Member Peter Dooling

Carlos,

The Q, with its 24MP full frame sensor will give a little better quality than the CL with an APS-C sensor. Both are going to deliver great results. The Q for me is a mini M camera where I can't take the lens off. Even two years on, it still is best in class.

Really, the decision comes down to one important criteria. If you are looking to get into a full system camera with interchangeable lenses, the CL would be the way to go. But, if you're happy with 28mm, the Q is tough to beat.

18mm is the actual focal length of the lens. On APS-C, it will be equivalent to a 28mm in full-frame terms.

Hope this helps.

Antonio,

The 18-56 TL is extremely capable, with excellent image quality and a nice focal length range. I do find myself gravitating to the 23, 35 and 60 primes more and more, though. The wider apertures and DOF control overrule flexibility for me. So, not a straight-up sacrifice in IQ. Rather a difference in overall look. And, no, I haven't ran into situations with the original T, TL2 or CL where I needed image stabilization.

David, I liked your video but didn't see a link here?

Bernard, that is a good question! The S-E was not listed but we have inquired with Leica, and will update the table when we get a reply. I'll also reply to your comment with the update.

The S-E is the same credit as the S (Typ 006) and I've added it to the table!

Es posible upgrade for Leica M10

David,
Does the silent electronic shutter work well below 1/4000?

James,
Regarding battery life:
I agree with you but…
With the USB-C, I would just charge now through the cord to an external battery that I always carry for my phone anyway.

Regarding the price drop in the U.S. serving the goal of providing better global price harmonization (same price in different countries): please note that the European price dropped simultaneously from €6,900 to €5,900.

I don't think so. The SL was only introduced 18 months ago as a brand new system, and the lens line is still being developed. The Q is six months older and shows no signs of being replaced. Fact is, Leica's product cycles are longer now. Four years passed between the M240 and the M10. And, in many ways, the SL is still more advanced than the just-launched M10. From an image quality perspective, performance of the SL and the M10 are extremely similar. Leica has also been diligent about rolling out regular firmware updates for the SL to continually improve the performance and user experience. Bottom line: this is not an end of life product. Rather, it is Leica's current standard-bearer. Based on other product cycles, I wouldn't expect to see a replacement in anything less than 18-24 months. And a lot of new SL glass will be rolling out in that timeframe, further bolstering the system.

Mainly, I think the price adjustment is aimed at achieving global price harmonization.

The SL is doing well, especially for a new system. Leica just wants to accelerate this process and make it more competitive to attract those outside the Leica universe.

To your point about the lens selection, the SL is actually able to accept many more lenses than an M camera. These are:

• SL autofocus native lenses, which are some of the very best optics Leica is offering right now
• TL autofocus lenses, which only cover APS-C, but are perfect for 4K video projects
• S autofocus lenses with adapter
• R lenses with adapter
• M lenses with adapter
• PL mount cine lenses with adapter
• Nikon AF and MF lenses with adapter
• Canon AF lenses with adapter

So, quite a few lenses. By my rough count, more than 300 options.

As far as being outdated in two years time, take a look at the M9. The M9 was introduced eight years ago and has an very loyal following, still producing incredible images. Digital cameras don't get worse with age. They produce the same quality as they did they day they were manufactured. The SL is extremely quick in operation. I can't see myself needing anything faster than 11 fps. Heck, I only use single shot. At 24 megapixels, the files are large enough to produce stunning 30×40 inch prints. It shoots in low light up to ISO 6,400 with extraordinary quality. And, the 4.4 MP EVF rivals an optical finder. So, for me, I'd say the investment in an SL is much more than a two-year deal. I shot plenty of film before reluctantly transitioning to digital just a little more than 10 years ago. And while film has a certain look and nostalgia for me, I can't see going back. The quality and flexibility of the SL is so far beyond what I ever was able to achieve with film.

Digital has come a long way since Jim's passing. I'd like to think he would have heartily embraced the M Monochrom.