Leica CL vs Leica SL2-s

[Mike Arledge]

Been thinking about adding a Leica L mount body to my hobby. Originally was pretty sold on the CL, but I could get an SL2-S for same price used, or around 2100-2400 USD. My desire is mostly a walk around for nature and some portrait work. Would probably stick to a single prime option between 28-45mm really.

I would mostly shoot AF-S with it and fully manual. What I want is best IQ and solid AF. Any advice about which is best entry point into the ecosystem on a modest budget?

 

[DenverSteve]

Mike,

They are two different animals, apples to oranges. Size, shape, purpose, weight.......completely different. Plus if you purchase well I would expect to pay around 1,200- 1,500 less for the CL in same condition. If you want small light then the CL wins all day. In fact the SL2s is more than twice the weight of the CL (403g vs 931g). Then you have the SL2s is full frame vs. APS-C. Size is similarly different (almost double again) - 146 x 107 x 83 VS 131 x 78 x 45. So if you want larger, heavier, bigger sensor - it's the SL2s all day. However if you want closer to the M experience with smaller, lighter, APS-c and cheaper - the CL is the way to go.

Additionally the Leica lenses for the SL are much larger, heavier and more expensive than those for the Cl. I only shoot Leica lenses on my Leicas because the Leica glass is what brings most to the Leica world. I find it pointless to buy into Leica bodies and purchase non-Leica glass.

I've been through this and shoot the CL instead of any SL bodies. You'll have to decide which is best for you.

--
It's just my educated opinion. Don't get bent out of shape.
Steve

 

[aiphoto1980]

One thing to consider is that the CL is a dead camera, as in no more firmware updates, no more updates, and maybe even issues with support, who knows? The SL2-S will last longer from that POV.

The only reason I see to take the CL is if you want the lightest system.

 

[Mike Arledge]

Mike,

They are two different animals, apples to oranges. Size, shape, purpose, weight.......completely different. Plus if you purchase well I would expect to pay around 1,200- 1,500 less for the CL in same condition. If you want small light then the CL wins all day. In fact the SL2s is more than twice the weight of the CL (403g vs 931g). Then you have the SL2s is full frame vs. APS-C. Size is similarly different (almost double again) - 146 x 107 x 83 VS 131 x 78 x 45. So if you want larger, heavier, bigger sensor - it's the SL2s all day. However if you want closer to the M experience with smaller, lighter, APS-c and cheaper - the CL is the way to go.

Additionally the Leica lenses for the SL are much larger, heavier and more expensive than those for the Cl. I only shoot Leica lenses on my Leicas because the Leica glass is what brings most to the Leica world. I find it pointless to buy into Leica bodies and purchase non-Leica glass.

I've been through this and shoot the CL instead of any SL bodies. You'll have to decide which is best for you.

Yeah, that is what I cannot decide, small body and sensor, versus FF 24mp. Yes, the goal either way is leica glass on them. I think FF is more likely as not a dead end.

 

[Mike Arledge]

One thing to consider is that the CL is a dead camera, as in no more firmware updates, no more updates, and maybe even issues with support, who knows? The SL2-S will last longer from that POV.

The only reason I see to take the CL is if you want the lightest system.

I think your point about the dead end nature of it is well taken. I had an x vario back in the day, loved the IQ and form factor, but did not want to be holding a paperweight when it did finally bite the bullet, so moved on.

 

[jsevidon]

I would recommend the CL definitely. I owned both. The SL is gone but I will not part with the CL. It is small, light and capable. Even though it is no longer produced, it is worth having and right now the price is right.

I have owned all of the APSC format Leica's stating with the TL, the TL2 and the CL. It is the perfect travel camera. The EVF is bright and sharp. The lens selection is a little limited, but the standard lens I have mounted is the 18mm ( 28mm in FF terms). It is nearly a pancake lens giving you a very small package. I also have the zoom, the 23mm and the 35mm Summicron.

As for it now being out of production, that is irrelevant for a Leica. There is still a strong market for old Leicas and you pay a dear price for an old M3 from the 1950's.

While the SL is a full frame, it is a very large and heavy camera with limited capabilities. It also has a very messy and complicated menu in order to access all the features. I sold mine and replaced it with a Panasonic S1-R. Just as heavy but a better grip, over 50 mgpxls a more intelligent menu, separate buttons to access important options and many more features.

Get the CL. You won't be sorry.

 

[Mike Arledge]

Another factor about the CL is lack of IBIS, I am pretty used to having it as a fallback. But I am also doing less AV work and more full manual, so perhaps I can accommodate.

 

[SJK065]

If you’re shooting in the 28-40+ range, why not consider the Q3. With the pixel count, the standard Q3 would have you covered. I have both the Q3/Q3-43 and they have replaced my shooting with my other cameras. Image quality is amazing and not having to lug around a bunch of gear is a plus.

 

[Mike Arledge]

If you’re shooting in the 28-40+ range, why not consider the Q3. With the pixel count, the standard Q3 would have you covered. I have both the Q3/Q3-43 and they have replaced my shooting with my other cameras. Image quality is amazing and not having to lug around a bunch of gear is a plus.

I have been looking at Q2 a bit, but price might be out of current reach without offloading current gear, not sure I want to do that just yet.