Leica CL Sensor - is it as good as the SL2-S?

[NightPix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm seriously considering picking up a CL to use primarily with my M lenses. I want a small kit that's fun to use. I can't use an M rangefinder because of my eyesight. My SL2's are great for work tasks, but just too big and heavy for casual use. The CL gives me the interchangeable lenses that I don't get with my Q3. I love the output of my 24 MP SL2-S with M lenses, and I'm hoping I can get something pretty close from a CL.  I'd appreciate any thoughts on how the images from these camera's might compare when used with M-lenses (low light, colors, dynamic range, noise, etc.). Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[KitW]

I don't know how other people feel about it, but I've never enjoyed using manual focus on the CL. This would put me off, rather than concerns about image quality.

[LocalHero1953]

In answer to your thread title question: no. I owned the CL and now own a SL2-S. That doesn't make the CL sensor bad - it just doesn't have the low light noise and colour performance of the SL2-S sensor (without going back through my archive I estimate at least 2 stops difference). I replaced the CL with a Q2, and now Q3 43, but I would still happily use a CL for the same purposes: a light versatile camera for travel and social stuff. 

[wda]

11 hours ago, NightPix said:

I'm seriously considering picking up a CL to use primarily with my M lenses. I want a small kit that's fun to use. I can't use an M rangefinder because of my eyesight. My SL2's are great for work tasks, but just too big and heavy for casual use. The CL gives me the interchangeable lenses that I don't get with my Q3. I love the output of my 24 MP SL2-S with M lenses, and I'm hoping I can get something pretty close from a CL.  I'd appreciate any thoughts on how the images from these camera's might compare when used with M-lenses (low light, colors, dynamic range, noise, etc.). Thanks!

I think you would given that the output is for non-critical private work. Just remember the crop factor when selecting focal lengths. As for performance in low light, I mentioned this in my article published here https://david2008.photium.com/using-the-leica-cl 

With modern noise reduction software, you would hardly notice the difference. And yes, it would still be fun to use in many scenarios.

[NightPix]

7 hours ago, wda said:

I think you would given that the output is for non-critical private work. Just remember the crop factor when selecting focal lengths. As for performance in low light, I mentioned this in my article published here https://david2008.photium.com/using-the-leica-cl 

With modern noise reduction software, you would hardly notice the difference. And yes, it would still be fun to use in many scenarios.

Thanks for the reference to your great article. It was nice to see all in one place a lot of the info about the CL I have picked up from here and there, all from the perspective of someone who uses the camera regularly as opposed to simply reviewing it after a few days of use.

[Dazzajl]

Will it be as 'good'? No

Will you care? Also no.

The CL still has a massive following, mostly amongst people that have bigger and supposedly better options to hand as well. Their value seems to hold steady month on month so there's little to loose in finding out for yourself. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, NightPix said:

I'm seriously considering picking up a CL to use primarily with my M lenses. I want a small kit that's fun to use. I can't use an M rangefinder because of my eyesight. My SL2's are great for work tasks, but just too big and heavy for casual use. The CL gives me the interchangeable lenses that I don't get with my Q3. I love the output of my 24 MP SL2-S with M lenses, and I'm hoping I can get something pretty close from a CL.  I'd appreciate any thoughts on how the images from these camera's might compare when used with M-lenses (low light, colors, dynamic range, noise, etc.). Thanks!

All these sensors are better for normal photography  than we need in varying degrees; You will be quite happy with the CL. There is a smaller angle of view, though. People are still happily using the M8, obsolete as it may be...

[Torpille]

The CL is a joy to use.  
The TL lenses are very good and if you love to shoot M lenses on the sl2-s then perfect you will love them on the CL. 
I am not a huge fan of M lenses on the SL. It don’t work properly for my. 
but 
i.e Summilux 35 fle on the CL is prefect. 
IQ is 10/10 to the TL35. 
with the CL you will get flexibility a very small package and with the right lenses 9/10 IQ of the SL. 

[DenverSteve]

Good in what way? As good to make you want to keep it around your neck for what comes up? As good so you can't wait to see the photos? As good that no one will ask you why the CL and not an SL2?..... All yes.  Sharp? yep. Good enough that you will grab it instead of a Q3 or M11 or.......?  Sure.  Great to shoot with? yep.  Wonderful to hold? You bet. Here are a couple grabbed at random.  Sometimes it's not about pixels and numbers.........

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!

[DenverSteve]

Or. 

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!

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Another CL fan, I use M lenses with the camera and find with focus peaking manual focus is no problem. The one CL lens I wouldn't be without is the 11-23 zoom, a fantastic lens, as is the 35 TL but that lens is too large, I prefer my 35 preasph Summilux, though it probably isn't quite as good, it is a great package on the CL. Low light maybe an issue depending on how far you want to go, ISO 1600 is OK, 3200 and up you may want to use a noise reduction app. 

[Guytou]

2 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

... Le seul objectif CL dont je ne pourrais me passer est le zoom 11-23, un objectif fantastique.... 

Hello,

I just bought a used one in like-new condition and complete, with a one-year warranty (from MPB).
I received it today and I'm delighted. Now all I have to do is take some photos.

GuyM

[lawman]

On 8/25/2025 at 8:44 PM, DenverSteve said:

Or. 

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!

Nice photos - what lens (es) did you use with the CL?  Thanks, Larry

[DenverSteve]

Thank you.  These are all done with the 18-56.

[AdjusterBrett]

I do NOT have a CL (was asleep at the end, when they had it with the bonus of the lens for the same price - ugh)...

I do HAVE both the SL and the TL2.  I also have the Visoflex typ020 EVF for the TL2.  In my current HERD of ILCs is the Lumix S1, Fuji X-T1, X-T2, X-T4, X-T100.  I've been through Sony as well (A7R2, A7III), and played catch and release with the SL2-S.  I have >200 vintage (manual) lenses, and shoot 75% vintage / 25% manual.

I AM a weekend hack / proud dad - in his tenth year of this journey (referred to as the 'collectorship' by his wife).  I am NOT a Leica fanboy - I buy and use based on what I feel.

Handling: hands down (no pun) the SL - so far above and beyond even the SL2-S (that I returned it).  Honorable mentions are the SL2-S (clean) and the X-T2 (dials, wonderful dials), and even perhaps the TL2 (as if Apple themselves designed it - simple and easy).

EVF: The SL2-S is 'claimed' to have a better EVF and on paper so does the S1 - but in practice - the SL wins by a significant margin.  The SL2-S and the S1 are pretty nice - and the Focus Peaking actually WORKS on the Panasonic and the Fuji's is even better- the Leica's is worthless when framing (at least my experience on the TL2, SL, and couple weeks with an SL2S) - but can be seen clearly when viewing the photo (after the fact).  I will also mention I get lots of hits with the TL2 /Visoflex - it's clear, it's crisp, it's functional but feels like it's nowhere as sturdy.  I WAS really amazed at the Visoflex considering the age - but you will be focusing by view NOT peaking.  The X-T2 manages well here as well - it's ENOUGH to get the job done as its peaking is much better.  The X-T4 works well but lost some of its soul from the lesser beasts - but has IBIS and an improved EVF.

Menus - the TL2 absolutely blows away everything in the list.  In second is the SL - and although too many will say I'm smoking something - I much preferred the SL over the SL2S for handling, menus, EVF, and OUTPUT.

Size...   The SL IS BIG - like your SL2S - but in hand it's nowhere as hefty and heavy as the S1.  The TL2 wins here hands down - its sleek, its cool, its possible to focus off the back screen in a pinch.  HOWEVER - add the EVF (visoflex) and because of the cost and the feel - you will be worried about it hitting something.  Alternatively - the S1 or the SL bashes into a door with a heavy lens - I'm more concerned about the owner wanting reimbursement for the damage it caused...  The X-T2 is a nice compromise (sans the extra batteries in your pocket).

I have pandered the question before -  "has anyone had both the CL and the VisoFlex typ020 on the TL2 - comparison?" and NEVER had a response.  I have had the thought of buying one for years - but it's exactly the reason you seek it that kept me from buying it - the EVF.  I've played in a store with one - side by side with the TL2/Viso (with a native lens) - and that sealed it for me - kept the TL2/Viso, as the CL simply did not impress - granted - under Fluorescent lights in a showroom - but I've several bodies whose EVF's blow it away - and from my LIMITED take - the TL2  with the visoflex was more responsive and crisper (keep in mind - this was a 5 minutes comparison only).

