Leica CL vs X-E4

Fuji has a 60/2.5 and a 90/2 which get good notes and the buy in is a good deal less.

Well the CL will predictably have better build quality being a $3000 (originally) vs. $849. However, it’s been discontinued and APSC is dead with Leica. However, for the right now… both are pretty cool cameras with nice lenses on both sides. You cannot go wrong in the short term really.

Nunataks wrote:

I know the X-E4 is much newer, but does anyone have both and maybe done a comparison? I'm tempted by the CL because Sigma makes L mount lenses for their I series which have aperture rings, and the 65mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8 don't have fuji equivalents at the moment that are reasonably sized.

I haven't owned both but I much preferd the CL for 2 reasons: the simple control system and the bigger better EVF. The build quality is better but not as good as the top Leicas. It is a step up from the Panasonic Leicas though. The CL has the Sigma APSC Sigma lenses too.

I didn't buy one as the Sony A6400 was the best option for me, with the longest EVF eye relief. Having a tilt screen is nice too, but just an added bonus.

Watch a video on the control dials and buttons of the CL. That might clinch it for you. Depends how you shoot. Their 18mm pancake lens isn't too expensive too. If you love 23mm then their 23mm f2 is very good and possibly worth investing in. Their 35mm f1.4 was too expensive to even consider for me and the Sigma 30 f1.4 is only $265 on sale.

Nunataks wrote:

I know the X-E4 is much newer, but does anyone have both and maybe done a comparison? I'm tempted by the CL because Sigma makes L mount lenses for their I series which have aperture rings, and the 65mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8 don't have fuji equivalents at the moment that are reasonably sized.

I just sold my Leica CL and Fujifilm X-E3.  The CL was my primary shooter for the last year, the X-E3 I barely used.  I don't know anything about the X-E4, but I'm assuming the build is probably similar to the X-E3.  If so, then the CL is light years ahead - it feels really solid whereas the X-E3 felt super-plasticky to me.  Also, the Leica had a noticeably better EVF.  Not knocking the Fuji cameras, really - they are very useable and I think on paper, the X-E4 is a very attractive camera, especially considering the price - but it simply doesn't feel as nice in the hand as the Leica, which is not surprising considering they are priced so differently.

Honestly, I loved my CL but I got a little tired of owning a Leica. Everything (lenses, accessories) is so damn expensive.  If you want to shoot APS-C I'd really recommend finding a Fuji you like because it's a much more developed and affordable ecosystem, and Fuji is committed to it.

Giuloco wrote:

Thanks for sharing your experience with both the xe3 and CL. Please, how does the autofocus compare between these two cameras?

I'm not the most demanding autofocus user, typically shooting with single-point AF-S.  I don't shoot fast action or sports, just street for the most part.  And I'm much more familiar with the CL than the X-E3, as the CL was my primary shooter for a year, and the X-E3 was very lightly used.  But I would say that they both had pretty similar autofocus performance, both being contrast-based systems of probably the same generation.  Both cameras seemed to have very accurate and reasonably fast AF systems, but I pretty much never used continuous AF or face/eye detection modes (I don't even know if either of these cameras offer those modes, TBH).  I guess bottom line is, at least based on AF-S performance, neither camera jumps out at me as being clearly superior - but I never did head-to-head test or anything.

I will say that if I had started with a Fuji X-E3 or X-E4 and never gotten into the Leica, I probably would've been just as happy, and mostly gotten the same images that I captured with the CL.  I think the X-E cameras in general represent great value, they're styled nicely, offer great traditional manual control - I don't think you should feel like you're "settling" if you end up with one of these cameras.  One of my biggest gripes with the X-E3 was that the viewfinder magnification of 0.62x felt much smaller than the CL's 0.74x.  But it's still very useable - I have a PEN-F that also has a 0.62x EVF, you get used to it.

Have been a long time Leica user. Don’t think I would buy a CL and not use Leica glass primarily. Cost-benefit not in favor of CL given cost, etc.  In your situation I would stick with Fuji.
--

Physicist, Traveler, Photographer
VR/
VETTRAN

grain_frame wrote:

Giuloco wrote:

Thanks for sharing your experience with both the xe3 and CL. Please, how does the autofocus compare between these two cameras?

I'm not the most demanding autofocus user, typically shooting with single-point AF-S. I don't shoot fast action or sports, just street for the most part. And I'm much more familiar with the CL than the X-E3, as the CL was my primary shooter for a year, and the X-E3 was very lightly used. But I would say that they both had pretty similar autofocus performance, both being contrast-based systems of probably the same generation. Both cameras seemed to have very accurate and reasonably fast AF systems, but I pretty much never used continuous AF or face/eye detection modes (I don't even know if either of these cameras offer those modes, TBH). I guess bottom line is, at least based on AF-S performance, neither camera jumps out at me as being clearly superior - but I never did head-to-head test or anything.

I will say that if I had started with a Fuji X-E3 or X-E4 and never gotten into the Leica, I probably would've been just as happy, and mostly gotten the same images that I captured with the CL. I think the X-E cameras in general represent great value, they're styled nicely, offer great traditional manual control - I don't think you should feel like you're "settling" if you end up with one of these cameras. One of my biggest gripes with the X-E3 was that the viewfinder magnification of 0.62x felt much smaller than the CL's 0.74x. But it's still very useable - I have a PEN-F that also has a 0.62x EVF, you get used to it.

XE3 is phase detect. Same AF as xt2. It is pretty good i used it for action. XE4 has better af, but xe3 is respectable.

That is a good point, with Fuji most people could afford a used body as a backup if needed.

Wouldn’t a better comparison be to compare xpro3 and cl? With the right adapter but can share lens abd both are same price.

Clive99 wrote:

grain_frame wrote:

Giuloco wrote:

Thanks for sharing your experience with both the xe3 and CL. Please, how does the autofocus compare between these two cameras?

I'm not the most demanding autofocus user, typically shooting with single-point AF-S. I don't shoot fast action or sports, just street for the most part. And I'm much more familiar with the CL than the X-E3, as the CL was my primary shooter for a year, and the X-E3 was very lightly used. But I would say that they both had pretty similar autofocus performance, both being contrast-based systems of probably the same generation. Both cameras seemed to have very accurate and reasonably fast AF systems, but I pretty much never used continuous AF or face/eye detection modes (I don't even know if either of these cameras offer those modes, TBH). I guess bottom line is, at least based on AF-S performance, neither camera jumps out at me as being clearly superior - but I never did head-to-head test or anything.

I will say that if I had started with a Fuji X-E3 or X-E4 and never gotten into the Leica, I probably would've been just as happy, and mostly gotten the same images that I captured with the CL. I think the X-E cameras in general represent great value, they're styled nicely, offer great traditional manual control - I don't think you should feel like you're "settling" if you end up with one of these cameras. One of my biggest gripes with the X-E3 was that the viewfinder magnification of 0.62x felt much smaller than the CL's 0.74x. But it's still very useable - I have a PEN-F that also has a 0.62x EVF, you get used to it.

XE3 is phase detect. Same AF as xt2. It is pretty good i used it for action. XE4 has better af, but xe3 is respectable.

Thanks for the correction, didn't mean to put misinformation out there.

Austin CB wrote:

A few years back I went down the L mount road with Leica cameras and wouldn't do it again. The cameras are expensive, replacement parts are expensive, batteries are expensive, etc. I had a TL body that didn't work soon upon arrival and was difficult to get repaired in any reasonable course of time. And due to the cost of the system, of course, I had no backup. A system that is simultaneously expensive and abandoned is not a combination I'd be actively seeking out.

I had a TL2 has a secondary body to my CL.  I personally never had a bit of trouble with any camera or lens in that system, but I definitely agree about it being a generally (too) expensive ecosystem.  Nice cameras, for sure, but there just really isn't any compelling reason to spend that much.

rla1022 wrote:

Wouldn’t a better comparison be to compare xpro3 and cl? With the right adapter but can share lens abd both are same price.

I guess in terms of price and build quality, the X-Pro 3 is a better comparison, but given very close features and specs, I bet a lot of people cross-shop even the X-Pro 3 and X-E4 - I know I did.

I bought an X-Pro 3 and a CL about a year ago for pretty much the same price, knowing I would only be keeping one and fully expecting it'd be the Fuji.  But I found the X-Pro 3 really felt quite a bit bigger and heavier than the CL, and even though the EVF is higher resolution, it didn't feel as nice because of its lower magnification.

The X-E4, on paper at least, is I think a smarter buy than either the X-Pro 3 or the CL, and in retrospect I should've probably just picked one up brand new for half the cost.