changing M6 to CL

[Assaf]

Hi there,
I own an M6 which I used to use a lot, but not so much lately, since I'm now focusing in medium format.

In 35mm I mainly used the M6, and mostly with a 50mm lens (Zeiss Planar). I rarely use wider angles, and I really like this lens, and would like to have an M body for it.

Some people wouldn't understand me, but I feel that the M6 isn't the right camera for me now, for the following reasons:
1) It's too heavy. It's particularly important when I carry both medium formant and 35mm.
2) It's very very expenssive. That makes me think twice before I take this camera out. And, I also have other things to do with the money now.
3) I still don't find the sense in the funny loading/downloading mechanism

I'm thinking about a CL (or Minolta CLE) but would like to ask about the following points:
1) Is the meter accurate? Is there any issue with it at all?
2) I understood the the RF is not as good, but would it be an issue using only 50/2 (and maybe 40/1.4) lenses?
3) Is it easy to handle, load/unload film
4) CL or Minolta CLE?

Is it a good idea at all? I hate to sell the M6 because it's a very good copy, CLE'd, upgraded VF etc. But I don't have enough money to keep this camera just for the sake of keeping it.

thanks for reading, answers would be welcome
Assaf

 

[raid]

I just sold my CL but I kept the M6. If you will use a fast 50mm lens or a longer lens, then the viewfinder of the CL will be less helpful than the viewfinder in any M camera. The meter may have to be recalibrated or rewired to accept available batteries. The CL never felt as rugged as the M3 or M6 which I own.

The meter is accurate when it works.

The camera is very easy to load since the back opens for film loading.

The CLE is more expensive and more difficult to repair. Unless you want aperture priority, go with the CL.

Get the CL+ 40mm Summicron as a package deal if you decide to get a CL. For the CLE, you would need the Rokkor 40/2 for [supposedly] better glare control.

 

[Beemermark]

IMHO you should go for the CLE, better meter, more reliable than a CL, longer RF base, better everything. The 40 is a nice little lens. The CV 40 is nice and fast. I carry it for the same reason you want to - it's a lot smaller and faster than the M6. I have two (had one posted for sale but it might have expired).

 

[Assaf]

Thanks for the comments guys.
I only realized now that the magnification on CL/CLE is 0.60/0.58. Well, that's too little to me, and not the best choice if don't wide angles at all.
So, I guess I stick with the M6 for the time being, or think of another alternative
thanks
Assaf

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

I did have a cl and a CLE. Sold them and kept the M6, the M6 is just sooo much better

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[takeda72]

Great thread for me right now...

I own an M6 (with just one lens, a Summicron 35 IV) and now I found a CLE + Rokkor 40 for 200 dollars. Its cheap but both camera and lens need a CLA.

I love my M6, but I guess that maybe it will be good to have AE once in a while.

What do you guys think? Makes sense to have two bodies? Or is it better to save my money for a 50mm lens?

Thanks.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I have an M6 which I detest. A CL was my first leica. Its an amazing camera. Some comments:

If you are used to the feel fo the M6, do not expect that from a CL. It doesnt feel like a toy, but it is not built to the same standard. This is more of a tactile comment rather than one of reliability. The shutter release plunger on my particular CL is a bit swampy compared to an M6 and the lock time of the shutter is nowhere near as fast as the M6. None of this was an issue in any universe until I got an M6 though.

With a big 50 like a planar on a CL it can be a little off balance, but totally usable.

The rangefinder patch is smaller than an M6 and the base is shorter. I would not want to be focusing a 1.4 lens on a cl body. 50mm is definitely the longest focal length I would really want to use on that body. It is a thing of beauty of the 40 cron though.

The camera handles easily and is stupid easy to load, the entire back of the camera comes off for loading. There is a tendency for the plastic arms to break off the loading spool, so make sure you have a good one when you buy.

The meter is hands down the best meter I have used on any camera. If you know how to use a spot meter you will do a little dance when you start using a CL. I say this as a guy who thinks the M6 meter is abysmal.

For me, given the choice between an M6 and a CL I would give up the M6 Instantly to keep the CL without even thinking. It all depends upon how you intend to use the camera. Love my CL to death.

