The new 40MP Fujifilm X100VI where Leica could and should have gone with the CL instead of bottling out.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The new 40MP Fujifilm X100VI with a 40 MP APS C sensor and IBIS, shows what Leica, with a modicum of faith in their CL product line and a tad more courage could have ended up. The excellent L mount lenses for the CL would have easily supported a 40MP sensor and resulted in a smaller and considerably lighter camera than the Q3 I mostly use at present. With the interchangeable and zoom lens range, it would also be a lot more flexible than the Q3. An opportunity sadly missed. The absence of IBIS is the biggest problem for me as I suffer from quite severe arthritic essential tremor, which got considerably worse with long covid. 

I would sell my CL and the three lenses I have, the standard zoom, the wide angle zoom and the 18mm pancake except they are not worth a lot now. When he is a bit older, I will pass them on to the eldest of my grandchildren and he can pass the Leica C112 point and shoot he is using at present down to the next oldest. 

Wilson

[pcgarner]

I agree with your basic premise. This should have been a Leica.

[Advertisement]

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

[David Cantor]

13 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

The new 40MP Fujifilm X100VI with a 40 MP APS C sensor and IBIS, shows what Leica, with a modicum of faith in their CL product line and a tad more courage could have ended up. The excellent L mount lenses for the CL would have easily supported a 40MP sensor and resulted in a smaller and considerably lighter camera than the Q3 I mostly use at present. With the interchangeable and zoom lens range, it would also be a lot more flexible than the Q3. An opportunity sadly missed. The absence of IBIS is the biggest problem for me as I suffer from quite severe arthritic essential tremor, which got considerably worse with long covid. 

I would sell my CL and the three lenses I have, the standard zoom, the wide angle zoom and the 18mm pancake except they are not worth a lot now. When he is a bit older, I will pass them on to the eldest of my grandchildren and he can pass the Leica C112 point and shoot he is using at present down to the next oldest. 

Wilson

I bought my CL in November 2022 from Park Cameras, presumably near you in Susses.  There were about six available at MPB.  Since then, there are fewer around and those that are seem to around 20-25% more expensive than mine.  Looks like your grandson will get an appreciating asset.

[jaapv]

There is nobody who regrets the passing of the CL more than I do, Wilson, but the X100VI is not a replacement/successor to the CL. It is more like something that the X line would have evolved into. And the X cameras, excellent as they were, appear to be unlamented in the Leica world. Your CL kit will be a great gift. 

[LocalHero1953]

I sold my CL system for a Q2, but still regret not having it from time to time.

I wonder if the problem is that the CL was most appreciated by those who already owned it, and didn't attract enough new buyers - perhaps seen as a second best option to full frame? ('Real men buy full frame').

Alongside that, I wonder if the cost of making it is not low enough to sell at an attractive entry point? On the assumption that Leica makes more money from lenses than bodies, is the cost of developing and making TL lenses significantly less than for SL lenses? I.e. could they make TL lenses at an attractive entry level price?

[Stuart Richardson]

At least from my perspective, I never considered it all that much because of the lack of high quality small lenses. I got the T and 23mm when they came out, and found that they were not at all in the same league as the full frame cameras and lenses. The 23mm I had at least was not what I would consider a Leica quality lens. Very soft on the edges, and not even particularly sharp on center. When I used M lenses on the T they were far better. Looking at the MTF, it seems like it should have been better but my copy at least was really mediocre, and this put me off the other TL lenses. Meanwhile, the other lenses that were supposed to be good were all quite large...larger than M lenses. The T itself was well made and had its charms, but was not ready for primetime (the touchscreen was slow and laggy, the interface had too little tactile feedback). The CL came along and solved nearly all the deficiencies of the body, but L mount never got the compact high quality lenses to really differentiate it from full sized cameras. Meanwhile, if you look at something like the Ricoh GR series, they managed to make two exceptionally sharp lenses that hold that sharpness across the entire frame, have no CA or anything, and they do it with a camera that can literally fit in a jeans pocket. For me at least that is what killed the APS L mount -- it was too big to be compact and not small enough to entice people down from full frame. This is my own bias, but perhaps shared by others?

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Stuart Richardson I share your observation that the complete TL line including the CL is/was handicapped by the lenses designed for it. On the one hand they made a beautiful and very compact APS-C camera like the TL and then all you have to choose from as a compact lens is the 18mm F2.8 pancake and 23mm F2.0. All other lenses for the TL are so large and heavy that they completely annihilate any size or weight advantage that you have over a FF M.
On my TL2, I prefer using small Leica lenses like the Summicron 35mm M or a small 28mm M in stead of the native Summilux 35 TL. The latter has very good IQ but I often leave it at home for the much smaller Summicron 35.

An other major hiccup was the firmware. Even now, almost 10 years after the launch of the T, it is very easy to get into trouble because of inconsistencies and what some might call bugs, but I would rather describe as inconsistent software design.

