CL viewfinder

S

stubbie

Member
Local time
8:21 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
11
Firstly thanks to everyone on this (and other) forums here for introducing me to the beauty of RF photography. I have enjoyed learning the intricacies of the RF after a while with old F SLR stuff. I was lucky enough to own a CL for a while but sold it (stupidly now in retrospect) after the meter died. Have since owned an R3A with a Nokton 40 which I also sold after being a little underwhelmed. Great lens but the body I found cumbersome and not good enough compared to my trusty Nikon FE2.

Anyway I have one of those newbie questions that probably everyone hates but I am keen to get another RF. I'm after something relatively compact with probably a nice 28 and 40mm (or thereabouts) that has a nice VF. I just purchased a Canon QL17 from ebay and the VF is absolutely crap - unusable IMO. Bummer. I know I am in the CL forum and expect some bias :) but do you think the VF on the CL is about as good as it gets in this type of camera? Is the CLE any better?

I would also be really interested in how people compare it with something like a Zeiss Ikon? The R3A wasn't anywhere near as bright as I expected... am I just dreaming and expecting too much? In reality, is an M7 or Ikon THAT much better through the viewfinder? I understand the baselength etc and focusing issues but in regards to pure enjoyment looking through a VF, how does a CL really compare?

Thanks heaps.

David
 
I bought a CL a few months ago for two reasons: the compact size and the viewfinder.
The VF is certainly not brighter than any given M, Ikon or Bessa, but I love the match needle meter and the shutter speed display. I can adjust to correct exposure much faster with my CL than the crappy LED system in my M6!
The Ikon has the brightest VF I've looked through and the long BL makes it attractive so eventually I will probably get rid of the M6 in favor of an Ikon or Hexar RF but I think the CL will be with me for a long time!
 
I actully have a R3A and CL and the R3A is brighter, but the CL is great for the size of the VF and like it because it is so small. I am in total agreement with photogdave about the exposure adjustment ease of the CL. The shutter speed dial is sooo much easier to move than the R3A. But IMO both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. I am sure that there is something that could be improved on any camera available (depending on the person using it) After all you dont walk around all day with the camera up to your eye, only when you are going to take the photograph.
 
The viewfinder on the CL is better defined than on the Canonet.

However- once the Canonet Viewfinder is cleaned of haze, it is very good.
 
For me the CL viewfinder is as cluttered as Canonet QL17, but in a different way. The 40mm and 50mm are always on display together and the frameline at the right narrows and widens according to the focus setting, which is good information, but it further complicates the visual field.

As much as I love the idea of the CL, the viewfinder of the Rollei T or S, with 40mm Tessar or Sonnar, seems to be a model of clarity and straightforwardness in comparison to either the CL or the G17.
 
Certainly the CLE has a better and brighter finder than the CL and has the added 28mm framelines.

Im surprised that you didn't consider your R3a having a bright finder and its noticeably brighter than the CL's. The Ikon's finder is definitely the new standard even surpassing Leica M's but without 40mm framelines and not more compact it doesn't quite make it as a CL/CLE replacement.
 
Palaeoboy said:
Certainly the CLE has a better and brighter finder than the CL and has the added 28mm framelines.

Im surprised that you didn't consider your R3a having a bright finder and its noticeably brighter than the CL's. The Ikon's finder is definitely the new standard even surpassing Leica M's but without 40mm framelines and not more compact it doesn't quite make it as a CL/CLE replacement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for everyone's advice and knowledge. I do think the R3A has a nice finder... it's just that it wasn't any better IMO than my FE2, and frankly nor was it lighter or quieter! That said, it's a lovely camera and I wasn't trying to knock it. I am also considering an R4A in the future. But from what you (and others) say, the CLE sounds like a great option for me with a 40mm and small 28mm.

Ultimately I would really like to hold one of those Ikons on the flesh...
 
The viewfinder of my Bessa R2 is better than the viewfinder of my Leica CL, but the Bessa R2's rangefinder path is sensibly much worse than the CL's rangefinder path. I prefer very mutch the Leica CL.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
 
I don't think the CL viewfinder is significantly dimmer than the Bessas or Leica Ms, after it's been cleaned.

I cleaned mine, and the clarity was simply astounding. Admittedly, it is still rather cramped and busy compared to my M4, but the contrast is good.

Cleaning was a simple affair, and I believe that most people with basic mechanical skills can accomplish it.

Definitely better the Canonet in terms of clarity and contrast, as well as ease of focusing. That's comparing clean 'finders.
 
I'll also note that I used the whole area of the VF on a CL for a 28mm lens very successfully when I owned one. While finder lines are nice, it's easy to learn to do without.

William
 
I sold it a while back - the dead meter got to me so I bought a Bessa R. Very nice camera as well but well... I sold it & all of my LTM glass to finance a Kiev/Contax kit as I really missed the Kiev 4a I used to have. Probably end up getting another Kiev 5 as well :O :bang: and then a Contax II & then... argh!!!

But the CL is a delightful little camera, isn't it? ;)

William
 
The problem with the CL viewfinder is the low magnification. I think it is only .60. It is pretty bright, just small. If you want a big, bright viewfinder go for an M3 w/ .91 magnification and a very contrasty focus patch or a Bess R3 w/ a 1:1 viewfinder. The Bessa's focus patch isn't as easy to see as the M3's, and of course the build quality is totally different. I loved my CL, but the shutter speed selector was difficult to get used to, the viewfinder magnification was too small, the strap lugs were only on the one (wrong) side, and the whole camera was just too small for my hands. Cute little booger though. Some people love them, but it didn't work for me.
 
With alot of CL's I have looked at is a similar problem in that people forget to clean the very tiny rangefinder window and this collects dirt and stuff. If you get a tissue to and clean it properly into the corners you can often get an improvement in brightness and it only takes a minute or 2.
 
Nice little camera... but yes, the lack of an operating meter would have gotten to me as well...

Funny, I like that my M3 is meterless... and since it never had or was supposed to have a built-in one, I can accept it as it is. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom