Leica CL digital?

[Bmoze]

I’m thinking about getting a used Leica CL digital and I’d like to get some feedback. I’ve always shot film. I’ve never owned a digital camera but have used them at work (now retired). I have an M4 and iiif and various lenses from 28 -90mm.

My wife would like to get a lightweight, autofocus digital camera for herself. I think a Leica M is too heavy for her needs. I think a CL fits the bill, except for the lack of image stabilization, and it being kinda spendy. However, a CL would give me a digital platform to mount my Leica manual lenses (non-6 bit coded) and mess around with.

I’m also looking a various, smaller EVF Fujis for her. Let me know if you have thoughts or experiences with the CL digital or can recommend an alternative that plays well with my Leica lenses. Gracias.

 

[Beemermark]

I have a heavy investment in Leica M and LTM. I got hooked into Fuji's with a X-E2 gotten in trade and then an X-Pro2 bought new. Leica lenses on the Fuji works, but hard(er) to focus and they just don't begin to perform like they do on film or my M9. Fuji cameras with Fuji lenses are great. I just wouldn't buy into Fuji thinking you'll be happy using your Leica lenses.

 

[Godfrey]

I've been shooting with the Leica CL (digital) since Summer 2018, using my Leica M and R mount lenses on it via the Leica M Adapter L and R Adapter M. These two adapters (stacked for the R lenses) give you the best UI for focus magnification and access to Leica's provided lens profiles for all of the Leica lenses, even for non-coded Leica lenses.

The CL camera body is a near ideal mix of size, weight, good ergonomics, easy to learn and remember controls, and the Leica lens profiles allow their lenses to work on this body (and other Leica bodies) far better than they do on any other body you might adapt them to.

I bought the CL when I still had my Leica M-D typ 262 and M-P typ 240, because I wanted/needed a TTL viewing/focusing body to replace the SL that I'd sold. Within six months, I sold both of the M bodies ... Yes, the CL works that well. It's more versatile, lighter weight, and the image quality out of its 24 Mpixel APS-C format sensor is pretty much as good as even the latest M10 aside from the maximum ISO settings past 6400 where the larger sensor in the M10 has a noise advantage.

For me, it's the ideal Leica camera at this time for my use. The dedicated TL and SL lens lines provide AF and such, if that's desired, as well as state of the art performance quality beyond the already excellent performance of classic Leica M and R lenses.

G

 

[Bmoze]

Thanks guys, very helpful info. Just what I was looking for. The CL sounds very appealing for our needs.

 

[Bmoze]

Godfrey, forgot to ask, what’s your feeling about the CL’s lack of image stabilization? Are there often times you wish it had it? Or, do you just increase the iso as needed for a faster shutter speed?

 

[Michael Markey]

I`d endorse what Godfrey said .
I`ve avoided digital M bodies up to now .
Shot my three film bodies and used Canon/Sony /Sigma/Richo for digital but the CL is a joy to use .
The native lenses surpass the quality of my M glass imo although I do use my M glass on the CL body .
The menu system is brief and the latest firmware update enables you to access all the main features on a single touch screen .
This is a useful (if a little long and discursive in parts ) overview of the system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqjt6HXGN_c

 

[Godfrey]

Glad to help.

Godfrey, forgot to ask, what’s your feeling about the CL’s lack of image stabilization? Are there often times you wish it had it? Or, do you just increase the iso as needed for a faster shutter speed?

I have (and had) several cameras with IBIS, and of course with the Leica SL that I had, both the SL24-90 and SL90-280 lenses include optical image stabilization. Image stabilization is a nice advantage some times, but I don't find it essential at all. It's mostly nice to extend hand-holdability of medium telephoto lenses, imo, and I find I don't have any problem holding such lenses steadily enough... And I use a tripod a good bit of the time too.

So yes: I increase the ISO setting when I have to hand hold a longer lens in dim circumstances. Mostly I just continue they way I 've worked with cameras for the past 40-50 years..

G

 

[CLAdictic]

I have a CL. There is no need for IBIS. I say this being 77 YOA.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Get her Fuji or Sony with EVF and AF zoom lens. And get yourself used M240.
It will be same price as CL with its primitive, out of date zoom. Every CL AF lens cost as Fuji, Sony APS-C body and lens or two. Lenses are overpriced just because labeled as Leica, but not Leica made. You could even get smaller Olympus, Panasonic MFT with smaller lenses for better price.

 

[CLAdictic]

I know I'm joining late, but IS on the CL? Hefting a CL with a CL lens is like nothing. I'm 78 and yes the hands are not as steady as when I was 70. I bought the CL because I wanted to shoot some Leica digital. I have three Ms and five lenses. The CL was offered as a bundle, with the 18mm lens. A flea bite compared to my M4-P with my 75 f 1.4 attached.

 

[Bingley]

I pulled the trigger on a used CL, and a used Elmarit 18mm lens, less than a month ago, and have been shooting it extensively ever since. I’m using the latest firmware and have no complaints about the autofocus (I used it for street photos in Venice earlier in October, as a backup to my M-E 240). I agree with what Godfrey has said about the digital CL. In addition to the Elmarit, I’ve been shooting a Summaron 35/3.5 and Canon 35/2.0 on it and like the results a lot. The controls are very simple and work well. My only knock on the camera is the battery life (not as good as on my digital M), but I purchased a couple of Panasonic batteries and a portable charger. I love that the CL body is roughly the same size as my Leica IIIc. A great little camera, IMO.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I’m thinking about getting a used Leica CL digital and I’d like to get some feedback. I’ve always shot film. I’ve never owned a digital camera but have used them at work (now retired). I have an M4 and iiif and various lenses from 28 -90mm.

My wife would like to get a lightweight, autofocus digital camera for herself. I think a Leica M is too heavy for her needs. I think a CL fits the bill, except for the lack of image stabilization, and it being kinda spendy. However, a CL would give me a digital platform to mount my Leica manual lenses (non-6 bit coded) and mess around with.

I’m also looking a various, smaller EVF Fujis for her. Let me know if you have thoughts or experiences with the CL digital or can recommend an alternative that plays well with my Leica lenses. Gracias.

I was looking at used CL recently, since I like Leica. But came with honest, unbiased opinion:

Except you can't leave without Leica label just to feel good, Fuji has superior to CL camera now. Same style and size.
And much better priced, more available AF lenses.

IMO, CL as of now is only if you are Leica fan no matter what. Is your wife such person?

 

[Godfrey]

I have compared Fuji vs CL several times now. My tests showed better dynamic range, better detailing, cleaner highlights with the CL. Another of my buddies tried the CL and sold his Fuji completely independent of any input from me too. Both of us are mostly using Leica M lenses (that we already owned) on the CL body. I don't own any TL or SL series lenses at all, I also use it with my R lenses.

It's a lovely camera with an excellent sensor. Best in class as far as I'm concerned.

G

 

[Bmoze]

Hey there. I'm the OP and I did buy the CL. I really like it. It has a quality feel, the small size is great, image quality is excellent, and the menus are easy to navigate and remember. I usually use my Leica M lenses on it, while my wife uses the Leica T/L mount lenses, especially the 18-56 zoom. I'm sure the Fuji's are great, too, and probably a better value, but being able to use Leica M and LTM lenses on the CL makes this camera especially fun and versatile. Here's a grab shot of last week's full moon using the Summarit 90/2.5, handheld at f2.5/30th, ASA 6400. Sure, IBIS would be nice, but this camera works well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hey there. I'm the OP and I did buy the CL. I really like it. It has a quality feel, the small size is great, image quality is excellent, and the menus are easy to navigate and remember. I usually use my Leica M lenses on it, while my wife uses the Leica T/L mount lenses, especially the 18-56 zoom. I'm sure the Fuji's are great, too, and probably a better value, but being able to use Leica M and LTM lenses on the CL makes this camera especially fun and versatile. Here's a grab shot of last week's full moon using the Summarit 90/2.5, handheld at f2.5/30th, ASA 6400. Sure, IBIS would be nice, but this camera works well.

Any mirrorless camera with cropped sensor works well with LTM and M lenses. It is a just choice of adapter.

 

[Bmoze]

Ko Fe- You’re right about adaptors. I’d like to say, though, that the Leica M adaptor for the CL records EXIF data with 6 bit-coded lenses. Also, the Leica menu structure makes it easy to set up and select lens profiles for non- 6 bit coded lenses. I don’t have other digital cameras, so I can’t compare functionality or ease of use.

 

[Larry H-L]

It's no secret that Leica and Panasonic collaborate on projects. I've always wondered if the innards of the Leica CL are similar to those of the Panasonic G9? If you remove the Panasonic's image-stabilized m43 sensor, wouldn't there be enough room inside for a slightly larger non-stabilized APSc sensor? Then they would just have to change the EVF body design and mount? Users of both cameras report being very happy with them.

 

[Godfrey]

It's no secret that Leica and Panasonic collaborate on projects. I've always wondered if the innards of the Leica CL are similar to those of the Panasonic G9? If you remove the Panasonic's image-stabilized m43 sensor, wouldn't there be enough room inside for a slightly larger non-stabilized APSc sensor? Then they would just have to change the EVF body design and mount? Users of both cameras report being very happy with them.

It's interesting academic conjecture but in the end of no particular significance. I have the Panasonic GX9 as well and, while it is a fine performer, it is overly cluttered with features and small, fussy controls, the viewfinder is poor compared to the CL, etc. It's a better video camera, I'd warrant. The Leica CL is far more capable for still photography.
Whether an APS-C sensor would fit if you gutted out the IBIS mFT is pretty much irrelevant because you'd have to re-engineer most of the supporting electronics as well, I suspect.

And in response to Koffee's suggestion that "Any mirrorless camera with cropped sensor works well with LTM and M lenses. It is a just choice of adapter." ... I've been working with adapted lenses on mirrorless camera bodies since 2009 and have a complement of about 15 different LTM and M-mount lenses to use on them. It's simply untrue that these lenses work well with just any of the cropped sensor bodies ... Some work far better than others on specific pairings of body and lens, others work very poorly indeed. It's not just the mount adapter: The performance variability is due to sensor stack depth and other optical considerations as well as the low-level digital filtering in the chain from capture to RAW image data. The best match for Leica lenses are the Leica bodies, in general, with the second best being the Ricoh GXR with M-mount camera module; this latter was actually a little better performing with some Voigtländer and Zeiss M-mount lenses. All the other Micro-FourThirds and APS-C mirrorless cameras are noticeably less competent than these two.

G

 

[BillBingham2]

Please remain calm everyone, I'm going to hijack this thread for a few minutes.

G,

Have you had a chance to try the CV 25/4 Snapshot on a Fuji with X-Trans? I love that lens and while I'd prefer something in the 18mm range, I know I wont' find the snap-shot clicks anywhere else (other than a Ricoh GX). I'd like your opinion.

Thanks.

B2 (;-?

We now return you to your original thread........

 

[Godfrey]

...
Have you had a chance to try the CV 25/4 Snapshot on a Fuji with X-Trans? I love that lens and while I'd prefer something in the 18mm range, I know I wont' find the snap-shot clicks anywhere else (other than a Ricoh GX). I'd like your opinion.
...

Sadly, unfortunately because I've always wanted to try that lens, it's the one of the modern Color-Skopars I've never had. I've had/have the others (21/4, 28/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/2.5, still have the 28 and 50) but the 25/4 Snapshot has eluded me.

I've not been all that impressed with the Fuji XTrans sensor. It seems to require different settings and be sensitive in ways very different from more standard Bayer matrix sensors, and at least when I had a Fuji with one, the performance with most raw converters was rather poor. I know a lot of algorithm development has gone on since I last worked with one, but in the end I don't really see the point of the overabundance of green channel data and the paucity of red and blue channel data. It just complicates the demosaic algorithm by quite a lot and the practical advantages of it don't seem to be there. But that's neither here nor there, since I haven't had this lens to work with on any camera to date.

The Color-Skopar 28/3.5 is about my favorite in this line, from the ones I have had, and it performs best by a marginal amount on the Ricoh GXR M-mount camera module IMO. It works well on the CL too, but the Ricoh sensor is a better match for it. The 21/4 was a little lackluster but a generally good performer. I sold that after I got the Elmarit-R 19mm, first version, as at that time I was using the Leica SL and the R19 performed so much better on that camera. I now tend to use the CV10/5.6 on the CL more than anything else wider than the CV28/4; the CV10 is a terrific performer on everything I've fitted it to, including the Hasselblad 907x.

G