Gid
Well-known
Hi,
I want to get a relatively modern small form factor camera / lens combination that delivers good IQ. Pondering either the Q or CL. Anyone used (using) both? Is there much difference in IQ between the two? How are the operational differences? Is one more straightforward than the other? For information, I have recently tried an M9 and M240 (actually two of each but all went back to the sellers for a variety of problems) but find the manual focusing a bit of a struggle. I've tried the X-Pro2 and the X 100F but just can't get on with the Fuji files especially how long they take to render. I'm used to shooting with an X100 so a single FOV isn't a real problem. The price of the Q and CL with the 23 F2 are very similar so price is a wash unless I add the M adapter. If there are other options that you think I could consider then please add your comments.
Thanks
I want to get a relatively modern small form factor camera / lens combination that delivers good IQ. Pondering either the Q or CL. Anyone used (using) both? Is there much difference in IQ between the two? How are the operational differences? Is one more straightforward than the other? For information, I have recently tried an M9 and M240 (actually two of each but all went back to the sellers for a variety of problems) but find the manual focusing a bit of a struggle. I've tried the X-Pro2 and the X 100F but just can't get on with the Fuji files especially how long they take to render. I'm used to shooting with an X100 so a single FOV isn't a real problem. The price of the Q and CL with the 23 F2 are very similar so price is a wash unless I add the M adapter. If there are other options that you think I could consider then please add your comments.
Thanks
MCTuomey
Mentor
I have been using the Q and CL together for travel and some music venue shooting. The CL is fitted with either a 50 or 75 (my mid-tele), while the Q is my wide. I can get the files pretty well matched, here's an example:
Q:
20180323-150-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
CL:
20180324-206-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Q (for street portraits):
20180323-012-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Image quality is comparable, although if I look hard the Q is probably a stop or so better at high iso. Maybe. The CL surprised me with its high iso performance, as good or better than the X-trans III I'm familiar with.
They both shoot well for me in hand. I have them gripped and wrist-strapped. I use the CL MF only (only own a few M lenses), while the Q is usually AF, both face detect and straight focus point. The Q's AF is very well implemented. They complement each other for my needs.
Hope this helps.
Q:
20180323-150-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
CL:
20180324-206-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Q (for street portraits):
20180323-012-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Image quality is comparable, although if I look hard the Q is probably a stop or so better at high iso. Maybe. The CL surprised me with its high iso performance, as good or better than the X-trans III I'm familiar with.
They both shoot well for me in hand. I have them gripped and wrist-strapped. I use the CL MF only (only own a few M lenses), while the Q is usually AF, both face detect and straight focus point. The Q's AF is very well implemented. They complement each other for my needs.
Hope this helps.
Bingley
Mentor
You probably already knew this but... the Q has a full frame sensor whereas the CL has an APS-C sensor with a crop factor like the Fujis you used. I don’t know whether the difference in sensor size has much meaningful consequence for image quality. Having handled a friend’s Q, I can say that it is not a small camera, much closer to a Leica M in size.
Gid
Well-known
Thanks for the responses.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A friend has the Q, I have the CL (and had the SL, and have the M-D too). Between the four of them, image performance differences are barely noticeable except by the pickiest of pixel peeping at 1:1 and ISO settings over 6400. The CL body makes noticeably the lightest package using the same lenses as the SL or M-D; the CL, Q, and M-D are quite similar in size, overall; the SL fitted with R or M lenses is the next step up in bulk and weight. EVF performance wise, the SL is the best, the CL is quite similar, the Q is a bit behind.
The CL's controls are pretty simple to setup and use. I have mine set up in such a way that switching between it and the M-D is very transparent. I don't have any native AF lenses for the CL, because I have plenty of M and R lenses that work beautifully on it and am not much of an AF user anyway. The native lenses, by all reports, are as excellent as the M lenses are.
You can't really go wrong with any of them. I prefer the ability to use different lenses and bought the CL in particular (after I'd sold the SL) for its ability to use my M or R lenses and macro accessories. It does a terrific job, so good that I tend to use it more than the M-D now.
G
The CL's controls are pretty simple to setup and use. I have mine set up in such a way that switching between it and the M-D is very transparent. I don't have any native AF lenses for the CL, because I have plenty of M and R lenses that work beautifully on it and am not much of an AF user anyway. The native lenses, by all reports, are as excellent as the M lenses are.
