfolio, either. 

Given all the above, I am at a loss to comprehend Leica's decision regarding the CL.  Perhaps at some point, they will reconsider and resurrect the CL system; Leica has chosen to resurrect more than a few M lenses.  If the soothsayers are correct, Leica will soon bring the M6 back from the dead.  Perhaps one day they will do likewise with the CL.

In the meantime, what is a Leica connoisseur to do?  How do we fill the gap left by the demise of the CL? 

Everyone has their own viewpoint - but for me, the Q2 looks like the obvious choice.  It is an awfully good camera - and while not as small as the CL, it has a lot going for it.

[MJB]

2 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Everyone has their own viewpoint - but for me, the Q2 looks like the obvious choice.  It is an awfully good camera - and while not as small as the CL, it has a lot going for it.

I find the Q2 appealing in a lot of ways - the more traditional controls (i.e., an aperture ring) and being faster than most of the TL lenses are both pluses.  And it's great-looking, again in a more traditional way than the CL, which is a bit of an ugly duckling/acquired taste aesthetically (I love it but can understand why it's not as broadly popular as the Q in terms of design).  But, I don't know - I personally can't fathom spending that much on a fixed-lens camera.  Sure, the CL plus a few lenses is NOT cheap, and it's not long before you end up spending more than a Q2, but there's so much more real versatility there.  I know a lot of people talk about how you can aggressively crop with a Q2 and get great results, but it's a fact that the CL maintains its full resolution at all focal lengths, and pretty quickly exceeds the Q2's cropped resolution at normal-to-tele focal lengths.  I also am not crazy about the idea of composing with ever-smaller frame lines for a tighter crop, where I can get full-EVF coverage at all focal lengths with the CL - although, I suppose the Q2 works much like a film rangefinder in this respect.  To be fair, I've never handled or used a Q or Q2, maybe they're as great as everyone says.  I'm also not trashing the Q's in any way, other than to say that I personally can't stomach the idea of paying $5K for a camera that will only ever have one lens (good as that lens may be...).  

I think most die-hard Q users would have to admit that they'd like their cameras better if they had an interchangeable lens mount and even a handful of additional lenses to choose from.  But this gets back to a topic that has been much discussed - i.e., an L-mount Q, or full-frame CL*, or whatever else you want to call it - basically a compact, full-frame, ILC from Leica.  It seems to me it would be hugely popular, but it also seems to me that it would seriously cannibalize SL and even M sales (I don't know who thinks spending almost five figures on a camera body is a reasonable course of action, but I digress).

 

*I actually think a CL2 could've been successful even if they stuck with APS-C, and think the real world advantages of full frame sensors are mostly marketing fluff, and more about bragging rights on internet forums than anything else.

Edited October 1, 2022 by MJB

[Herr Barnack]

For a company like Leica, the 24x36mm sensor is common sense:  Give the customer what he/she wants, or another company will. 

As for "bragging rights," that's just sad.  I have no interest in what sensor someone else's camera has, and I have no interest in conversing with someone who feels a need to trot out their so-called "bragging rights."

Printing is one place where larger sensors and higher megapixel counts do make a difference.  As I observed above,

Quote

...[APS-C}  format will do everything a photographer needs to accomplish, except perhaps making very large exhibit quality prints. 

Apparently not many of us make large format prints for gallery exhibits but for those who do, larger sensors and higher megapixel count are always welcome.  

Edited October 1, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[Rick in CO]

I picked up a used CL to give it a try, wanting a smaller, and less expensive, carry around camera.  As an M-VF user for many years I wanted to see if the EVF was any good, and after some time with it, I find it very usable.  DNG files give me 13x20 inch pix with nice resolution and contrast from the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens, which if Leica had continued the CL they should have marketed their own version, as they did with the 24-70 lens.  Plenty enough for 13x19 inch prints.  

IMHO the CL is a very capable camera with a very decent EVF whose quality of construction betters some other cameras having higher resolution.  Its too bad that Leica has decided not to release an updated version, but now, on the used market, its an affordable back-up camera.  I think that all the talk about it being "out-dated" is ridiculous, especially with all the commotion about a re-released M6 film camera.

