Would you buy a Digital Leica CL ?

[Roger Hicks]

We are in a golden age for small cameras. I have to admit: I am baffled by the obsession with "full frame," particularly when we have so many fast light µ4/3 and APS-C cameras that offer IQ equal or better than a D700: Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, Olympus, Sony… David Alan Harvey is shooting with an X100S and says the file quality is comparable to FF. He shoots with that and GX1/GF1. That of course is what the lab tests say, too. But this is a renowned working photographer taking his files under field conditions. And he is printing his pictures BIG for gallery exhibition. 48" long edge is common for him at this point.

Moreover, we're perhaps a year or two away from APS-C sensors that equal a D800 or 5DIII.

You'd be less baffled if you'd concentrated on taking pictures for a few decades and had built up a big collection of lenses in a particular mount. Swap systems every few months and no, you won't see the relevance.

Cheers,

R.

 

[one90guy]

Way out of my budget and I like my Yashica and Argus rf's.

David

 

[Exdsc]

If I was a Russian Oligarch, I'd buy one for each of my girlfriends...

 

[semilog]

You'd be less baffled if you'd concentrated on taking pictures for a few decades and had built up a big collection of lenses in a particular mount. Swap systems every few months and no, you won't see the relevance.

Cheers,

R.

I'm well enough invested in the M system, thanks. For film. And I learned to use my dad's M3 when I was 5 or 6 years old, which was indeed decades ago. But the technical and economic optima are different for film and digital. For digital I've divested myself of most of the D/SLR gear and chosen to go with the Fuji system.

In any case the CL/CLE -- the subjects of this thread -- were never particularly well-suited to serve as general platforms for M glass. I mean, I like my CLE but it's no M6.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

If it had a rangefinder, then sure. If not, then 5D Mark III for me.

 

[Spicy]

It's all about the bokeh... That and low light/high ISO capability.

As the saying goes, there's no replacement for displacement, or likewise, square footage/extra real estate. Given the same megapixel count, larger photosites are better. Give me a full frame 12mpx camera over a micro 4/3 12mpx camera any day.

 

[Al Patterson]

Even better - a Minolta Digital CL-E? 😉

An updated CLE would be cool. Still only have the CL, still want a CLE...

 

[Al Patterson]

I was curious about digital Leica cameras, so I bought an M8 and an M9. Now I am not curious about it anymore.

Bbc.com had an article yesterday on the come-back of audio cassettes. People are getting tired of digtal (0,1) music. Maybe people will also get tired of digital imaging?

Sure,we can tire of digital imaging, but if nobody sells film you want, what choice do you have ? I want Kodachrome 64, but it is no longer available...

 

[Cyriljay]

I love my M8 . I think No camera can beat that and moreover it does why any camera can do. Why worry about another CL?

 

[koven]

I would pay 3 grand for a leica fuji x100.


Only if it had a view finder though.

I honestly cant take a picture without looking through a view finder.

 

[shadowfox]

We are in a golden age for small cameras. I have to admit: I am baffled by the obsession with "full frame," particularly when we have so many fast light µ4/3 and APS-C cameras that offer IQ equal or better than a D700: Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, Olympus, Sony… David Alan Harvey is shooting with an X100S and says the file quality is comparable to FF. He shoots with that and GX1/GF1. That of course is what the lab tests say, too. But this is a renowned working photographer taking his files under field conditions. And he is printing his pictures BIG for gallery exhibition. 48" long edge is common for him at this point.

Moreover, we're perhaps a year or two away from APS-C sensors that equal a D800 or 5DIII.

There is a certain "nice-ness" that larger film or sensor yields. Surely you are aware of this.

If I were to ask, I'd ask for bigger than 35mm-full-frame. But since that's what companies are now able to package it in compact cameras today, why not?

 

[koven]

We are in a golden age for small cameras. I have to admit: I am baffled by the obsession with "full frame," particularly when we have so many fast light µ4/3 and APS-C cameras that offer IQ equal or better than a D700: Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, Olympus, Sony… David Alan Harvey is shooting with an X100S and says the file quality is comparable to FF. He shoots with that and GX1/GF1. That of course is what the lab tests say, too. But this is a renowned working photographer taking his files under field conditions. And he is printing his pictures BIG for gallery exhibition. 48" long edge is common for him at this point.

Moreover, we're perhaps a year or two away from APS-C sensors that equal a D800 or 5DIII.

I shoot with an x100 and have had pictures Ive taken with it up at exhibitions. I love this camera but there is just a certian look that full frame gives you that hasnt been replicated on a ASP-C sized sensor. I love the fuji's dynamic range though.

 

[cosmonaut]

Yes I would but I would like the IQ to be equal other full frames. A99, D800 and RX1. Or at least close. There ain't no point in going backwards with a new camera.

 

[Bingley]

The Oly E-PL1 (and successor models) is the same size as the CL and can be kitted out with the equivalent focal length lenses with excellent m4/3 glass. And for way less than $3000. So I voted no, but if Leica were to issue a digital CL with a larger sensor for about $1,500, that would be tempting. But $3000 is too much given the choices already out there. IMO.

 

[Rodchenko]

The Pen EP5 is even more of a contender for the title. But the issue for me is the rangefinder, or lack thereof, on most cameras. My favourite part of making an image is not the spotting of the opportunity, the clicking of the shutter, the processing or printing; it's the alignment of the images in the finder, and then the alignment of a pleasing or meaningful scene.

Yes, autofocus is awfully clever, and even on my G11 I can dictate where the focus should be, but it's not very good, and I can't use the manual focus function hardly at all. Perhaps the innovations of split images and highlight focus peaking might help, but they are proxies even more than a crf.

I would like a compact digital crf. It could even be a fixed lens, like the X100s. But interchangeable lens would be lovely. Especially if there were a pancake option to make it pocketable, in a way that the CL, lovely though it is, never quite was. Full frame would be ideal, but M4/3 seems to be a very good standard now, and with 16MP or even 20MP possible, that's a good level of detail.

Why not a crf? Old fashioned, yes, and I suppose the retro look people are after in the Fuji X and Leicas doesn't necessarily extend to the hard work of looking through a vf and moving a finger slightly. Too much like hard work, when you can hold your IS camera at arms length, peer at a screen with the sun reflecting off it, and snap away as if it were a cellphone. Or an iPad.

But with the body size of the CSCs, there's scope for fitting a finder on top without making it look too tall. In fact, in many cases, it would improve the aesthetic balance. To my mind, at least. No one's forced to use it, I suppose, but I think the crf is a sadly underrated piece of optical engineering, and, sadly, I think the M240 may be one of the very last cameras to bear one.

 

[Peter_S]

No. I do not want a short RF base - a compromise - on a digital $3000 camera. While OK on the film CL, the problems with that would be very apparent with any lens shot wide open. Why would one want to pair a (relatively) low-precision focus mechanism with a high-resolution, FF sensor? 😕 . Personally, the RF length and focusing precision in critical situations is borderline with the current Ms...no need to lower that.

I rather would see a fixed-lens APS-H X3 with a f/2 40mm lens, accurate AF, nice EVF, some nifty MF solution (the X100s shows the way), a compact body - and a price that does not dictate waiting for 1 year until used models pop up for prices the people that would have bought the CL "back in the day" can afford - instead of another expensive compromise "solution" for non-compromise lenses.

Want a digital CL? M8.2 or Epson RD1 with a compact lens....for me anyways.

 

[gilpen123]

+1 on this, an RD2 with a 12 mp sensor is top on my wish list

We need an Epson/Voigtlander Bessa Rd1x to be re issued and the sensor upgraded....it´s not that difficult or is it???

It doesn´t have to be Full frame...

 

[briansilcox]

This is an interesting proposition. I liked the idea of the Sony RX 1, bit would prefer the same body that I could mount a variety of existing M, LTM or adaptable lenses to, so I guess I vote yes.

 

[crispy12]

I voted for no, as I think for the money I'd rather get either a full featured camera like the d800 mentioned.

If I wanted a rangefinder, I would go for the M8 or M9 or 240 as I feel the base length on the Bessa or RD1 is just too short for $3k, like another poster mentioned. It would really cripple the camera, not so good paying that much for a camera that isn't so reliable due to misfocus. I find that my RD1s is unreasonably difficult to focus at minimum distance, and the fact that the calibration goes off so easily doesn't help either.

 

[Sid836]

At the same price range, Leica is not competitive in any way. In analogue cameras things go the other way around.