Great overview. One quick point not mentioned on this video: the CL shares the same battery as the Q. With a CL and a Q you can travel lighter with just one battery system.
If you want one but can't afford it or justify the price, just wait 2 years and buy one for 1/3 the price. You don't need the latest camera to take great photos. Even old 8mp cameras can take great photos.
never knew my dream build camera already existed. rangefinder style, dials with buttons and long pressing function buttons to change function. dream come true but still cant afford it. kinda wish mode button and rear fn button would be switched though
I would love it if the CL added a “snap focus” option like the Ricoh GR has. At least with it’s wider lenses like the new 18mm. Would be awesome for street photography.
Nice camera, but Leica missed a lot of opportunities with this model. Beside the pretty high Leica tax, Leica should have incorporates at least a hybrid AF, weather sealing, and two card slots on the side. You have to remember that this camera competes against the Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 for example. Both cameras are made in japan and the quality is 1++. There are also more lens options on Fujifilm side. Leica needs to add more native lenses, especially more primes.
If I had the disposable money to have a Leica I would get one of these. The only real problem with the TC/L system is the zooms lack stabilization unlike the S/L zooms.
Many thanks for your well-balanced review and also your extensive review based on your trip to New Mexico. Between the CL and the M-P (Typ 240), which one would you choose, please?
Each reviewer has their own style. May I recommend adding some real-world shooting experiences to your review content, as they offer insights into the usability and performance of the camera. From your buttons-and-screens point of view, it would be an easy "buy" decision, but the real-world use makes it less so.
Thanks for the feedback. These videos are more of an overview, not a review. I try to shoot and edit these within a day of having the camera in hand, so no shooting experience at the time of recording. For super in-depth reviews with plentiful sample images, I'd recommend checking out Red Dot Forum (www.reddotforum.com/content/category/reviews/). These reviews generally take several weeks to complete, and I am working on a full review of the CL, now that I've had ample opportunity to go out for some real-world shooting.
ACID SNOW Get an M. You’ll get so much more in touch with your photography because all the responsibility is on you. The camera won’t make mistakes so you can’t make mistakes. Also it’s easier to get cheep glass for them.
Hatef Yamini only if you don’t get good at focusing an M. My miss rate is very low. And when I think of how many shots the AF of my GH5s (which still has the best contrast detect AF) misses it comes to around the same amount. Maybe one or two misses more for the M.
ACID SNOW leica M and CL is completely different system, FF range finder manual system and APSC crop censor ,auto focus .... more like a good hobby camera than for pro shooter . If you want a fast auto focus plus videos , small compact and most important is far cheaper than M system then CL is the camera for you .
Once you use or owned M10 ,SL and Q you find that CL is a fun camera but never as close as these camera and the closest is the TL2 and i found TL2 is better than CL but that just my opinion .
Great introduction. Question is what do I do with my Q if I buy a CL and what lens to start out with. We travel a lot and I shoot street. Kit zoom? 23 Cron?
The Q and the CL are different cameras. But, if you want to move to the CL, all the TL lenses are excellent. For a small, one lens setup, the 23 would be great. The zoom is very capable. Extremely sharp. Good focal length range, but at f/3.5 - 5.6, it might be a little limiting depending on the light. You may want to consider the zoom for the coverage (28-85 equiv) and either the 23 f/2 or 35 f/1.4 for fast, shallow DOF to compliment it. The 11-23 could also be fun for both travel and street.
Lorin Duckman , if I owned a Q I would not be locking for a CL. There are buyers for the Q if you really desire to have to buy separate lenses. But I understand I would love to have one.