 

[Assaf]

OK, very interesting comments here so far
few more questions

1) regarding the magnification. Aren't the 40mm and 50mm framelines too on the VF? BTW, what's the magnification and EBL of a Canonet QL17 (that's my point of reference which is not and M camera)

2) Do both CL and CLE have AE and a manual override/ mechanical shutter?

3) Can the Minolta CLE be fixed at all? Mecahnically and electronically?

I even thought of a little Leica Minilux. A friend has this camera and it give stunning images. But I prefer a mechanic body, and I don't trust the Minilux to be too reliable...

takeda72 - I think the answer to the question whether to keep both bodies or not is very personal. If you think of selling/tradint the CLE+Rokkor, talk to me.

Thanks
Assaf
2)

 

[CCCPcamera]

hmm

hmm

Have you considered a bessa? Much lighter, very functional, easy loading, good quality, and much much cheaper... I agree, the m6 is silly expensive, but using your zeiss lens on the voigtlander would be agreat I should think.

 

[Doug]

I like the CLE, have two, one since new. Note that the CLE has viewfinder framelines for 28, 40, and 90mm. The CL does not have 28mm framelines, and the CLE does not have 50mm. The CLE has AE and non-metered manual, the CL does not have AE. They are totally different cameras, the CLE coming along later as a Minolta-only product after the cooperation with Leica was over.

FWIW, the 28mm CLE framelines are very easy to see, with some space around them for easy composition. Excellent for a combination of 28 and 40mm lenses, but not my choice for 50mm.

The CLE can be fixed and cleaned like most any camera, and there are specialists with parts and expertise. Some people avoid the CLE on fear of failing electronics. But my camera repair guy notes that it came along before integrated circuits, so individual electronic components may be replaced, the trick being determining what part failed.

I have not had any part failures in either CLE, but my original one seems to need the electrical switch contacts under the shutter speed dial cleaned at least every 10 years. 🙂

This is a light, fast, inconsicuous camera of very high quality. It also features TTL flash control and can readjust shutter speed during long exposures as light changes. I cannot speak to the usability of the CL, never having used one.

 

[Keith]

Some one mentioned the option of the Bessa ... an R3A with it's 1:1 magnification is great with 50mm lenses and is also very light and much the same cost as a good CL when you factor in the warranty etc of new as against a used CL that may need a CLA or meter cell etc.

I had a CL/Minolta and didn't really like it much ... it's no M ... it's just another camera and has nowhere near the build quality or feel of a genuine Leica.

 

[steve kessel]

I had a CL and traded up to an M6. No comparison. The M6 fells so much bvetter in the hands. I took some good shots with the CL but never liked cocking the shutter to activate the meter. Stick with what you've got. And don't be inhibited by having an "expensive" camera.

 

[photogdave]

I have both, love both, and have no intention of selling either.
The M6, obviously, is best for low light focusing and using a wide range of lenses. It has that "built like a tank" feel that inspires confidence. I agree with comments about the meter - I don't like it much either. I use my hand held Gossen when convenient. I strongly disagree that it is difficult to load. It is MUCH easier and quicker to load than the CL!
I love the CL for its ergonomics, VF information and meter. Mine had a broken meter when I bought it and I had it fixed and updated for the newer battery type for about $200. It's been almost two years and no problems so far. It IS a very reliable camera. I've had no problems focusing fast lenses like my 35 1.4, or long lenses like the Elmar-C 90mm f4. The Summicron 40mm is a really nice lens.
I love them both but if I could only have one it would be the M6 for its greater flexibility.

 

[CCCPcamera]

dunno

dunno

I personally don't understand the whole mystique about leicas. They're beautiful yes, but any quality camera can take as good pictures. I could understand if they were not so incredibly expensive. I've tried a leica CL in a shop in Ottawa and I really wasn't that impressed with the feel, it just feels like a point and soot type camera, nothing special. I really prefer my bessa, it's a much more substantial camera.

 

[Assaf]

CCCPcamera, I don't know about the CL because I never saw one. But when you hold an M camera, you'll probably know why it's so expenssive. The built quality is very impressive they are very robuts. Comparing them to Bessa and ZI (and I tried both) is like comparing a Toyota to a vintage Mercedes Benz.

But who needs a Mercedes Benz just to take you to work? Well, not me. And there are few thing I find irritating in the M6 besides the price and weight - the metereing, the film loading, and the very inaccurate framing on 50mm lenses

I'll give another look to an R3A a good friend is selling. But I don't like this camera either...

 

[suckerpunch]

I once owned a CL. I loved it's size and compactness, shutter speed dial location made it fantastically fast and easy. The problems I felt as others have mentioned was the faulty meter issues, the plastic take up spool is prone to breaking, and it is definitely not as "solid" as your M6. You will miss the relative silence of your M6 shutter for sure, as the CL is a lot louder. But I will give it the advantage in lightness and pocketability.
good luck with your decision.

 

[feenej]

I never understand why people get so concerned about meter acuracy. Isn't you meter just sort of a suggestion, or a starting point? My buddy bought a Canon A1 and never used it because he said that the meter is half a stop off. Huh???

 

[Palaeoboy]

The CL officially does not work with lenses set up for the M camera, however the CLE will work correctly with M lenses. The use of M lenses on the CL will be forever debated. See Cameraquest for a good discussion of the limits imposed. There is no frame-line for your 50.

Absolutely not true. The CL's sales brochure and Instruction manual state that most of their range of lenses is perfectly usable on the CL just not the older 28's and 21's with a deep rear element which also applies to the M5. The rumour to which you refer is the use of the two CL lens when used on M's not the other way around.

You will miss the relative silence of your M6 shutter for sure, as the CL is a lot louder.

A properly functioning CL is only slightly louder than an M6.

I really prefer my bessa, it's a much more substantial camera.

Then you probably need to handle the CL again, its robust and far better wearing than any of the bessa line. The Bessas with viewfinders arent any more compact than M's.

I had a CL and traded up to an M6. No comparison. The M6 fells so much bvetter in the hands.

If the criteria for the purchase of any camera is purely feel then by all means buy a M3 and wind it and fondle it without actually taking photos, but to dismiss a CL because of this its clear those dont understand the objective of this camera. Its feel is by no means cheep but its deigned to be more compact and lighter. There would be no point to its existence if it was like an M.

In answer to the OP. If you just want to use your 50mm Plannar then the CL would be the better option to a CLE as it has no 50mm framelines. The CL is designed to focus a 50mm f2 so your plannar will work fine although it really is at its best with a 40mm.

I was one that started out with M's that hardly ever got used. It was the CL and CLE's that got me back to rangefinders for the compact nature and functionality, especially that the 40mm focal length proved to be so versatile. I laugh when I hear people say you can "upgrade" to an M but for me I "upgraded from M's to CL's/CLE's. By the sounds of it a CL may be the ticket for you too.

 

[sanmich]

Assaf

I have some M's. I had a CLE that in itself is a brilliant camera with a summicron-c which is a brilliant lens. I sold it because it was some kind of parallel system with my M's. I couldn't mount my 50's and 35's on the CLE, and the 40 on my M's (I know I can, I just like accurate framing).

So I bought a CL. Had some problems with it, but it ended to work great. Excellent little camera. One thing I didn't like was the vertical hanging. I wanted it as a bang around camera, but it was in such a good shape that It didn't make sense, so I sold it for a good price.

If you are concerned by weight and size, go for the CLE (if you want AE which is great) or with the CL if you need more control on exposure. They are both great combos with the 40. putting your planar on one of them (the CLE has no FL for it) would destroy all the compactness you look for.

Where are you located Ba'arets?

 

[CCCPcamera]

I don't know, the CL just didn't seem to be worth the money. I'm sure it's a great camera though. Really most are. I did look at an m4 in a shop in calgary and it was awesome, but that was the same day I bought the bessa which was sitting right beside it in the case, all things considered I think it's a better deal. When I'm old and rich I'll buy a leica! What about the Zeiss Ikon? Now that looks like an AWESOME camera.