Austerby
Well-known
I've seen quite a few comparisons between a CL or CLE and a Leica M, but none comparing them to a Voigtlander R2A which I suspect is their closest contemporary equivalent.
I'm interested in thoughts on size, mechanical build, shutter noise, viewfinder quality, enjoyment of ownership etc.
Does anyone have experiences of both and can share their thoughts on a comparison?
I'm interested in thoughts on size, mechanical build, shutter noise, viewfinder quality, enjoyment of ownership etc.
Does anyone have experiences of both and can share their thoughts on a comparison?
back alley
IMAGES
ive had several cv r type bodies and several cles.
the cle felt smaller in my hand and seemed quieter. i am always surprised when others say that the cle was noisy as it seemed very quiet to me. the cv bodies had a more metal sounding shutter.
the cle was well built but had problems with dirt collecting under the shutter release. the cv bodies always felt solid enough to me, especially the r4x bodies. they were my favourite.
viewfinder is fine on both, very simple on the cle (framelines), both clear and bright.
if there were a digital cle i would buy one (or 2) in a flash.
i do have 2 rd1s...
the cle felt smaller in my hand and seemed quieter. i am always surprised when others say that the cle was noisy as it seemed very quiet to me. the cv bodies had a more metal sounding shutter.
the cle was well built but had problems with dirt collecting under the shutter release. the cv bodies always felt solid enough to me, especially the r4x bodies. they were my favourite.
viewfinder is fine on both, very simple on the cle (framelines), both clear and bright.
if there were a digital cle i would buy one (or 2) in a flash.
i do have 2 rd1s...
Bill58
Native Texan
I would favor the CLE for build quality, resale value, handiness/small size and pride of ownership. However, there is THE issue of the repair-ability of electronics.
joohander
Member
one thing missing on the R2A is the self timer which the CLE has, i find it slightly annoying but still, maintainability of the CLE is always a big issue since parts will be hard to find
roundg
Well-known
CLE is much better designed and build than CV, the shutter also quieter. The metering system is super.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
I have a CLE, have yet to use a camera that is better then it.
Best viewfinder I've used as well. But I haven't used a M6ttl or M& .58 as of yet.
Per Cameraquest
http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm
Best viewfinder I've used as well. But I haven't used a M6ttl or M& .58 as of yet.
Per Cameraquest
http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't use any of them but...
CLE great?
A camera with huge repairs problems today, without metering in manual mode, and without AE lock, seems totally weak to me... I would say great an M7... ZI and AE Bessas are a lot better cameras these days... And the best tool the M7, not because of its brand or its durability, but because of its mechanical speeds.
Cheers,
Juan
CLE great?
A camera with huge repairs problems today, without metering in manual mode, and without AE lock, seems totally weak to me... I would say great an M7... ZI and AE Bessas are a lot better cameras these days... And the best tool the M7, not because of its brand or its durability, but because of its mechanical speeds.
Cheers,
Juan
The CLE has been a favorite for me since I bought one new in 1982... Not only do I still use it but I got a second one three years ago just out of fondness! Repairs have not been a problem, as most things are readily accessible to a good technician. As Joe says, the electrical contacts under the shutter dial need cleaning every 10 years or so... And the camera predates integrated circuits, so individual electronic components can be changed out, if the bad item can be identified. But these things last the life of the camera, eh? 
Relax and enjoy...
The CLE is small, superficially resembling an older fixed-lens RF, very innocent looking. It's quite a bit smaller than the typical Leica M or Bessa. The black finish is very durable, may be black chrome. Red diodes run up the left side of the viewfinder to indicate shutter speeds. This is one tool for manual metering... On A, see what shutter speed is selected, set that as a manual speed on the shutter speed dial and shoot.
I have Bessa R4A, Hexar RF, Zeiss Ikon, Leica, etc... and I still consider the CLE as a favorite. There's just something very likable about it for me. But it has its oddities, mainly the viewfinder framelines. The 40mm lens uses the same auto-frameline calibration as other 50mm M-mounts. The Rokkor 28 will bring up 35mm framelines in other M bodies. But standard 28mm M lenses will correctly show the CLE's 28 frames, plus 90. This has not been a hassle for me, since I use a 28 'cron on it, 40 Rokkor & Nokton, and 90 Tele-Elmarit... All automatically showing their appropriate framelines.
The Bessa R2A may be comparable in some ways, but it is larger and has manually-set framelines... and only as wide as 35mm. The CLE has not only has 28mm framelines but you can easily see all around the outsides. Only the R4 betters it in this respect, but without 90mm framelines, and still manually selected.
Relax and enjoy...The CLE is small, superficially resembling an older fixed-lens RF, very innocent looking. It's quite a bit smaller than the typical Leica M or Bessa. The black finish is very durable, may be black chrome. Red diodes run up the left side of the viewfinder to indicate shutter speeds. This is one tool for manual metering... On A, see what shutter speed is selected, set that as a manual speed on the shutter speed dial and shoot.
I have Bessa R4A, Hexar RF, Zeiss Ikon, Leica, etc... and I still consider the CLE as a favorite. There's just something very likable about it for me. But it has its oddities, mainly the viewfinder framelines. The 40mm lens uses the same auto-frameline calibration as other 50mm M-mounts. The Rokkor 28 will bring up 35mm framelines in other M bodies. But standard 28mm M lenses will correctly show the CLE's 28 frames, plus 90. This has not been a hassle for me, since I use a 28 'cron on it, 40 Rokkor & Nokton, and 90 Tele-Elmarit... All automatically showing their appropriate framelines.
The Bessa R2A may be comparable in some ways, but it is larger and has manually-set framelines... and only as wide as 35mm. The CLE has not only has 28mm framelines but you can easily see all around the outsides. Only the R4 betters it in this respect, but without 90mm framelines, and still manually selected.
Beemermark
Veteran
Every time the CLE is mentioned the issue of repairs comes up. I always ask, and never get a negative reply, who has had CLE's that require repair. I've had a couple. I sent one in for a repair and never had any problems. Like many cameras it has a non-replaceable circuit board that never fails. Otherwise it's the same as any other camera and can be repaired as such.
The only cameras that come to mind as having problems with the electronics (and it must be a design issue) are OM-4, OM-2S and Leica CL.
The only cameras that come to mind as having problems with the electronics (and it must be a design issue) are OM-4, OM-2S and Leica CL.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
The CLE is a wonderful little camera, no doubt.
philipp.leser
Established
I love my CLE. It has the perfect size, a beautiful finder and a quiet shutter.
That said, I think my Bessa R3A has a much higher build quality (the CLE is mostly plastics, the on/off switch is especially flimsy; the Bessa is mostly made out of metal and feels very solid). The main disadvantage of the Bessa is the position of the strap lugs.
That said, I think my Bessa R3A has a much higher build quality (the CLE is mostly plastics, the on/off switch is especially flimsy; the Bessa is mostly made out of metal and feels very solid). The main disadvantage of the Bessa is the position of the strap lugs.
lic4
Well-known
I have to disagree about the build quality of the R3A compared to the CLE. I owned both for some time, and I found that the CLE was more robust. The rangefinder on mine has never gone out of alignment even through rough handling conditions, while my R3A seems to go out of alignment more easily (two times on the R3A compared to none for the CLE). Perhaps the discussion on "feel" is all too subjective - I find that the CLE feels more solid to me, not the R3A.
I also agree that people disparage the circuit board of the CLE too easily when there is very little sign that it is a fragile component.
lorax
Newbie
I have a Minolta CLE, a Leica CL, a Leica M6TTL 0.58, and have recently bought a Bessa R4A. All of these cameras have pros and cons - I'll include the CL and M6 in this as they provide useful comparisons, and as far as I'm aware the R4A is the same as other Bessas apart from the viewfinder:
CL: great little camera - small, light, basic (this is a good thing!), solid and sturdy. If I want to travel light with my 50mm lens I use this. But basic is not always best, and especially with wide-angle lenses I miss autoexposure as it is enough hassle to have to use an external viewfinder
M6TTL: everything one expects of Leica - great viewfinder, (especially with the 0.58 for me as a glasses wearer), solid, dependable, gorgeous to use, but heavy (well, heavier than the others listed here!)
R4A: not as substantial as the M6TTL, but this makes it lighter. Some simple benefits - easy film loading, film canister window, auto exposure, the 21/25mm framelines in the viewfinder are just great! My main gripe with this camera is the bizarre placement of the strap lugs, which mean it tips backwards when fitted with the small wideangle lenses it was designed for - this is irritating and uncomfortable. The manual frameline selection doesn't bother me at all.
CLE: If I was happy only to go as wide as 28mm, and didn't want to use a 50mm, I would only use this camera! It is small, light, easy to use, reliable, and has a great viewfinder. The auto exposure is so good that the slight hassle of having to meter in auto first before switching to manual doesn't bother me as I hardly ever need to do it.