You can't really go wrong with any of them. I prefer the ability to use different lenses and bought the CL in particular (after I'd sold the SL) for its ability to use my M or R lenses and macro accessories. It does a terrific job, so good that I tend to use it more than the M-D now.
G
Gid
Well-known
Thanks Godfrey. Interesting that you put the CL's VF ahead of the Q's. All the web stuff I have read say that the Q VF is larger than the CL's and very close to the SL.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I bought the CL primarily to convert normal fast lenses into short telephotos: 50 Lux-R "E60;" 50 Lux-SL; and 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor AIS.
The two Leica Lenses on the CL became 75mm F1.4's. These lenses are pretty close to perfect, and even thought the 50 Lux "E60" is a lens designed for film and is not ASPH it is mucho sharp with about the prettiest bokeh and OOF. It pretty much renders like a Noctilux and being only F1.4 does not have the light fall off in the corners.
The Noct-Nikkor has a very different rendering than the 50 Lux-R "E60" and especially a Noctilux: the Noctilux has sharper corners than a Noct-Nikkor, but there is light fall-off, and the corners are darkened wide open; the Noct-Nikkor is just the reverse, the corners don't darken like on a Noctilux wide open, but the focus is soft in the corners.
Using the Noct-Nikkor on the CL provides an 87mm FOV and F1.2. The imperfect corners are cropped out by the 1.5 crop sensor, and the result is a perfect lens that only utilizes the center "sweet-spot."
I find the controls to be straight forward, ergonomic, and practical in use. I tend to use Auto exposure and use the left dial's exposure compensation to adjust exposure if required. I also tend to use the right dial for zooming in to focus. I not a fan of focus peaking, especially when using longer lenses shot wide open.
Buying a CL and using it with glass I already own and love gives me short Tele options that are kinda wonderful. With the Noct-Nikkor I don't need to buy a 75 Noctilux to get F1.2 and mucho shallow DOF. I have a few portraits I took of Bob at a NYC Meet-Up that have this wonderful balance and blending of sharp and OOF.
The 28 Cron (one of my favorite lenses) creates a 42mm FOV and pretty much is in the same vein as the original film CL with a 40 Cron.
My gal "liberated my CL from me and bought the 23 Cron (35mm FOV). Pretty much a pancake lens with AF. A fast shooter.
Cal
The two Leica Lenses on the CL became 75mm F1.4's. These lenses are pretty close to perfect, and even thought the 50 Lux "E60" is a lens designed for film and is not ASPH it is mucho sharp with about the prettiest bokeh and OOF. It pretty much renders like a Noctilux and being only F1.4 does not have the light fall off in the corners.
The Noct-Nikkor has a very different rendering than the 50 Lux-R "E60" and especially a Noctilux: the Noctilux has sharper corners than a Noct-Nikkor, but there is light fall-off, and the corners are darkened wide open; the Noct-Nikkor is just the reverse, the corners don't darken like on a Noctilux wide open, but the focus is soft in the corners.
Using the Noct-Nikkor on the CL provides an 87mm FOV and F1.2. The imperfect corners are cropped out by the 1.5 crop sensor, and the result is a perfect lens that only utilizes the center "sweet-spot."
I find the controls to be straight forward, ergonomic, and practical in use. I tend to use Auto exposure and use the left dial's exposure compensation to adjust exposure if required. I also tend to use the right dial for zooming in to focus. I not a fan of focus peaking, especially when using longer lenses shot wide open.
Buying a CL and using it with glass I already own and love gives me short Tele options that are kinda wonderful. With the Noct-Nikkor I don't need to buy a 75 Noctilux to get F1.2 and mucho shallow DOF. I have a few portraits I took of Bob at a NYC Meet-Up that have this wonderful balance and blending of sharp and OOF.
The 28 Cron (one of my favorite lenses) creates a 42mm FOV and pretty much is in the same vein as the original film CL with a 40 Cron.
My gal "liberated my CL from me and bought the 23 Cron (35mm FOV). Pretty much a pancake lens with AF. A fast shooter.
Cal
MCTuomey
Mentor
CL VF 2.36 mpx ( the same as the Fuji X-T2)
Q VF 3.68 mpx
In use, I find them both very good.
+1 The VF of the CL is so good that I find I can manually focus a 50/1.4 or 75/2 quite well , using magnification or not, or with peaking, and my eyesight is well past its prime. I could not do the same when I tried to adapt my M lenses to a Fuji X-T2, despite the fact its VF has the same mpx count as the CL.