Would you buy a Digital Leica CL ?

[ruby.monkey]

Could they get FF digital into a CL body? I suspect not.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to cut costs by concentrating on live view, sans RF, rather than making another RF body? With a crippled (short-base) RF at that? Where's the logic in cannibalizing M (RF) sales?

Cheers,

R.

The CL is a bit larger than a Sony DSC-RX1, so as far as size goes (and accepting a deeper body as a necessary evil), 't'would seem to be doable. Since there's no real need for a frame counter or wind-on lever, the R/F mechanism could be stretched across the whole width of the camera.

I guess live view vs Leica-style rangefinder is a matter of taste, but any TTL viewing method does suffer the drawback of limited depth of field - one can't get a clear view of the whole frame unless it's in focus.

 

[daveleo]

I voted "no". Back when I had lots of cash flow in, I would have indulged
myself to a $3000 camera & lens deal. But, for $1500 - $1800 today you can get a
wicked nice setup (APS) from any of 6 camera makers. If you buy an 18 month old design,
you can get a nice setup for under $1000 easily.

 

[Keith]

That's getting close to what I'd expect to pay for a user M9 and I think I'd prefer the M9 to be honest. I had a CL Leica and I found it a bit on the small side whereas I've always thought the dimensions of the digital M body to be near perfect.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The CL is a bit larger than a Sony DSC-RX1, so as far as size goes (and accepting a deeper body as a necessary evil), 't'would seem to be doable. Since there's no real need for a frame counter or wind-on lever, the R/F mechanism could be stretched across the whole width of the camera.

I guess live view vs Leica-style rangefinder is a matter of taste, but any TTL viewing method does suffer the drawback of limited depth of field - one can't get a clear view of the whole frame unless it's in focus.

Highlight 1: Fair enough, but there's a big difference between a fixed lens, designed for a particular sensor, and with the software optimized to suit that lens, and something that can take every Leica lens ever.

Highlight 2: True, and (for me) it's hard to see anyone preferring live view. On the other hand, as a second body, I'd probably buy an M-0 (no optical range/viewfinder), partly as a back-up and partly as a 'Visoflex' (close-ups, long lenses, adapters...), rather than an M-CL.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pvdhaar]

I'm not a good enough photographer to justify throwing $3000 at a camera body..

 

[mdarnton]

If they come up with something like a full-frame Nex 7, I'm going to have a very hard time not buying one. I'm having a hard enough time not getting a Nex 7 as it is.

What I want is:
full frame
electronic viewfinder
24Mp
focus peaking manual focus
ability to fit all my Leica and Nikon lenses
video with audio input plug

The only thing that's keeping me from the Nex is the full frame issue. If Leica brought out the same thing, or less, but in a non-full frame, well, there'd be no reason to prefer it over the Nex, would there? Especially for 3X the price! I hope they've got something really good up their sleeve, but since they're always last to the party, with something less, I doubt it.

 

[splitimageview]

The size and price won't happen unfortunately 🙁

 

[Godfrey]

If they come up with something like a full-frame Nex 7, I'm going to have a very hard time not buying one. I'm having a hard enough time not getting a Nex 7 as it is.

What I want is:
full frame
electronic viewfinder
24Mp
focus peaking manual focus
ability to fit all my Leica and Nikon lenses
video with audio input plug

...

I will pick up a NEX 6 body at some point this year. The NEX 6 sensor works better with short focal length RF lenses than the NEX 7 sensor does. (Buy the optional microphones for the NEX 6 and you get the audio input plug too.)

And, personally, I like APS-C format ... just like I like 35mm film format and 6x6. I've got all the lenses I need/want for any of these formats. 🙂

But I'd still buy a Leica CL digital camera (no, not a CLE—didn't like it as much as the CL) if it felt and worked the way the CL does.

G

 

[jsrockit]

If it had a mechanical rangefinder, sure. If not, no. There are better options out there.

 

[rbsinto]

No.
Not even if it was free, as the cost of the lenses would overwhelm me, and I'm already running two systems.
Now a digital Nikon s-mount rangefinder would be a completely different story.
I've already got the lenses so it would be a one-time purchase. Perhaps that would be the thing that convinced me to go Digital.

 

[kbg32]

Digital CL? This keeps coming up all the time. If Leica hasn't done it by now, and they have had the chance, who will?

It would have been a great idea for Leica if this new "Mini M", even though it is built around the X2, had a M mount, included focus peaking, kept the removable EVF as an accessory, and sold for about $2000 - $2500 US.

