Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Kevin Raber on November 27, 2017, 09:15:33 pm
-
I just published a new review of the Leica CL camera. I had this camera for a few weeks and really enjoyed using it. I have included numerous images of the camera and its operation as well as a number of sample images you can zoom in to see at 100%. You can find the review on the HOME PAGE (https://luminous-landscape.com/leics-cl-hands-review/)
-
The bottom line of course is image quality and this is fabulous. It has the sharpest corner to corner detail rendition I've seen - certainly better than Sony's for the a6300 using a Zeiss/Sony 16~70mm f/4 zoom, which is a very good lens. For the rest of the photo, sharpness/detail rendition seems similar between the two. Image cleanliness at very high ISO also beats the Sony a6300 sensor. The Leica provides a more usable photo at ISO 50,000 than I've seen from the Sony, which itself is not too bad. One is buying additional image quality for the price difference. Lack of image stabilization (IS) in either the lens or the body would be a downer for me - I depend a lot on this, as I would presume do many photographers; not clear why Leica would not have built this feature into the line from the get-go. Sony's IS in its many supported lenses is excellent. The dream would be a 16~70 zoom of Leica quality with IS for the CL camera. That could possibly start tempting fate in the bank account.
-
Pretty camera, but does "kit" imply that you have to buy the camera with that kit lens included?
That could be a real turn-off, especially as part of the Leica mystique is German-made optics. From that perspective, it wouldn't matter that the Japanese one may be superior. It's also a stretch to imagine that wider aperture lenses would not be even more of a need with small sensors, just to get shallow DOF which, for many creative photographers is an indispensable tool.
Price aside, for anyone starting from scratch, it appears it could be a very nice place to be. For me, shame about having video; just another useless feature to bump the price and have another possible fault line develop...
Seems there is nobody making a really simple, generally affordable camera with marvellous performance; everything is over-endowed with features some people may never want to use. Just like my old digi Nikons.
Rob
-
Pretty camera, but does "kit" imply that you have to buy the camera with that kit lens included?
That could be a real turn-off, especially as part of the Leica mystique is German-made optics. From that perspective, it wouldn't matter that the Japanese one may be superior. It's also a stretch to imagine that wider aperture lenses would not be even more of a need with small sensors, just to get shallow DOF which, for many creative photographers is an indispensable tool.
Price aside, for anyone starting from scratch, it appears it could be a very nice place to be. For me, shame about having video; just another useless feature to bump the price and have another possible fault line develop...
Seems there is nobody making a really simple, generally affordable camera with marvellous performance; everything is over-endowed with features some people may never want to use. Just like my old digi Nikons.
Rob
Well, Rob, Leica are still making really simple, unaffordable cameras with marvellous performance.
You can't have it all you know!
:-)
-
Pretty camera, but does "kit" imply that you have to buy the camera with that kit lens included?
That could be a real turn-off, especially as part of the Leica mystique is German-made optics. From that perspective, it wouldn't matter that the Japanese one may be superior.
Rob
I've long stopped associating "mystique" with where things are made. In this day and age with such portable technologies as exist it really doesn't matter any longer. What matters is the quality control wherever it's made, and I would assume ANY lens Leica puts on their cameras must meet Leica's stringent QC standards - that's essentially what one is paying the higher bucks for. But yes, I suppose there are still many customers out there swayed by "mystique" whatever the logic :-).
-
I've long stopped associating "mystique" with where things are made. In this day and age with such portable technologies as exist it really doesn't matter any longer. What matters is the quality control wherever it's made, and I would assume ANY lens Leica puts on their cameras must meet Leica's stringent QC standards - that's essentially what one is paying the higher bucks for. But yes, I suppose there are still many customers out there swayed by "mystique" whatever the logic :-).
QC is of course important and desirable, but what I pay the higher bucks for when buying a Leica lens is optical excellence.
-
Well, Rob, Leica are still making really simple, unaffordable cameras with marvellous performance.
You can't have it all you know!
:-)
I know, Keith, I know! And weep gentle tears into the keyboard as I read...
;-)
Rob
-
QC is of course important and desirable, but what I pay the higher bucks for when buying a Leica lens is optical excellence.
Sure, but you get that optical excellence from several necessary components: (1) design, (2) materials quality, and (3) manufacturing quality control.
-
Pretty camera, but does "kit" imply that you have to buy the camera with that kit lens included?
Rob
Rob,
You can indeed buy the camera without a lens. $2795 in the US.
Dave
-
Sure, but you get that optical excellence from several necessary components: (1) design, (2) materials quality, and (3) manufacturing quality control.
True.
-
Rob,
You can indeed buy the camera without a lens. $2795 in the US.
Dave
That makes a lot more financial sense.
I find that even the 10 mega D200 crop-format lets me go as large as I probably ever would print; the D700 with 12 of them on FF, just happens to have a great sensor, but as I was suggesting before regarding shallow DOF, I am convinced I notice the difference using the same 2.8/180mm Nikkor wide open on the smaller sensor - the effect is lost appreciably.
A fast, real 200mm on that Leica could be pretty good...
Rob
-
Rob,
I agree on the 180mm. I have a 180 Leica R apo I use on the a7rii. Could be interesting on this little guy.
I am pretty excited about the CL. I have three m lenses: 28, 50 and 90. Those would make very nice equivalents on the APS size (42, 75 and 135). I could see vacationing with my wife, the two cameras and one set of lenses. She would sport the CL, I would carry either the Sony or the original MM.
I am pissed about no IS though. I don't know why Leica is so frugal with that feature.
Dave
-
Great article Kev!! The picture of you sitting on the bench made me think of the "Sigma Quattro Pro" blooper video you guys made a couple of years back, It still brings a smile to my face.
Kevin in CT
-
I like the camera (and the TL also), but the lenses for this mount appear to be just very good, as opposed to spectacular. That said, I wouldn’t object to a slower, smaller (but still very high quality) zoom for the Micro Four Thirds system I mostly shoot with. Perhaps Leica is onto something there.
-
No, no, no!
Around forty years ago I travelled from Singapore overland to Europe with a Leica CL. It was small, affordable and had a Leica M mount. It was one of the first Leicas to have light metering. In over fourteen months of travelling I used only two batteries. I sold it because it wasn't suited to wide angle lenses.
