The Leica CL Digital Camera Review 2017. Is this a REAL Mini M?

114 Comments

1. Does anyone have experience using the Summicron-TL 23 f/2 ASPH on the CL? If so, any comments on it?

   • Same as using it on the TL2. The TL2 and CL are the same camera internally and IQ wise. Only difference is the change of body style and the EVF. So it works the same as it does on the TL2.

     • Thanks Steve. You are the best.

       Do you have a view on the pros/cons of the using the Elmarit-TL 18 f/2.8 ASPH versus the Summicron-TL 23 f/2 ASPH on the CL?

       Which would you choose?

       • Id take the 23 as to me, seems like a better lens in the IQ dept. Also, has the Summicron name which you can never go wrong with a Summicron ; ) Lovely little lens. The 18mm is also nice but I feel it’s value is at $499 not the current price. Doesn’t feel, shoot or image like a Leica lens, at least to me. The 23 does.

   • I bought my CL with the 18mm lens. However I keep the 23mm on the camera as my main walk around lens. The images are very sharp and have good colors. I am very happy with it.

2. Hello Steve,
   I’m a little surprised that the lack of IS in the CL is not mentioned in this review. Even more if I remember your review of the Olympus cameras (em 1, etc.) The 5 axis system got a wow, was fantastic! and that’s right. A gain of 4 stops is a huge advantage. I can imagine that M users would like to have a second camera special for tele work, since the M can hardly do that. Wouldn’t you think that in this respect they are better off with an Olympus? Four stops is a hell of an advantage! Or is the rendering and the color of the CL so much better that it compensates its lack of IS? In that case I also remember what you wrote about the IQ and rendering of Olympus: wonderful. Fantastic. What would you say?
   Kind regards,

   • Well I spoke bout it as it is indeed in the Olympus. It’s not in the CL, so nothing to talk about. I do not ding camera that do not have built in IS, ESPECIALLY Leica’s as they never do and most likely never will. IS is not everything and does not make anyone a better photographer. It helps in low light for static subjects, or video with wide angle lenses but for the most part, I really do not buy a camera on wether it has IS. Which is why I owned the Leica SL, one of my fave cameras ever. The X1D, my fave camera ever. If Leica puts it in an M, could be nice but I do not think most M shooters care if an M has 5 Axis IS. The only camera that really does it right anyway are all from Olympus. Others use the tech but the Olympus does it best. The Sony 5 Axis is nice but for me, nothing spectacular. It’s nice to have, but not a dealbreaker for me. As for color, all cameras and I mean ALL of them produce different color and all have their own style. Olympus, Fuji, Sony, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. I have my faves (Leica, Hasselblad, Olympus) and others have their faves. It’s a personal choice. Like an artists tool. The Olympus IQ is fantastic. Leica’s is also fantastic. Sony is fantastic. Hasselblad is Fantastic. Nikon is Fantastic. BUT ALL are different. BTW, M users do have a camera for tele work, even tough there are no tele M lenses besides the 135, which works well on the M. M shooters do not care about telephoto. If they did, they would not be buying a $7k M ; ) But one can use the SL with M lenses. It’s a perfect fit. The newer Sonys also works great with M lenses. So we already have those options. Now we have the CL, which is yet another option though APS-C, which means you are not using all of the lens. I remember film, and when we used to shoot Nikon film bodies with telephoto lenses. We did not have IS then, and we got by just fine ; )

     • Hi Steve, In the film days I ( as a pro) already used a couple of M bodies. For tele work, which I sometimes also had to do, I had a Leicaflex. There are moments I can remember in which IS would have been very useful. With the M and certainly the flex. I think IS ( of course it doesn’t make one a better photographer) is still an advantage.
       Kind regards, Roel Visser
       http://www.roelvisser.nl

       • Sure it is, but I do not feel it is a dealbreaker, for me. It is an advantage for sure.

3. thank you for that beautiful review, do you think that the CL will be good as a second camera for professional work?(the SL is my main camera)
   thank you

   • Sure, could be a great 2nd camera to the SL.

4. One big plus i have been reading is the ability to use “M glass” with the CL. Howver, doesn’t that mean that I’d have to focus manually? Is there any “M glass” lenses that would focus automatically with the CL? Sorry to sound ignorant about this Steve. J

   • M lenses are ONLY Manual Focus. Usually used on cameras like the M6, M7, M8, M9, M10

5. You mentioned a 10mm f2.8 lens, what is that?

   • Sorry my mistake. I kept wanting to say 10mm instead of 18!

6. Thanks for this review + video again Steve!

   I understand you are a ‘natural light’ shooter. Something I do mostly myself also. But I do use (fill-in)flash quiet often for my assignments or just private pics. Because of that I do miss that you never? seem to test a camera with flash.

   People who by a Sony A9 or A7III could be photo journalist as well and they use flash very often.

   When the Panasonic GX8 came out I was one of the firsts in The Netherlands to own and use one. An underrated camera and sensor wise a step up from the 16mp Olympus bodies at that date.
   However…. How sophisticated the GX8 is with all its options, its is not possible to use flash any faster as in single shot modus. So at times totally unusable for a photo journalist like myself. Not anywhere this can be found in any review or manual or even asking Panasonic myself.

   I follow you now for quiet some time and like & admire your work with that own Steve signature. But I do really would appreciate if you can add the use of flash to your reviews. Thanks!

7. Hi Steve,

   Fantastic, passionate, gutsy, detailed and informative ‘real’ review as we have come to expect so thank you. When this was announced last week I read about it and pretty much dismissed it straight away, thinking why bother, what’s this bringing to the party? Then I looked across my desk and saw my X100T sitting there, if it had hands I’m sure it would be putting them over its lens. Why you may ask?
   Well, after reading your review, and a couple of others elsewhere, the penny started to drop in my head. I scrolled down to the comments here, I have to be honest and say that I was waiting for the thing to be filled with negativity and a lot of anti-Leica rhetoric, but no, I would say the balance is very positive.
   My theory is this for me personally, and I suspect similar for many others, bear with me, you’ll hopefully see my point at the end of my drivel…
   1. I’ve spent a good few years building up an arsenal of wonderful Leica glass, mostly M but with a couple of R’s. I doubt I’ll ever sell any of it and hope my kids get something from it in the future, either photographically or financially.
   2. I delved into Leica digital with the M240, then the M-Mono. I still have the beautiful Mono but sold the M240 for an SL as my 50+ eyes were fed up squinting at the RF. Now I could still use my M & R glass with the benefit of the stunning EVF – and if I wanted to (I never did) I could delve into the world of AF- Result!
   3. Now in the background of all this is that troublesome upstart known as Sony and their A7 range. Whilst I had my SL I also dabbled with an A7R2. I loved the fact that I could stick my M & R glass on here and even ‘AF it’ with the TechPro adapter, it was supposed to be my second (way cheaper) body. BUT, I hated the dismal battery life and I really needed the safety net of twin cards so sold it and thought my way forward was with the SL range, or I did until…
   4. The A9 was announced. As much as I loved what I could do with the SL (and my whole Leica fan-boy thing) it became apparent to me I could do all this and more with the A9 so I dived in, managed to sell my SL for a very decent price and have not regretted it for 1 second, I think the A9 is a masterpiece and works beautifully with every lens I’ve put on it, even Face-detect AF & 5-axis stabilisation with my Nocti!
   5. So you’re thinking, where the hell does the X100 & CL come into this? Well here’s the point. I’ve had the X100’s since they came out as a ‘carry everywhere’ bit of kit. I love their styling, size, function, USB charging and results. I’ve always regarded it as my ‘Mini M’ and have NO issue with it being APS-C sized. To me it only lacks one thing, the ability to change lenses…
   6. If you’ve made it this far the fog is hopefully clearing and you too can see my penny dropping. HERE was my answer, the CL has the possibility to be our Mini M and X100. Buy it with the 18mm kit and you have a direct X100 competitor (albeit at 3 times the price!) BUT you also have the ability to use all your beloved Leica glass and bathe yourself in that undefinable Leica magic that so many of us love, worth £2k of anybody’s cash 😉

   I’ve yet to see or handle one so I’m only guessing at the size, ergonomics and usability but it’s certainly activated my GAS just in time for Christmas 😀

   • Jim
     I was surprised too. I actually used the demo model at my local shop (Samys in LA, ask for Ben) and really liked it. Handles great, feels great, really makes me want to use it, takes my M lenses, also offers AF. It costs more than the equivalent Sony or Fuji, but it feels like a much more expensive and refined piece so that makes sense when you actually use it.
     I wanted to hate it, but feel the opposite. And this is coming from a mainly film shooter!

     Excellent job Leica.

8. Steve-
   Do Leica M lenses focus any closer while mounted on the CL (with the M adapter) than on a M?
   Thanks!
   Stephen

   • No they do not. The only way to get them to focus closer is using them on a Sony with a Voigtlander close focus adapter (or similar adapter). But performance is degraded when doing that anyway. But on the CL they will keep the close focus distance they already have.

9. While interesting, the limited availability of fast lenses (autofocus) for this system would deter me from purchasing the CL. Depth of field is less on ASP-C than full frame so bigger apertures are needed. Seems only offering is the 35 1.4 from Leica. Any info on Leica’s TL lens roadmap? Do you think zeiss is considering building TL mount lenses of their own as they do for Sony E and FE? If so, this camera could get more interesting.

   • Well, I do not see others making lenses for TL mount just yet. If it took off, maybe but as of now I do not feel there are enough using the T mount for someone like Zeiss to start making lenses. Maybe one day though, would be fantastic.

10. Dear Steve, A great reviews always. Still have my Q.Will the CL be as fast to focus and be as quiet? Is the sensor made by Tower Jazz? I also feel that the Nikon D850 with that sensor and Leica Glass is the new M11. Thanks Neal

    • Thank you. The sensor is supposedly made by Sony. But I am not 100% on that.

11. Tremendous review, Steve, even if you did only have the 18mm lens. You say: “Think of it as an Interchangeable Lens updated X2.” Actually I think of it as an IL updated X-Vario. And that’s a thought that really appeals. It’s exactly where I would want to go from the XV. I think the in-built EVF is mostly gain, but the neat Oly VF2 on the XV has the advantage of vari-angle, which I go for in a big way. So although the CL is the GAS to end all GAS, I’m very content with the XV until the domestic finance committee is more amenable! (I don’t have a Sony a6500, only the a6000 with the Zeiss 16-70mm (=24-105) which I use in the simplest possible way and find the results very satisfying. No need to navigate all those menus!)

    • Thank You!

12. Thanks so much Steve for another beautiful review! i love my Leicas for sure…i’m just not sure where i stand on this one!!! i think i am disappointed it is not full frame. Hope your Thanksgiving was great and hope you keep doing what you do so BRILLIANTLY!!!

    • Thank you!

13. I always look forward to your Leica reviews, so thanks for your continuing effort and passion! This camera looks like a winner to me, and I’d say that it would easily outperform quite a few modern cameras with bigger sensors, with the exception of AF performance of course.

    However, I will question one thing you said in the video: that the CL has less DR than, say, a Sony. Well, firstly, which Sony? There’s a non-trivial gap between the A9 and the A7rIII. I really don’t think you can say such a thing without measuring or testing. Real world tests are very important, but by doing a real world test you are precluded from making such specific claims without evidence. It would be no bad thing to refer to an actual DR test of this camera, even just in passing.

    • Thanks you Karim for reading it. As for the DR question, it is very very evident when shooting that the Leica M10, and this CL have lower DR than a Sony A9 or A7RIII. That is what I meant. It is well known about the ease of blowing highlight with an M10, and not that this is a problem, as it is the photographer who can make sure it doesn’t. But it is very very clear when shooting cameras that have less or more DR than each other. Even the X1D blew me away and took it up a notch from what I was used to with the A9. The CL took it down a notch as highlights are easier to blow in certain situations. No need to measure, as it is what it is in real world photos and use. So I just really my experience when shooting in this way. Thank You.

14. The CL seems to give us a lot of options. You never mention the F/2 23mm as a good walk around lens (and autofocus). Do you have any experience with it? I was thinking it would be a better choice than the new 18mm. It is also a smaller and less expensive that the 35mm F/1.4. Your thoughts.

    • I was never a huge fan of that lens. It’s advertised as an f/2 lens but when you shoot close in, it stops down to f/2.8 so you can not shoot at f/2 up close if I remember correctly. So I felt misled with that one as Leica advertises it as an f/2 lens. It’s not up to the quality of the real Summicron’s but vs the 18 you get a 35 vs a 27mm FOV. So either lens would be a good choice for those who like small. The best quality lens I have tested for the TL system is the 35 Summilux f/1.4. It bests the others in IQ and color IMO. But it is larger. Always a give and take it seems.

      • So if you had a choice between the 18mm and the 23mm, which would you pick? Since you don’t like the 23mm, what about the quality difference between the 18mm and 18-55 zoom. I want my first lens to be autofocus, so what would be your first choice?

        • If I were going to buy an AF TL Lens with the CL I would go for the 35 1.4 but if it were between the 18 and 23 Id probably go for the 23mm if you want some shallow DOF at times, and the zoom if you did not care about that. The Zoom is quite nice.

15. Hi Steve,

    Great review and great video. Just a couple of questions… (1) Is the CL’s size comparable to Barnack Leica bodies? (2) When using non 6-bit coded legacy lenses with the TL-M adapter, does the CL retain aperture priority metering? (3) Is there a drop-down menu to select Leica legacy glass?

    Many thanks.

    Best,
    Rollie

    • IT is the exact same size as the old X2. Similar to the old bodies you speak of. Using 6 bit lenses with the Leica adapter should allow full coding to be read, just as the M and SL does but I did not try a coded lens so can not say 100%. You can choose what legacy lens you are shooting with in the menu, just like the M or SL. Thanks.

      • So when you used the 35/1.7 Ultron and the 100mm Trioplan, what lens options in the menu did you use? Also, when using the TL-M adapter, does the camera offer aperture-priority exposure metering or manual only?

        Many thanks 🙂

        • I set up the 35 1.7 as a 35 1.4 and did nothing for the trio plan as longer lenses usually have no issues. The 35 1.7 didn’t seem to either even if I did not set it up in menu. With crop sensors using full frame lenses there are usually no issues. The issues come into play sometimes with full frame, and these days it may be in the form of slight vignetting or soft corners. But on the CL the M lenses work fantastic.

          • Hi again Steve,
            With non-coded lenses and the TL-M adapter, does the CL give aperture-priority auto exposure or only manual?
            Many thanks 🙂

          • I always shoot in A mode, aperture priority. No coding needed for that as all coding will do is fix some vignetting on some lenses, and add the EXIF info.

16. Nice enthusiastic review as usual Steve. Nice looking camera but Leica really seems to be throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. This camera will make the TL an afterthought, as that thing is just too funky to catch on. However the CL is going to face legitimate market place competition from the sony and fuji APS offerings. Only a deep pocketed Leica purist would choose the CL in that scenario, and there just aren’t many of those folks. It will be interesting to see how well this sells and if this signals the demise of the TL.

    • People will buy this who want a simple photographic experience. It’s so much different than any Fuji or Sony. I for one, would take this and pay for it over a Fuji Xt1, Xt2, Xpro 2, etc for the simple fact that using Leica M lenses will do better here, and the experience is nice without all of those cheap buttons all over the back, and deep menus. There is something to be said for a good simple camera. Also, the camera feels great in the hand, though if you like grips you would not like this or an M unless you added one. It’s for someone who maybe has Leica glass already, or M lenses and wants to get the most from them without spending $7k on an M. The M, SL and CL are all fantastic cameras, and I would be happy owning any of them. But they are not for everyone, as many look at specs on paper, and many look for all of the features they can cram in for their dollar. Me, I look for simplicity which is why the X1D is my fave camera ever, then an M, then an SL, etc. So it all depends on the person. I feel this will sell better than the TL, as it’s much nicer to use IMO. Think of it as a Interchangeable Lens updated X2.

      • “I for one, would take this and pay for it over a Fuji Xt1, Xt2, Xpro 2, etc for the simple fact that using Leica M lenses will do better here.”
        —
        That’s a pretty bold claim, given that the full frame M lenses are being adapted to an APS-C sensor, whereas the Fujinons (which are already excellent in their own right) are optically designed for APS-C. That’s not even getting into all the technological differences—for example the Fuji X-E3 has both contrast and phase detect AF (vs just contrast for the CL) and will unquestionably nail focus under a wider array of conditions.

        I liken Leica to Rolex. Lots of history; lots of brand, luxury, and fashion appeal. And they make a lovely, quality product, typically with attractive industrial design. But much as a fine Rolex doesn’t tell time any better than a high quality Japanese watch — and in many cases not as well — neither does the Leica take better pictures. Not anymore. It’s about the experience and the pride of ownership…not the final product it produces.

        So if you’re buying one for those reasons, then great. But that’s it in a nutshell.

        • It’s about the experience as you say, the name, the design, the feel, the heritage and the IQ which is different from Sony, Olympus, Fuji, etc. EVERY camera has different IQ character. Sony will never render like a Leica or Fuji or Olympus, same with Olympus, Fuji, and Leica. They all have their own color signature, look, and the Leica cameras today..the M, Q and this CL and TL2 all have a unique IQ that you can only get from these cameras. It’s the color and snap. Just like you can not get a Fuji look from a Leica you can not get a Leica look with a Fuji ; )

          • I agree completely. I love my X100F ( a lot), but it has a different character than any of my Leicas. To take the point a little further, I also own an X-Pro2 and have tried putting my M lenses on it, with disappointing results. The Fuji glass works better on that camera in my opinion. So, with the launch of the CL, I’m actually excited by a little Leica that was designed to be able to take various Leica glass and M lenses. I look forward to playing with one soon.

      • Exactly Steve. This camera gives a chance to use the M mount lenses on a smaller body with the fantastic built in EVF.
        My plan is to get this and use M mount lenses between my new A7Riii and CL.

        I am even thinking of buying the new 40/1.2 voigtlander in M mount so I can use on A7Riii and then CL when I get it.

        I tried CL last night and all the TL lenses yesterday, except the zoom. Only the 35 summilux TL impressed me, but then not considering the size. I wouldn’t really bother investing in them, unless you are desperate for auto-focus.

        The EVF is fantastic, what I wanted the Fuji XE3 to have. Why have an EVF if you end up squinting all the time. That Fuji despite good otherwise is going back!

    • While Leica wants to represent “the real photographic experience” other cameras have beter or worst buttons but also possibilities Leica cannot even dream with.

17. Wow! That’s a BEAUTIFUL camera. I guess it would give a great ~40 mm equivalent with my Zeiss Biogon 28mm.. (which one can buy second hand for quite ‘cheap’). Thank you Steve for the review. I bought a second hand M8 a while ago. It is such a different handling experience compared to other camera’s mainly because it is designed as a CAMERA and not as a computer. Well, it has been said before.

18. Steve, I’m curious about how you would compare this camera to shooting with the Pen-F? Similar size and layout, and the Oly has a few more bells Andy whistles, obviously.

    • The CL is slightly smaller, but I hear ya. It’s basically the difference between M 4/3 and APS-C, so in lower light the CL will edge ahead. Color and signature of the cameras are different and for usability, I will say I think the Only body is gorgeous. It’s my fave Olympus, even today. I own it. BUT if one wanted the signature of what the Leica brings, it would be the way to go. The Only does have more features of course, more extensive menus, etc. BUT I would go CL if buying today, for me because I can use M lenses on the CL and they work so good on the camera. The Only would turn a 35mm into a 70mm FOV, where on the CL would bring me a 50mm FOV. Both cameras are lovely but the CL will edge out in IQ and be a tad more versatile with other lenses. Is it worth the extra cost? Maybe not but all depends on if you want a Leica ; )

19. Looks really cool and is IClens

    But priced close to the Q

    I’d buy the Q

    • Having shot the Q extensively and now the CL, I would go for a CL and 35mm M prime of some variety. Zeiss, Voigtlander or Leica over a Q as you are getting a more versatile camera. But if 28mm is your thing the Q would be king.

20. Hi Steve Great Review-Leica On a Budget-MY Dream Mini M version…
    Next Gen Lumix 6 K Full Frame
    Turrent lens mount would use M TL R Unbolt
    3rd Party SLR lens w 6K Video YES?
    Leica AG Shareholders! Vs M $ales.
    Budget M9 Lumix w SLR MF Primes use various PanaLeica lens.
    Exploring RF film now with Prewar finders Zen way to experience Digital -Happy shooting everyone.
    Click. Advance.

21. Perhaps they tried to make a Fuji

    • Well Fuji has been trying to make Leica’s for years now, so why not ; )

      • Yeah, I’ve heard about the fujicron lens. At least they improved the price a lot

22. A bit confused… some of the few full size samples you can find on other sites are pretty bad… Have you had a look at those Steve, are they doing something wrong? Others?

    • Well, that’s usually the case. I will not name names but most review sites imply people who they give a camera to and say “go test this today”. The employee goes out, without real interest in the camera and take some snaps and then comes back to write up a short article about what they think. The employee gets paid. They really do not have any of themselves invested in the review or taking images as they are just working a job. So many review sites have horrible photo samples from many cameras due to that. Not all, but some. Me, this site is ME. I take pride in what I do, and I enjoy what I do. I truly get excited when a camera comes out that I really enjoy so I put work into using it for 1-3 weeks before I write a review. I have not looked at other reviews though, as I never have time anymore. The funny thing is I did nothing special here, just used the camera and took some, what I feel, are average snapshots to show the colors, and output of the camera. Thank you.

23. Nice review steve, looks a bit like a Leica version of Oly’s Pen F and a very elegant solution for anyone with M glass!

24. > Leica CL Prime Kit 18 mm : $3,795.00
    > Leica CL Vario Kit 18-56 mm : $3,995.00

    Steve, those prices look confusing as they look like prices of lenses rather than lens and the body. Considering high prices of Leica lenses, people might think so. Please, add “&” between “Lecia CL” and “Prime/Vario Kit,” then they would not confuse people any more.
    Leica CL looks like a miniature Leica M.

    • It says “Leica CL Prime KIT” which means the CL KIT – body and lens. This wording of the price and kits was copied and pasted direct from Leica. But to me it is clear. The 18 f/2.8 does not in any way feel, look, or perform like Leica glass that we have come to love. It’s a few ounces in weight, feels hollow and looks like a Panasonic 20 1.7 I shape and size. So no way that lens could ever be $3795. But it’s a good lens when one wants to be small, compact, etc and it is nice, just not “28 Summicron” nice.

25. Closest competitor is probably the Fujifilm X-E3, though the latter is more feature-rich (phase AND contrast-detect AF, AF joystick, 4K capable, etc, etc.).

26. Is it my imagination or is there an exceptional crispness and vibrancy to these images? Remarkable.

    • Yes, I agree…to my eyes, they look better than the X1D.

27. I initially was skeptical but then thought about it a bit. I have lots of M glass which I could use on this camera. So it really would be a mini M for me, with the bonus of having a top shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Great for daylight wide open images.
    And it has been shown in tests to work waaaaay better than any other ASP-C camera with M lenses. So for me a Sony or Fuji at 1/2 the price wouldn’t matter because they don’t work well with the lenses I have.
    I just wish it had a better EVF, the one in the Q is much better. Leica already has that tech on its shelves.

    Nice review Steve. Happy Thanksgiving.
    Huss

    • Thanks Huss. Yea, if you have Leica M glass and want to get good use from them, this will deliver results with them better than Sony, Fuji, etc. I feel this CL could have been much more but if so, it would have bene much more cost as well. As it is, an APS-C basic photo still camera made by Leica, it is very very good.

    • “And it has been shown in tests to work waaaaay better than any other ASP-C camera with M lenses.”

      Truly? Where was that reported? And what reasons did they cite? My understanding is that this is a pretty straightforward 24mp APS-C sensor designed to work with the T series AF lenses…not especially designed with specific micro-lenses for FF M glass.

      • You can go into the menu and choose what lens you are using, and it will correct for any issues that lens brings, just as the M does, the SL does, etc. Sony’s, Fuji’s. etc will not do this, and therefore will not produce as nice of quality out of camera with M lenses.

        • Actually, Fuji introduced a very specifically designed M-adaptor that does the same thing and has specific correction parameters for many M-Mount lenses, including Voigtlander and Zeiss.

28. A nice new camera, that really offers nothing over the TL-2.
    Using M lenses comes at a price! The “Adapter” is mega expensive.
    A friend shoots the TL with flash like Bruce Gilden. The screen/monitor ” awesome: but actual images images way more subdued.
    The Sony 6500 whatever way too much menu. Yes Steve is RIGHT, simpler is better. Again like many thanks for your hard work.

    • It offers a different experience over the TL 100%, and an integrated EVF which makes ALL the difference over the wart on the TL system. Also gone are the touch menus and instead we get the traditional menus of the Q, M, etc. It offers Leica styling vs Modern “Apple” styling. It offers, to me, a much nicer experience than the TL when in use. So I have to disagree with you saying there is nothing offered over the TL2, and while they are similar in output, output for me comes 3rd or 4th after design, handling, usability and “does it motivate me to use it”. ; ) Because all cameras today at this level provide fantastic IQ.

    • There are Chinese adapters on ebay for M to L/SL for $15. They will not have the coded lens reading ability of the Leica version, but they also do not cost $400.

      • I have bought maybe 7-8 adapters over the last few years. You 100% get what you pay for. The only two adapters that have lasted for me are the ones I spent decent money on. The Voigtlander M to Sony E Adapter (close focus) and the Leica M to TL. The cheap adapters have horrible tolerances..loose, or get loose and shoddy performance. I do not recommend the cheap adapters anymore. Buy once and be done is what I say.

      • I stand corrected. Thank you for showing the differences.
        Handling is a prime for me, too.
        Again Thanks for the lengthy review.

29. Hi Steve, I of course agree with what you say – “Does it offer the richness of a full frame file? No, but it offers a different look and feel to images that to me, have more dynamics and crispness, and again, that unique color signature ..”. However, would you mind showing a real life image like someone’s portrait that illustrates these pros and cons between images from say Sony A9 and CL? I would really like to see that, thank you.

    • The CL has been sent back to Leica. Had it for a set time, and all they sent with it was the 18mm f/2.8. I would have to use an equivalent lens to do a side by side. Full frame will always bring with it more dynamic range and other improvements but APS-C also has pros as does M 4/3 and medium format. I find the Leica CL and TL to offer images that are more “crisp” and with bolder color than other brands. Sony has a richer look to the files to my eyes (see my recent 40 1.2 update to see what I mean). Fuji does things with blues that I love and Olympus just renders a pleasing image all the way around. Panasonic is more contrast and edgy and Nikon and Canon also have their own looks. It’s part sensor size, part processing within the camera and part brand color signature.

30. Great review Steve. I really appreciate your hard work going into to these reviews.

    It would be great to see a side by side comparison of a photograph shot with a M10 and a CL. I’m really curious how much better the M file is, especially for larger prints.

    Keep up the great work!

31. Hey Steve, You compared this new Leica to the brand new A7Riii, but as I was looking at the specs it seems that it the A6500 is a more apt comparison in most every way and it’s nearly half the price. Thoughts?

    • A6500 is nice, fast and a decent APS-C but I never loved it. It is capable but goes back to what I said in the video about Sony vs Leica. The Leica has soul. The Sony does not. The 6500 is sort of a “sterile” camera. It exists, it does what it does but there is nothing special about it. It feels cheap, light, and just “exists”. It can take good photos but if I were to choose between that and the CL, I would go CL every time, even if I had to wait 6 months to save extra. The only Sony bodies I LOVE have been the A7 series and now A9. The rest to me are decent but nothing special. The 6500 could never ever motivate me to use it. Also, each camera canopy offers different IQ, color, looks. I suggest watching the video as I go over all of this. Thank you!

32. I wish Leica would just give us what (many of us) want…a full frame M type body with a built in EVF. No…I’m not talking about an SL either….I own that camera but it is too big. People say it would cannibalize M (rangefinder) sales…who cares? Leica is the King of producing niche market, obscure cameras, look at the Monochrom and the M-D; why should their rangefinder be any different?

    Leica should have made this CL a FF and it would have been a huge hit. Any loss in M sales would have been compensated by huge CL sales. A full frame CL could easily be priced at $7k and they would sell a boatload. I don’t know what their deal is, it’s like they’re scared to do anything that in any way detracts from their M rangefinder and the cult like following. I owned an M8 and the M240, so yeah I get the allure of the OVF but they should stop being afraid to move forward with the M and offer it with an EVF.

    • They would never ever release an M with an EVF while producing an M with an RF. Just will never ever happen. Now one day they may take the M into EVF territory but that would anger those who love the RF experience. If they made this a full frame camera it would have come in at $5k, and thats not far from a real M, with a much nicer feeling body and size. This does not feel like an M, which is understandable at the cost vs an M. So I am happy they did not make this full frame. Would have cost much more, would have not been able to use TL lenses or even R lenses or other lenses that this mount opens up to and it would have felt like a generic M next to a real M. It’s all about cost with this one, and using M glass on this delivers a beautiful experience.

      • I realize Leica won’t make an M with an EVF as long as they make one with the RF…but it is to their own demise. What are they scared of?? Why not create a M11 body that is capable of housing either an EVF or a rangefinder? Give the consumer choice!

        I think we know that answer already…the EVF would likely outsell the rangefinder and Leica is holding on to this unicorn like ‘rangefinder experience’ for better or worse. The reality though, is I personally feel that the Leica M lenses and Leica build quality is a much more important differentiator then just the rangefinder. Anyway, just my opinion…

        • CL looks smart, but attracts me ? No. I like to see mini-SL, eg. Q with interchangeble lenses… Using new L-sumicron lineup will be lovely… Love my Q, you know 28mm limits me 🙂

        • I’m with Clint on this. In a NYC day gathering of Leica photographers a couple of years ago, just about everyone with an M240 had the dreaded EVF attached. The contraption was nearly universally hated, but everyone seemed to be taking a “better than nothing” approach to it. So, I am not sure who Leica is listening to, or why when the M has way less than 1% market share, it chooses not to put a modern EVF on the M series. Has anyone noticed where all the R&D money, as well as most of the Leica marketing money is going these days? Not to the M, but rather to their autofocus systems. Basically, and even with all its attributes for what it is not, the M series (which I own the M240 and the M9 before that) has kind of become a “legacy” series for Leica. Sadly, the past is being dramatically left behind by the future, and it is that future where Leica is putting their money and energy.

      • Hi Steve, I feel the same as Clint. As I wait for tomorrow to hand over my cash for an A7Riii, I wouldn’t have minded paying even much more for an M10 with built in EVF. As with my failing eyesight (apparently happens after 40), I cannot spend money on something that might mean missing shots. However, asking Leica to produce M10 sized full-frame with EVF is like Nikon producing D850. That is the last camera with no tricks left.
        Maybe one day, there will be a camera with EVF that has options to give either electronically simulated RF experience (i.e. overlap line A to B) or magnify and focus / focus peaking.

        • I’d LOVE to see an M with an EVF but I do not feel Leica will ever do it as it would anger too many of. the purists who shoot an M just for the RF. I feel they should have went EVF during the M 240 era, and I had hopes for the M10, even if it was some sort of hybrid VF. Maybe one day but I doubt it. With that said, the A7rIII is one heck of a camera! Enjoy!

          • That’s what I was saying earlier in the thread, it doesn’t need to be an all or nothing affair. Leica could offer the M11 in two variants, one with EVF, one with RF. Nobody does niche markets better then Leica. They are largely ignoring a market that is leaving for Sony. My eyes can’t use a rangefinder and fast glass anymore with any kind of consistency, so I went with the SL….other I know are saying heck with Leica and buying Sony’s.

            Alternatively they could make a Leica CL with FF and EVF with slightly worse build quality and perhaps fewer features then the M. In all likelihood THAT is what Leica would do…finally make a FF CL and then cripple it with fewer features haha. I guess we will never be happy:)

      • Steve, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw your review. What? Leica has actually made a digital CL? The camera I’ve been craving for, begging Leica to make all these years. Wow! The excitement.
        Then of course the disappointment. Because of course Leica just HAVE to cripple it in some way to keep people frustrated. A long Leica tradition, A CL like camera but no interchangeable lenses. Yes we have all been frustrated with that one. A digital camera that takes M lenses but too big. Yes that one too. Now we are expected to shell out a lot of money for a CL like camera that doesn’t have full frame. This argument of hurting the M sales is getting beyond tedious now. If the M is so good it will survive. If it isn’t it won’t.
        Leica continues to avoid making the camera that we really want when they know darned well that they can do it. So we keep getting all these variations on a theme.That old CL used M lenses, full frame years ago. And they could do it now if they wanted, They are not trying hard enough.
        I’m sure it’s a good camera as it should be for the price. But in all honesty I’m not worried about paying more for the camera I want, because as you say, we know Leicas are expensive. I am worried about paying so much for a camera that falls short for that kind of money. I think Leica should do better. I own two M’s and the original CL plus a Minolta CLE. Hello Leica, I’m still waiting for a REAL digital CL. That means full frame, takes M lenses, built in finder, digital, compact. .The M10/ M is not that camera because it’s not as compact and is somewhat heavy. This definitely looks like the best we’re going to get but it’s not the best Leica could do and it’s a design / marketing/ sales/ who knows what, strategy that has stopped me buying Leicas recently.
        Good try Leica. But no cigar. Clint is correct.
        Nice review though Steve and the images are certainly great.

        • I hear ya, and I know that we have all asked for a real Mini M over the years. BUT, again, if Leica did make a full frame mini CL, they would have had to charge $5000-$5500. Making it very close to a full blown M. It would have also been crippled with ONLY M glass. Some of us, maybe a minority, not sure, prefer being able to use TL, M, R lenses with this camera. It offers a solution for all Leica glass. Provides a beautiful sensor, and is fast when AF lenses are used. It’s small, well made, looks like a Leica and finally gives us a built in EVF with an IC camera. If this was all done as a real Mini M, the price would have been too close to the M, and the M sales would have halted. That would have been a disaster for Leica. So the CL, made how it is made, was the thing to do. THIS is the camera the TL should have been from the start though. Just my opinion. I doubt Leica will EVER make a smaller M full frame camera though. Doesn’t make sense for them business wise.

          • “If this was all done as a real Mini M, the price would have been too close to the M, and the M sales would have halted. That would have been a disaster for Leica.”

            So, stop and think about that for a moment. If folks opted to buy a more modernized M (with EVF etc.) over the traditional rangefinder M — and did so in significant numbers — then what’s the takeaway from that? The takeaway is that people want a more modernized M, because that’s what they’re choosing to buy. The traditional M rangefinder sales are already tiny; those who really want that type of camera will doubtless still buy them.

            But why not open up a new market for those who want a more modern product? And if EVERYONE opts for the more modern product, well then…welcome to the 21st century—that’s where Leica focuses their efforts from now on.

    • During the larger part of the M’s analogue career the rangefinder bodies were technically outdated, but mature. As a result, if purchased second hand, the bodies did not depreciate any more. This made the M affordable. This changed with digital.

      The digital M’s frustrating feature is not the price, but the inseperable combination of disposable with expensive and everlasting, but non-recyclable components (brass body, dials rangefinder). On the other hand there is no practical way to replace or to upgrade the electronic innards. Today the M depreciates almost as fast as the Asian competition.

      A full-frame M body only with EVF would get rid of the largest cost driver and avoids the need to externally procure or to recruit AF competence.

      • But more than half of the user base would be mad, and never buy it. They sell few M’s as it is (in the grand scheme of things) so to lose sales would be bad for them, and they would anger their base of fans. Maybe they could make TWO M’s. One with RF and one with EVF. But they would be same price if not more for the EVF version. Would be a cool experiment. Sell two, see which one sells more. EVF vs RF. I’d go EVF today for me.

      • Thanks again Steve, both for putting up the review and your honest thoughts.
        Well i’ve desided to go check it out at the Leica store here in Tokyo because I was considering an SL but doubt if I would travel with it due to the weight. iI do wanr a digital solution for my M lenses and thats how I would use it. manual focus all the way.so if the quality is there and the handling is good enough I might stop complaining and give it a try. key for me will be viewfinder quality,battery life and I understand this doesn’t have built in sensor cleaning which could be an issue. The image quality from your test shots I can’t fault.

33. Wow! The image quality looks even better than the Hassy X1D.

    • No, it’s not even close. In daylight or low light.

    • “It’s not even close” seems a bit over the top for the present state of digital imaging. IMO pretty much all digital cameras over two grand are actually very close, especially at internet sampling. When I say image quality, I don’t just mean resolution or dynamic range or ISO capability, what I mean is how the photograph looks to my eye. The photos in this post are crisp with a lovely rendering. No doubt that the Leica and Voigt lenses have made the difference here whereas the Hasselblad lenses while excellent simply do not have the character and rendering quality that I’ve grown to appreciate from my Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses.

      • I will repeat: IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

        • Okay okay, you win, I was going to buy it but you’ve managed to convince me otherwise. That said, it certainly looks like the A7R III is the camera to have in your bag anyway: DPR “Sony’s best camera yet, and one of the best cameras we’ve ever tested.” I mean wow!, what an freak’n endorsement and a ballsy move when you consider how many cameras they peddle on a daily basis 😉 Good thing they left the tracking to the A9 or why would you buy it over the R III.

          • My A9 is going nowhere, I love it and would not sell it for an RIII as it does do a few things the RIII can not, and I use it for those capabilities every day. The RIII is the camera I would recommend for most over any other Sony body though. It’s a winner without question.

      • Two flaws in that logic:

        1. You’ll rarely see a difference on your computer between an APS-C, FF, or medium format image scaled down for web resolution—it’s thus a very poor test of ultimate IQ. You need to look at them in full res or, better yet, print them. Then the differences between 24mp APS-C and 50mp medium format become readily apparent.

        2. The Leica lenses for the CL are T mount. They are not manufactured by Leica in Germany, but by a contracted Japanese manufacturer. I don’t think it’s been determined who that is, but the first logical port of call might be Panasonic, since the two companies team up on photographic projects all the time. And I would not expect any Voigtlander lens — all of which are made by Cosina in Japan (as are all Zeiss ZM lenses) — to necessarily outperform the Hasselblad lenses.

        • Two Leica T lenses are made in Germany. The 35 Summilux 1.4 and the 60 Macro. The rest are not.

          • Ah, I stand corrected. Did not realize those two were made in Germany. And they’re probably the best two lenses in the T lineup, I’ll wager…precisely because they ARE made in Germany.

            Not a knock against Japanese optics, more a knock against whichever third-party manufacturer Leica happened to partner with for these lenses. Because honestly, I’ll wager any Fujinon X-Series lens you care to name at the $1300 price point would outperform the Elmarit-TL 18mm f/2.8 ASPH lens.

    • Must add to my critical comments though that I haven’t actually used the camera yet and it looks promising even with the compromises.

34. With that camera kit price, it will come close to leica q price territory. Does the IQ differ much from Leica Q, if let say paired with summicron 23?

    I already owned leica Q but to be honest this camera weighs a bit too much and the size is a bit to big to my liking and that CL size is perfect in my opinion.

    Thanks beforehand!

    • Well, this will beat a Q as A: You can change lenses. and B: you can use TL or M or R lenses. and C: Buy a body and 35 1.7 ULtron and it comes in at around $3500. $700 less than a Q and more versatile and with this lens and combo, I would say better IQ as well. So for less you can get more.

      • When an APS derivative “beats” a FF Q with a made to match Summicron built inside, a D 850 with excellent FL and F 1.4 lenses beats a XiD with those two or three slow lenses for a fraction of the price.

      • Steve- are saying the Image quality is better on the CL than the Q even though the Q is full frame?

        • The IQ differences between APS-C and full frame sensors of the same megapixel count and generation have become vanishingly small, and often come down more to A/D conversion and SNR firmware (aka your processing engine) than they do to wafer acreage. Typically full frame will give you almost one more stop of DR and high ISO performance than APS-C, but color accuracy, acuity, resolution, and “image depth” are virtually indistinguishable, especially at lower ISOs (800 and below).

35. How is iq compared to the x vario? Better iso?

    • It’s a different camera. The X Vario was AWFUL in low light and ergonomically IMO. The lens was slow, and the camera excelled only in good light. This is smaller than the X Vario, but a much more well rounded camera that is more versatile and offers a newer sensor with better capabilities. With that said, the IQ from the Vario in good light was beautiful. The lens, slow as it was, was a stellar performer.

36. With the Q, it is easy to get from AF to MF, and the MF experience supports auto-magnification that is undone with a half-press. The MF also has no silly “acceleration” which ends up making it harder to focus.

    I wonder, how does the CL experience compare for switching from AF to MF and the MF experience, when using “native” lenses? Any thoughts appreciated!

    I also with the M adapter senses turning focus to send auto-mag signal to the camera, similar to M10 functionality. This would really help the CL and SL?

    • When using native TL lenses a turn of the focus ring on the lens will magnify the view in the EVF, of which a tap of the shutter button will disable.

      • Thanks Steve. The 35/1.4 doesn’t have any silly acceleration in the by-wire focus, does it? (Bugs me with computer mice too.) If focusing the 35 manually is not too far off from the Q experience, then this may be close enough to the Q50 I’ve been waiting for… Also, is it fast to switch between MF/AF or is it a complex menu exercise?

        • Now that I am holding the 35/1.4 and CL in my hand, if anyone wonders, it does indeed have the silly focus acceleration such that you never know how much ring motion will result in a given amount of focus change. Very very disappointing!

Comments are closed.