 

[MaxElmar]

The problem with this thread is that it's pretty hard to define exactly what a "digital CL" would be. I'm sure the folks expressing enthusiasm all have different ideas of what they would be getting. If it were almost exactly like a CL except it had a full frame sensor, would you pay $3k for one? With the little tiny short EBL finder? How about a Cosina-made ZI with a FF sensor? (They could build one in Nikon S mount as well.)

I bet Mr. K would sell a few of those - and a bunch of lenses, too.

 

[jsrockit]

Haven't you all figured out by now that Leica is never going to make a cheap digital m mount camera?

 

[apostasiometritis]

The problem with this thread is that it's pretty hard to define exactly what a "digital CL" would be. I'm sure the folks expressing enthusiasm all have different ideas of what they would be getting. If it were almost exactly like a CL except it had a full frame sensor, would you pay $3k for one? With the little tiny short EBL finder? How about a Cosina-made ZI with a FF sensor? (They could build one in Nikon S mount as well.)

I bet Mr. K would sell a few of those - and a bunch of lenses, too.

Mr.K would probably make an awful lot of money by just sticking a Full frame/APS-C/APS-H sensor in a Bessa RxA.

 

[jsrockit]

Mr.K would probably make an awful lot of money by just sticking a Full frame/APS-C/APS-H sensor in a Bessa RxA.

They already did this...

 

[apostasiometritis]

They already did this...

Not Voigtlander, not...

And in any event that product has been long discontinued and support is quite tricky.

I'd get an R-D1 in a blink if I knew it can be maintained and fixed reliably.

Even with its 6MP antiquated sensor, there is just nothing like it.

 

[jsrockit]

Not Voigtlander, not...

And in any event that product has been long discontinued and support is quite tricky.

It's pretty easy to see that Voigtlander had its hand in making that camera. Addtionally, if it had done extremely well, it would still be made.

 

[apostasiometritis]

It's pretty easy to see that Voigtlander had its hand in making that camera. Additionally, if it had done extremely well, it would still be made.

I agree, but that was a different time. RF was a niche back then, a lot more people are aware of the segment today. Digital was in its infancy and people were not familiar with it for the most part, let alone a digital rangefinder.

Fast forwad to today and there is an awful lot of digital-rangefinder starved people, looking at all the M8/9/T240s out there knowing that they can't/won't have one because they are too expensive or perhaps unwilling to spend that much on a camera.

I am not advocating necessarily and R-D2, just voicing my sentiment.

Plus I have the suspicion that the camera was not made exactly with cost savings in mind. All that analogue magic comes at a price.

I'll have to buy a digital camera at the end of this year, it will most likely be a fuji of some kind, I do agree it is the closest thing to a digital CL today.

I personally do have a CL and I love the thing, but let's be honest, as much as I would love a digital version of it Leica will not make it.
An R-D2 would of course be fantastic.

 

[Rodchenko]

I do want a digital camera with a mechanical rangefinder and - sorry - I'm not convinced enough to buy an M9. I'd like to buy a CL/35SP-sized RF camera, ideally with interchangeable lenses, but 35-45mm if not. The biggest reason I don't like using my digital camera is that I don't like arguing with it about where to focus. A twitch of my finger and a check with my eye does the job just fine on an RF. Hell, I don't need to sell the idea to you guys, do I?

The awareness of, and therefore the market for, rangefinders and retro RF style has grown significantly in the last few years, and, if the X-Pro 1 had manual RF focusing, I'd be selling my granny to get my hands on one.

I think there's a gap in the market for a 'Digital CL', but I'm not convinced Leica will go near it.

 

[jsrockit]

I agree, but that was a different time. RF was a niche back then, a lot more people are aware of the segment today. Digital was in its infancy and people were not familiar with it for the most part, let alone a digital rangefinder.

I would argue that rangefinders have been niche for 40+ years. By 2004 (when the epson was introduced), Voigtlander had brought our more RF gear in the few prior years than had been released in many, many years. Now, with cheaper mirrorless cameras, the mechanical RF camera is even more niche than before.

Fast forwad to today and there is an awful lot of digital-rangefinder starved people, looking at all the M8/9/T240s out there knowing that they can't/won't have one because they are too expensive or perhaps unwilling to spend that much on a camera.

Well, I'm not sure how a $3000-4000 rangefinder is going to solve that issue since they can buy a M8 for $1500 and a M9 for $3500. If they are starved, then they can buy one of these.