ALL SAID, you may be better off - if your current M is compatible - just trying the visoflex.  Although the fanboys of the world will tell you that focus peaking on a Leica is functional - I'd argue it is NOT ( I too have old eyes, and the NEED for crisp/clear/high magnification to achieve focus).  Further - as I know its coming - I would put the output of the X-T2 above the average - as I have never said "darn, wish I would have taken that with the TL2".  The X-T2 basic handling is very good and the output is well above the average for APS-C.  

Opposing - if your eyesight is at a point that the rangefinder is failing you - the EVF on the CL isn't likely to provide much (nor the visoflex) as both will be LACKING realistic focus peaking vs others.  As AWESOME as I claim the SL to be - I can grab focus on an X-T2 with the same lens faster, period.

I'm NOT here to preach, just impart some experiences I've had - as unlike you - I'm usually focusing some dated and abused lens from the 60 or 70s that was mass produced - not a Leica - thereby - for me - the EVF was always exceedingly important - and from that - I was absolutely surprised at the usability of the VisoFlex on the TL2, but fully acknowledge the usefulness of an X-T2.  Today I'm all L mount so the fuji's are soon to be released back in the wild, but I don't mind the boat anchor around my neck (SL), so size was never a factor.  I do often take the TL2 and either the pana 20-60 or 50/1.8 and one other vintage in a small pack - still LOVE using that thing.

$0.02 from the cheap seats in the dark side, hopefully something useful for you.

[LocalHero1953]

35 minutes ago, AdjusterBrett said:

I have pandered the question before -  "has anyone had both the CL and the VisoFlex typ020 on the TL2 - comparison?" and NEVER had a response.

You didn't ask me!🙂

I have owned the CL, SL and SL2-S for long periods, the TL2 twice for a number of months each, and the SL2 for 4 months.

The Visoflex on the TL2 is much more laggy than the EVF on the CL (so was the LCD on the TL2). The SL was quicker than the CL, and the SL2-S quicker than the SL. This is vital if you're looking for the decisive moment. I haven't used M lenses routinely on any of these bodies to comment on focusing aids.

I find your conclusion that the EVF on the SL is better than that on the SL2-S by a significant margin to be..........well, I would just say, not in my experience.

Edited September 19 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Nor mine - Is use them side by side and I always have to adjust to the lesser (but still quite good) SL sensor. 

[Chris W]

I owned the CL for a while, also an SL and an SL2-S. The SL2-S is the best of them. I didn't like the SL at all, maybe I had a bad example.

The CL is a very nice camera for what it is. For me it's one of the best EDC cameras. CL images are crisp with nice colours. Zooming in to 100% you star to see its limitations, although no one is going to zoom in in real life. The SL2-S is a better camera, but the CL is no slouch and very small to carry around.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AdjusterBrett]

7 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You didn't ask me!🙂

I have owned the CL, SL and SL2-S for long periods, the TL2 twice for a number of months each, and the SL2 for 4 months.

The Visoflex on the TL2 is much more laggy than the EVF on the CL (so was the LCD on the TL2). The SL was quicker than the CL, and the SL2-S quicker than the SL. This is vital if you're looking for the decisive moment. I haven't used M lenses routinely on any of these bodies to comment on focusing aids.

I find your conclusion that the EVF on the SL is better than that on the SL2-S by a significant margin to be..........well, I would just say, not in my experience.

Huh...   I shot tonight with all three cameras (under a tent in daylight - and towards the end I played with two manual lenses - large church festival - dancing daughter - and family shots at the end).  

On a pancolar 50/2 Exacta with the thingy out the side that allowed for focusing / aperture - it's a clunky zebra lens than isn't in pristine shape making critical focus a challenge.  The second was my topcor 58/1.4 - a rather pesky one to get the focus as well.

I have (and always had) the EVF set to B/W - find with my eyes it manages better to get the eyes in focus.  Same is true on all three bodies.  I learned on a Fuji split screen big framed image with imposed blow up just to the right - loved that view).