[Kim Dahl]

I would be careful buying CL and TL lenses from new (new price) - there are no updates coming. If Leica makes a smaller version of the SL 2 that could be used sensibly with Leica TL lenses - then we don't know if the TL will be updated to work ok with the new camera body. I've become reserved about the SL on Leica's part. For two reasons.
1. That they are stopping all CL and TL and no longer updating camera or lenses.

2. They are taking so long to come out with new SL summicrom - 24 and 21mm have not come out yet.

SL(2) for M lenses and other old lenses makes good sense.
So to answer the question. No, I would not buy CL and TL lenses today.
But I will keep my TL2 and zoom TL and 35 mm.

But I would not have bought them today.

[rob_w]

For my 2p worth, my answer to the OP is "No".  Given the discontinuation of the CL and the lack of anything forthcoming from Leica (for now)I have voted with my feet and moved to Sony, and posted extensively elsewhere about the reasons and the experience.

But that said, there is an alternative view which I would summarise as: "my CL takes excellent pictures and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, so why would I move to an alternative if I already have everything I want today?"

If you are in the second camp, feel free to join the club.  I am sure you will not regret it.

Good luck either way.

[MJB]

21 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

As for "bragging rights," that's just sad.  I have no interest in what sensor someone else's camera has, and I have no interest in conversing with someone who feels a need to trot out their so-called "bragging rights."

Printing is one place where larger sensors and higher megapixel counts do make a difference.  As I observed above,

Apparently not many of us make large format prints for gallery exhibits but for those who do, larger sensors and higher megapixel count are always welcome.  

I agree it's sad, but internet forums are full of folks bragging about the gear that they've spent money on, and arguing why it's better than someone else's less expensive or less prestigious gear.

My point is, I've seen quite a few dismissive comments about the CL on account of it's "inferior" sensor size.  While I do agree that, in many ways, bigger is better, for most people and most use cases, the differences between a full frame and an APS-C sensor are actually quite small.  I just can't believe all of these full frame purists that "need" a full frame sensor are making exhibition-quality, mural-sized prints.  

Dynamic range of course is an issue, but that has as much to do with sensor generation as sensor size - I think my CL does at least as well as my SL in this regard, if not better.  And it's been said that the CL sensor bests the M240's as well, which is of course a couple generations behind.

Lastly, DoF - sure, it's shallower on a full frame, but I can still easily blur a background and get excellent subject separation with my CL.  And I actually think this idea that we need to achieve razor-thin depth of field is also sort of gear driven, with people idolizing super-fast (but impractical) lenses like the Noctilux and becoming sort of compositional one-trick ponies, obsessed with "bokeh balls" or whatever.

Would the CL be a better camera if it were full frame?  Sure, but I'd argue that the difference would be fairly marginal, certainly not night and day.  Personally, my biggest reason for wanting a full frame camera is for better compatibility with legacy 35mm lenses.  I think APS-C sensors are more than capable in terms of image quality, though.

[Kim Dahl]

Yes, that Leica has decided not to make CL and TL is probably Leica' worst decision in recent times. CL was only first generation and was a good camera. Imagine what generation CL2 and CL3 could be. That they can then only really make the Leica SL2 which is a kind of alternative. But to is way too high price and too big compared to CL. I think many who have CL or TL have closed the money box for upgrades to Leica SL FF until you know what happens. I have Leica APSC but if I could sell or swap it for some other camera equipment I would. But as used it is virtually impossible to sell for a fair price. Even when exchanging in the Leica store.

[Stephencdean]

I am personally waiting with interest to see what the Panasonic and Leica co-developed camera will look like. Suspect part of the L2 alliance. Suspect full frame. Maybe as some of you mention a Q2 with interchangeable L mount lenses. I suspect Leica may not want to produce a M with digital viewfinder, so making one with Panny would be workaround to that product roadblock. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[elambo]

Despite the negligence of Leica and the adverse feelings of many users on this forum, I still cannot find a valid reason to move away from the CL. I'm a guy who tends to sell a perfectly good bit of tech when something newer and shinier is offered, yet the CL has been immune to that. When the camera is in the closet I might start to entertain the idea of a change, then I take it out for an afternoon and it quickly and easily re-establishes itself, and again when those great images are thrown into Lightroom.

I wouldn't look to deeply into internet forum's for this answer. None of us is you, and we can't predict how you'll get along with the CL over time. We can offer experience and anecdotes, but not an answer.