Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Does anyone own or have experience using either of these cameras? I am considering them for travel photography and would like to experience Leica Glass and color. No, they are not full frame M cameras, but they are a lot more affordable. No, they do not have speedy autofocus. However, would they work as a smaller, lighter, almost pocketable travel camera? Thanks

delkeener Loc: SW Rhode Island, USA

Why not get a Panasonic Lumix LX100 II digital. It's a Micro Four Thirds sensor and Leica 24-75mm (35mm equiv.) f1.7-2.8 glass. Not quite the 24MP of the 2 Leicas but still has their glass in a nice little package for about $1000.

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Thanks for the suggestion. I was hoping to stay with a larger sensor than the Micro 4 3rds. I have a Sony A7R3 so I really didn’t want to make that big a change.

Dalgo Loc: NE PA

I would take the CL. Has an electronic viewfinder. TL2 has no viewfinder. You can buy one as an option, but....

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Thanks for your comment and observation! Yes, that is the most obvious difference between the 2 models, although the TL2 has a much larger view screen to offset the missing EVF. Have you shot with either of them? I am really hoping to find some folks willing to share their opinion on one or both cameras based on actual experience shooting with them. Doesn’t look like they are popular with other UHH members, given the lack of comments.

Dalgo Loc: NE PA

I have not shot with either of them, Mario22. Only "fondled" them. OMG, are they nice! My only experience with Leica is having had a Leica M4 (silver), and a Leica M4-2 (black) with a few lenses and accessories. My further thoughts on the two you are consideration are that the TL2 is nice and s lid, but vulnerable. It is heavier, and can be nicked and dinged. These are permanent, as the body is made from a solid block of aluminum. No way to change a top plate or bottom plate if you bang the body. Forget a big ding giving the camera character. One has to "baby" the TL2 a bit more than the CL. I'm more of a "bring the camera to your eye" type of person, so I appreciate the bright viewfinder of the CL. Neither have a tiltable screen. I also like the feel and the smaller dimensions of the CL. It's more traditional Leica-like to my way of thinking. In the end, it's a matter how they feel to you, and how you shoot. They are both excellent, to say the least. As for why you don't hear much about Leica here, is that not that many people have them. I believe that many people on the Hog feel that you get more "bang for your buck" with other cameras, and there are many excellent modern and retro style cameras out there. Additionally, many folks when they think of Leica, they think of M models, which are a considerable investment, when you consider the cost of an M body, and the cost of M lenses. At my age rangefinder cameras are hard to focus, plus other negatives of not exactly getting what you see. I see the CL/TL2 as excellent options for me, and will soon take the plunge and get one, the CL. They are both of superb quality, as are the lenses. But parting with the cash.... There's the rub. You won't be sorry with your choice.

Cheers, Pierre

Besperus Loc: Oregon

Leica is more of an iconic tool which you may need to accommodate. They are not for everyone. Since you use a Sony you might consider a newer 6500? But they are very nice and very well crafted.

jazzguitar Loc: pennsylvania

I have a CL and just bought a T.. Very light to carry..but you will need to buy some expensive leica glass.. On the T you will need a leica EV.. I found a used one for $450...
the cl is a 20 megapixel and the T has 16 megapixel.. I only print up to 11x14.. I was very surprised that I was able to crop 50% on the 16 megapixel and i don't see any difference