Flood
Established
I'm searching the Euro market for a CL; I saw them go on Ebay for as low as €420, one even for €357, all including the original Summicron-C. I believe there are some great deals out there.
Still waiting for that €25 flea market find
Still waiting for that €25 flea market find
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
At that price, arguably worth it just for the lens. It's my favorite piece of glass.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Better than that of the M5? I'd have to disagree. But overall it's a nice little camera. Would that the meter held up better.
MISH
Well-known
I bought mine here and it came with a recent CLA including upgrades and voltage adjustment to use the newer batteries from Sherry (the receipt came with it) I have to remind myself that this camera is actually almost 40 years old. I love this camera and plan to never sell it. The one minor quirk for me is having the camera strap attach to the side of the camera, it just does not feel right to me, however definatly not a deal breaker for me. I hear that Sherry will attach a third strap lug from a M5 if you want to spend the money. I think I would steer clear of the first one Raid postedas it seems to have some bubbling in the finish on the front plate, the second camera with that great lens is more apealing to me even without a working meter. I always thought that if I had one that the meter was dead in that taking the meter arm out and puting a collapsible elmar or summicon on it would make a dandy package ( mine lives with a 35 summicron probably 90% of the time which makes for a nice setup for me)
FrankS
Registered User
I have a Zhou leather case for each of my CL's. They offer traditionally located strap rings.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I picked up my healthily metering CL for $290 from someone in a civilized country just north of the the US. With a Zhou case and the original zipper case. God bless Canadian photographers.
Not long afterward, I found a very nice Rokkor 40/2 for $260 from an equally civilized person in the mother country of Anglophiles. God bless them too.
It's nice to know I can get it remetered if I ever need it, though I'd probably just pack a hand meter (or the GRD, or the Rollei 35s, about the same size as a Lunapro).
Not long afterward, I found a very nice Rokkor 40/2 for $260 from an equally civilized person in the mother country of Anglophiles. God bless them too.
It's nice to know I can get it remetered if I ever need it, though I'd probably just pack a hand meter (or the GRD, or the Rollei 35s, about the same size as a Lunapro).
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Don't read too much into the comments about CL's meters. No one in their right mind should expect something second-hand and 40 or 50 years old to be perfect but when it isn't the abuse goes round the world several times. Especially for unpopular cameras.
It's the usual half-full or half empty nonsense spreading. So FED's are always condemned and posher/dearer cameras are never ever slated, no matter what breaks or fails.
The CL suffers because it isn't seen as a true M series (too small, too nice and - Oh! The Horror! - metering) and was made in Japan by Minolta. As if no other Leica has been assembled and made outside Solms! Yet people are happy to accept this nonsense.
Anyone who doesn't believe me should count the complaints and mentions of poor quality control in both the Leica and FSU threads... You'll not find poor QC mentioned in the Leica threads but it's the standard answer for FED and Zorki's cameras, even second-hand ones that have been dropped on to a concrete floor.
And how you measure QC 50 or 60 years after it left the factory escapes me. I'd say the fact that there are a lot of happy photographers using them shows the ex-USSR cameras were not that bad.
Regards, David
Don't read too much into the comments about CL's meters. No one in their right mind should expect something second-hand and 40 or 50 years old to be perfect but when it isn't the abuse goes round the world several times. Especially for unpopular cameras.
It's the usual half-full or half empty nonsense spreading. So FED's are always condemned and posher/dearer cameras are never ever slated, no matter what breaks or fails.
The CL suffers because it isn't seen as a true M series (too small, too nice and - Oh! The Horror! - metering) and was made in Japan by Minolta. As if no other Leica has been assembled and made outside Solms! Yet people are happy to accept this nonsense.
Anyone who doesn't believe me should count the complaints and mentions of poor quality control in both the Leica and FSU threads... You'll not find poor QC mentioned in the Leica threads but it's the standard answer for FED and Zorki's cameras, even second-hand ones that have been dropped on to a concrete floor.
And how you measure QC 50 or 60 years after it left the factory escapes me. I'd say the fact that there are a lot of happy photographers using them shows the ex-USSR cameras were not that bad.
Regards, David
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
Small and metered + M-mount are actually why I like the damned things. The full-sized M-series bodies feel like chunks of pig iron in my hand, by comparision. No pressing desire to ever carry one.
stephen.w
Established
I wanted to like my CL because of its size and the lovely 40mm summicron, but the film advance felt very brittle compared to my M6, and when the shutter jammed it went back to the dealer I bought it from. This was two years ago.
I'd like to get a CLE in good condition, for its .58 finder and 28mm framelines. It would make a great companion for my 28 elmarit asph.
I'd like to get a CLE in good condition, for its .58 finder and 28mm framelines. It would make a great companion for my 28 elmarit asph.
stephen.w
Established
I'd never previously heard of an M-series camera (especially M3 through to M6) faulted for being too big. The tools of choice of Koudelka, Salgado etc etc "chunks of pig iron"? Think you're in a minority of one there.
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
Koudelka and Salgado were, clearly, iron-pumping masochists. And there's a first time for everything.
sparrow6224
Well-known
My first camera was a second hand CL and I loved it very much. Meter failed around 1988. that's not fifty years after production -- more like 15. These cameras are great if you like the size -- beautiful bright viewfinders, really lovely cameras but it's pointless to deny they have a meter problem. The fact is well known and loooooong acknowledged.
The other interesting aspect of the CL is that it was introduced along with the M5 and with the 40mm lens it was both a discount M mount camera and real competition, albeit high priced, to the many really good fixed lens RFs (Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Yashica, etc) that were so popular in the early 70s. The CL sold so well that it wrecked M5 sales. Leica decided to suspend its production, ostensibly for this reason, but the M5 still didn't do well, and it was basically decided to end all M production and concentrate on the R cameras. The ELC people came up witht the M4-2 and it limped along at healthy enough levels, improved by the M4-P, to keep the M going. Now opinions are divided -- whether the CL was a great money-maker and beautiful design to throw at the massive fixed lens RF market, or a mistake that undermined the pricier M series?
The other interesting aspect of the CL is that it was introduced along with the M5 and with the 40mm lens it was both a discount M mount camera and real competition, albeit high priced, to the many really good fixed lens RFs (Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Yashica, etc) that were so popular in the early 70s. The CL sold so well that it wrecked M5 sales. Leica decided to suspend its production, ostensibly for this reason, but the M5 still didn't do well, and it was basically decided to end all M production and concentrate on the R cameras. The ELC people came up witht the M4-2 and it limped along at healthy enough levels, improved by the M4-P, to keep the M going. Now opinions are divided -- whether the CL was a great money-maker and beautiful design to throw at the massive fixed lens RF market, or a mistake that undermined the pricier M series?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, it depends how you define a problem.
65,000 CL's were made and sold and I'd say that most of them should have meter problems for it to be a "problem" but what usually happens is that a handful get mentioned and that's that. It's more an internet problem than a camera problem.
Worse still, a lot of people have problems with cameras (not just CL's) and - instead of getting them repaired, as any sensible person would - they sell them on and then two people complain and so on. And others - without experience of the cameras - pass on the message and so it builds up.
The other aspect of this is that most cameras have problems reported on RFF but only a handful are seen as problem cameras. Look at the problems people report with the M series but can you name any one of them regularly reported as a problem camera?
And then it gets out of control. That's what I'm against. A few percentages of failures might just reassure people but how are we to get the figures?
No one's denying that cameras break (my R5 and M2 and IIIc gave me a lot of expensive problems) but I don't see them as problem cameras. Especially as they were all, obviously, second-hand and I knew nothing of their history.
The life of a meter depends a lot on the exposure to light. Leave a CL cocked and without a lens cap on a shelf and the cell will be ruined. And I'm sure a lot of us have bought cameras without lens caps.
Regards, David
Well, it depends how you define a problem.
65,000 CL's were made and sold and I'd say that most of them should have meter problems for it to be a "problem" but what usually happens is that a handful get mentioned and that's that. It's more an internet problem than a camera problem.
Worse still, a lot of people have problems with cameras (not just CL's) and - instead of getting them repaired, as any sensible person would - they sell them on and then two people complain and so on. And others - without experience of the cameras - pass on the message and so it builds up.
The other aspect of this is that most cameras have problems reported on RFF but only a handful are seen as problem cameras. Look at the problems people report with the M series but can you name any one of them regularly reported as a problem camera?
And then it gets out of control. That's what I'm against. A few percentages of failures might just reassure people but how are we to get the figures?
No one's denying that cameras break (my R5 and M2 and IIIc gave me a lot of expensive problems) but I don't see them as problem cameras. Especially as they were all, obviously, second-hand and I knew nothing of their history.
The life of a meter depends a lot on the exposure to light. Leave a CL cocked and without a lens cap on a shelf and the cell will be ruined. And I'm sure a lot of us have bought cameras without lens caps.
Regards, David