Does the digital CL feel like a "real" Leica?

[Emile de Leon]

A lot of us older guys consider the CL..as it has the Leica vibes...ie..luxury..
..but w/older eyesight going south.. the M focusing gets less use...and weight issues as well... as in...who wants to carry a brick around..
..I definitely considered the CL for awhile..but no flippy screen..no deal..as I do a lot of low angle shots and don't want to strain my back..

 

[aizan]

This thread might point to the unmet demand for a full frame M-mount camera with a rangefinder-style EVF. Beside the mechanical simplicity, it would probably sell in greater volume and cost less as a result.

 

[colker]

This thread might point to the unmet demand for a full frame M-mount camera with a rangefinder-style EVF. Beside the mechanical simplicity, it would probably sell in greater volume and cost less as a result.

"Full frame sensor" and "cost less" should not be in the same paragraph.

Full frame goes well w/ full wallet.

 

[jsrockit]

This thread might point to the unmet demand for a full frame M-mount camera with a rangefinder-style EVF. Beside the mechanical simplicity, it would probably sell in greater volume and cost less as a result.

Keep dreaming about it costing less...

 

[ptpdprinter]

"Full frame sensor" and "cost less" should not be in the same paragraph. Full frame goes well w/ full wallet.

There are a number of FF mirrorless cameras less expensive than the CL. Canon, Nikon, Sony and others make them. Making a FF EVF M mount at a price lower than the CL is certainly possible. It won't come from Leica though. They are not interested. They target a different market segment. There have long been rumors of an M mount Q. One was rumored to be released last June, but that obviously didn't happen. It won't be cheap when it does arrive.

 

[Huss]

Hmmmm, my Sony A6000 has an APS-C sensor, can use M-mount lenses (with an adapter), and costs a tiny fraction of what a digital CL might cost. But it doesn't "feel" like a "real" Leica. Better probably, because the Sony has a useable handgrip which makes handholding infinitely more comfortable and secure than the usual bar-of-soap shape Leica is forever married to for all its cameras.

I’ve used both the Sony 6300 ( i think) and the CL and the CL is so much nicer to hold and use with much better haptics that there is no comparison from the luxury viewpoint. The CL was just a pleasure to use while the Sony was just a tool to use. Whether that matters is down to preference and budget.
But it should be like this as the CL is so much more expensive!

 

[aizan]

Less than a rangefinder M, maybe even less than an SL, more than a CL. You know what I mean.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This thread might point to the unmet demand for a full frame M-mount camera with a rangefinder-style EVF. Beside the mechanical simplicity, it would probably sell in greater volume and cost less as a result.

Something like Fujifilm did with thier digital MF cropper.
First they came with SLR style EVF and later on with EVF slapped into the corner.
Since Leica has camera which looks like Sony A7, they could do the same.
Both Sony and Leica. Oh!: And Canonikon. Canon could even call it as RF. 🙂.

 

[css9450]

I’ve used both the Sony 6300 ( i think) and the CL and the CL is so much nicer to hold and use with much better haptics that there is no comparison from the luxury viewpoint. The CL was just a pleasure to use while the Sony was just a tool to use. Whether that matters is down to preference and budget.

Yeah, I wasn't very impressed with the Sony zooms. I'm convinced I get better results from almost any MF lenses I put on my A6000 vs. the Sony zooms.

 

[raid]

I don't get annoyed or even excited about specific camera types or brands. Can your camera get you images that you find acceptable? This is really what matters (to me). The Leica CL digital camera is a modern digital Leica camera. Most likely, it is an excellent camera. I have never used a digital CL. The film CL felt less solid to me than my M3, so I sold it years ago.

 

[tifat]

A few background comments:

I have and use a number of nice mechanical film cameras including an M4 (since 1990). I'm fine with rangefinder focusing but I'm not as enthusiastic about it as some people.

I use normal prime lenses (35, 50 and 75eq) exclusively.

I only shoot BW (other than with a phone).

I prefer manual focus.

I'm very good at simple arithmetic (that is, I can both multiply and divide by 1.5).

I'm old enough to know that life is too short for cameras with too many buttons and convoluted menus.

With that said, I have a digital CL and use it with M lenses. I have a 35 and 50 and am working on getting a 21. I really like this camera. The finder looks great in BW. It's very easy to focus very accurately. Manually setting ISO is easy. Aperture priority works great. Exposure adjustments work great. It's the first digital camera I've had that feels completely natural. If "completely natural" is what "Leica" is about then, for me, this is a Leica.

As far as investing in TL, I feel like a CL with M lenses is a nice hedge. It seems like things a heading full frame. EVs are still getting better. I'm hoping for a CL/M/SL love child that's full frame, about the size of an M (maybe smaller) with an absolutely stunning EV. I think the odds are in my favor. (But I guess those odds would get a bit worse if I make it Monochrom without a screen).

I don't know if Leica Boston gives loaners but if you bring a memory card and spend a couple hours with the CL and an M and TL and M lenses, I think you'll get a good idea. That's what I did, they were a big help and it worked out great.

 

[Calzone]

My CL was kidnaped by my fashion blogger gal. She bought the 23 Cron TL.

I liked it as a fast shooter, love the ergonomics of the controls. The second dial for exposure compensation enhances using auto. The joystick for single point focus and exposure works for me. Pretty much all I need.

For manual focus I used the zoom function rather than focus peaking. I found zooming to be more accurate.

Now imagine mounting a Noct-Nikkor and the 58/1.2 becoming an 87/1.2 utilizing the sweet spot of a legendary lens. My 50 Lux-R "E60" is another magic lens for 75mm FOV.

Know I own a SL so I purposely bought the CL for portrait work, but my gal took ownership of the camera. Kinda reminds me of that GMC SUV commercial where the woman says, "I love it," and the guy says, "I like red."

Cal

 

[FrozenInTime]

When I saw that the SL lens roadmap was aiming for optical perfection and not going to compromise in order to reduce size, I decided the TL system was the way to retain the compactness of Leica M with the convenience of AF and zooms.

Loved the TL2 style and UI, but in practice the external EVF only really works for me with the 11-23 at all other times, it catches on the bag, so the tilt angle is not worth the size increase. The focus peaking on M lenses was also too weak for LCD only use. I still use the TL2with the 18 and 23 as a Ricoh GR replacement.

ost recently I bought a CL and use it as my main camera with a 28mm M lens or 18-56 plus 35 TL.

I do feel the CL sympathetically evolves the spirit of the original LTM/M camera and lenses better than anything else on the market.
That said a M series body with EVF only would also be on my wish list and of more interest than a M11 with optical RF when it comes time to upgrade fro:the M10.

 

[Landberg]

It does not feel like a Leica M. It feels like a mirrorless camera with good build quality. When i tested it with the 23mm the AF felt slow compared to other mirrorless systems. They may have fixed that, I hope they have.

 

[traveler_101]

It does not feel like a Leica M. It feels like a mirrorless camera with good build quality. When i tested it with the 23mm the AF felt slow compared to other mirrorless systems. They may have fixed that, I hope they have.

Also no internal stabilisation - which should make using MF lenses more difficult.

 

[Landberg]

Also no internal stabilisation - which should make using MF lenses more difficult.

Why? Leica M don’t have IS, but only MF lenses.

 

[karateisland]

Most recently I bought a CL and use it as my main camera with a 28mm M lens or 18-56 plus 35 TL.

How do you find the 35TL? It looks like a gorgeous lens, but somewhat on the bulky side. I'm intrigued, but since I'm used to my X100F and G2, a lens that size seems like it would make the camera more of a pain to carry, and less stealthy when I'm taking candids.

 

[jsrockit]

How do you find the 35TL? It looks like a gorgeous lens, but somewhat on the bulky side. I'm intrigued, but since I'm used to my X100F and G2, a lens that size seems like it would make the camera more of a pain to carry, and less stealthy when I'm taking candids.

Yep, I’m a 50mm user and the fact that that lens is so big keeps me away from the CL. Thankfully, I like the xpro2 with 35mm f2. So close to your G2 in my opinion and pretty cheap used now.

 

[Calzone]

I do feel the CL sympathetically evolves the spirit of the original LTM/M camera and lenses better than anything else on the market.
That said a M series body with EVF only would also be on my wish list and of more interest than a M11 with optical RF when it comes time to upgrade fro:the M10.

FIT,

The CL with a 28 Cron-M is a 42mm. Two clicks on the right dial and I get the magnification I need to focus fast and accurately. At tap on the shutter and I get full framing.

Rigged with a 28 Cron it is very much like a film CL with a 40 Cron. Also is sized like a LTM IMHO.

What makes the CL a great camera is that it is fun and easy to use.

BTW the 28 Cron with the limited scalloped metal hood looks evil on the CL.

Cal

 

[JohnP1]

To return to the original question: Yes!

To return to the original question: Yes!

When I was considering a camera purchase this time last year I compared the CL and the Fuji X-E3. As a Fuji owner already (X-T2) the choice seemed like a foregone conclusion, especially considering the price. However side by side in the hand the Fuji felt like a toy whilst the CL felt hewn from a solid block of metal. One deep breath later I became the owner of a CL plus 23/2 Summicron. I have since added the 18-56 & 11-23, and have not regretted my decision for one minute.

Regarding M mount lenses and others, just about anything is possible with the correct adaptor. I have used several Leica M lenses, a 60/2.8 macro R, a Voigtlander 28/3.5 and some Olympus OM's. My experience is none of these lenses work particularly well at or near full aperture, but some are better than others. Best of the bunch are the Voigtlander 28/3.5, Leica 60/2.8 and Olympus 200/4. I think of manual focus lenses on the CL as a bit of fun. Best by far to use native lenses. Whilst the argument over crop factor goes against wide angle lenses, it works in favour of longer focal lengths. My 200/4 OM makes a very handy 300/4 at negligible cost.

Regards

John