Replace a CL with a SL3?

[yst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone used a CL body and now with a SL3 body? Is the image quality drastically better? Larger exposure latitude?  How do you feel the difference? Worth to change from a CL to a SL3? (use the same TL lenses) 

[Advertisement]

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

[Coral Palm]

Yes I have used both, much prefer the SL3 for assorted reasons. First it is some years down the line from a CL so everything bound to be improved--image quality, autofocus, ... The SL series just always felt better in my hands, the CL seemed tiny. I have always used the toggle switch on my SL's to move the focus point and then to focus, using the shutter release button for only that. If I recall was not able to do that on the CL.  Where I did like it was the extra reach it gave me. Once some years back trying to photograph penguins with chicks it was a bit far away for the 90-280mm. I just pulled out the tiny CL from the camera bag, attached the lens, and voila had a longer telephoto. I never have put the TL lenses on my SL's, just M lenses and the SL lenses. Anyway gave the camera to the wife who pretty much never uses it anymore just her iPhone. She did say she would lend it to me again as she had when I took it to Antarctica for the penguins--so considerate of her. hah hah

[colonel]

5 hours ago, yst said:

Anyone used a CL body and now with a SL3 body? Is the image quality drastically better? Larger exposure latitude?  How do you feel the difference? Worth to change from a CL to a SL3? (use the same TL lenses) 

well I had the CL. As Coral Palm has said

It is a quantum leap in IQ. But you also have OIS and so many other advantages. The main 2 things to think about is that it is heaver and that to really justify the capability of the SL3 you need to have top lenses. They don't need to be the most expensive, and some of them are Sigma, but you need to do your research and not compromise on the lens sharpness IMHO !!!!

[jaapv]

There is absolutely no need to have top lenses whatever that may be. The better the camera the better your preferred lenses will perform. It is NOT a weakest link situation but an additive one. 
When you switch to a high megapixel camera consider that more megapixels do not necessarily equate to better quality. It depends on the use you put the camera to. You are coming from an excellent APS C 24 MP camera which delivers high quality images. Consider whether another 24 MP camera of higher level would not give optimal results without the drawbacks of a high resolution camera  - enhanced blur, demand for more precise focusing, worse handholdability, etc. Consider an SL3S 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Seems most missed you'll be using the same lenses.

IQ will be almost identical. 26MP (SL3) won't make a big difference. What you'll get is in other areas.

* IBIS. This is the big one.

* Customisation.

* Ability to also use L (24x36mm) lenses.

* Improved use of M lenses.

* More modern and improved Leica menus and interface.

* Improved video functionality

* Flip screen and joystick.

* somewhat improved AF.

Gordon

[yst]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

There is absolutely no need to have top lenses whatever that may be. The better the camera the better your preferred lenses will perform. It is NOT a weakest link situation but an additive one. 
When you switch to a high megapixel camera consider that more megapixels do not necessarily equate to better quality. It depends on the use you put the camera to. You are coming from an excellent APS C 24 MP camera which delivers high quality images. Consider whether another 24 MP camera of higher level would not give optimal results without the drawbacks of a high resolution camera  - enhanced blur, demand for more precise focusing, worse handholdability, etc. Consider an SL3S 

Thank you 🙏.    I know you are excellent with the use of Leica CL system…  Though do you still think the CL body is still a good capable camera?

What does that mean:   “Consider whether another 24 MP camera of higher level would not give optimal results without the drawbacks of a high resolution camera  - enhanced blur, demand for more precise focusing, worse handholdability, etc.” ? 

Also if intent to use the only two TL lenses (35f1.4 TL, 55-135 TL) I have, then it’s better to be on a SL3 (left 26 MP), than on a SL3-s ( left 10.7 MP)?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The last is true. But I must confess that I keep the 18-56 and 55-135 with the CL as a complete lightweight system.  I bought an SL2S as heavy-duty camera as I regard the SL2 and SL3 as specialist cameras that I have no reason to own. I don’t want or need more than 24 MP to get (far more than) the quality I need. For the money saved I got the Sigma 35 1.8,( virtually identical to the Summicron) and the Sigma 70-200 which IMO rivals or even betters anything Leica offers. To have at least one Leica SL lens I got a Summicron SL 50 LNIB which is nice for one camera-one lens use. If I want to go simple the 35 and 50, if I want to go full range the 70-200, 35 and my near-vintage Summilux-M 24. I find that this covers about everything I want when not traveling at a superb IQ. For little more than I would have spent on an SL3. 
 

I do not believe in more than about 24 MP for general photography. The drawbacks mentioned above plus the heavy demands on my postprocessing,time,  especially AI evolutions, make ik far more of a burden than the 1? % increase in IQ that I might score. I would most certainly not see it in print or looking at the image on any screen except at 100%. 

