Read on Thorsten Overgaard's Site: CL Update in 2024-2025. . .

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/25/2024 at 6:41 AM, SoCalLeicanator said:

FWIW, I was at Leica LA this weekend and posed this very question to one of the very kind employees.  What he said is much in line with what Rick in CO stated.  They have heard that the next big release will be an interchangeable lens Q.  Now, we've all been around the block a few times with rumors from dealers, and as a friend of mine pointed out: wouldn't this take away sales from the SL3?  But, the man said the next releases are the D-Lux 8 and an interchangeable lens Q!

Well, I think that an interchangeable lens “Q” is shorthand for a camera that has nothing in common with the Q but the body shape. It simply means that Leica has been able to shrink SL  components to a size that enables a Q sized camera with an L mount and full size sensor. If the sensor has a high pixel count the camera would be usable with TL lenses and as it would obviously be able to use M lenses - provided that the sensor has been tuned for that use, it would be an acceptable CL replacement as well. 

[Mute-on]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, I think that an interchangeable lens “Q” is shorthand for a camera that has nothing in common with the Q but the body shape. It simply means that Leica has been able to shrink SL  components to a size that enables a Q sized camera with an L mount and full size sensor. If the sensor has a high pixel count the camera would be usable with TL lenses and as it would obviously be able to use M lenses - provided that the sensor has been tuned for that use, it would be an acceptable CL replacement as well. 

If true (and I for one really hope this is), it would also allow Leica to preserve the M line, with its mechanical rangefinder, whilst providing an M sized camera with a (hopefully optimised) sensor arrangement for M lenses. In effect an EVF M body other than in name. Really the perfect camera for my preferences and deteriorating eyesight. I shall live in hope …

[jaapv]

Yes it would connect the whole Leica system albeit with the S as an outlier. The CL had that function but it was dropped leaving this gap 

[lct]

4 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Without TL size lens, a full frame L mount  small camera makes no new sense at all.

TL lenses exist already. Other L-mount APS lenses exist as well. My Sigma 18-50/2.8 works fine on the FPL for instance. The least Leica can do is to rebadge the FPL and replace its big EVF by a smaller one like the Visoflex 2. Call me armchair-CEO-lct 😄

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, lct said:

TL lenses exist already. Other L-mount APS lenses exist as well. My Sigma 18-50/2.8 works fine on the FPL for instance. The least Leica can do is to rebadge the FPL and replace its big EVF by a smaller one like the Visoflex 2. Call me armchair-CEO-lct 😄

I am talking about TL sized FF format lens, not TL format lens.

[Einst_Stein]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1828737-REG/panasonic_dc_s9kr_lumix_s9_mirrorless_camera.html

Could it be rebadged this?

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1828737-REG/panasonic_dc_s9kr_lumix_s9_mirrorless_camera.html

Could it be rebadged this?

It would be called the Leica “Décapotable” - you just need to add an external EVF and hot shoe to it. Not sure whether the S9 has a mechanical shutter or not.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I am talking about TL sized FF format lens, not TL format lens.

Then i do not understand your point sorry.

[KenLW]

17 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1828737-REG/panasonic_dc_s9kr_lumix_s9_mirrorless_camera.html

Could it be rebadged this?

Yeah, if they rebadge it, add some Leica color (Lumix color looks quite good already though), i would buy it.

[helged]

17 hours ago, Le Chef said:

It would be called the Leica “Décapotable” - you just need to add an external EVF and hot shoe to it. Not sure whether the S9 has a mechanical shutter or not.

No mechanical shutter. No EVF.

[Einst_Stein]

Shoot it from hip!

[Lightseeker]

Hi, I have a Leica M-P 240 and a few non-Leica lenses.  I would like a lighter camera body to travel with. I really like the look of the CL and read only good reports. Downside is that it has been discontinued. 
Is it worth taking the plunge and buying a used CL now and perhaps buying a few lenses like the 35mm TL? 

[jaapv]

On 6/16/2024 at 2:29 PM, Einst_Stein said:

TL sized FF format lens

That would be a rather tall order. Unless no AF and manual aperture. Hang on... Those are called M lenses.

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, Lightseeker said:

Is it worth taking the plunge and buying a used CL now and perhaps buying a few lenses like the 35mm TL? 

Simple answer is yes.

I'm sure there will be people who dismiss it because it doesn't have the latest US military grade autofocus that can capture a gnat's a$$ moving at the speed of sound at less than f1.4.

I will likely not sell mine nor the lenses, all of which get used on a weekly basis in rotation with my Q3, until something breaks and is not reparable.

[Lightseeker]

Thanks. Yes, I hear that some might consider the sensor too small and that it doesn’t have IBIS but users don’t think of this as reasons not to buy into the system. Must say as a Leica Digilux  2 owner the Leica Q appeals design wise. Don’t know if the CL2 will emerge any time soon but if based on Leica Q design and smaller that would appeal to me. Can’t quite afford Leica glass but I hear the Sigma Contemporary range of lenses are excellent

[KitW]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

  On 6/16/2024 at 1:29 PM, Einst_Stein said:

TL sized FF format lens

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

That would be a rather tall order. Unless no AF and manual aperture. Hang on... Those are called M lenses.

