Will a Leica CL satisfy my Leica lust?

-- Sanford Gerald (sanford@usa.com), April 25, 2001

Answers

No.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 25, 2001.

Sanford: tell us more about your Leica lust. Talk about what the brand means to you and what you want to do with it. Travel? Low light work? Landscape? Street work? How many focal lengths do you wish to use on it? Do you want slides? black and white prints? How big? Do you want to carry the minimum of equipment and weight? The more you say, the better answer you might receive.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 25, 2001.

Yes. (As much as any Leica nut is ever satisfied with a single Leica.)

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 25, 2001.

Speaking from experience, you lust will only grow bigger! By the way, a CLE is more usable than a CL, as it has the 28mm frameline.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), April 26, 2001.

A CL is a Leica; a CLE is not.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 26, 2001.

Probably not........I got rid of an M4 (too big) for a CL. It produced every bit as good a photograph as the M4 but I never really had the same pride of usership as I had with the M4. Traded the CL for a IIIg and the old feeling returned.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 26, 2001.

A CL is a Leica; a CLE is not.

Ah, no wonder it didn't quench my Leica lust! :-)

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), April 26, 2001.

Sanford:

I re-read my earlier post, and realized it probably sounded a bit curt... I really did not mean it that way, but meant it as a direct response to your question. I viewed three words in your question as very significant -- "Leica," "lust" and "sastify". I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I do not want to set off a flame war, but... IMO, I don't believe "Leica" "lust" can be completely "satisfied" with the purchase of just one Leica camera body any more than carnal lust can be permanently satisfied after just one encounter, especially if that body (double-entendre intended) doesn't really match the essence of what the tradition is all about.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 26, 2001.

Possibly. I think like Hoyin though that it will probably stimulate your Leica lust still further. The CL is a superb tiny camera - by far the best camera for its size in my opinion, and it works best with a 40mm or 50mm lens. It works OK with a 90mm too, but not nearly as well as a full sized M. It stimulates my Leica lust, but that is Ok I have an R Leica and have owned an M3, so my lust is already half satisfied already.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

I think Jack Flesher's most recent post is absolutely priceless and proverbial. Thank you. I get the biggest kick out of this forum. :-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 27, 2001.

The CLE is of the few cameras Minolta has had quality-problems with, so there`s your reason for choosing CL. Only about a 100 of the 65000 CLs produced didnīt meet the quality requirements, and didn`t make their way to the dealers.

Notice that the Cds meter takes a bit of getting used to, especially when taking slides. Otherwise the CL handles well and meets most needs. At least mine, that is.

-- Kenneth Skeie (k8k@storebrand.no), April 27, 2001.

If you're bent on getting the CL, you should note that its exposure meter requires a mecury battery, which may not be available in some countries. Also, I read somewhere (sorry, can't recall the site) on the internet that the early CL's exposure meter has some problems, but they were rectified in later production cameras. The source advices that late-production CLs are more reliable cameras, especially those that carry the Leitz-Minolta label.

I bought a CLE instead of a CL because the CLE (1) uses a non- mercury battery, (2) has TTL flash-metering, (3) has a hinged camera back (much easier film loading and unloading), and (4) has a more accurate electronic shutter (the accuracy only really matters at slower shutter speeds, but the down side is that the camera is battery-dependent). Also, the metering cell of the CL is designed in such a way that it prevents the mounting of certain lenses. The CLE seems to have lesser lens-compatibility problems than the CL (I stand corrected on this).

By the way, both the CL and CLE were made in Japan by Minolta, and many Leica connoisseurs would argue that the CL is not a thoroughbred Leica (I personally really don't care!). Whether you decide to get a CL or CLE, I'm quite sure it will only whet your appetite for Leica.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), April 27, 2001.

I will grant you that the CLE is, in virtually every way, a more usable camera than the CL, but then so are most SLRs. The CL has that Leica "feel" (probably due to the rounded ends), where the CLE just feels like all those other square Japanese RF cameras of the '70s (Canon, Olympus, Minolta, etc). Incidentally, I sold my CLE because my most used lens, the 35mm Summilux, wouldn't fit due to hitting the meter sensor.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 27, 2001.

Sanford:

Buy the CL - it is a great camera. It's not a Leica M. If you want a Leica M, it won't satisfy the lust but it is a great stepping stone and a great camera in its own right. I use mine with most leica lenses but especially with a 3Elmar and Voigtlander extreme wide angles. I have shot it with a Noct but only for distant shots where focus isn't critical. (It sure looks silly with the Noct but it works - it even focusses but closer than about 20 feet the finder window gets blocked.) The good thing about a CL is that you can for now put more money into lenses. My preference is the Leitz-Minolta CL as it was my first Leica but I now have a Leica CL as well along with my recently crunched M5 (ouch). Get a CL and a couple of lenses and a bunch of film.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), April 28, 2001.

I have both Minolta CLE and a Leica CL. The CL I use as a back up when I do remote cold area study and batteries cease to work due to freezing temperatures but by and large the CLE gets 99% of my work. I have been reading some of the comments on here and some of them are plainly farsicle. The comment that the CLE is more square like 70's Japanese rangefinders and the CL is not really amused me. BOTH the Leica CL and Minolta CLE have more squared corners at the front and more rounded corners at the rear. They are virtually the same shape and size in this respect! (I will send top cover pictures if there are any doubts!) Both are unique in their size and feel. Other comments like the CLE having factory problems is again plainly false. I worked for the largest photographic company in the Sourthern Hemisphere for the whole time the Minolta CLE was available. Not one single one was ever returned for warranty repair and had a reputation for being ultra relaible. To even suggest Minolta electronics are poor is to then say all Leica R's from the 3 to the 7 so too have poor electronics as the electronics for all these models was made by Minolta (out of the Minolta XD series). Funny now with the R8 when Leica dabbles themselves with its elctronics that are very simple electronics by todays standards have chronic relaibilty problems. So give minolta some credit there. I find it very amusing that if it has a Leica badge on it even though it was made by a differnt company it is always better. The CLE is far superior to my CL. Much easier to load, much better flash system, better finder, better exposure system and also aperture priority auto with exposure compensation. The CL is showing its age with CDs meter that are getting increasingly inacurate. Its slower speeds (ie the 2sec) are also often sluggish, a very common fault with CL's.

The CLE is definately my choice for a field camera providing functions that even the M6 does not. The only thing that would make me choose the CL over the CLE is the price. CLE's are a fair bit more expensive on the used camera market as there werent as many made.

To the ultimate question of satisfaction, if want to use the fastest Leica lenses on these cameras, no they arent the cameras for you (They basically dont fit!). If you choose to use the slightly slower and more compact lenses available, like I do for my field work, then yes they are a good choice. All of the new Voigtlander lenses can also be mounted on both cameras with adapters. Voigtlanders ultra wide angles in particular open up a whole new world for the Leica CL and Minolta CLE user.

I hope this is helpfull

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), June 23, 2001.