[jaapv]

New post for clarity.

I think in sets for a purpose  when deciding on cameras.

For home use I have the SL2S with three lenses: 35, 50, 70-200; SL SL601 as backup or beatup (😉), Summilux 24 M as "roving" indoor lens and CL+18-56 and 55-135 for lightweight use. 

For travel SL2S with Sigma 28-70. 2.8, Sigma 70-200,Sigma 150-600 (wildlife) 1.4x, Panasonic S5ii  and CL body as backup. I may take sone or two of the "home" lenses.

For "Art" M9 Monochrome, M9 and a choice of an eclectic collection of M lenses that I gathered over the years.

And then, I suppose like many of us, a full cupboard of dusty gear that "I might want to use sometime" or bought on a whim or made redundant and am too lazy to sell.

And analog and vintage cameras for fun, but rarely used. 

 

But I stopped chasing some holy grail of excellence that will always be obsolete, thus a 60 MP camera or one that can sit, wag its tail and beg for cookies is not something that I want or need.

 

[yst]

24 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The last is true. But I must confess that I keep the 18-56 and 55-135 with the CL as a complete lightweight system.  I bought an SL2S as heavy-duty camera as I regard the SL2 and SL3 as specialist cameras that I have no reason to own. I don’t want or need more than 24 MP to get (far more than) the quality I need. For the money saved I got the Sigma 35 1.8,( virtually identical to the Summicron) and the Sigma 70-200 which IMO rivals or even betters anything Leica offers. To have at least one Leica SL lens I got a Summicron SL 50 LNIB. If I want to go simple the 35 and 50, if I want to go full range the 70-200, 35 and my near-vintage Summilux-M 24. I find that this covers everything I want when not traveling at a superb IQ. For little more than I would have spent on an SL3. 
 

I do not believe in more than about 24 MP for general photography. The drawbacks mentioned above plus the heavy demands on my postprocessing,time,  especially AI evolutions, make ik far more of a burden than the 1? % increase in IQ that I might score. I would most certainly not see it in print or looking at the image on any screen except at 100%. 

Thank you.   Therefore you think the CL is still capable enough ...   Though what do you think of:  “The Leica SL3 with a dynamic range of 15 stops, vs Leica CL 

dynamic range of approximately 14 stops” ?  How important is that one stop dynamic range larger for difficult lightings? Or difference could make?

[o2mpx]

27 minutes ago, jaapv said:

New post for clarity.

I think in sets for a purpose  when deciding on cameras.….. 

…….But I stopped chasing some holy grail of excellence that will always be obsolete, thus a 60 MP camera or one that can sit up and beg for cookies is not something that I want or need.

 

Agree with the approach of purpose driven camera sets. 

Note that travel landscapes at mid aperture is all that I take (and most often can’t zoom with my feet):

Have kept the CL set with the 3 native zooms for a lightweight carry set that provides focal range coverage. However, recently acquired used Sony A7Riva with 20-60/70-200+1.4 TC native lenses to provide better resolution when cropping is needed for decent residual file size.

Retained the SL2, didn’t upgrade to SL3 but instead sold the 16-35/24-90 Leica zooms to fund the Sony set, but also acquired Sigma 16-28/24-70MkII and 90mm. And for M lenses  

Will never part with the M10-R set for “serious” photo outings…

 

[jaapv]

40 minutes ago, yst said:

Thank you.   Therefore you think the CL is still capable enough ...   Though what do you think of:  “The Leica SL3 with a dynamic range of 15 stops, vs Leica CL 

dynamic range of approximately 14 stops” ?  How important is that one stop dynamic range larger for difficult lightings? Or difference could make?

I challenge you to see the difference between 14 and 15 stops of dynamic range   I used slide film for decades wirhout even considering the.Dynamic Range ( 5 stops max) and to this day cannot fault the results. 
To summarize an answer: totally irrelevant in real life.  
 

To come back to your original question: If you have fallen in love with the SL3 by all means go for it but I see CL lenses on it not as a mainstream use. I would buy on of the exceedingly affordable SL2S cameras that are around presently or if you must an SL 2 and build a nice set of lenses for the money you save. Keep the CL for lightweight and backup use  or trade the set for another lens, or, just keep going with the CL; there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

[Einst_Stein]

To put the long words short:
If you are on that route, you might find yourself better off to to use SLx with SLx lenses and CL to use CL lenses.

[Rmccoole]

I don’t think I saw any previous responses mention the weather proofing (or whatever Leica calls it) on the SL3 that’s not on the CL. I have a CL, SL2 and SL3 and love having the CL for travel back-up.

 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Rmccoole said:

or whatever Leica calls it

With Leica it is an IP rating (IP54)

[Einst_Stein]

Weatherproof is nice to have, whatever the rating, but no weatherproof has never been a deal breaker. 

A simple transparent plastic bag will do. A cheap plastic bag designed for such purpose is better (check B&H or Adorama or similar). I use it even with weatherproof cameras.   

[yst]

21 hours ago, jaapv said:

I challenge you to see the difference between 14 and 15 stops of dynamic range   I used slide film for decades wirhout even considering the.Dynamic Range ( 5 stops max) and to this day cannot fault the results. 
To summarize an answer: totally irrelevant in real life.  
 

To come back to your original question: If you have fallen in love with the SL3 by all means go for it but I see CL lenses on it not as a mainstream use. I would buy on of the exceedingly affordable SL2S cameras that are around presently or if you must an SL 2 and build a nice set of lenses for the money you save. Keep the CL for lightweight and backup use  or trade the set for another lens, or, just keep going with the CL; there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Thanks for making me feel more confident about the CL ...   

now with the 35f1.4 TL & the 55-135 TL, the wide side I’m only having the 24 mm end of a Leica D-Lux 7… do you see if is enough?

[Einst_Stein]

28 minutes ago, yst said:

Thanks for making me feel more confident about the CL ...   

now with the 35f1.4 TL & the 55-135 TL, the wide side I’m only having the 24 mm end of a Leica D-Lux 7… do you see if is enough?

If you are looking for full spectrum of usage that only you know what it is, or, possible you are developing (me have been there), then enjoy whatever you have till you find what you have is not enough. Alternatively, if money is not issue, you can buy all three CL zooms (12-23mm, 18-56mm, 55-135mm). They are all second to none. You are going to like them.

As for DL7, I don't think it is supposed to be the primary camera if you are serious about photography. It is going to be your "always carry on", but you might find it i9s always short of something. Here I am talking about the Leica World. 

As for the wide-angle lens, this is my personal take, YMMV. I find 28mm is as wide as I would like for most people and landscape. 24mm s kind of awkward, it is not wide enough when I really need to cover the wide angle, such as inside a cathedral or palace, or in front of a beautify architecture but too close that has not enough lead room, at the same time, it has a weird prospect that always looks as if I am not proper leveled, unless I shoot the main object squarely.  For these occasions, I find jumping to around 15~17mm works much better. In short, I find very little use between 17~28mm.  This is where CL 11-23mm really shines. No, SL 16~35mm is not the same, it's too big to carry around unless it is the only lens I want to carry.

So, I see CL + 11-23mm + 18-56mm not replaceable by all means, not even SL3.

55-135mm? I am not so sure. I don't shoot wild-life or bird with Leica. That will be my Nikon D850's job.

[jaapv]

I agree with your general thoughts but disagree with some of the specifics. For me the 24 is an ideal wideangle   The 28 too close to 35, the 21 too awkward. In that case better a 18 for my photography. The 70-200 AKA 55-135 CL is a very versatile focal length, not wildlife( although I use it as a wildlife “wideangle “  I treat it like a lens that goes from near standard through  portrait to short Tele for detail. For that reason it is popular with wedding and event photographers. I often use it as standard zoom with a 35 in my pocket. Everybody has his own preference. 
 

OP:  Ask yourself if there is anything in your photography that justifies the replacement of your CL. Can you expect better photos by investing not inconsiderable amounts of money?  Or is it simply the desire for something new, a shiny bauble? The only drawback the CL has is its curtailed service future. 
It is not for nothing that mine looks like this:

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[colonel]

I agree with Einst_stein. I really think there is no point spending the money on an SL3 and not getting the top lenses. It certainly isn't worth buying one for APS-C TL lenses.

Sorry if it seems blunt. If you have plans to buy good FF lenses soon then that is different. 

There is a significant noticeable difference to me between dynamic range and detail on the 60mp FF sensor vs the older generation 24mp APS-C one. 

Whether the difference means something to you, based on your editing and viewing preferences, is something else.

I am also happy with the IQ of the D-lux 8 under many circumstances.

Buying an SL3 makes sense when striving for top FF IQ and Leica handling for commercial cameras. If this is not your goal, stay with the CL. Which has good IQ.

Edited March 30 by colonel

[jaapv]

MP does not determine DR. It does affect detail obviously but that is only visible in certain scenarios. For general photography 60 MP is overkill. The next generation clearly does make a difference but don’t forget that the combination of Sony manufacturing and Leica tweaking made the CL sensor arguably the best APSC sensor on the market. (24 MP on an APSC sensor makes approximately the same pixel density as 60 MP on FF. )