On the face of it, as jaapv points out, a 'TL sized FF format lens' is ridiculous. Funnily enough, I tried comparing the weights of my TL lenses with equivalent full-frame lenses, and they didn't come out as well as I expected. Perhaps I should have done this before buying into the system!

18mm F2.8 - equivalent to 28mm F4. Nobody makes a 28mm F4 lens as far as I'm aware. The Canon F2.8 is a whole 40g heavier (120g vs. 80g)

23mm F2 - equivalent to 35mm F3. 186g with the hood. Sony 35mm f2.8 - 120g

35mm F1.4 - equivalent to 50mm F2.1. My TL lens weighs in at 420g and my Canon EF 50mm F1.8 is 160g

60mm F2.8 - equivalent to 100mm F4. TL lens is 320g and the Canon 100mm Macro is 600g.

11-23 F3.5-F4.5 - equivalent to 16-35 F4.5-6.8 weighs 368g. Sony 16-35 F4 weighs 353g

18-55 F3.5-F4 - equivalent to 28-80 F4.5-6.8 and weighs 287g with the hood. EF 28-80 F3.5-5.6 weighs 200g.

55-135 F3.5-4.5 - equivalent to 70-200 F5.2-6.8 - weighs 500g relative to my EF 70-200mm F4 at 705g.

So in most cases, full-frame kit can be lighter than the equivalent Leica APSC lenses.

On the other hand, the Canon 11-22mm M-mount lens is 200g. The 18-55 is 210g. The 32mm F1.4 is 235g. The 22mm is 105g. All substantially less than the Leica lenses. I know which I prefer (Leica). There are also Sigma APSC lenses which seem similar in weight to the Leica lenses, but typically have a wider aperture. Of course, weight and size are not the same. Leica lenses are dense. Lightweight is good. 'Compact' is also good, but not something I've looked at here. .

So... It does seem perfectly possible to put together a full-frame kit that is lighter and wider than an equivalent Leica CL and a few lenses, but an EF-M APSC camera and lenses _can_ be considerably lighter than any full-frame kit. Then... Some of the lightweight full-frame primes are good, but some of the full frame lenses are simply not very nice. The kit 28-80 that used to come with every low-end Canon dSLR in particular... Perhaps they've gotten better. But realistically the closest 'nice' equivalent to the TL 18-55 lens in EF is a 24-70 F4L at 600g. The TL 35mm is heavy enough that I keep wondering why I bought it when I was looking for something lightweight... But it is IMO the nicest lens I've ever owned, and if not the most used, the one I don't go anywhere without.

So now we have a paradox that most TL lenses are heavier than their full-frame equivalents, yet if I go somewhere with my Canon 5d I put them in a backbreaking camera rucksack. If I go somewhere with my CL and a few lenses, I put them in a little 1.5L bag that lives accessibly on my hip, and I hardly notice the weight.

Edited June 18, 2024 by KitW

[KitW]

I suppose another way to look at it is to compare Leica TL and SL lenses - typically they seem to be half the weight. Sometimes less.

Edited June 18, 2024 by KitW

[Le Chef]

49 minutes ago, KitW said:

So now we have a paradox that most TL lenses are heavier than their full-frame equivalents

I think your equivalency is off. If I have a TL 35mm f1.4,  I’m going to look for a FF lens that matches it on an FF camera. I will look for a 50mm f1.4. And the same with the TL23 f2.0 I will look for a FF 35mm f2.0. So when you do that weight comparison what does it look like?

[KitW]

13 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I think your equivalency is off. If I have a TL 35mm f1.4,  I’m going to look for a FF lens that matches it on an FF camera. I will look for a 50mm f1.4. And the same with the TL23 f2.0 I will look for a FF 35mm f2.0. So when you do that weight comparison what does it look like?

A 35mm F1.4 APSC will provide less depth of field than a 50mm F1.4 for full frame, so that is a false equivalence.

This article provides a nice explanation as to why.

I read a suggestion the other day that seems intuitively true - that image noise is roughly limited by the lens and not the sensor. A micro-four thirds 25mm F1.4 will catch the same number of photons per pixel as a 50mm F2.8 full-frame sensor with the same number of pixels, give equivalent depth of field and... probably weigh about the same!

Lo and behold, the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro weighs 236g. The Panasonic-Leica 25mm F1.4 for MFT weighs 200g. Presumably there are diffraction issues, or the less efficient usage of space on small sensors, that break the relationship somewhere along the line. And I believe it gets harder to design wider lenses - you may just get a 50mm F1 but you'll never get a 25mm F0.5

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Umm, the OP was talking about size, not weight. The weight is related to the materials and glass used, not so much to the size. Lens size has to do with image quality and vignetting.
It also has to do with the AF parts. The heavier the focussing elements they have to drive (and on a FF they will be), the more bulky the electro-mechanics will have to be. The same for the aperture driving mechanism -it will have to be physically larger. 

Lens size will always increase with sensor size at equivalent lens quality.