Hey the new camera is not FF, it doesn't use Leica M lenses and it doesn't have older Leica's M's manual advantages.
It looks like a very nice camera, but it is not a Leica CL. This camera needs a new name!
Grrrrrr,
-
If I wanted APC-C I'd buy a Ricoh GR II. Way too expensive for APS-C
-
Technically a good camera, but I've been trying to work out why it makes any human being appear a total dork once it is held up to the eye. I think it could be the small size of the body combined with the large silver ring around the lens.
David
-
Hey the new camera is not FF, it doesn't use Leica M lenses and it doesn't have older Leica's M's manual advantages.
The new CL can use M lenses via adapter. There’s no rangefinder, of course…gotta magnify the EVF to focus.
I’d also rather Leica not recycle the CL name, but it’s theirs to do with as they wish.
Personally the camera that gets my attention in this area of the market is Fuji’s X-E3.
-Dave-
-
The new CL can use M lenses via adapter. There’s no rangefinder, of course…gotta magnify the EVF to focus.
I’d also rather Leica not recycle the CL name, but it’s theirs to do with as they wish.
Personally the camera that gets my attention in this area of the market is Fuji’s X-E3.
-Dave-
Yes, the Fuji looks pretty, but it's longer lenses are slow zooms, which I would not buy.
Rob
-
If I wanted APC-C I'd buy a Ricoh GR II. Way too expensive for APS-C
I have the GR I. With utmost patience, I wait for the GR III. I doubt that pancake will beat what Ricoh came up with for their (APS-C) GR design.
-
Interesting review by Kevin, much of what he writes is supported by other people who also actually have used the camera. Granted, their views may be tinted favourably towards the camera lender, but still, they actually used the camera. Some off these include:
Jonathan Slack http://www.slack.co.uk/leica-cl.html
Andy Westlake http://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/leica-cl-2
Sarah M Lee http://blog.leica-camera.com/2017/11/21/tender-are-the-nighthawks/
Nick Rains: https://leica-akademie.com.au/leica-cl-first-impressions-new-family-member/
I use an M9 and an MP, and have no plans to purchase the CL, but I would not mind trying it, especially with the 23 mm Summicron (35 mm equivalent since that is my most used focal length).
-
I have no doubt about the capability of this camera, however all I can say about it is there is nothing about it that would entice me into buying into the Leica system, while the TL has superb clean lines the CL joins an ever increasing number of cameras I consider as ugly, that lump on the top left looking from behind reminds me of any number of cheap Chinese cameras, not of a superbly crafted Leica.
-
I have no doubt about the capability of this camera, however all I can say about it is there is nothing about it that would entice me into buying into the Leica system, while the TL has superb clean lines the CL joins an ever increasing number of cameras I consider as ugly, that lump on the top left looking from behind reminds me of any number of cheap Chinese cameras, not of a superbly crafted Leica.
Interesting observation. It raises a rather fundamental question about why one buys a particular make of camera - so many to choose from. Why should appearance be important enough to determine a purchase decision? Why would I spend X thousand on an APS-C Leica when I can buy a more fully-featured Japanese-X camera/lens combination for about one-third the price? There needs to be good reasons or I'm not doing it. To my mind the key determinants of a purchase are the presence of key usability features I heavily rely upon, and of course the quality of the results. I'm not even sure how important performance longevity is given that these cameras all become technically obsolete and we trade them long before they are likely to wear out. So, speaking for myself, I rely on zoom lenses and image stabilization a lot. Leica is comparatively weak on both these criteria, so I'm not tempted to buy it. But I have to say, the results Kevin published the other day are, so far as I've seen, second to none. So if Leica were to provide the features I really want to have, it may be a different tug on my wallet. Do I care where the viewfinder is placed and how it looks? Not in the least, for me kind of trivial compared to these other considerations, because a camera isn't a piece of jewelry, it's for making photographs; but each to his/her own.
-
I went Leica M for the rangefinder, full frame, utter simplicity, compact and lightweight form that's combined with optical excellence. Obviously the rangefinder and full frame don't apply to the CL but I would imagine the rest do.
-
Leica owners need to start saving (https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2017/11/leica-noctilux-75-mm/?utm_source=171129en&utm_medium=E-Mail).
;-)
-
... Do I care where the viewfinder is placed and how it looks? Not in the least, for me kind of trivial compared to these other considerations, because a camera isn't a piece of jewelry, it's for making photographs; but each to his/her own.
I do care where the viewfinder is placed, having recently become left-eyed (due to surgery). The issue is nose-pokes if you want to use the touchscreen while shooting. I have gone to a Canon EOS M-5, because Canon lets you choose which of the 4 quarters of the touchscreen are active. That in turn lets you use a finger to choose the focus point, should you so wish, instead of your nose doing it for you. (This despite the significant lack of EOS-M lenses. I was using Fuji and still have quite a few Fuji lenses, but back to the topic at hand.)
I don't see where/how Leica has addressed this issue with the CL.
I am also concerned about having no ports. My experience with Fuji and Canon wifi offloads is that it works ok for a few images, but is not practical for offloading a day's shooting, just too slow. So, with the CL, is it back to sneakernet, taking out the SD card and reading it directly into the computer? The early reviews I have read so far just sort of skim over this issue.
-
Interesting observation. It raises a rather fundamental question about why one buys a particular make of camera - so many to choose from. Why should appearance be important enough to determine a purchase decision? Why would I spend X thousand on an APS-C Leica when I can buy a more fully-featured Japanese-X camera/lens combination for about one-third the price? There needs to be good reasons or I'm not doing it. To my mind the key determinants of a purchase are the presence of key usability features I heavily rely upon, and of course the quality of the results. I'm not even sure how important performance longevity is given that these cameras all become technically obsolete and we trade them long before they are likely to wear out. So, speaking for myself, I rely on zoom lenses and image stabilization a lot. Leica is comparatively weak on both these criteria, so I'm not tempted to buy it. But I have to say, the results Kevin published the other day are, so far as I've seen, second to none. So if Leica were to provide the features I really want to have, it may be a different tug on my wallet. Do I care where the viewfinder is placed and how it looks? Not in the least, for me kind of trivial compared to these other considerations, because a camera isn't a piece of jewelry, it's for making photographs; but each to his/her own.
Bingo - all those useless mechanical engineering excellence for nothing when its just a throwaway camera in 1 or two years. Hey the red Leica tag must be worth something!
-
I do care where the viewfinder is placed, having recently become left-eyed (due to surgery). The issue is nose-pokes if you want to use the touchscreen while shooting. I have gone to a Canon EOS M-5, because Canon lets you choose which of the 4 quarters of the touchscreen are active. That in turn lets you use a finger to choose the focus point, should you so wish, instead of your nose doing it for you. (This despite the significant lack of EOS-M lenses. I was using Fuji and still have quite a few Fuji lenses, but back to the topic at hand.)
I don't see where/how Leica has addressed this issue with the CL.
I am also concerned about having no ports. My experience with Fuji and Canon wifi offloads is that it works ok for a few images, but is not practical for offloading a day's shooting, just too slow. So, with the CL, is it back to sneakernet, taking out the SD card and reading it directly into the computer? The early reviews I have read so far just sort of skim over this issue.
Both good points. All the Sony mirrorless models I'm aware of place the viewfinder upper left as well. Hasn't been an issue for me because the a6300 I'm using doesn't provide for focusing by screen touch. Raises a question for any models having this feature whether it can be disabled to avoid the focusing accidents.
I can download photos directly from the camera, but it's so slow I prefer simply removing the card and inserting it into the SD port of the laptop. Incomparably faster.
-
https://eoloperfido.com/clownville-photography/
A Roman who uses several Leicas to good effect; sone pretty attractive models, too, just to balance the street stuff, I suppose.
Rob C
-
https://eoloperfido.com/clownville-photography/
A Roman who uses several Leicas to good effect; sone pretty attractive models, too, just to balance the street stuff, I suppose.
Rob C
Thats some halloween/SAW movie creepy shots right there. I have great respect for Leica optics but zero for their digital efforts. Maybe some value in the M-series but digital is just a joke.
-
Thats some halloween/SAW movie creepy shots right there. I have great respect for Leica optics but zero for their digital efforts. Maybe some value in the M-series but digital is just a joke.
That's some signature you've got there. I take it you are a photographer?
Love to hear about your hands-on experience with Leica digital.
-
Leica owners need to start saving (https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2017/11/leica-noctilux-75-mm/?utm_source=171129en&utm_medium=E-Mail).
;-)
Yeah, not only for the lens but for a new M camera with a long enough effective RF baselength to accurately focus it at close range.
-Dave-
-
That's some signature you've got there. I take it you are a photographer?
Love to hear about your hands-on experience with Leica digital.
I am hobbyist photographer/videographer with passion in high performance computing to supplement my trading/robotics/machine vision work.
Sergei Lavrov once said: If it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?
In this case, the CL is a APS-C camera so expect it to act that way. Good lenses won't help either.
-
I am hobbyist photographer/videographer with passion in high performance computing to supplement my trading/robotics/machine vision work.
Sergei Lavrov once said: If it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?
In this case, the CL is a APS-C camera so expect it to act that way. Good lenses won't help either.
I don't know what you mean by "expect it to act that way" - it so happens that with contemporary sensor design and components, the performance of APS-C sensors (the good ones) is excellent. The resolution and noise characteristics of these sensors allow the manufacturers to pack-in a very large number of photo-sites while maintaining excellent image quality. A 24 MP APC-S sensor, without cropping the photos, easily allows a fine 17x22 inch print without resampling and without compromise. The sensor is so good that effectively image quality is lens limited rather than sensor limited, but again, with today's fine optics, good lenses will perform superbly. I suggest you go back to Kevin's article and magnify the photos made with this camera. You will see a quality of corner to corner resolution and cleanliness even at high ISO that makes this camera stand-out. It's a Leica and it's expensive for a reason. Yes, it would be great if it had some additional features and some good zoom lenses, but don't knock the quality - unbeatable to date.
-
I don't know what you mean by "expect it to act that way" - it so happens that with contemporary sensor design and components, the performance of APS-C sensors (the good ones) is excellent. The resolution and noise characteristics of these sensors allow the manufacturers to pack-in a very large number of photo-sites while maintaining excellent image quality. A 24 MP APC-S sensor, without cropping the photos, easily allows a fine 17x22 inch print without resampling and without compromise. The sensor is so good that effectively image quality is lens limited rather than sensor limited, but again, with today's fine optics, good lenses will perform superbly. I suggest you go back to Kevin's article and magnify the photos made with this camera. You will see a quality of corner to corner resolution and cleanliness even at high ISO that makes this camera stand-out. It's a Leica and it's expensive for a reason. Yes, it would be great if it had some additional features and some good zoom lenses, but don't knock the quality - unbeatable to date.
How about at ISO 6000?
-
How about at ISO 6000?
Scroll down toward the bottom of Kevin's review and look at the photos going up to ISO 50,000 (fifty thousand) yourself: https://luminous-landscape.com/leica-cl-hands-review/. You can make up your own mind; I don't really need to tell you.
-
I am hobbyist photographer/videographer with passion in high performance computing to supplement my trading/robotics/machine vision work.
Sergei Lavrov once said: If it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?
In this case, the CL is a APS-C camera so expect it to act that way. Good lenses won't help either.
Am I to understand you have no experience with Leica digital?
-
Yeah, not only for the lens but for a new M camera with a long enough effective RF baselength to accurately focus it at close range.
-Dave-
I'd love to use this lens, sadly it and the 50mm Noctilux are completely beyond my means. But when I win the jackpot I'll buy an SL to go with them.
;-)
-
Am I to understand you have no experience with Leica digital?
Not in depth. But that doesn't mean one cannot judge a camera based on technical specifications.
-
Not in depth. But that doesn't mean one cannot judge a camera based on technical specifications.
What depth have you?
-
Not in depth. But that doesn't mean one cannot judge a camera based on technical specifications.
Sorry, but you cannot judge a camera based on technical specifications alone. Experienced photographers know this very well. Not all pixels are created equal and more is not necessarily better than less, nor less than more, nor smaller than bigger or bigger than smaller. A lot of technology goes into the performance of these devices that never gets picked-up in published specs and makes a monumental difference to performance quality. Be careful on this one.
-
Sorry, but you cannot judge a camera based on technical specifications alone. Experienced photographers know this very well. Not all pixels are created equal and more is not necessarily better than less, nor less than more, nor smaller than bigger or bigger than smaller. A lot of technology goes into the performance of these devices that never gets picked-up in published specs and makes a monumental difference to performance quality. Be careful on this one.
Yes I am aware that not all sensors are created equal and other aspect plays a big role. I will dig up more info on the actual sensor technical, as well as the image processor used in that camera. But one has to question where does the extra charge comes from? Is it the mechanical design, optics, imaging pipepline? Lets hope DxO mark publishes some test on this camera.
I have respect for Leica, but mostly on the optics side and they are also well known in the metrology sector. But I question their competence in digital.
-
Yes I am aware that not all sensors are created equal and other aspect plays a big role. I will dig up more info on the actual sensor technical, as well as the image processor used in that camera. But one has to question where does the extra charge comes from? Is it the mechanical design, optics, imaging pipepline? Lets hope DxO mark publishes some test on this camera.
But I question their competence in digital.
Who are YOU to question their competence in digital?
People who buy Leica equipment don't have to question where the pricing comes from because they know what they're buying. It's everything from start to finish, and in particular the standards of quality control - you can read all about that on this website in articles going back to 2009, if not earlier.
-
I am often amused by unflattering comments regarding Leica equipment made by people who neither own, use or intend to use such equipment. Yes, a digital M10 body costs some CDN $8600. If that is not worth it in your opinion, then do not buy it and just move on. Yes, the new Leica CL is much more expensive than similar models from other makers, again, if you do not think it is worth it, then just ignore it and move on. I have both Leica stuff (everything from film M's to an M9 and MP) and dSR's with many bells and whistles. I use them all, but am much happier using the Leicas. The files from my digital M's are really good, but so are the ones from my Canon equipment, although I find that the combination of Leica lenses and files produce better results.
I have not handled an a CL. Therefore, I cannot possibly have an opinion on it. I do trust some reviewers, including Kevin. and based on that I would be tempted to travel to a dealer and see how it might fit my needs in the future.
-
We all know that Leica makes very high quality products, and that the cost comes from the extra mile they go towards ensuring quality of materials and quality of workmanship and stringent quality control.
But in the digital age, where cameras are basically computers, the idea that a Leica M digital will last as long as the film ones is just a pie in the sky. It is not a matter of competence of Leica in producing top quality digital products. It's simply a matter of life, computers and chips will fail, eventually. And they tend to fail sooner than simpler mechanical cameras.
Anyone buying a digital camera knows that. Thus, for those potential photographers that need to make a financial stretch to buy a Leica, it is worth thinking carefully.
-
Not in depth. But that doesn't mean one cannot judge a camera based on technical specifications.
Yes I am aware that not all sensors are created equal and other aspect plays a big role. I will dig up more info on the actual sensor technical, as well as the image processor used in that camera. But one has to question where does the extra charge comes from? Is it the mechanical design, optics, imaging pipepline? Lets hope DxO mark publishes some test on this camera.
I have respect for Leica, but mostly on the optics side and they are also well known in the metrology sector. But I question their competence in digital.
I'd question the veracity of anyone making a judgement on a camera using the specifications alone or making a judgement on a manufacturer of which they have little or no experience. I'd suggest that anyone doing so is a technophile rather than a photographer.
-
I'd question the veracity of anyone making a judgement on a camera using the specifications alone or making a judgement on a manufacturer of which they have little or no experience. I'd suggest that anyone doing so is a technophile rather than a photographer.
Not one to miss an opportunity should it give me advance warning, here is an illustration of the perfect technophobe. Testament from the time when cameras were cameras and lasted until you wanted to change them or, perhaps, actually wore them out. This one survived pro usage from the early 70s right up into the mid-80s when a wind-on problem resulted in a repair just as bad as the problem: from not winding on at all, it became stiff to wind on. Some would have seen that as an encouraging advance of the status quo. I didn't.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/dp-web-redo_orig.jpg)
;-)
Rob
-
There was a time I imagined that my Hasselblad V series cameras would be buried alongside me. Then along came digital and disposable cameras. Thank the Gods that optics stand the test of time!
;-)
-
There was a time I imagined that my Hasselblad V series cameras would be buried alongside me. Then along came digital and disposable cameras. Thank the Gods that optics stand the test of time!
;-)
Keith, I don't have the heart to venture back into my Hassy history; as you know, ditching them for 6x7 was my first manifestation of the male menopause. I can't even remember the next one, but perhaps by late evening it will have come back to me... I am not pulling your leg: it can't have been more than a week ago that I dreamed that I'd left the case with the 'blad stuff somewhere stupìd, unattended, then went back to collect it and the case was there - empty. This has been dreamed on previous occasions, too, along with other fantasies about my first Ford, a Popular ('59), sitting in the garage, unused, and in perfect condition; other nights it's the Humber or even that X1/9 which, in retrospect, would have been perfect here. Maybe that explains the occasional bandana: something tight to prevent the head exploding.
Another two viewers tomorrow - and it's pouring today... great timing for selling dreams of summer retreats! However, great to have viewers at all; this other agency has obviously got its act together. Let's hope they can also close deals!
Rob
-
Keith, I don't have the heart to venture back into my Hassy history; as you know, ditching them for 6x7 was my first manifestation of the male menopause. I can't even remember the next one, but perhaps by late evening it will have come back to me... I am not pulling your leg: it can't have been more than a week ago that I dreamed that I'd left the case with the 'blad stuff somewhere stupìd, unattended, then went back to collect it and the case was there - empty. This has been dreamed on previous occasions, too, along with other fantasies about my first Ford, a Popular ('59), sitting in the garage, unused, and in perfect condition; other nights it's the Humber or even that X1/9 which, in retrospect, would have been perfect here. Maybe that explains the occasional bandana: something tight to prevent the head exploding.
Another two viewers tomorrow - and it's pouring today... great timing for selling dreams of summer retreats! However, great to have viewers at all; this other agency has obviously got its act together. Let's hope they can also close deals!
Rob
Regrets, I've had a few...
:-(
Rob, great news on the viewings, fingers well and truly crossed. That said, do you remember just how cold it gets in Scotland?
;-)
-
Regrets, I've had a few...
:-(
Rob, great news on the viewings, fingers well and truly crossed. That said, do you remember just how cold it gets in Scotland?
;-)
Remember? How could I forget? Buy hey, you know the reasons for the basic motivation which isn't going to change via wishful thinking on my part. Of course, should the lottery come up, off the market it goes and I take myself on that car odyssey across Europe and down to Rome. No, probably not in the Fiesta, despite new initials!
What rhymes with shaman and has four wheels?
:-)
Rob
P.S. Having trawled the site and duly noted the size and shape of the trunk, it would probably be a new Mustang instead. Hardtop, of course.
-
Remember? How could I forget? Buy hey, you know the reasons for the basic motivation which isn't going to change via wishful thinking on my part. Of course, should the lottery come up, off the market it goes and I take myself on that car odyssey across Europe and down to Rome. No, probably not in the Fiesta, despite new initials!
What rhymes with shaman and has four wheels?
:-)
Rob
P.S. Having trawled the site and duly noted the size and shape of the trunk, it would probably be a new Mustang instead. Hardtop, of course.
Hey, I'm still dropping hints to Viv but she just ignores them: so, what's new?
;-)
-
I do sometimes wish someone besides Leica made a proper M-compatible camera. Such a device wouldn’t need to be a rangefinder but IMO it should be able to detect focusing movement (not hard to do!) and then respond by auto-magnifying its EVF. It could even do AF in the manner of a Techart Pro. Then again it would also need a sensor tuned to (or at least accomodating of) the quirks of M lens design. It would be a niche product just as Leicas are. It could be less expensive due to the lack of mechanical precision & fine-tuning needed, and the lack of need to appeal to the luxury market, but it likely wouldn’t be inexpensive. I’m not *expecting to see such a camera…
I love rangefinders myself: both the mechanical aspects of them and with Ms in particular the ability to see outside the FOV of most lenses. My glasses-assisted eyesight is still good enough to accurately focus with an RF. My dad could still do it in his late 80s so maybe I’ll get lucky and be able to keep at it ‘til I drop. :)
-Dave-
*OTOH Kickstarter has successfully funded some pretty niche camera and lens projects
-
We all know that Leica makes very high quality products, and that the cost comes from the extra mile they go towards ensuring quality of materials and quality of workmanship and stringent quality control.
But in the digital age, where cameras are basically computers, the idea that a Leica M digital will last as long as the film ones is just a pie in the sky. It is not a matter of competence of Leica in producing top quality digital products. It's simply a matter of life, computers and chips will fail, eventually. And they tend to fail sooner than simpler mechanical cameras.
Anyone buying a digital camera knows that. Thus, for those potential photographers that need to make a financial stretch to buy a Leica, it is worth thinking carefully.
Couldn't have said it better! I've always respected Leica's optical prowess but that alone couldn't keep them afloat, so going digital is the only option for them. I am in technical marketing so comparing things on a technical aspect is my interest for the lack of a better word. One can also question if the price charged is based on technical merit or some "imaginary" prestige or brand perception. If you charge a product that is double that of the rest, there must be some underlying reasons. Does it have a revolutionary sensor or other aspect that is not found elsewhere. In the semiconductor world, there are absolutes when it comes to performance and price (22 core CPU always outperforms 18 core CPU). Not so much in the camera world when alot of things resolve around fuzzier items.
Leica takes off the shelf sensors and assemble it into their designed bodies. They tout their mechanical design as superior but it is not rocket science. It means they use a lower standard deviation for quality control and better machining process, or maybe more of a "hand made" approach. All these are child play when it comes to real high-quality precision manufacturing. A DMG Mori 5 Axis machine can easily product parts that far exceeds Leica quality. This could be the smoke and mirrors used by them to charge a higher price?
Coming back to the sensors, Leica does not design or manufacturer their own sensors so nothing revolutionary from that end. The real trailblazers are Sony and Canon and even microsoft with their curved sensor technology. So at the end of the day, maybe its the optics, prestige and facade.
-
traderjay, I think you fail to get that the luxury market is Leica’s intended target. The rest of photodom doesn’t matter much to them, nor does it need to. Those of us here who’re into their stuff are at the periphery of their focus. There’s no point in wasting your time & energy being unimpressed by products that aren’t intended to impress you.
-Dave-
-
Leica takes off the shelf sensors and assemble it into their designed bodies.
Coming back to the sensors, Leica does not design or manufacturer their own sensors so nothing revolutionary from that end.
They don' take "off the shelf" sensors. Selected third-party manufacturers make sensors especially for Leica to Leica specifications.
All these are child play when it comes to real high-quality precision manufacturing. A DMG Mori 5 Axis machine can easily product parts that far exceeds Leica quality.
How do you know? How relevant is a DMG Mori 5 Axis machine to camera manufacture? What is the micro-millimetric precision needed to manufacture a camera that performs flawlessly to the highest standard of image sharpness achievable? Can you tell us? What is your definition of "high-quality precision manufacturing" as it applies to making a contemporary high-end digital camera? What do you know about the wastage involved in Leica's approach to quality control and how much that adds to the costs and therefore the prices of the equipment? Numbers? Data? Anything?
-
traderjay, I think you fail to get that the luxury market is Leica’s intended target. The rest of photodom doesn’t matter much to them, nor does it need to. Those of us here who’re into their stuff are at the periphery of their focus. There’s no point in wasting your time & energy being unimpressed by products that aren’t intended to impress you.
-Dave-
If that is the case, can we safely conclude that Leica is 1% substance and 99% facade? If its a luxury product then there still should be differentiating factor that commands the price premium. When one buys a Herme bag or a Christian Dior coutoure dress, one knows why the item is priced in a certain way because of the material usage, craftsmanship and timeless heritage. Not so much with a throwaway camera.
-
They don' take "off the shelf" sensors. Selected third-party manufacturers make sensors especially for Leica to Leica specifications.
How do you know? How relevant is a DMG Mori 5 Axis machine to camera manufacture? What is the micro-millimetric precision needed to manufacture a camera that performs flawlessly to the highest standard of image sharpness achievable? Can you tell us? What is your definition of "high-quality precision manufacturing" as it applies to making a contemporary high-end digital camera? What do you know about the wastage involved in Leica's approach to quality control and how much that adds to the costs and therefore the prices of the equipment? Numbers? Data? Anything?
One can say the sensors used by Leica is customized by the third party manufacturer to spec but is not a in-house design unlike Canon or Sony. Leica doesn't have the technical expertise to design their own CMOS/CCD sensors from the grounds up.
When I refer to the precision manufacturing, I am referring to the camera body. Making those to the precision and craftsman ship that Leica touts as competitive advantage is not rocket science. I guarantee you critical aerospace and automotive components have higher precision than Leica bodies. Leica's quality control involves either super high part rejects (to meet their requirements) or very tight control in their manufacturing process.
-
I think luxury is the wrong expression for describing the Leica market. The Leica market are the people willing to pay Leica prices for the uncompromising quality of design, materials and quality control that go into their products. This costs. And in this sense, no Leica is a "throwaway". Leicas made 75 years ago can be performing just fine today. What happens with digital technology, however, is that it becomes technically obsolete long before it ever wears out - that is a different story and affects Leica like it would affect any other digital brand; but people who buy these cameras do so for the beauty of the design, the "feel" of the camera, how it handles and the image quality. Those people have the means to buy these cameras even if they know they may be replacing them with more updated technology several years down the road, at high cost. That's the market for Leica. Don't disparage the brand because you may not share the values or perhaps don't have the means of that clientele.
-
I think luxury is the wrong expression for describing the Leica market. The Leica market are the people willing to pay Leica prices for the uncompromising quality of design, materials and quality control that go into their products. This costs. And in this sense, no Leica is a "throwaway". Leicas made 75 years ago can be performing just fine today. What happens with digital technology, however, is that it becomes technically obsolete long before it ever wears out - that is a different story and affects Leica like it would affect any other digital brand; but people who buy these cameras do so for the beauty of the design, the "feel" of the camera, how it handles and the image quality. Those people have the means to buy these cameras even if they know they may be replacing them with more updated technology several years down the road, at high cost. That's the market for Leica. Don't disparage the brand because you may not share the values or perhaps don't have the means of that clientele.
Digital Leica is a throwaway because I don't see how the M10 users can justify their use when next-generation sensors can lets say deliver double the ISO performance or can shoot at 0 lux (for exaggeration purpose). Unless Leica makes a camera with user-changeable sensor, then all that engineering, quality control into the body etc goes into the dumps when a better sensor comes along.
As yourself this, typical German luxury automobile cost $80K. A Leica camera costs on average $15K. does it really take. It is really 5.3X harder to make a car than a camera?
-
One can say the sensors used by Leica is customized by the third party manufacturer to spec but is not a in-house design unlike Canon or Sony. Leica doesn't have the technical expertise to design their own CMOS/CCD sensors from the grounds up.
When I refer to the precision manufacturing, I am referring to the camera body. Making those to the precision and craftsman ship that Leica touts as competitive advantage is not rocket science. I guarantee you critical aerospace and automotive components have higher precision than Leica bodies. Leica's quality control involves either super high part rejects (to meet their requirements) or very tight control in their manufacturing process.
It doesn't matter that they don't make their own sensors. What matters is the quality produced by whoever they get to manufacture them to their requirements.
Your guarantees also don't matter - irrelevant. People in the market for cameras are comparing one camera relative to another. Whatever their final product acceptance rate involves, which neither of us know, if it adds more to the cost of a Leica than to the cost of a Canon, that incremental cost needs to be paid for so the price is higher. That's the main point.
-
Digital Leica is a throwaway because I don't see how the M10 users can justify their use when next-generation sensors can lets say deliver double the ISO performance or can shoot at 0 lux (for exaggeration purpose). Unless Leica makes a camera with user-changeable sensor, then all that engineering, quality control into the body etc goes into the dumps when a better sensor comes along.
As yourself this, typical German luxury automobile cost $80K. A Leica camera costs on average $15K. does it really take. It is really 5.3X harder to make a car than a camera?
Well, there are people and there are people. Not everyone who invests 15K in a camera will throw it away in 2 years just because the next model with improvements comes along. Many people are intelligent enough to make rational choices about buying what they need and assessing whether they really need any more with each upgrade that comes along to tempt them. Yes, some people need to be at the bleeding edge and they will trade the last model for the latest model, and someone else will gladly buy at a discount the model they are trading in. And the used equipment that maintains highest value is the best-made stuff, because any one buying used equipment is especially mindful about performance going forward. So in fact, NOTHING necessarily "goes into the dumps" as you put it.
I wouldn't ask myself what a Leica is worth relative to an Audi or a BMW because I think it's an irrelevant, fruitless comparison. The products, the markets, the technologies and the manufacturing scales involved are so completely different these products can't be talked about in relation to each other. Makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Lets face it, there are those who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
-
If that is the case, can we safely conclude that Leica is 1% substance and 99% facade? If its a luxury product then there still should be differentiating factor that commands the price premium. When one buys a Herme bag or a Christian Dior coutoure dress, one knows why the item is priced in a certain way because of the material usage, craftsmanship and timeless heritage. Not so much with a throwaway camera.
Incorrect. The cameras, while luxury items (and I do think luxury is the appropriate term nowadays), are very well made and to precise mechanical tolerances. The lenses are flat-out superb. The whole package is no throwaway. It works. Thus the company has genuine cred as well as providing bling. This combo keeps them in business.
My M8s are eight years old now while my M9 is pushing six. Bought ‘em all used. Lenses range from a few months to 70+ years old, and the oldest one functions exactly the same as the newest. The sensors will crap out eventually but I’ll keep using ‘em ‘til this happens. Or who knows, they may outlast me. If you get rangefinders you’ll get why I and other RF enthusiasts enjoy using this stuff, and may understand why I in particular mostly prefer it to SLR and other mirrorless systems. If you don’t get it, that’s fine. But why then waste time & energy tilting at it? IMO life is too short for that.
Cheers!
-Dave-
-
Incorrect. The cameras, while luxury items (and I do think luxury is the appropriate term nowadays), are very well made and to precise mechanical tolerances. The lenses are flat-out superb. The whole package is no throwaway. It works. Thus the company has genuine cred as well as providing bling. This combo keeps them in business.
My M8s are eight years old now while my M9 is pushing six. Bought ‘em all used. Lenses range from a few months to 70+ years old, and the oldest one functions exactly the same as the newest. The sensors will crap out eventually but I’ll keep using ‘em ‘til this happens. Or who knows, they may outlast me. If you get rangefinders you’ll get why I and other RF enthusiasts enjoy using this stuff, and may understand why I in particular mostly prefer it to SLR and other mirrorless systems. If you don’t get it, that’s fine. But why then waste time & energy tilting at it? IMO life is too short for that.
Cheers!
-Dave-
Yup - that about sums it up nicely.
-
Incorrect. The cameras, while luxury items (and I do think luxury is the appropriate term nowadays), are very well made and to precise mechanical tolerances. The lenses are flat-out superb. The whole package is no throwaway. It works. Thus the company has genuine cred as well as providing bling. This combo keeps them in business.
My M8s are eight years old now while my M9 is pushing six. Bought ‘em all used. Lenses range from a few months to 70+ years old, and the oldest one functions exactly the same as the newest. The sensors will crap out eventually but I’ll keep using ‘em ‘til this happens. Or who knows, they may outlast me. If you get rangefinders you’ll get why I and other RF enthusiasts enjoy using this stuff, and may understand why I in particular mostly prefer it to SLR and other mirrorless systems. If you don’t get it, that’s fine. But why then waste time & energy tilting at it? IMO life is too short for that.
Cheers!
-Dave-
Dave - I am not disputing that Leica has superior optics and I understand they have excellent mechanical construction on the body. However, in the digital age how much of role does mechanical play at producing superior image quality? I think you will agree with me that the superior mechanical construction of the M10, M9 etc is no match for lesser priced camera of its time that uses a superior sensor. A photographic equipment absolutely have to the judged on its technical merit and Leicas are lacking in many aspect.
Maybe at the end of the day, Leica appeals to the crowd that wants a sense of nostalgia and the mechanical aspect of photography.
-
Lets face it, there are those who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
So we can't have a technical discussion on Leica? Or is that a forbidden topic?
-
So we can't have a technical discussion on Leica? Or is that a forbidden topic?
Of course we can, and no it's not a forbidden topic by any means, especially when those participating in the discussion know what they're talking about.
I think your main point in all this is very clear - tell me if I'm not mistaken: why pay premium prices for something that has a short technical life-cycle when cheaper cameras will do almost as well and perhaps with more features? In response, I think what some of us have been trying to get across to you is that regardless of all that, there is a market determining the value of the product, and the market just so happens to value that product highly, which is good for Leica because what they produce is intrinsically expensive for well-known reasons. Those are facts of life and there's no point denigrating the company, the customers or the product because of those facts. It is what it is, take it or leave it.
-
Perhaps if I explain a little more about why I use Leica digital it might help traderjay in some way. My comments will be restricted to the cameras of which I have experience!
I use Leica M series digital cameras, the reasons for this are as simple as the cameras themselves. I use them not for any sense of nostalgia but purely for reasons to do with working methodology. The most important factor is the rangefinder - as it happens very expensive to manufacture - which is unique in digital cameras. It allows seeing beyond the frame and I find it to be the quickest and easiest way to focus a manual lens. The Leica M digital bodies are beautifully built and allow the use of Leica lenses of exceptional quality and get the very best from them. They are compact and offer utter simplicity in use which is a quality I very much admire. Above all the cameras compel me to pick them up and use them and give me a great sense of joy. I wish the cameras were less expensive but they're not and there is no alternative. Far from being throwaway my camera bodies will serve me well for many years.
As a professional photographer I used some of the best film and digital cameras on the market including Hasselblad V and H series but have never enjoyed using anything more than my Leica M series equipment.
To describe cameras as throwaway, a facade and a joke without ever having used them is ludicrous and an insult to those enthusiast and professional photographers here who use them to great effect.
traderjay, I invite you to have a peek at my website galleries and explain to me where I've been going wrong, how you think your choice of camera could have improved my work and where my choice has failed. Even better, I invite you to post links to your own work and explain how your choice of camera has been fundamental to your own success.
traderjay, I wish you good shooting.
-
Superb photography Keith, and I really liked how your galleries work - clear, simple and effective. Mind if I ask what app you used to create them?
-
Superb photography Keith, and I really liked how your galleries work - clear, simple and effective. Mind if I ask what app you used to create them?
Mark, many thanks, very much appreciated.
I made the website from scratch using Dreamweaver. It was a labour of love and a very steep and long learning curve!
-
Nicely summarized, Keith. My experience parallels yours: I have used everything from a 4 by 5 Speed Graphic (for weddings when I was just in my late teens) to medium format ( Mamiyaflex, Hasselblad), and Leica M's. Now it is a Canon 5D2 and M9 and MP. I recently purchased new 35 and 50 Summicrons, but until then I was using the same but built in 1962 and 1967, still have them – I'll grudgingly admit to prefer the new lenses. I do quite a bit of work documenting art exhibitions and copying artists's works for catalogues and their websites. When I went 'digital' I switched from Hasselblads to the Canon as I could not afford a medium format digital back. That works fine. And now I find myself using the MP, which has LV and an EVF, for that work; bonus: no need for a cumbersome emote release, any cable release fits!
I just viewed the videos with Kevin and Charle Cramer and found his recommendation for the use of a viewing card is interesting (I have used those in photography workshops and seminars). With an M9 or MP, you have a built-in viewing card, from 28 to 135 a the flick of a lever. You don't even need the lever, you just eventually learn instinctively what the field of view will be even before raising the camera to your eye.
No digital camera will be useful in 50 years. Will a Leica be useful longer than other cameras? Maybe not. However, there appears to be a market for used M8's and it also appears that many M8 owners simply keep using their camera. That camera is getting quite long in the tooth in digital years but people keep making images with those. My first dSLR, a 5D, lasted one year before being replaced by the newer 5D2.
-
Yes, the Fuji looks pretty, but it's longer lenses are slow zooms, which I would not buy.
Rob
Hi Rob,
I have a Fuji XE-1 and I use older fast Canon prime glass...great combo.
Peter
-
Mark, many thanks, very much appreciated.
I made the website from scratch using Dreamweaver. It was a labour of love and a very steep and long learning curve!
Dreamweaver - I can imagine. Thanks.
-
Hi Rob,
I have a Fuji XE-1 and I use older fast Canon prime glass...great combo.
Peter
Hello Peter,
Nice to see you active here again, but where are those atmospheric street shots you did so well? Photography the "second-level" art still? :-)
Regarding your use of Canon lenses on the Fuji: as it means the use of an adaptor, do you simply get manual focus, or can af still be used if the foreign lens has it? My eyes are not that good anymore, and even using the Nikons with their viewfinder magnification lenses, focus without af is tough, simply because of no split-screen focussing facility...
If it means touching screens and making enlarged sections, no use: I want to have accuracy in the straight, immediate viewfinder mode, as I see and shoot. Having to pause and fiddle has no value for what I'd see as such a camera's appeal to me. Zone focussing is as useless: I have discovered my sweet spot to be f2 if it's there, or F2.8 at the smallest. Just how it works for me today. Also helps since I have no image stab. on camera or lenses!
What's the method to get whatever Raw files Fuji uses into Photoshop as Tiffs - is there a dedicated converter that works well?
Rob
-
Hello Peter,
Nice to see you active here again, but where are those atmospheric street shots you did so well? Photography the "second-level" art still? :-)
Regarding your use of Canon lenses on the Fuji: as it means the use of an adaptor, do you simply get manual focus, or can af still be used if the foreign lens has it? My eyes are not that good anymore, and even using the Nikons with their viewfinder magnification lenses, focus without af is tough, simply because of no split-screen focussing facility...
If it means touching screens and making enlarged sections, no use: I want to have accuracy in the straight, immediate viewfinder mode, as I see and shoot. Having to pause and fiddle has no value for what I'd see as such a camera's appeal to me. Zone focussing is as useless: I have discovered my sweet spot to be f2 if it's there, or F2.8 at the smallest. Just how it works for me today. Also helps since I have no image stab. on camera or lenses!
What's the method to get whatever Raw files Fuji uses into Photoshop as Tiffs - is there a dedicated converter that works well?
Rob
Hi Rob,
Yes,painting has been my focus for the last couple of years...Things have been going well on that front. Painting is my first love, you know how that goes. The call of the Siren, and all that stuff.
The Fuji combo I use for street. I shoot at f/8 or 11 and manual focus for seven feet and the world is mine.
You will need a ground glass to truly see you picture prior to exposure.
Peter
-
Hi Rob,
Yes,painting has been my focus for the last couple of years...Things have been going well on that front. Painting is my first love, you know how that goes. The call of the Siren, and all that stuff.
The Fuji combo I use for street. I shoot at f/8 or 11 and manual focus for seven feet and the world is mine.
You will need a ground glass to truly see you picture prior to exposure.
Peter
Thanks, Peter; I suppose that zone focussing has ever been the route for Leica rangefinder street work, especially as so much of it does employ great DOF... maybe I have the wrong temperament for rangefinders, as several folks have warned me already.
:-(
Rob
-
I don’t own any Leicas, probably never will, although I had a Q on loan for 3 days and it was a memorable experience. But I do subscribe to LFI magazine, because of the sheer luxurious quality of the portfolios published monthly, from Leica photographers of all backgrounds. It may well be that one could assemble a similar quality publication by collecting together work by photographers using some other single make, but I’ve never seen one. These Leica photographers, from their bios, are frequently young, not wealthy, and have very little gear. But they have decided that Leica cameras suit them well and are worth the investment. A good number of the portfolios focus on some pretty dodgy parts of the planet, so we are absolutely not talking about “dentists on vacation” here. Not that buying a Leica makes one a good/interesting photographer - there is plenty of evidence of that on various internet forums - but to say that Leicas are 1% photography is just trolling.
Of course there are plenty of Leica bores around too. They’re almost as bad as computer bores, you know, the kind of people who list every component of their PeeCee in their forum signature....
-
David,
What makes you think there aren't wealthy, artistically talented dentists who make fine photos with their Leicas in dodgy parts of the planet? :-) (OK, got your point, just having some fun here.)
-
Perhaps a quote too often used, but:
Ernest Hemingway to Irving Penn: “Your photos are really good. What camera do you use?”
Irving Penn to Ernest Hemingway: “Your novels are excellent. What typewriter do you use?”
-
Can anyone confirm the functions of the two control wheels on the top of the camera? The illustration in Kevin's review shows that the aperture is controlled by the left wheel, but according to Jono Slack the aperture is controlled by the right wheel. Are the functions swappable? If not then which wheel does what?
-
I should have gone to the Leica site and downloaded the CL manual before posting. If Kevin's illustration is how he used the camera then the functions of the two wheels can be reversed. According to the Leica CL manual, the right hand wheel controls the aperture.
-
Does the M adapter allow the use of non-Leica brand M-mount lenses and retain some of the features, or is it completely manual operation? What features are maintained?
Thanks
-
I've been shooting with a CL for just under a month, with some of the TL lenses (which are excellent, BTW) and some M lenses using the M to L adapter. You can see the results in occasional posts at the Leica User Forum and at GetDPI or in my albums on Flickr. To answer the questions in the past few posts, the M to L adapter supports any lens that works on the Ms. You can identify it automatically if it has a six bit code (or one painted on) or assign it a code to get the vignetting corrections. Or leave that off. With any manual lens, or with an AF lens in manual focus mode you get focus magnification and reasonably useful focus peaking.
The buttons and dials are more complex than the last two answers suggested. The left dial, if you give a short press to its button, lets you choose P A S M video or (gasp!) styles. The dials do different things in each of the four basic modes, with the right dial handling aperture and the left dial handling shutter. In manual mode, that's exactly what they control. In aperture priority, the right dial is aperture, and the left dial is exposure compensation. In Shutter priority mode, the left dial is shutter speed and the right dial gets exposure compensation. Makes sense to me, but some do find it confusing. The menus are much like those on the M10, with a favorites page that you can configure, followed by five pages of the usual stuff.
Anyway, for me it is a mini-M, with auto focus, lighter lenses, and almost equal image quality. And it also provides a 1.5X extender back end for Leica's long SL zoom and the R telephotos, without sacrificing aperture.
Flickr Albums: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133969392@N05/albums