I take my photos while out and about in the noisy world - while the shutter sounds unquestionably differ, and the M6TTL is certainly the quietest, none of these cameras is noisy, and the shutter sound has never bothered me on any of them. Dependence on batteries also doesn't bother me - I just carry cheap spares in my camera bag. Build quality is absolutely fine on all these cameras - yes the M6 is the best, but none of them is shoddy!
If I had to choose just one of these cameras I simply don't know what I'd do - thay all do their own thing really well, and each has its own niche. But if I absolutely had to decide, the CL would probably be the first to go, albeit reluctantly, as apart from size (on which the CLE matches it) it doesn't do anything better than the M6. I would probably lose the M6 next, as although it is a gorgeous piece of kit the physical pleasure of using such a wonderfully engineered camera is not as important to me as having something smaller and lighter. I think I'd then lose the R4A next, as although I hugely value the opportunity to do without external viewfinders I dislike the way it tips back on the strap. Which means that if I could only keep one rangefinder it would be the Minolta CLE! It's not perfect - I especially wish it had 50mm framelines - but it's just such a lovely little camera.
I have a minor concern with the CLE in the oft-mentioned potential for it to go wrong and not be repairable, but it has never let me down, there's nothing to suggest that it will go wrong, and if the worst came to the worst I'd keep it for spares and buy another one...
(and if anyone has a kludge to stop the Bessa tipping back on the strap I'd love to hear it!)
CL: great little camera - small, light, basic (this is a good thing!), solid and sturdy. If I want to travel light with my 50mm lens I use this. But basic is not always best, and especially with wide-angle lenses I miss autoexposure as it is enough hassle to have to use an external viewfinder
M6TTL: everything one expects of Leica - great viewfinder, (especially with the 0.58 for me as a glasses wearer), solid, dependable, gorgeous to use, but heavy (well, heavier than the others listed here!)
R4A: not as substantial as the M6TTL, but this makes it lighter. Some simple benefits - easy film loading, film canister window, auto exposure, the 21/25mm framelines in the viewfinder are just great! My main gripe with this camera is the bizarre placement of the strap lugs, which mean it tips backwards when fitted with the small wideangle lenses it was designed for - this is irritating and uncomfortable. The manual frameline selection doesn't bother me at all.
CLE: If I was happy only to go as wide as 28mm, and didn't want to use a 50mm, I would only use this camera! It is small, light, easy to use, reliable, and has a great viewfinder. The auto exposure is so good that the slight hassle of having to meter in auto first before switching to manual doesn't bother me as I hardly ever need to do it.
I take my photos while out and about in the noisy world - while the shutter sounds unquestionably differ, and the M6TTL is certainly the quietest, none of these cameras is noisy, and the shutter sound has never bothered me on any of them. Dependence on batteries also doesn't bother me - I just carry cheap spares in my camera bag. Build quality is absolutely fine on all these cameras - yes the M6 is the best, but none of them is shoddy!
If I had to choose just one of these cameras I simply don't know what I'd do - thay all do their own thing really well, and each has its own niche. But if I absolutely had to decide, the CL would probably be the first to go, albeit reluctantly, as apart from size (on which the CLE matches it) it doesn't do anything better than the M6. I would probably lose the M6 next, as although it is a gorgeous piece of kit the physical pleasure of using such a wonderfully engineered camera is not as important to me as having something smaller and lighter. I think I'd then lose the R4A next, as although I hugely value the opportunity to do without external viewfinders I dislike the way it tips back on the strap. Which means that if I could only keep one rangefinder it would be the Minolta CLE! It's not perfect - I especially wish it had 50mm framelines - but it's just such a lovely little camera.
I have a minor concern with the CLE in the oft-mentioned potential for it to go wrong and not be repairable, but it has never let me down, there's nothing to suggest that it will go wrong, and if the worst came to the worst I'd keep it for spares and buy another one...
(and if anyone has a kludge to stop the Bessa tipping back on the strap I'd love to hear it!)
Two things that will help: I have the trigger winder on my R4A, and this item has strap lugs top and bottom of the right side, spaced further back than the body's. I like this item not only for the trigger winding but for this ability to hang the camera from two lugs on the right side. Or, the winder's top lug in combination with the body left lug does shift the balance point back a bit.
Secondly, the Voigtlander Side Grip (see it here: http://cameraquest.com/voigtacc.htm#Bessa camera grips ) has its own top strap lug like the trigger winder, but not the bottom lug.
mackigator
Well-known
@lorax: I've read that the extra grip attachment helps level the Bessa. Someone else will have to confirm that, since I don't have the grip.
The CLE is reliable. I like it more than my R2, ergonomically especially. I do wish for exposure lock. You can shoot a 25mm if you frame with the whole VF.
The CLE is reliable. I like it more than my R2, ergonomically especially. I do wish for exposure lock. You can shoot a 25mm if you frame with the whole VF.
lorax
Newbie
Many thanks for those replies guys - very helpful: I'll get one of the side grips and give it a go. I've taken a look at the trigger winder on the cameraquest site, and I see what you mean Doug, but I'd rather not add to the size or weight of the camera if I can help it so I'll see how the grip goes first.
amateriat
We're all light!
I used a friend's CLE a long time ago and liked it. The only problem my friend had with his was blowing out the shutter (extremely high mileage on that baby). Hot tip: The CLE apparently used the same shutter as the XG SLR. This might be one reason why you don't see all that many "intact" XGs on the used market.
If a CLE came my way at an offer-I-cannot-refuse price, it would be tempting, especially if it came with its little flash unit. But, between the Hexars, the M2, the Contax Tvs and the not-much-mileage-lately Konica Auto S3, I think I'm covered.
- Barrett
If a CLE came my way at an offer-I-cannot-refuse price, it would be tempting, especially if it came with its little flash unit. But, between the Hexars, the M2, the Contax Tvs and the not-much-mileage-lately Konica Auto S3, I think I'm covered.
- Barrett
The CLE dedicated flash is a cute little unit; one came with the camera kit I bought in 1982... but I cannot recall ever using the flash. Same with dedicated flashes for the Pentax Auto 110 and the Fuji GA645; wasteful, but I'm not a flash user.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
How are they huge repair problems?
For instance the early M5 has huge repair problems because the main roller bearings were **** from the outset.
The electronics in the CLE are fantastic from the start and with regular maintenance should last. That early M5 will not last and will need to be rebuilt and rebuilt (at great expense). Now that's a huge repair problem. The CLE on the other hand, you might have problems with your electronics and if you do, you might have problems getting replacement parts.
That's simply a potential problem.
For instance the early M5 has huge repair problems because the main roller bearings were **** from the outset.
The electronics in the CLE are fantastic from the start and with regular maintenance should last. That early M5 will not last and will need to be rebuilt and rebuilt (at great expense). Now that's a huge repair problem. The CLE on the other hand, you might have problems with your electronics and if you do, you might have problems getting replacement parts.
That's simply a potential problem.
Steve M.
Veteran
I had an R3A and a CL. The CL was a fun little camera. Mine had a dead meter, so this issue was solved. No worries about it dying later as it was already a deader. The shutter was quite a bit louder than an M, and if I was ever going to shoot a 90 lens this camera would not be my first choice. Count on a CLA if you do a lot of slow shutter speed shots, as this a known problem. Mine had some sort of curtain light leaks at slower speeds. Above 1/125 it was fine. The strap lugs! Didn't like the strap lug setup at all. Smallish viewfinder w/ not the strongest RF patch in the world.
The R3a (basically the same as an R2a) had strap lug issues too, as others have noted. The only thing to do is put a side grip on it, but then you can't use a half case if that's important. I liked the way it handled w/ the grip. Shutter wasn't pleasant to my ears, although it may actually have been somewhat quieter than a CL. More metalish sounding, and the whole camera vibrates a bit when it goes off. The CL felt more substantial in this regard. Big bright viewfinder, very accurate meter, exposure lock, AE, etc. Winding the film on didn't feel that good. Bit rough. RF patch not as good as an M but sufficient. My main gripe, other than the shutter, was seeing the speeds in the finder because if you have any sort of bright light they flare out.
These are both very different cameras that will do the job if you shoot M or LTM glass. I would prefer a perfectly functioning CL over a Bessa.
The R3a (basically the same as an R2a) had strap lug issues too, as others have noted. The only thing to do is put a side grip on it, but then you can't use a half case if that's important. I liked the way it handled w/ the grip. Shutter wasn't pleasant to my ears, although it may actually have been somewhat quieter than a CL. More metalish sounding, and the whole camera vibrates a bit when it goes off. The CL felt more substantial in this regard. Big bright viewfinder, very accurate meter, exposure lock, AE, etc. Winding the film on didn't feel that good. Bit rough. RF patch not as good as an M but sufficient. My main gripe, other than the shutter, was seeing the speeds in the finder because if you have any sort of bright light they flare out.
These are both very different cameras that will do the job if you shoot M or LTM glass. I would prefer a perfectly functioning CL over a Bessa.
Last edited: