Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
Plus one. Longer lenses do very well. In my case a Noct-Nikkor and 50 Lux-R make truly great short fast telephotos. The crop factor utilizes only the sweet spot for high IQ.
Cal
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
No Phase Detect and dust clean, either. While dust clean is available for ten+ years already.
So, CL does feel like true Leica, because it is hard to image any other manufacturing without sensor dust clean. I mean, regular cameras manufacturer.
Dust bunnies is Leica sensor unique signature. It is so M-E.
Joy of M lenses at its poor experience. Oh, wait M-E has shutter in front of the sensor. CL - full dust exposées. On the positive note, I opened BH mirrorless page sorted from rich to just working.
Here is how first pages top $$$$ cameras looks like:
M10 - nice.
Sony something - ugly.
M240 - nice.
Sony something - ugly.
Panasonic something - ugly.
Sony something - ugly.
Fuji something - ugly.
CL - so cute.
CL is for Cute Leica.
https://tenor.com/view/give-me-gif-6484587
Ronald M
Veteran
Leica M is what makes a Leica. The rest are just expensive cameras.
Mirrorless should be tried b/4 buying. There is a refresh lag between what the lens sees and eyepiece which is very difficult to me. Ok for landscape and subjects that do not move, well sort of, but impossible to time sports or dance shots. That is why they fire off 10 frames trying to get one good.
Mirrorless should be tried b/4 buying. There is a refresh lag between what the lens sees and eyepiece which is very difficult to me. Ok for landscape and subjects that do not move, well sort of, but impossible to time sports or dance shots. That is why they fire off 10 frames trying to get one good.
Lss
Well-known
I get pretty much the same amount of dust bunnies on Leica and Sony despite the latter having a bunny shaker. Still, it's a feature that is sometimes actually useful, and Leica definitely should try to find a way to adopt it this century.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
The 35 TL Summilux is not a whole lot bigger than the 18-56 so it’s not difficult to get used to.
The lens rendering is very neutral wide open, which where I use it 90% of be time.
Bokeh is smooth both in front of and behind the plane of focus.
CA around bright light sources seems fully corrected.
However, I do still prefer the M 28mm/2 for angle of view and size when walking about town, so my 35TL usage has mostly been indoors.
The 18-56 I’ve found ideal when hillwalking or for grab shots from the car when pulled over by the side of the road.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Yes great lens, seeing more use on the CL than it did on the M.
With the CL EVF/LCD seeing flare is easy, so I go for compact and do not use a hood instead use my hand as a shade when needed.
robert blu
quiet photographer
karateisland
Established
A 42 WOULD be awfully close to the 45 AOV I love so much on my Contax G2. Sounds like a great day-to-day shooting lens.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Anyone that would need image stabilization on a camera that can shoot at iso 12000 must have some crazy shakes.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I believe what cameras with similar 400 and 12800 ISO do not exist.
I'd rather use IBIS or IS, f8 , not amplified, low ISO and hint of flash to balance 1/30 with ambient light.
A'm this shaky?
The Contax/Zeiss 45mm Planar G is further from 42mm than would appear going by the nominal focal length, as it's actually more like 47mm according to the specs...
Focal length: 46.9mm
Angle of View 50 Degrees
Elements/Groups 6/4
Dimensions 56 x 38.5mm (2.2 x 1.52 in)
Film-to-flange distance 29mm
Weight 190g (6.7 oz)
Filter Size 46mm
f/Stop Range 2.0 to 16
Minimum Focus Distance 0.5m (1.7 ft, 20 in)
Specs show abt 1% barrel distortion.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Is the difference between 42-45-47 even a full step forward or back?
MCTuomey
Veteran
Yes, agree. I use a CL because there isn’t a sufficiently compact full frame EVF M camera for my needs.
To me, the 42mm is closer to a 40mm, and the 47mm is closer to 50mm. With that said, a 40mm feels like a tight 35mm. I prefer 50mm and am very sensitive to focal lengths due to perspective changes between a 40 and a 50mm.
Photon42
burn the box
Hello Mike ...
Sort of the same here. And for me it is not a bad replacement for the Q. the 2/23 focuses fast enough. Other lenses are happily adaptable and the package is small, when used with MF lenses of reasonable size.
With respective adapter it is a nice companion to a film camera, if the crop factor is not killing it.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Hello Mike ...
Sort of the same here. And for me it is not a bad replacement for the Q. the 2/23 focuses fast enough. Other lenses are happily adaptable and the package is small, when used with MF lenses of reasonable size.
With respective adapter it is a nice companion to a film camera, if the crop factor is not killing it.
Thanks again for the lovely lens!
Fine recap of the CL’s utility. Similarly pleased with mine, happy to pay the Leica premium for a body that plays better than other makers’ crop mirrorless alternatives because the CL plays so much better with M glass.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
"Does the digital CL feel like a "real" Leica?"
No it does not. The real Leica is a Leica II and that feels totally different.
No it does not. The real Leica is a Leica II and that feels totally different.
karateisland
Established
I would hope that the CL doesn't feel like a camera released in the 1930s!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
K,
It has for me the screwmount compactness over a M-body.
I think with a 28 Cron-M it is really close to being like the original film CL.
Cal
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Except that the Leica film CL didn't have 28mm frame lines, just 40, 50 and 90.