This camera frustrates me. I want to get it, but just cannot justify buying it. Yes, I can afford it. But, what a waste. The only thing going for Leica are some of their lenses and the M model. Anything else makes money just because of the Red Dot. No tilty-flippy screen, no weather proofing, internals share similarities with sensors from Sony and Panasonic... really, the only thing going for it is the "hand-made aluminum body". I still want it. I just can't justify wasting money on it, not with better products out there on the market. I get that some of their lenses are the best, but I don't think that's the case these days. Zeiss, Sony, even Fujifilm are making amazing lenses. The only thing Leica lenses really have going for them are their size. They're smaller. That's it. And yes, that matters to someone like me, but that still isn't enough when their bodies can't match what other manufacturers make out there.
y eddie yet, i would rather a cl than a x pro 2, here a x pro 2 cost 2000$ and a leica cl had cost around 2700 dollar, so.. i think with some more advantages on leica cl, it's kind of a worth it, unless we're about to compare it with alpha 7 II
The CL is about handling, shooting experience, and being able to use TL and SL lenses. Many cameras have better specs than the Leica M, too, but nothing has the same shooting experience.
Rejor111 As somebody who doesn’t give any shits about brands just for brands sake I can tell you that you should go for it if you can afford it. Yes it doesn’t have all the features, but no camera feels like it and therefor no camera shoots like it. I started shooting with an M5 on film a year ago. It has change my process so much that I now bought a 12 year old M8, the ISO of which isn’t really usable after anything higher than 640 in color. Because I can get better pictures with a simple, not obtrusive rangefinder than with an overly complicated high ISO performer. Leicas are among the best cameras from a tool perspective. They have IMO the best color science and obviously some of the best glass there is. You can usually take it out for a spin at a Leica store. I suggest you do that. If it’s still too much in your eye, then take a look at an M camera. Not a new M10 but something out of the M240 area or used. It really can change how you shoot. Mattias Burling makes a good case for the Leica T at his channel. It’s somewhat similar to the Leica CL but you can have it used for around $500. And it’s also very pretty.
Hey David, thanks for your unboxing, just bought the TL2, could you compare the AF speed for the 35mm and 60mm lens between those two cameras? I thought they have the same sensor, but the AF speed is different... could you confirm this?
The CL definitely focuses quicker than the TL2. My understanding is that they have the same sensor and processor, but I don't have confirmation of this from Leica at this point. If this is the case, there is a good chance that the difference is firmware related. Then, a future TL2 firmware update could improve AF speed.
If you have the Q or the TL2 then forget this camera . I owned this CL as well ( birthday gift) after months of used i can say don’t buy it TL2 is better and Q much more superior to CL . Save your money buy leica Lens instead . I’m a long time leica shooter owned M4,6,8,9 ,& 10 , Q ,TL2 and SL but CL is not my cup of tea . If you can afford only one leica camera then go for Leica Q2 because its give you a fantastic summilux lens and 47MP on 28mm then a multi lens choice 35mm,50mm and 75mm ( 4 in 1) with around 24mp instead using CL and pay more for Lenses add up higher cost on APSC system not FF as the Q and not high quality lens as Q .
Well I don t agree. I own a Q and à CL and they are very complementary. The Q for its wonderful 28mm which for me the right focal for street, landscape and everyday photo. But the Cl is far more versatile with for instance a Sigme 18-50 f2.8. Then with telephotos the advantage is far more true. With a simple 75mm or 90mm which gives you an equivalent of 105 or 135mm the Q and even the Q2 can t compete. Last point I don t really understand in your comment is when you say the TL2 is better than CL… they are probably very similar internally but having a good evf like the CL is a great advantage… saying the contrary is quite nonsense for me…
The video isn't a review, just an overview. I will be working on a full in-depth review for Red Dot Forum, but these typically take several weeks. You can see other reviews, with plenty of sample pictures there: www.reddotforum.com/content/category/reviews/
...I see, the US also has presenters who got drunk on UK TV re-runs of Open University on BBC2 from the 1970s. But it works, full marks for presentation, no detention today.
It’s not a baby M with out the rangefinder. I don’t get why there is still no entire level M. I get that they are expansiv to make, im from Germany. But I had to get a M5 wich is great but I can’t afford to shoot three rolls of film a month....
