Assaf
Well-known
OK guys, many thanks for your answers.
I think I'm beginning to make my mind up, as to giving the M6 a new home and looking for a new 35mm camera for myself.
The thing is, I mostly use a 3.5E Rolleiflex (Schnieder lens) these days. By far, the loveliest camera I've ever had. It's fun to use, gives amazing images, I like it and other people (including strangers I meet and want to take their pictures) like it as well. It's an old and not expenssive camera and it weighs like my Leica+lens...
I don't find the M6 fun anymore, and it's ridiculously expenssive. The only thing I like in this system is the Planar lens I'm using which is absoloutly amazing. The nasty thing is that the M6 50mm framing is really really bad.
I'm giving up the CLE because I want the 50mm framelines and don't want AE. I also don't care too much about the metering since I use an incident light meter if there's a doubt.
I would even trade the 50mm focal lenght to 40mm. I had it on a Canonet QL17 and found it very versitile. I also liked the Canonet, but it didn't feel robust and the VF was too dark.
If the CL is something between a Canonet and an M6 in terms of VF/RF and build quality, then it'll probably be right for me. Is it so?
The only thing is that I really like in my M system is the Planar. It gives great colors, very sharp yet with lovely focus trnasitions and totally flare free. Is the 40mm 'cron substantially different in it's signature? (can this question be answered at all?)
Anyway, thank's you all,
Palaeoboy thanks you for helping me making up my mind and you're comments would be welcome
PS, the M6 is not yet for sale, but if you're interested I'd be happy to receive PM's about it (it's CLE'd, upgraded VF and wonderful condition)
PPS - Last thing - does anybody here have experience with using 50/2 lens on CL?
Sanmich (Michael) I live in Ramat Aviv, and you?
I think I'm beginning to make my mind up, as to giving the M6 a new home and looking for a new 35mm camera for myself.
The thing is, I mostly use a 3.5E Rolleiflex (Schnieder lens) these days. By far, the loveliest camera I've ever had. It's fun to use, gives amazing images, I like it and other people (including strangers I meet and want to take their pictures) like it as well. It's an old and not expenssive camera and it weighs like my Leica+lens...
I don't find the M6 fun anymore, and it's ridiculously expenssive. The only thing I like in this system is the Planar lens I'm using which is absoloutly amazing. The nasty thing is that the M6 50mm framing is really really bad.
I'm giving up the CLE because I want the 50mm framelines and don't want AE. I also don't care too much about the metering since I use an incident light meter if there's a doubt.
I would even trade the 50mm focal lenght to 40mm. I had it on a Canonet QL17 and found it very versitile. I also liked the Canonet, but it didn't feel robust and the VF was too dark.
If the CL is something between a Canonet and an M6 in terms of VF/RF and build quality, then it'll probably be right for me. Is it so?
The only thing is that I really like in my M system is the Planar. It gives great colors, very sharp yet with lovely focus trnasitions and totally flare free. Is the 40mm 'cron substantially different in it's signature? (can this question be answered at all?)
Anyway, thank's you all,
Palaeoboy thanks you for helping me making up my mind and you're comments would be welcome
PS, the M6 is not yet for sale, but if you're interested I'd be happy to receive PM's about it (it's CLE'd, upgraded VF and wonderful condition)
PPS - Last thing - does anybody here have experience with using 50/2 lens on CL?
Sanmich (Michael) I live in Ramat Aviv, and you?
Last edited:
Assaf
Well-known
CCCPcamera, regarding the ZI - it's a nice camera but it isn't in M standard. I found three annoying things about it :
1) the shutter is very noisy (to my taste)
2) the back of the camera is covered with rubber which tends to wear off
3) more importantly - the VF is bright (but not as contrasty) and when I used it it tended to fade when I moved my eyes
and still iit's a very expenssive camera. too expenssive for me
1) the shutter is very noisy (to my taste)
2) the back of the camera is covered with rubber which tends to wear off
3) more importantly - the VF is bright (but not as contrasty) and when I used it it tended to fade when I moved my eyes
and still iit's a very expenssive camera. too expenssive for me
Paul T.
Veteran
It's so subjective thats it's hard to comment on what would work for you; but the CL is a GREAT camera. The metering is fantastic, far superior to the M6... the feel is very different to an M but not necessarily worse, I love its compactness, the readily accessible shutter speed dial, and the fact shutter speed is visible in the VF. Oh, and the fantastic quality of the photos you get with the 40mm Summicron. The camera works perfectly with a 50/2 or 50/1.8 lens.
CCCPcamera
Established
Zi
Zi
Too bad about the ZI. The viewfinder looks bright (I haven't tried one) but I can understand what you mean about it fading at angles, I think this is a similar problem with lots of rangefinder cameras. Your right, at that price it should be perfect. Funnily enough, by far the cheapest camera I have owned with a very quiet shutter is the kiev 4. I know I know it's not even in the same league as a leica, but I think it's interesting that a machine so cheap can have something most expensive cameras lack. The shutter in that thing is beautiful actually, and it's all metal too. Come to think of it it's a zeiss copy, you'd think the new ikon could have a quiet shutter too then!
Zi
Too bad about the ZI. The viewfinder looks bright (I haven't tried one) but I can understand what you mean about it fading at angles, I think this is a similar problem with lots of rangefinder cameras. Your right, at that price it should be perfect. Funnily enough, by far the cheapest camera I have owned with a very quiet shutter is the kiev 4. I know I know it's not even in the same league as a leica, but I think it's interesting that a machine so cheap can have something most expensive cameras lack. The shutter in that thing is beautiful actually, and it's all metal too. Come to think of it it's a zeiss copy, you'd think the new ikon could have a quiet shutter too then!
micampe
Newbie
Hi Assaf,
I have never used an M6, but I have the Canonet and the CL (and these are all the RFs I have used in my life, since may, I'm a recent convert
). The CL's viewfinder looks maybe a bit larger than the Canonet's, it seems clearer and I think more precise. The rangefinder patch is smaller, but it's the Leica one where you can also align the borders and not just the inner image.
The build quality, while good for the Canonet, it is clearly better on the CL. Same goes for the handling: the shutter dial is great and so easy to use, you end up using the camera as if it was aperture priority and I like having metered manual instead of shutter priority (my guessometer doesn't work). The body size are about exactly the same. I was worried about loading the CL but, while not as easy as the Canonet, it really isn't troublesome.
I have never used an M6, but I have the Canonet and the CL (and these are all the RFs I have used in my life, since may, I'm a recent convert
). The CL's viewfinder looks maybe a bit larger than the Canonet's, it seems clearer and I think more precise. The rangefinder patch is smaller, but it's the Leica one where you can also align the borders and not just the inner image.The build quality, while good for the Canonet, it is clearly better on the CL. Same goes for the handling: the shutter dial is great and so easy to use, you end up using the camera as if it was aperture priority and I like having metered manual instead of shutter priority (my guessometer doesn't work). The body size are about exactly the same. I was worried about loading the CL but, while not as easy as the Canonet, it really isn't troublesome.
Last edited:
Assaf
Well-known
thanks micampe, and all the rest of you guys
well, I talked to a few friends today and received two surprising PMs
Bottom line, I'm keeping the M6. It's a very good copy. It'll be difficult to find a similar one, and I might use it again sooner than I think.
I can always sell it, and its a good value keeper, so nothing to hurry
I might however, try a CL and see how it feels and then think.
I'll keep you guys posted
thanks
Assaf
well, I talked to a few friends today and received two surprising PMs
Bottom line, I'm keeping the M6. It's a very good copy. It'll be difficult to find a similar one, and I might use it again sooner than I think.
I can always sell it, and its a good value keeper, so nothing to hurry
I might however, try a CL and see how it feels and then think.
I'll keep you guys posted
thanks
Assaf
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Vague?? Under the title "Leica CL Fascinating scope within the full Leica system" it reads. The small Leica CL is a worthwhile acquisition even if you already own an M-series Leica. This is because the CL takes numerous lenses of the Leica M range, offering a highly useful second camera body. Even the old screw-based Leica lenses can be fitted via the bayonet/screw adapter" Its seems pretty plain to me that other M mount lenses can be used on a CL.
Attachments
Beemermark
Veteran
Vincent.G
Well-known
Is using a cv nokton 35mm f/1.2 on a CL asking for too much? What about a nokton 50mm f/1.5? Any advice or comments?
Seems that the short EBL of CL limits us to day time shooting mostly. Or am I wrong?
Seems that the short EBL of CL limits us to day time shooting mostly. Or am I wrong?
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
If you want to shoot fast lenses with a rangefinder, then it would probably make sense to buy one of the most accurate. The 1.1 Bessa is probably your best bet if you don't want to spend Leica money.
nakedcellist
Established
I had a CL, it was my first Leica and I loved it. Very small, very quiet, but I upgraded to a M6. The m6 has a more accurate rangefinder, is a more solid camera but there are a lot of things I liked better with the CL: smaller, lightmeter worked better for me than the one in the m6, does not have the rangefinder flare, speed dial has better handling with one finger and display of time was also very handy. I do not regret selling it, but I would consider buying it again. I also had a Bessa T. Nice camera, but I found to Bessa's much louder than the Leica's.
jorgef2002
Established
I have an M6 an M2 a IIIg IIIc and a CL love them all,the CL is at DAG Camera,Mr Goldberg is adding the 3rd lug so it will hang straight I like some for one thing and another for another thing,the CL among other things I like the size the meter works but I do not use it I use the sunny sixteen rule and when in doubt I use my Luna Six, I am sure some guys like the M6 another the M4 etc etc it is all a matter of choice I guess.
Last edited:
leguaan
Dancing in the grain
I guess I'm aspiring for an opposite switch -> CL to M6, or more likely CL to M4-P as I can afford keeping only one rangefinder at a time.
I had a Bessa R before with 35 1.7 and 50 1.5 lens, and was hoping that I will be able to use these lens with the CL. I did, but found out that while focusing stopped down to 2 or 2.8 in exteriors (more light) went fine, the pictures I took in interiors were always a bit off. CL is a wonderful camera for brightly lit places or scale-focusing, however I miss the ability to take portraits at dark pubs at f/1.5. With the CL, this simply isn't possible. Therefore, I'm thinking about selling the CL and upgrading to an M camera as soon as my Cashflows settle
My advice would be - if you can, keep both and use them for what they're best at. Otherwise, choose according to the type of photography you usually do.
I had a Bessa R before with 35 1.7 and 50 1.5 lens, and was hoping that I will be able to use these lens with the CL. I did, but found out that while focusing stopped down to 2 or 2.8 in exteriors (more light) went fine, the pictures I took in interiors were always a bit off. CL is a wonderful camera for brightly lit places or scale-focusing, however I miss the ability to take portraits at dark pubs at f/1.5. With the CL, this simply isn't possible. Therefore, I'm thinking about selling the CL and upgrading to an M camera as soon as my Cashflows settle
My advice would be - if you can, keep both and use them for what they're best at. Otherwise, choose according to the type of photography you usually do.
Pablito
coco frío
CLE is for those who like Auto exposure. Not me.
When I owned one, the battery compartment door would accidentally open spilling the batteries. And the camera is useless without batteries. So tape the battery cover with gaffer's tape for insurance.
The CLE seemed very sweet when I bought it but I quickly found it was no good for me.
CL is better but quirky; old batteries so you need adapter or those loathesome Wein cells. Silly meter arm, one more thing to break.
M6 is by far the better instrument. If you learn the proper way to load it you can do it in about 10 seconds. If you are serious about your photography, forget about the money and the value just use it.
When I owned one, the battery compartment door would accidentally open spilling the batteries. And the camera is useless without batteries. So tape the battery cover with gaffer's tape for insurance.
The CLE seemed very sweet when I bought it but I quickly found it was no good for me.
CL is better but quirky; old batteries so you need adapter or those loathesome Wein cells. Silly meter arm, one more thing to break.
M6 is by far the better instrument. If you learn the proper way to load it you can do it in about 10 seconds. If you are serious about your photography, forget about the money and the value just use it.
setyotomo
Established
Hi, i just tried a CL a week ago, and for me it's feels like a upgraded Canonet (with better VF, frame lines, and lightmeter, etc) . I love canonet feels, dont get me wrong (and i have a M2 - love the rounded body for grip in you hand - and that leica "feel") - for me the you should go for CL if :
1. you want compact M with lightmeter, and
2. wanted to use it's 40/2 "kit" - because is light, i dont think attaching your plannar would give a "proper balance" (the CL is way lighter than my m2)
3. ready to use that "small" VF, like canonet (but brighter and better)
my little suggestion is to look for 1:1 finder for your planar, I have a canon P which i love it so much (the VF, it is so good shooting 50 with 1:1 finder) but didn't like the grip. Or maybe a bessa (it has a bright VF and lightmeter plus still under warranty if you bought it new). A Hexar RF might become your consideration also because (its light, because of titanium body i believe) and VF very bright, and its auto
(ups you dont want this). And i believe you can get those for half or third of the money you spent on M6 (a clean and working canon P is ~ $200 from jiri_e on ebay)whatever you choose, keeping a gear (in this case a $1000++ M6), and not using it is the worse choice. Have fun choosing your gear !
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
I keep buying, using and selling the CL.
Great little camera, it is a compact Leica, and with its Summicron-C, it is really unbeatable.
My only wishlist is for the CL to have a .... Self-timer, this would be useful for situations where I need to use slow-speeds without a tripod.
raytoei
Great little camera, it is a compact Leica, and with its Summicron-C, it is really unbeatable.
My only wishlist is for the CL to have a .... Self-timer, this would be useful for situations where I need to use slow-speeds without a tripod.
raytoei