Official Talk Leica thread

Tobers said:
Enjoying my little Leica CL. I now have the 18-56 and 55-135 zoom lenses and they are really extremely good - much better than expected. I have the little 18mm prime arriving on Tuesday which will make the CL a perfect travel companion IMHO.

Things I like over the M10 - WYSIWYG exposure and focus in the EVF, precise focusing of M lenses wide open, diddy size, ability to zoom! What I miss about the M10 - that lovely M10 thing that M10 owners know only too well but can’t really describe to others. Image quality is largely identical as far as I can tell and as far as it matters to me. It’s all about composition as you folks know.

Here’s 4 shots from Wisley yesterday.

Bamboo by Tobers, on Flickr

Birch by Tobers, on Flickr

Eucalyptus by Tobers, on Flickr

Twigs by Tobers, on Flickr

Mild processing on these. Generally shot using a tripod.
Click to expand...

Very nice. Tobers.... but what's this strategy of re-using old brand names? I presume your Leica CL doesn't take 35mm film, as my Leitz Minolta (subsequently Leica) CL did? Pentax did somewhat the same with the MX. It's daft!
 
StevenS said:
I've just picked up a Voightlander 35/f1.2 Nokton II second hand for £700.
Click to expand...

I’ve been looking at one of them, it’s a bit big! What do you think of it? It generally gets great reviews. Any samples to share?

I fitted a lens tab claw to my 50 cron, it’s not pretty but does the job... the 50 cron can be a bit flare prone, the hood is a bit naff and it’s not the prettiest “bokeh” known to mankind, but I really enjoy shooting with it and I’m delighted by the IQ, straight out of the box the images have rich colour, contrast and plenty of bite.
 
ChrisR said:
Very nice. Tobers.... but what's this strategy of re-using old brand names? I presume your Leica CL doesn't take 35mm film, as my Leitz Minolta (subsequently Leica) CL did? Pentax did somewhat the same with the MX. It's daft!
Click to expand...

CL simply stands for "Compact Leica". Auto companies use model types for decades, even though the product is upgraded. An a Compact Leica it is.
 
Adzman808 said:
I’ve been looking at one of them, it’s a bit big! What do you think of it? It generally gets great reviews. Any samples to share?

I fitted a lens tab claw to my 50 cron, it’s not pretty but does the job... the 50 cron can be a bit flare prone, the hood is a bit naff and it’s not the prettiest “bokeh” known to mankind, but I really enjoy shooting with it and I’m delighted by the IQ, straight out of the box the images have rich colour, contrast and plenty of bite.
Click to expand...

The 50/f2 ASPH is super sharp. I used a TAAB but it always fell off. Someone suggested using a cable tie as a thumb guide. Urgh.

I've not picked up the V 35/f1.2 yet. Reviews are reliable about the good and bad Voightlanders. We have some of the good ones - the 15/f4.5 Mk3 is a cracker, my son's stock lens is the pancake 35/f2.5 Skopar and I bought the 75/f1.8 Heliar for a particular event and it is very effective.

For the time being here is one from the event I first bought the Heliar for, used on an M9.

L9991406.jpeg

I have the 50 Lux and do sort of miss the 50 Cron. This was a test shot with the 50 Cron wandering around with it on a Monochrom. I don't think the Lux is as good.

18816375203_e7f94a88dd_k.jpg
[/url]
 
Last edited:
Same day as above, here are a couple with the Zeiss 21/f2.8. It's a stellar lens and all the reviews suggest it is better than the Leica 21/f3.4.

19407584016_a45a1a8693_k.jpg


19433635625_d1600f1370_k.jpg
 
Thanks Steven,

The Heliar is another I’m keen on. I so nearly bought the 35 skopar (the shop thought they had stock, but the cupboard was bare)

My 50 1.4 experience is quite (well very) limited, Leica loaned me one on a 240 a while back, and I liked it but it didn’t blow me away, by contrast (there’s a pun there I think!!) the cron just delivers the goods (for me YMMV) of lovely rich images

Of course that extra stop would be lovely sometimes (I have an m9) and I like shallow DOF as much as anybody else who’s not besotted by it, but for me, the cron gave me more of what I personally consider to be important image qualities (bite contrast colour) so it was a no brainer

I’m keen to see what the 7artisans 35/2 is like... (ie quality vs character trade off) and the 35 cron is an obvious choice, but the Zeiss and VL 35 offerings can’t be ignored!