An other IMO stupid thing to do is to name it CL. There was a CL, and it is now over 40 years old, but far from forgotten, except for Leica's marketing boys. They should at least have considered naming it CL2

A new TL3 or CL2 could have solved this maybe, but the market seems to evolve to very compact FF bodies. That and some other considerations were probably the reason for killing the TL line. I hope Leica has something in the pipeline that will fill the gap of the CL and TL2, hopefully a very compact FF solution with L mount...

[LocalHero1953]

I was also dissatisfied with the 18 and 23, but found the 35 and 60 to be excellent, and the 11-23 was acceptable - those were my regulars: the 18-56 did not find much use later on. 

The CL was more than just a TL2 (which I also had) with an EVF. I preferred the colours and, especially, live view had less lag. 

Edited February 24 by LocalHero1953

[PeterGA]

Highly recommended as a tele extender - especially for the 90-280 

 

 

 

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!

[Le Chef]

I still enjoy using the TL 55-135 lens with my CL. It’s easy to focus manually on fast moving objects and not that heavy.

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!

[wlaidlaw]

I use the Panasonic L 70-200 OIS Pro on my CL (I find the combination with my SL on the heavy side) and it is a lot better than the 55-135, where I suspect I had a poor example. My first 18-56 was also not very good and the body died after a couple of months (lens release fell down inside the body and jammed the lens, so Leica replaced the whole kit). The second 18-56 is a whole lot better. I part exchanged the indifferent 55-135 whose autofocus was very laggy for the Panasonic, whose AF is lightning fast and the OIS works very well on the CL, especially with my shaky hands. If I have passed it on to my grandson and go on a trip where a long lens would be beneficial, I would borrow the CL back to use with the Panasonic 70-200. 

Wilson

[jaapv]

Actually I am quite happy with the 18-56 and 55-135, true Leica quality.  The 18 does not go beyond decent, but is redeemed by its size. For the rest: M lenses. 

 

[Foxtwo]

I agree, but don’t believe that Leica could make such a camera profitably. The difference of course, is that Leica’s pricing on such a camera would have made it uncompetitive compared to the X100VI. The problem with the CL, if we dare to be objective, isn’t the performance of the camera, it is Leica’s pricing limits the market. 

Fujifilm reportedly built a new factory in China to build the X100VI in order to avoid the problems they had in delivering the X100V. Leica isn’t interested in doing what it would take to compete. The price on the X100VI is creeping up, but it’s still well below what Leica would have to charge. At least we’ll have an option if and when our CL’s begin to falter. I hope that’s a long, long time from now.

 

[lct]

I used the CL as a crop digital back for M lenses so a camera like the Sigma FPL in crop mode could interest me but fixed lens cameras like Fuji X100 series are not my cup of tea. I did like the Fuji X-E2 that i used the same way with M lenses but it could not compete with the CL that i still use with pleasure when i need a compact camera. FWIW.

[Einst_Stein]

I suspect a Leica discontinued TL/CL line exactly for its potential popularity. 
Leica simply does not have the manufacturing capability to support the potential demand.

[wlaidlaw]

Panasonic would probably have been happy to make an updated CL for Leica, just like they did in the past. I have recently just bought a Panasonic TZ-200D as a pocketable super-zoom point and shoot, effectively identical to the now discontinued C-Lux. I got an unused but open box item for £500, about 57% of the RRP of a C-Lux. I needed a super zoom as my built in zoom of legs and feet to reframe, no longer work properly. 

Wilson

[Einst_Stein]

I had a vague impression that Leica/Panasonic/Sigma SL cooperation limited to FF, APS-C is not included.  This should imply Leica did not want FF/APS-C competition without Leica.

[wlaidlaw]

If Leica does not have the manufacturing capacity for an additional camera line (APS-C), which I wholly understand but there is a demand from Leica customers for just such a camera, as was patently obvious from the howls of protest when Leica dropped APS-C like a hot brick, it would seem the height of stupidity not to investigate other means of production of such a camera. It is not as if they have not done this in the past with Panasonic. In that Panasonic does not make any APS-C cameras (their small sensor range are either MFT or otherwise mostly 1" sensor), it would not be competing with Panasonic products, as it would also only be sold through Leica dealers. Given that Sony seems happy to sell sensors to everyone and their uncle, they might even give Leica access to their latest (not yet released) 40MP stacked sensor in APS-C. Did not Panasonic make the APS-C lenses? 

Wilson

Edited February 25 by wlaidlaw

[Stephen.s1]

FWIW I just sold my X100V.  My order for a X100VI is in the pipeline.  It's a shame Leica didn't build something like that.  I'll give 'em a shot at building a modern M 12 based on my wish for an up to date EV.

Cheers

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[dsalamena]

I sold all my L mount cameras (CL and Sl2) but still holding on TL lenses. The 35, 60 and 11-23 in my opinion offer excellent image quality in a reasonable package of weight and size. I also liked the 55-135 and, for its size and convenience, the 18-56. Full frame L mount lenses are probably even better, but their size and weight would discourage me to use them outside home. So for me they are useless. I’m still waiting for a small sized camera (full frame or crop, it doesn’t matter) where I can use these lenses with decent autofocus and ibis. Something like a Q (or a Fuji XT) with L mount.