Which M Body best for Minolta CLE 40mm

[Guth]

To be clear I was thinking forum members would compare using a M3 or M2/4.

I had a CL but due to its short base it’s not on my list.

Is it with practice more accurate or easier to imagine the 40 frame line outside the M2/4 50 frame or more accurate to use the entire finder of the M3?

When seeing the title of this thread, like KoNickon my first thought was the Minolta CLE as I too use the lens in question. But after reading the conversation that followed it seems the real question is how well would the Leica M3 work with M-Rokkor 40mm lens design with regards to framing. However, your comment above has raised a question in my mind.

In your case you've mentioned elimination of the CL due to its short base, which is even shorter than that of the CLE. I am assuming that your mention of a short base is a reference to the effective base length (EBL). My understanding is that along with the quality/sharpness of the rangefinder focusing patch itself, the EBL impacts focusing accuracy. When it comes to framing, how does the EBL impact things? Is it more a matter of viewfinders with smaller magnification ratios (and therefore shorter EBLs) simply being harder to work with in this regard rather than being tied directly to the EBL itself? Regardless, I hope that you end up finding the right camera for your needs. Good luck!

 

[splitimageview]

EBL has nothing to do with framing. For example a viewfinder-only camera - no rangefinder, no rangefinder baselength.

 

[Rich1950]

Well, if you want a nice travel camera (small light weight) you could not do better than the CL. And…I’m looking for light weight. But I wanted to experience a M3 and use a 40. I have owned a CL and its a great camera but I wasn’t thinking to go that direction. I wanted a longer EBL for focusing accuracy with a 90.

I took the M5 out for a walk and it has much goodness with the unmatched overhanging shutter control and viewfinder display. I wear glasses and the suggested technique of using the 50 frame when shooting the 40 will be what I will try. If I move to the M3 I’ll use the entire frame as suggested.

 

[Rich1950]

I bought a M3 and set up a test for framing with the 40mm. Subject at 10 feet with background fence-line at 25 ft. Easy to estimate how far the frame edge is off. As suggested using the edge of the M3 viewfinder outside the 50mm lines is an excellent technique. Certainly more accurate vs using a 35mm frame for the 40 on my M5.

The test had the added benefit of visualizing the 40 using the M5 50 frame line. Unlike the M3 there is no need to move your eye around using the 40 and framing with the M5 50 lines. I like both cameras for their strengths.

 

[ddutchison2]

Some years ago, I was told that the more modern VFs which incorporate 28mm lenses have looser frame lines than their M2/3/4 predecessors, and their 35mm frames fit the 40mm quite well. In practice I've found this to be true, the 35mm frames on my M6 work perfectly and I have never lost a picture to bad framing. The 35mm frames on my M2, on the other hand, would cut off elements in the frame, frequently enough that I had to use an auxiliary finder.

 

[Rich1950]

Its true using a 40 and framing with a M6 35 frame to the projected frame line is very close.

If you frame the 40 on the M2/4/5 using the 50 frame-line imagine the 40 frame outside of the 50. Once you know how far it seems natural.

 

[Bingley]

I’ve been happily shooting my M-Rokkor 40mm f2.0 CLE lens on an M6 classic, using the 35 mm framelines. As I noted above, I also shoot 40mm lenses on the M3 too. Both set ups work fine, in my experience.

 

[creenus]

The viewfinder (edge to edge) on my Minolta CLE perfectly matches the coverage of my Zeiss-M 25mm Biogon-T, so I use it for wide angle photos. No finder attachment needed. My son has a CLE with the M-Rokkor f2.0 40mm - good lens! Nice that it works on a 35mm frameline for other M cameras.

 

[Godfrey]

I used that M-Rokkor 40 with M6 (35mm frame lines), M9 (35mm frame lines), CL (film), and CL (digital). On the RF cameras, I never saw enough error in framing to worry about, just framed "tight" and didn't worry about it.

No RF camera viewfinder is precise like the CL (digital) in terms of framing accuracy.

G

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Well, if you want a nice travel camera (small light weight) you could not do better than the CL. And…I’m looking for light weight. But I wanted to experience a M3 and use a 40. I have owned a CL and its a great camera but I wasn’t thinking to go that direction. I wanted a longer EBL for focusing accuracy with a 90.

I took the M5 out for a walk and it has much goodness with the unmatched overhanging shutter control and viewfinder display. I wear glasses and the suggested technique of using the 50 frame when shooting the 40 will be what I will try. If I move to the M3 I’ll use the entire frame as suggested.

Absolutely. The CL is still a winner....small & precise. I've used them since they came out in the 70s. I've never had a focus issue. DAG still has parts & repairs them.

 

[Rich1950]

Writing a followup report. Using the edge of the M3 finder works for framing the 40. It works best at the 10ft range. If focused on infinity you will get a lot of extra subject matter on film. If you enlarge either digitally or in the DR you can make it work. The Minolta 40/2 on an M3 is very ergonomic and light.

 

[santino]

Writing a followup report. Using the edge of the M3 finder works for framing the 40. It works best at the 10ft range. If focused on infinity you will get a lot of extra subject matter on film. If you enlarge either digitally or in the DR you can make it work. The Minolta 40/2 on an M3 is very ergonomic and light.

I totally agree. You reflect my observations.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

The Leica CL + 40mm is the bomb

Absolutely. The shorter base rangefinder works perfectly with wide lenses or up to 90mm. As much as i love my M4, i very often travel with the CL and a MF camera. My rig for Europe this summer is the CL w/ 21mm & 50 (color skopar) (or maybe just a 28mm) and a 6x6 Perkeo ll