Cheers and thanks for sharing some samples, that cron shot is superb (not that the others aren’t you understand!)
 
I picked up the v 35/1.2 Nokton II. In short, at f1.2 in daylight is useless, from f4 up is sharp corner to corner, but comes into its own in dark conditions.

f1.2 - urgh
27769870939_b9530a5fd7_h.jpg


f5.6 - ok, colours a little dull/filmic?
27769875179_d891c96cde_h.jpg


f1.2 - focused on "SOHO"
39516664992_296536287f_h.jpg


f1.2 - focused on the girl's specs
]
38650122965_6899b316ee_h.jpg


V 15/f4.5 Heliar Mk 111 - love it
38650122265_4adfdda843_h.jpg
 
ChrisR said:
Very nice. Tobers.... but what's this strategy of re-using old brand names? I presume your Leica CL doesn't take 35mm film, as my Leitz Minolta (subsequently Leica) CL did? Pentax did somewhat the same with the MX. It's daft!
Click to expand...
I think they're trying to sabotage Google or something. There was also Leica MP in the 1950s, not to be confused with the current film MP or the current digital M-P, not to mention the vaguely named Leica M that always has to be glossed as the 'Typ 240' to avoid confusion with every other M series camera. Other letters and numbers are available, Leica!
 
Retune said:
I think they're trying to sabotage Google or something. There was also Leica MP in the 1950s, not to be confused with the current film MP or the current digital M-P, not to mention the vaguely named Leica M that always has to be glossed as the 'Typ 240' to avoid confusion with every other M series camera. Other letters and numbers are available, Leica!
Click to expand...

Leica M has been around a lot longer than Google. The model and aperture nomenclature (noctilux, summilux, summicron, etc.) has survived 70 odd years and seeing people regularly use Leica items that old, the product names are remarkably logical. Try remembering all the different Canon camera kit over the same time period!
 
Put some lenses in the classifieds
  • Leica M 24mm f/1.4 ASPH Summilux 6-Bit
  • Leica Apo-Summicron 90mm f2 ASPH-M 6-Bit
  • Leica APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4 Lens #11175
  • LEICA 35MM F1.4 SUMMILUX - M ASPH FLE SILVER LENS (6 BIT)
Enjoyed a short trip to Venice with Louise, the following with 50mm 1.4 asph on M10

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
After about 9 solid days of biblical rain the sun came out all day yesterday (cold though) so I went to the beach

943FECE7-AB1F-4E8D-96B9-2763D231E0C3.jpeg

The day before was showers, so I risked going into town, but managed to avoid the rain!

01C1F09E-7B40-4599-9722-419551D6BF0A.jpeg

I’m not that into BW, but I wonder if that’s about to change?!! I seem to be doing more and more of it lately

A766BEF9-EF76-4F41-9125-1E22A95F33ED.jpeg

50/2 will never be the last word in shallow DOF, but it’s not the end of the world, and a bit of bg context doesn’t do any harm

(This images have gone: computer - upload to facebook - download to iPad - uploaded to here, hence they don’t look great!)
 
Last edited:
StevenS said:
Leica M has been around a lot longer than Google. The model and aperture nomenclature (noctilux, summilux, summicron, etc.) has survived 70 odd years and seeing people regularly use Leica items that old, the product names are remarkably logical. Try remembering all the different Canon camera kit over the same time period!
Click to expand...
There's some logic in re-using the lens names - if you buy a Summicron you know you're getting a highly corrected f/2 lens, a double Gauss-derived design until they updated the formula (and the name) with aspherical elements. But reusing camera body names is a 21st century thing that coincides with Leica exploiting its 'heritage' branding for all it's worth, which helps to justify the premium prices. The digital CL looks like an excellent camera, exactly what Leica should be making in 2018, but really has nothing in common with the original CL except (roughly) size. The film CL shares the full-frame format, lens mount and rangefinder focusing of its big brother; the digital CL is an APS-C AF camera with lenses that won't work on any M.
 
I think Leica want a kind of Porsche 911 nomenclature going on, whereby they were all called M but each had a ref number (262, 240 etc)

(So also Jame Bond’s range of bosses :D )

Once upon a time 35mm was the crop frame. Modern APSC has more than enough performance for many uses, and in many cases exceeds FF tech from a few years ago. My hunch would be that the CL has better high ISO performance than the M240 for example
 
Retune said:
There's some logic in re-using the lens names - if you buy a Summicron you know you're getting a highly corrected f/2 lens, a double Gauss-derived design until they updated the formula (and the name) with aspherical elements. But reusing camera body names is a 21st century thing that coincides with Leica exploiting its 'heritage' branding for all it's worth, which helps to justify the premium prices. The digital CL looks like an excellent camera, exactly what Leica should be making in 2018, but really has nothing in common with the original CL except (roughly) size. The film CL shares the full-frame format, lens mount and rangefinder focusing of its big brother; the digital CL is an APS-C AF camera with lenses that won't work on any M.
Click to expand...

Except the Leica CL (in my case the Leitz Minolta CL) was designed with and manufactured by Minolta, and only for about 3 years. It also has a completely different metering system, framelines system and viewfinder data system. Leica's main input were the to specific 40 and 90 lenses. As I said before, CL stands for Compact Leica and that is exactly what it is, so is the ideal nomenclature for the new CL. What else should they call it? The DCL (Digital Compact Leica)? Don't think so. The Leica C name is already used for a different system.

The old and new CL's are similar in size. Because the old CL was so small and had to accommodate a decent sized winding lever (smaller than on the M), they had to put the speed dial on the front of the body. The new CL being digital now has room for two dials on the top plate. As far as lenses are concerned, the CL-specific lenses relate to the fact that they are auto-focus. There was a lot of demand after the Q came out for a similar camera with interchangeable lenses and autofocus, so now there is the CL for APS format and SL for full frame format. However, the point most overlooked by non-Leica users, is that most Leica users have M lenses, which is where most of their investment is, and M-lenses work beautifully on both the SL and CL systems.

So the CL seems to give Leica a really complete and flexible range of systems, the best they've had for ages.

The cost of the CL body is in the same ball-park as Sony, has better software and is far more ergonomic (and I have and a7r and RX100).
 
StevenS said:
The cost of the CL body is in the same ball-park as Sony, has better software and is far more ergonomic (and I have and a7r and RX100).
Click to expand...

Eh?

An APS-C Sony A63/6500 is much much less. Unless you're going to compare the CL to a Sony FF body?
 
I don't get this hang-up on names. The basis logic is obviously and has always been system names, M lenses and bodies, R, SL, S, whatever. Simple, uncomplicated, logical.

The original/unique CL was unusual for several reasons:
- It wasn't really a Leica. It says on the back "Licensed by Leitz Weltzar". (Frankly the DLux should do the same as it's made by Panasonic.)
- It was a kit camera - not Leica's thing other than for special editions.
- The 40mm kit lens was M-fit, but was not for use on M bodies as they don't have 40mm framelines
- It was designed to accommodate 50mm M lenses, having 50mm framelines, and 35mm is effectively the full viewfinder scale.
- It could accommodate wider M lenses as it has a shoe for wide angle viewfinders, and had a 90mm lens option with framelines.

So the CL name makes sense, and CM (compact M) would have been wrong because the CL body has little in common with the M body other than taking M lenses.

The other big similarity is that the old and new CL's were/are sold as a camera/lens kit option, and I don't know that Leica did that in the intervening 40 years (Leica historians may correct me).
 
woof woof said:
Eh?

An APS-C Sony A63/6500 is much much less. Unless you're going to compare the CL to a Sony FF body?
Click to expand...

The Sony a6500 is £1,500, the CL is £2,150.

If you are invested in M lenses, the price difference is fairly insignificant. The Sony kit lens is the FE 24-70 and I found that too bulky on the a7r and quickly sold it. I only ever used my a7r with M lenses and my son who now has it does the same. We share lenses.
 
dancook said:
Put some lenses in the classifieds
  • Leica M 24mm f/1.4 ASPH Summilux 6-Bit
  • Leica Apo-Summicron 90mm f2 ASPH-M 6-Bit
  • Leica APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4 Lens #11175
  • LEICA 35MM F1.4 SUMMILUX - M ASPH FLE SILVER LENS (6 BIT)
Enjoyed a short trip to Venice with Louise, the following with 50mm 1.4 asph on M10

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr

Venice by dancook1982, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Dan, great set from Venice on Flickr, its a beautiful city! Taken with a beautiful camera!
 
StevenS said:
Except the Leica CL (in my case the Leitz Minolta CL) was designed with and manufactured by Minolta, and only for about 3 years. It also has a completely different metering system, framelines system and viewfinder data system. Leica's main input were the to specific 40 and 90 lenses. As I said before, CL stands for Compact Leica and that is exactly what it is, so is the ideal nomenclature for the new CL. What else should they call it? The DCL (Digital Compact Leica)? Don't think so. The Leica C name is already used for a different system.
Click to expand...

Well, there's an almost inifinite number of things they could have called it that wouldn't have made the original barely visible to a 'Leica CL' Google search. :) But they've decided to namecheck a classic that is still remembered with affection, even if not everybody regards it as a 'proper Leica'. Leica was doing a lot of outsourcing at the time, with the R bodies heavily based on Minolta designs. I'd be very surprised if the electronics of today's CL aren't also heavily outsourced.

I suppose the 40mm frameline of the film CL is the main oddity with practical consequences today (perhaps a bit of deliberate product differentiation at the time). All Leica Ms are compatible with accessory viewfinders, of course. I don't know when they stopped selling official camera/lens kits as standard items - they certainly existed as late as the M4 era, with their own catalogue numbers.

StevenS said:
However, the point most overlooked by non-Leica users, is that most Leica users have M lenses, which is where most of their investment is, and M-lenses work beautifully on both the SL and CL systems.

So the CL seems to give Leica a really complete and flexible range of systems, the best they've had for ages.
Click to expand...

Other mirrorless systems are also adaptable to Leica M, of course, with Fuji even making an M adapter themselves. The XE-3 is an £850 camera with a broadly similar specification to the CL, though I can understand the attraction of Leica's very nice design, and agree they now have an excellent range of systems. It's still kind of a pity they don't have an 'FX' camera with eyepiece live view that will take the M lenses, but I like the size of the digital CL (which like the film CL takes us back to the original Barnack idea of a pocketable camera).
 
Everyone outsources these days! Well not some of watch companies, but most things with electronics are.

There’s a very detailed M8 strip down thread on L-Camera-Forum which shows (and names) many of the electrical components

Apparently adapting M glass on the SL/TL/CL works better than on the Sony/Fuji etc because of the micro lenses

Personally I think there’s a real demand for a M mount Q type Leica, but by offering TL/SL AF lenses and an adapter for M glass, Leica are keeping everyones options open and adding modern functionality to their product range. You can stick a pretty decent EVF on an M10 anyway

The CL might not be the take home choice for someone looking for their first mirrorless, but for owners of a stable of M glass it makes a lot of sense (and costs less than the vast majority of M glass anyway) a CL plus some M glass (as long as super wide isn’t your thing) and maybe an AF lens for kid shots or whatever and you’ve got yourself a decent kit. Not a cheap kit granted, but when we’re happy with what we buy, we seldom remember what it costs, buying what we don’t want becuase its cheaper on the other hand...

I’m not a CL owner btw! (I’ve got an M)
 
StevenS said:
I picked up the v 35/1.2 Nokton II. In short, at f1.2 in daylight is useless, from f4 up is sharp corner to corner, but comes into its own in dark conditions.

f1.2 - urgh
27769870939_b9530a5fd7_h.jpg
Click to expand...

urgh is about the kindest thing you could say I think! :)


StevenS said:
f5.6 - ok, colours a little dull/filmic?
27769875179_d891c96cde_h.jpg
Click to expand...

That's not so bad, not that dull, the light looks a bit flat (Obviously I wasn't there though) - the tops of the blue covers and the upside down table (or chair) legs are 'sparkly' enough. It's picking out the folds and creases in the blue fabric quite well and the detail and 'pop' in the brickwork/window frames is good. There's spatial depth despite 5.6


StevenS said:
f1.2 - focused on "SOHO"
39516664992_296536287f_h.jpg
Click to expand...

I'd have liked to have seen this focused on the chair back the guy second from the right is sitting on! It's not 'blooming' though - here and there it's blown out (fair enough, tricky lighting) but by and large the highlights are controlled and the shadow detail is there


StevenS said:
f1.2 - focused on the girl's specs
]
38650122965_6899b316ee_h.jpg
Click to expand...

Same comments as above... those stacked drinking glasses look at bit smeary, but then they're stacked glasses, so maybe that's how they look... that close to the center though I'd be curious to see more tests of that (just me YMMV)

StevenS said:
V 15/f4.5 Heliar Mk 111 - love it
38650122265_4adfdda843_h.jpg
Click to expand...

Oooh hello.... off to ebay to see what these go for :)
 
Last edited:
Adzman808 said:
Oooh hello.... off to ebay to see what these go for :)
Click to expand...

A couple more with the V 15/f4.5. The second one was taken with the 020 Visoflex at 90 degrees, which avoids major injury.

I think it is quite a new lens and is worth the £550 new price.

27790882479_a0416ff193_b.jpg


38671164515_6a102827b8_b.jpg
 
Well I'm back in the Leica thready! recently won an X1 and a Type C112 (yes I know its a Panasonic!) so looking forward to playing with this guys!
 
StevenS said:
The cost of the CL body is in the same ball-park as Sony, has better software and is far more ergonomic (and I have and a7r and RX100).
Click to expand...

StevenS said:
The Sony a6500 is £1,500, the CL is £2,150.

If you are invested in M lenses, the price difference is fairly insignificant. The Sony kit lens is the FE 24-70 and I found that too bulky on the a7r and quickly sold it. I only ever used my a7r with M lenses and my son who now has it does the same. We share lenses.
Click to expand...

The A6300 is under £800 and the A6500 is under £1,300, both at the usual UK sellers. They are both therefore much cheaper unless being £800 more does IYO put the CL in the same ball park.

If you want to compare an APS-C Leica to a FF A7x that's another matter.

Just sayin.
 
Last edited:
StevenS said:
It was sitting there and was reduced to £320, so I just had to have it.

25678107778_603e8bb8b8_c.jpg
Click to expand...

Very nice indeed, Steven. Looks like you have the Leica lens; I had the M-Rokkor, which I loved. I don't know how different the lens design is, if at all.

My main bugbear with the camera was the "meter on a stick" approach, which might have had some theoretical advantages, but too often needed a deal of nudging to get it to move into position, But I was looking through my black and white shots for some purpose the other day, and two out of the three I picked were taken with the CL.

(I was originally interested in the Minolta CLE, but the lack of metering in manual mode killed that. What a bizarre restriction!)

EDIT: I also tried a Voigtlander Bessa R3A which is bigger but I liked better. However I sold them both because I couldn't justify paying such silly prices to extend the lens inventory. Invested the money in more lenses for my Pentax MX/LX cameras!
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
Very nice indeed, Steven. Looks like you have the Leica lens; I had the M-Rokkor, which I loved. I don't know how different the lens design is, if at all.

My main bugbear with the camera was the "meter on a stick" approach, which might have had some theoretical advantages, but too often needed a deal of nudging to get it to move into position, But I was looking through my black and white shots for some purpose the other day, and two out of the three I picked were taken with the CL.

(I was originally interested in the Minolta CLE, but the lack of metering in manual mode killed that. What a bizarre restriction!)

EDIT: I also tried a Voigtlander Bessa R3A which is bigger but I liked better. However I sold them both because I couldn't justify paying such silly prices to extend the lens inventory. Invested the money in more lenses for my Pentax MX/LX cameras!
Click to expand...

I put the 28 Summaron on it for the sake of the photo. The 35 Cron on the M7 is my go-to lens, whatever.

The shop had:
- This one, clean with no lenses
- A bashed up one with the Leica 40
- An OK one with the 40 and 90
- A V Nokton 40/1.4 on its own.

I bought the clean one. Just picked up the Nokton for the CL and the fact that my son's Bessa has 40mm framelines.
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to amaze me...

A man (or woman) walks into a camera store

“I’d like a Sony A7Riii please”

Certainly sir, that’ll be £3199 please

Man posts online about his new camera

‘Wow’ says the forumistas

Another man (or woman) spends £2.5k on a TL or a CL or a secondhand M9 or 240

“HOW CAN YOU SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON A CAMERA” scream the forumistas

If you’ve owned and flipped all the A7R variants then you could have bought an M10 or secondhand S or an X1D buy now... #justsayin #rantover
 
Adzman808 said:
It never ceases to amaze me...

A man (or woman) walks into a camera store
“I’d like a Sony A7Riii please”
Certainly sir, that’ll be £3199 please
Man posts online about his new camera
‘Wow’ says the forumistas
Another man (or woman) spends £2.5k on a TL or a CL or a secondhand M9 or 240
“HOW CAN YOU SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON A CAMERA” scream the forumistas

If you’ve owned and flipped all the A7R variants then you could have bought an M10 or secondhand S or an X1D buy now... #justsayin #rantover
Click to expand...

I bought an A7R 12 months old for £700. It cost someone £1,600 new 12 months earlier. I had an M9 for a couple of years and sold it for a profit.

The M9 is older than the A7R, but plenty of people still use and love them without wishing they had an M10, and the still cost at least £2,000. The A7R is still a great camera, but the mentality is that Sony A7 owners have to upgrade.

A7R and my 1970's Leica Tele-Elmarit 90mm.

28974299231_3e3fe68bee_k.jpg
 
Last edited:
StevenS said:
I put the 28 Summaron on it for the sake of the photo. The 35 Cron on the M7 is my go-to lens, whatever.

The shop had:
- This one, clean with no lenses
- A bashed up one with the Leica 40
- An OK one with the 40 and 90
- A V Nokton 40/1.4 on its own.

I bought the clean one. Just picked up the Nokton for the CL and the fact that my son's Bessa has 40mm framelines.
Click to expand...

It looks a nice combo, and @Andysnap speaks very highly about the Nokton (on a Bessa R3A), though I have heard that the rangefinder baseline on the CL is too short for lenses wider than f/2... presumably the depth of field can be narrower than the RF can resolve. I never tried a faster lens than the Rokkor 40/2 though.
 
Adzman808 said:
It never ceases to amaze me...

A man (or woman) walks into a camera store

“I’d like a Sony A7Riii please”

Certainly sir, that’ll be £3199 please

Man posts online about his new camera

‘Wow’ says the forumistas

Another man (or woman) spends £2.5k on a TL or a CL or a secondhand M9 or 240

“HOW CAN YOU SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON A CAMERA” scream the forumistas

If you’ve owned and flipped all the A7R variants then you could have bought an M10 or secondhand S or an X1D buy now... #justsayin #rantover
Click to expand...
What are you on about? Lol [emoji23]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top