The M262 bundle is an "entry level M" kit. At $5,500 for an M262 and a lens, this cost considerably less than just an M10. leicastoremiami.com/collections/leica-m-system-m-system-camera/products/leica-m-typ-262-set-with-summarit-m-50mm-f-2-4-black-oberwerth-for-leica-bag-black-cognac-sd-card-holders But, the best example of an entry level M is a used one. A used M240 can be had for around $3,000. While this isn't cheap, it is still less than half the cost of an M10. Many Leica shooters first camera is a used one. leicastoremiami.com/collections/used-m-cameras
Yes I know that. I paid about a thousand for a very good M5 and a pre war 35mm Elmar. As a passioned photographer who subscribes to the key principles of Leica, I'm naturally driven to the M cameras. Especially as a street photographer. But even with a lens, more than 2 1/2 to 3 thousand would just be without reason to buy one as a student.
Expensive is all relative. Compared to what I spend on video camera bodies and lenses, the CL seems like a great deal. Although I really want the SL. @@RedDotForum
I'm working on a full, in-depth review of the Leica CL on Red Dot Forum. Took the camera out to New Mexico for a week of shooting and it was a ton of fun.
No built-in flash, but you can use a Leica SF-40 if you need flash. Most Leica shooters avoid using flash, as these cameras excel in available light photography.
Concerning lightroom: Lightroom came as a free download when I bought my Leica. That WAS the contract between Leica and Adobe. So, Leica and Adobe has fullfilled each others contract and have parted ways. However!!!!!!!!! Read on please......... When Adobe had a contract with Leica, each user was allowed to download the software on 2 computers. How is this important? When Adobe had that contract with Leica they also had a contract with you the consumer of a Leica product! Just because the agreement is fulfilled with Leica doesn't mean the agreement is fulfilled with the customer. Adobe is breaking their contract with the customer and is actually liable to be sued in court! They no longer allow previous owners to download on 2 computers. That was my contract with them and they are breaking it!
Oh my...gone the sharp lines/great design on the top plate like previous Leicas. Its looks ugly especially at the top, viewfinder side. Doesn't seem like 'the iconic Leica' design to me, except from the front and back. And what's with that huge protruding silver mounting? It should be black like the overall body. The X looks much handsome and solid when you put them side by side if you ask me...
Bismillah How does Leica and their customers justify the price of a camera like this? You get less features for way more money. The camera is beautiful but nothing in a Leica justifies the price for me. I had the Q, loved the image rendering but just didn't get what made it worth the price. I ended up buying a Pentax KP and K1 for the same price. The Pentax limited lens give a very nice rendering also, have better build quality with a lot more features and better handling. I can't help but think people are buying Leica's for their name. What do you guys think? What am I missing?
halimj7 you are missing an understanding of the appeal of luxury brands You can buy a car that’s faster than a Ferrari for less money, a watch that keeps better time than a Rolex, a bag that has more pockets and holds more items than a Gucci. Clothes that keep you warmer, last longer, and look better than something from D&G, yet people still want and buy these luxury brands for many reasons.
Hey Halimj7 so you HAD a Q....borrowed it or BOUGHT it then SOLD it..... If you look back and compare the Photos.... are they the same or better? If you're walking around and wip out your LIECA, and the same the Pentax... which do you suppose PPL are going to notice more? Yup, the ROLEX on your wrist.
not at all. manicure is just a term for the grooming of the nails to keep them healthy. Much like you go to a barber to groom and trim your hair. I'm not suggesting he paints them and polishes them, but just to keep them looking presentable. Especially if his profession involves a camera zooming in closely to his hands, he should groom them to be presentable... aka: get a manicure.
try selling a used Leica, and try to sell a used Canon, Canon has a better resale value, I had both and i sold a Summicron 50/2 at a 1000, that took over a month at fredmiranda, I sold a Canon 50 1.2L and it took 3 days for 1200, lost of $75 from the original price i bought it for, and used it for 2 years, I owned a Leica Q and tracking is abysmal, leaf shutter defeats the purpose of using a strobe since it blacks out and very laggy, Truth is the two happiest days of my life owning and selling it..bleh, if you're shooting film then yeah Leica is the shit, but welcome to digital, it's just a dying breed, Fuji has a better OVF than the rangefinder crap, hey I'm not being biased but at least leica should improve the RF's on their camera for the price you pay for, yupp you can still take great photos with the M series but as long as the subject is not moving or shoot at f5.6, when i could nail at f1.2 on a Canon perfectly focused..