Most are shot pretty close (inside 6 feet) from subject.

SL - no issues - able to zoom into the eye and clear the focus.  

S1 - on paper it has a better EVF (or at least it is claimed - and sure seems the exact EVF as the SL2S and many others) - it was OK, but I missed more on it than on the SL and TL2.

TL2 - and one thing I just thought of (I may have discovered I'm an idiot) - so while I'm swapping the same lens between these bodies - the APS-C of the TL2 / Viso - wouldn't it be displaying 75mm vs 50mm???  May account for why it seems so crisp and clean to me.  

As for the lag - I don't have the issue.  Then again - the mass majority of what I shoot is static - not moving.   I tried four of them before I settled on one - testing each with a pany 50/1.8 and then looking at it on the iPad...  The visoflex I paid through the nose for - perhaps I just got good copies - or (more likely) my 'style' is just not that demanding.  I'm pretty fast with my X-T2 (faster than the SL as it displays the superimposed zoom over the framing) - but in a case where its critical to grab and get - manually focusing seems an unnecessary hurdle.  Again - just a weekend hack...

When I had the SL2S I played with it side by side with both the SL and the S1.  My S1 has stayed around because of the multishot, the 6K photos, and most of all - its low light/high ISO results.  For me - the 6K was a way to cheat the bad AF and still get pretty decent images and the multishot was a way to combat the higher res when needed.  Neither was on the SL2S (or not that I found), and I didn't notice any significant difference in low light/high ISO.  I shot some long lenses (250/2.8 and 400/4) and fund the IBIS was about the same.  I shot a ton of my nemesis an FL58/1.2 - not a friendly focuser - and found better hit rate on the SL, and the S1/SL2S about the same.  I paid the price at that time and just could not see a reason to keep it.  However - as prices have come down (more than half in the used market) - its always in the back of my mind, as the S1 is not a friendly camera (menus after menus after options after options, when I just want to shoot).  The only thing it has going for it - is its bullet proof - but like an armored car - it lets you know this around your neck.  The current price of the SL2S is what has kept me from an S1RII.  No matter how hard they try, Lumix will always be hindered by too much functionality and not enough time to actually figure it all out before you start shooting.  The SL kept me from keeping it the first time, and now years past - its likely to be the reason I buy one (as shooting the SL vs the S1, even with native - really puts things into perspective).  I need the low light more than the added resolution of the SL2, hence the reason the S1RII is so attractive.

In this instance (original thread) picking up CL will cost about 2 grand or so.  Picking up a visoflex (assuming he has an m10, don't know) would cost 200-400 and easily flipped.  If on a static subject he has issue focusing via the visoflex on the M - then the CL isn't going to make much difference.  I have a friend/acquaintance in Tampa who is responsible for this habit of mine.  He IS a fanboy, but not just Leica - Hasselblad, Sony, all the latest and greatest - most of his 'things' well outside of my realm but he can afford to heat his house burning 100 dollar bills.  I've used his m10 with a lux on it - and popped my Viso on there - found the auto zoom pretty cool, considering my rudimentary capabilities with a rangefinder.  He was the influence - he simply said - buy one (Leica) and you will understand - then if you don't like - flip it.  He was right, as the SL will be pried out of my dead hands - although it lacks IBIS, low light, etc - during daylight with mostly static shots with vintage - it's my favorite.  Honestly, I'm probably holding out for the Leica version of the S1RII - 40ish mp, great low light, and Leica simplicity.

Alternative (and the very best way) is to take his (HIS) favorite lens in to a store with a CL and play - NEVER use their lens, use your own.  If you can grab focus on it - then you have your solution - but on paper - if the eyes are struggling with the rangefinder (mine did, as did my brain as well) - then a low spec EVF may not work.

[LocalHero1953]

Sorry, TL/DR. 
I just note that you shoot mainly static subjects, so I'm not surprised EVF lag is not an issue for you. In any case, lag is an electronics issue, not a build quality issue, so I doubt it differs between different boxes. I also note that you did not have the SL2-S for long.

We'll just have to accept different experiences and leave the OP to judge. If they're not shooting moving subjects then it may be a non-issue.