The Leica "experience" - would I get it with a CL?

The CL's a great little rangefinder, no question, but if you're craving the Leica M experience then only a true M-series body will quench that thirst. Everyone's gonna express different preferences, but here's mine for what it's worth.

For the same money as a CL+40mm 'cron you could pick up a good M2 and a used Voigtländer 35mm Color-Skopar Classic. It's a combination I use daily and absolutely adore. The wee Voigtländer is one of the great used bargains in RF photography; mine cost less via eBay than I've spent in the past on a single bottle of the Macallan. I also own two 35mm Summicrons (a V3 and a V4), and the little CV runs them alarmingly close. If you find that the RF thing is for you, then you can upgrade or add more costly optics as you go.

Seeing as you're also in Scotland, you might want to check out Ffordes up near Inverness. You could take a day-trip north and have a good play with their stock to see what's right for you. They normally have a good supply of Leica Ms (and CLs), as well as new and used lenses.
 
Koolzakukumba said:
... I use Pentax gear just now with prime lenses and really don't expect to see a great difference, if any at all, but it's something I'd like to get out of my system. ...
Click to expand...

You might and you might not. Super-Takumar is some very nice glass. The CL is a wonderful camera, I got one around Christmas time last year. It's currently being CLAd and having a new meter put in.

If you decide to get one, be careful of the internal meter - they are the Achilles Heel. The CL is completely manual and can be used without its meter however.

The 40mm Summicron is nice, but I have noticed slight flaring so a hood might be a good idea.
 
What's the ultimate point of a Leica? Surely that it's a small, compact, discreet camera, with excellent lenses.

I do use an M3... but simply can't see how anyone can say it's functionally superior to a CL. It isn't. Apart from the beautiful hefty feel of an M2, or M3 - and I love my SS m3- it takes longer to load, its metering is going to be more complicated and probably inferior (the CL's semi-spot is terrific). The CL is a Leica, primarily because of that lens, I don't think it has much in common with a Yashica. And it would be good if people contributing to this thread mentioned whether they have owned and used a CL... because you can't understand the cheeky charm of this great camera unless you have. I honestly don't think a better camera with a VC lens will give you equivalent results; VC lenses are great, but the look is simply different.

Ultimately, some people will want that BMW, to reassure themselves they're a 'proper' driver. Fair enough.
 
Last edited:
What is the Leica experience? Is it whether your camera feels and fondles like a Leica? Or whether it takes great photos like a Leica. If the latter, the CL is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
It's the former, most definitely (If it were the latter, just about any decent camera from the past 30 years would do - or if you specifically wanted to use recent Leica lenses, any M bayonet RF). When people talk of the "Leica experience", they're almost always talking of the feel of using a beautifully made mechanical item, and not the quality of the photos (and sometimes people are referring to the apparent kudos to be had from being seen with a Leica, but that's the snobbery aspect).
 
For the same money as a CL+40mm 'cron you could pick up a good M2 and a used Voigtländer 35mm Color-Skopar Classic. It's a combination I use daily and absolutely adore.
Click to expand...
I'll second that. As it happens, two of the combinations I've been using most over the past couple of months have been CL/40 and M2/35 Skopar. The Skopar is probably the best 35 I've ever used.
 
Paul T. said:
I do use an M3... but simply can't see how anyone can say it's functionally superior to a CL. It isn't.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true now, is it? Try focusing a fast 50mm or longer lens with the CL, then try it with an M3. It's not even in the same ballpark for focusing accuracy, the figures speak for themselves:

Leica CL
  • 0.6x magnification factor
  • 31.5mm base length
  • 18.9mm effective baselength

Leica M3
  • 0.92x magnification factor
  • 69.25mm base length
  • 63.71mm effective baselength

...and just for the sake of completeness:

Leica M2 (and all subsequent Ms with a 0.72 finder)
  • 0.72x magnification factor
  • 69.25mm optical base length
  • 49.86mm effective baselength
 
mr_phillip said:
That's not strictly true now, is it? Try focusing a fast 50mm or longer lens with the CL, then try it with an M3. It's not even in the same ballpark for focusing accuracy
Click to expand...
Sure, but using a 40mm, or the Elmar C, it's easily good enough. As stated, I love my M3 and of course the viewfinder is beautiful. I just don't see the CL as its inferior sibling. It's equal, but different.

What often goes unreported, and I'm glad someone brought it up, is that the metering on the CL (and M5) is simply better and more intuitive than that on the M6 (and perhaps the MP, altho I haven't tried one). Granted they had to fit it into a small space, but it was a step backwards.
 
It's a fair point that it is snobbishness when people argue that a CL isn't a 'real' Leica, but I would argue that the fact that the CL is a Leica is the thing which counts the most against it.

It's a lovely little camera, well designed and small, but against a M body (in my case M4 and M4P, using an external meter doesn't worry me and in any case the meter on my CL didn't work) it seems (or at least it did when I owned one) that it isn't really very much smaller and lighter, but does have a rangefinder patch that is harder to see and lacks some of the slower speeds. It also doesn't feel as smooth or well made as a M either, and if memory serves me right the shutter was louder too.

None of these would be bad things at all if it was cheaper, but it seems that precisely because it is a Leica it is more expensive than it should be - not really more than a few pounds cheaper than a user M2, which would seem to be a better and more versatile camera. Fair enough, if I owned a black paint M4 I'd also have a heart attack every time I left my house in case it got damaged or stolen, and generally spend more time worrying that enjoying it, but this isn't the case with user M bodies.

Especially in comparison to the nearest comparable cameras - the Bessa R I guess, but also the better quality Japanese compact rangefinders of the 70s (GL17III etc.), it seems very overpriced. Not a bad camera at all, rather a lovely one, just a bit too expensive for what it is.

However camera preference is very personal so it might just suit you, and then be worth the price.
 
Not sure what the [put your favourite camera model] experience is but I have a CL and I would say the following.

If you look at a picture taken with a CL and the standard 40mm lens and one taken with a Leica M-something and a 35mm which alone costs more than the CL and the lens together you have a hard time telling the difference.

The camera is smaller and feels less sturdy than a "real" Leica but (unlike an R-3 mot I had and an M-4 I still have) never let me down so far (once I broke the light meter but even then I was left in a condition similar to the one I am with the M-4).

So, if you use the camera to take pictures and you are somehow on a budged or not sure whether you like the whole rangefinder thing (I for example am not really a great fan) I would definitively go for the CL or the CLE. If you then decide to "upgrade" you will not have any problem selling any of these gems.

Of course, I assume you already know all the "shorther baselength", "some lens with recessed elements cannot be mounted" stuff and I don't even mention that assuming that if you wanted to mount 12mm lens or a Visoflex you would not even ask...

My 2 cents...

GLF
 
As far as pricing goes, a good condition, fully functional CL w/ 40mm Summicron usually sells for $600-650 around here. That's about $300 cheaper than the average price of a 35mm Summicron. You can buy the package and throw the body in the garbage and it's still a good deal!
 
With a CL you'll be getting a very, very, very good Minolta experience. No, it's not an M, but it's mighty close. The 40 Summicron is wonderful...as is the 40 Rokkor...mox nix.

The experience is imho using a high-quality RF camera with a superb lens no matter the brand name.

The only gotchas are the mercury cell (Weincell maybe), you can't use a lens that interferes with the meter swing-arm, the swing-arm tends to get sticky, and the short RF base. A Leica CL, Leitz-Minolta CL and Minolta CL are actually the same camera, perhaps sold with the Summicron or Rokkor depending on the market.

-jbh-
 
RXMB wrote: "Frankly, what the Leica CL surely will not give you is the snobbish, but essentially worthless appeal of using a "real Leica". "

Thanks! I've shot with Canon, Nikon, and Voigtlander glass on my M-2 and M-4 since 1971 - because that's what I could afford. You'd be astounded at the horror/contempt I've encountered from "purists" for doing this. I think what REALLY pisses them off is, when everything comes together on a very good day - my images match or trounce theirs.
 
I owned a CL with a Canon 28/3.5, a collapsible 50/2 Summicron & a Elmar 90/4. I have fondled & used other's "real" Leica's. Yes, you get the full monty from a CL. It's smaller & lighter but one look through the VF & you'll know you're there. The glass remains the same.

BTW, I intentionally avoided reading the thread before answering. OTOH, I sold my CL to eventually help finance my Contax & Zeiss glass instead... 😱 😉

William
 
photogdave said:
I have an M4, M6 and a CL. Guess which I use the most? The CL!
I prefer the ergonomics of the shutter dial placement, I prefer the match-needle metering and I like how the shutter speed is displayed in the viewfinder.
With its 40mm lens it's a very compact package and easy to carry with me all the time. The best camera is the one you have with you!
It's certainly no match for the others in build quality, and any M would be a better choice for low light or longer lens work. The 40mm Summicron that usually comes with it renders beautifully, so you get the "Leica experience" in the results, if not in the actual capture process.
I'll sell my M6 before my CL!
Click to expand...

-what he said-
The CL is a joy to use, I prefer its size, 40mm lens and framelines, shutter speed dial, and meter to any camera Ive ever handled. also the vertical carry is nice, but takes some getting used to. Be prepared to have a CLA done though, Sherry Krauter can perform miracles on a CL in any condition!
 
Experience? Take LSD, or make love to a strange woman in an exotic location. That'll be an experience. Cameras are for taking pictures.
 
The 40mm is a joy to use and can cover a wide range of applications. I've been using the Minolta CLE as my streetshooter for quite a few years now and love it. I've also got a M2 and the build quality is on a different level. However, most of the time I use my CLE. So I guess the CL with a 40mm should be able to deliver great results.

Have a look at some of my pics:
www.volkerb.co.uk
Most of it 40mm+CLE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom