jefffribourg
Member
hello RFF, im new here but have been looking through the sight for the last few weeks gathering some info for my next 35mm purchase.
im interested in the CL and the Contax g2 and although i find the CL to be a great camera that would suit me well i cant get the g2 out of my head. i like that the CL is compact, Quiet, Discrete, frame likes that fit lenses i shoot, is manual, and is affordable. I like that the G2 because as well as having manual controls it has auto functions(focus to be exact), good lenses, high shutter speeds, and a variating vf. what i dont like is that you cant see what your focusing on.
im in great need of a new 35mm camera and its starting to become quite urgent. if there is anyone that has some experience with both and can shed some light on which camera they found to be most convenient and all around accurate.
thanks in advance for the help, Jeff
ps. If you have any words of wisdom about the CL that will also help, thanks
im interested in the CL and the Contax g2 and although i find the CL to be a great camera that would suit me well i cant get the g2 out of my head. i like that the CL is compact, Quiet, Discrete, frame likes that fit lenses i shoot, is manual, and is affordable. I like that the G2 because as well as having manual controls it has auto functions(focus to be exact), good lenses, high shutter speeds, and a variating vf. what i dont like is that you cant see what your focusing on.
im in great need of a new 35mm camera and its starting to become quite urgent. if there is anyone that has some experience with both and can shed some light on which camera they found to be most convenient and all around accurate.
thanks in advance for the help, Jeff
ps. If you have any words of wisdom about the CL that will also help, thanks
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
the CL is a nice camera. most of the CLs have dead built-in meter so you'd have to learn sunny-16 rule or bring a light meter along (the iphone light meter app works as well). I used the CL previously with 40mm lens, 50mm lens as well. I find that the CL works very well with ultra-wides like the cosina voigtlander 15mm, and use it as a point and shoot camera.
I like the G2 as well but found it too-precious to use it sometimes. The G2 is very nice but don't forget the G1 as well, it is going for sub $150. Add a nice sonnar 90/f2.8 lens for under 200, and you have a Contax G system for 350 and below. I have had issues with wobbly lens in the past but it is fixable.
So, if you are new to film camera, then i suggest you try something more automatic like the contax. If you are used to auto-cameras, then trying a manual camera like the CL is a great way to slow things down and focus on composition, learning how to see etc.
raytoei
I like the G2 as well but found it too-precious to use it sometimes. The G2 is very nice but don't forget the G1 as well, it is going for sub $150. Add a nice sonnar 90/f2.8 lens for under 200, and you have a Contax G system for 350 and below. I have had issues with wobbly lens in the past but it is fixable.
So, if you are new to film camera, then i suggest you try something more automatic like the contax. If you are used to auto-cameras, then trying a manual camera like the CL is a great way to slow things down and focus on composition, learning how to see etc.
raytoei
newspaperguy
Well-known
I've never used the Contax, but my CL - with working meter - is a joy to use... and a pleasure to carry.
.
.
Shane Guthrie
Member
Same as Rick Beckrich / newspaperguy
I've never missed auto focus on this m-lens camera. My other cameras have been SLRs with auto focus.
The depth of field markings on the 40 mm lens are good enough that I can get out and about on the street and snap shots as interesting things happen, because I've set an acceptable focus range. Many of these shots would have been missed if I had to wait for an auto focus mechanism.
I've never missed auto focus on this m-lens camera. My other cameras have been SLRs with auto focus.
The depth of field markings on the 40 mm lens are good enough that I can get out and about on the street and snap shots as interesting things happen, because I've set an acceptable focus range. Many of these shots would have been missed if I had to wait for an auto focus mechanism.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I shoot both, but they're quite different animals. I prefer the VF of the CL hands down- in fact I really find the G2 only suitable for the 16 & 21 lenses because of this. I use the Leica 16-28 Frankenfinder on my G2.
A CL with working meter is certainly not all that rare, and Sherry can do repairs/restorations on a CL pretty easily- she recently put a LOT of new parts into a CL I got on ebay which needed some obvious work, and a lot more less obvious work.
The CL is small, and not great in my hand tho I'm likely going to have a case here shortly to hopefully mitigate this. Ergonomics of the G2 are about perfect to my preferred style. Exposure compensation is simple and clear, shutter speeds are easy to change when you want to but don't change accidentally. The G2 is certainly louder- and tho I've been scolded for calling it loud in the past I do find it pretty noticeable compared to any M.
I'd avoid the G1 if you can- but only because I've shot both it and the G2 and found the G2 far better in the hand, mostly due to layout of the controls.
A CL with working meter is certainly not all that rare, and Sherry can do repairs/restorations on a CL pretty easily- she recently put a LOT of new parts into a CL I got on ebay which needed some obvious work, and a lot more less obvious work.
The CL is small, and not great in my hand tho I'm likely going to have a case here shortly to hopefully mitigate this. Ergonomics of the G2 are about perfect to my preferred style. Exposure compensation is simple and clear, shutter speeds are easy to change when you want to but don't change accidentally. The G2 is certainly louder- and tho I've been scolded for calling it loud in the past I do find it pretty noticeable compared to any M.
I'd avoid the G1 if you can- but only because I've shot both it and the G2 and found the G2 far better in the hand, mostly due to layout of the controls.
jefffribourg
Member
thanks for all the help everyone, ive been using a canon ae-1 for the last 7 years and the bronica sq off and on for over a year and a 5d mkii for about 2 years(mainly for work and video) so im pretty familiar with manual cameras. i slept on it for the 20th night in a row and decided that the cl was more of my kind of camera. i got a leitz minolta cl with a 40mm m-rokkor and 90mm m-rokkor. i like that it can be a sort of point and shoot camera as well as a slow and steady composed camera. thanks for the final push getting me into the CL and starting the new rf craze
jefffribourg
Member
i am going to be looking into getting something like a 28 or 21 as well but im excited and grateful for coming across this forum that has filled me with so much information. thanks again to everyone.
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
+1 for the CL, though I've never owned the G2. I had my dead CL meter replaced by Sherry Krauter when I had the camera overhauled. Not cheap, but soooo worth it.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
They are different animals. I've had a few CLs, and sold my last one here. Never going to get another one. If you want a M body, get a M body. Compared to the CL, they're rock solid. I sold one G2 and still have one. Not going to sell that. The Contax G2 is a great camera, with stellar lenses. In some ways more preferable to a M.
jefffribourg
Member
my dream is an m3 or m4 but right now the CL was more realistic and affordable. i figure ill get things that can be transferred over to an M when the time comes. A new 35mm camera was just kind of a treat to myself with some money i made doing some freelance while i was visiting in new york a few weeks back and didnt want to spend more then i made from the trip
anjoca76
Well-known
I've been meaning to sell my CL one of these days and buy an M6 to have as my lone metered M, but I can't ever bring myself to part with my CL. It's an awesome little camera. I had DAG overhaul it last summer and now it's perfect. And the Summicron-C 40/2 is a star of a lens. Good choice on the CL. Someday I'll get an M6, but in the meantime I'm happy with what I have.
jefffribourg
Member
comes first thing tomorrow and im real excited, right after i get it i have to go to work(assisting and camera operator) but i hope to run a roll through when im not busy to test her out.
Film dino
David Chong
If a 21 & an M3/ M4 are possible acquisitions, you need to be aware that one or two lenses can't be mounted on the CL- includes most versions of the (much loved by this Forum) 21 Super Angulon. The DR Summicron is ok, but don't expect to use the goggles for the close up range- not that you'd want to, given that you use a SLR. All 28s are fine
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I might as well ad my 2d worth.
I've owned a CL for a long long time (it lead me to the top of a very slippery slope...). I agree with the others and would add that it's very much a mechanical camera and that means repairable. Plus there are specialists out there who can keep it going for a long time.
I don't know the other but these days I am very wary of electronic marvels since when they fail that's that: unless you are very lucky. I've already had to write off one superb Contax Tix because no one could repair it.
Regards, David
I might as well ad my 2d worth.
I've owned a CL for a long long time (it lead me to the top of a very slippery slope...). I agree with the others and would add that it's very much a mechanical camera and that means repairable. Plus there are specialists out there who can keep it going for a long time.
I don't know the other but these days I am very wary of electronic marvels since when they fail that's that: unless you are very lucky. I've already had to write off one superb Contax Tix because no one could repair it.
Regards, David
jefffribourg
Member
just got my cl from the post office and could help but immediately notice that both the 90mm and 40mm had some extreme fungus...
im so bummed.
im so bummed.
Brian Levy
Established
Hatemongers of the CL seem to love 5 also dicing it, especially the meter that is used in the M and does not get the same dicing because it is an M. Most CLs seem to have working meters but, we need to realize these are getting older and a CLA is in order, the same as getting a tuneup on a used car when you buy it to make sure it is running right. When I got my CL about 20 years ago (seems less) the meter was a little sticky, usual mechanical meter isue with the lubricant solidifying. Owners of vintage stereo units with mechanical meters will know about this. a trip to Leica USA for the meter and CLA was reasonable. Never a problem with the meter thereafter and it is dead accurate even after all these years of ownership.
When the G series came out, the original was not even close to the CL, I looked and tried one for a week. When the G2 came out again, I borrowed one for a week and it was far better than the original but the results against the CL were poorer and all the extra functions took away from the experience and often the moment was missed because of the going between functions such as going from auto to manual. The G2 is a good camera but the CL is a basic mecanical camera with an excellent meter and it gets the job done as well as an M, has excellent kit glass and is reliable and can be faster to use than cameras with auto functions.
I admit that I am biased to basic cameras and dislike automatic functions on most as impeding my creativity. But if you like the CL but would like some automation, then you may want to look at the Minolta CLE. It looks similar toe the CL but is an entirely different camera on the insides being electronic including auto exposure. It supports more lenses with its framelines and mounts Leica M glass. It is what I think Leica would have come out with if it had continued to offer a Leica line targeting a larger population. The CL saved Leica but the company after went back to the M, again draining capital but never again developed a film camera for the general public preferring to only market to the higher income bracket.
When the G series came out, the original was not even close to the CL, I looked and tried one for a week. When the G2 came out again, I borrowed one for a week and it was far better than the original but the results against the CL were poorer and all the extra functions took away from the experience and often the moment was missed because of the going between functions such as going from auto to manual. The G2 is a good camera but the CL is a basic mecanical camera with an excellent meter and it gets the job done as well as an M, has excellent kit glass and is reliable and can be faster to use than cameras with auto functions.
I admit that I am biased to basic cameras and dislike automatic functions on most as impeding my creativity. But if you like the CL but would like some automation, then you may want to look at the Minolta CLE. It looks similar toe the CL but is an entirely different camera on the insides being electronic including auto exposure. It supports more lenses with its framelines and mounts Leica M glass. It is what I think Leica would have come out with if it had continued to offer a Leica line targeting a larger population. The CL saved Leica but the company after went back to the M, again draining capital but never again developed a film camera for the general public preferring to only market to the higher income bracket.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Agreed. But after the M or CL or even T2 viewfinder a G viewfinder falls flat 90% inaccurate coverage? No thanks.
jefffribourg
Member
i knew it wouldnt be a good i idea but i used a mamiya 7II all day and couldnt help but completely fall in love with every aspect of it. i returned my cl because almost everything was broken on it and when i get the refund i think im going to get another cl. i liked the size and the feel of it but the vf wasnt all that bright (compared to the mamiya). i loved the vf on the mamiya and found it incredibly easy to use the patch even on things that i found difficult to find focus on with the cl. i wish i could afford both=[
jefffribourg
Member
i think the Mamiya would be awesome to have but its not necessary for what i need out of a camera. the cl is probably without a doubt what i need from a camera 99%(compact, quiet, affordable, 35mm, lens qulity, vf lines, i could go on). 35mm is great and its most affordable for me because i can get a wide variety of films at an affordable price, especially when bulk loading. i have always found something magical about the feel or 120 thought.
im defiantly sticking with a cl. i just knew i would compare some aspects of the mamiya to the cl and find them more attractive even though they arent essential.
thanks though thomasW
im defiantly sticking with a cl. i just knew i would compare some aspects of the mamiya to the cl and find them more attractive even though they arent essential.
thanks though thomasW