Godfrey
somewhat colored
Bought a CL body from another RFF participant. It showed up last weekend. Already had the lenses. Too busy the past week to use it.
Went to SF yesterday to go shopping with Felipe, and decided to take it along just in case. Stuck in a roll of XP2 Super, put the M-Rokkor 40mm II on the camera, stuck the M-Rokkor 90mm in the bag along with a spare roll of film.
Loading the CL is just as fussy as I remembered it.
Now I also remember why I always thought this was a near-perfect kit. Just the right size and weight, so handy, just the right FoV choices for 90%. Add the Skopar 21mm and finder: there's the other 10%.
I didn't do too much shooting, hard to do that with someone else along who isn't a photographer, but it was fun when I did. Kept laughing—hard to remember that I had to wind the film to the next frame, and that I couldn't change the ASA setting when it became darker. But it is SUCH a nice camera to work with.
Leica:
Make a digital CL with three lenses, just like this. The sensor in the X2 would be fine. Compact 14mm f/4, 28/2, 60/2.8 lenses tailored for it would be fine too. Keep it simple, keep it manual focus and rangefinder, keep it handy. It can be done: you can do it.
Please. We will buy it, and sing praise for listening.
Went to SF yesterday to go shopping with Felipe, and decided to take it along just in case. Stuck in a roll of XP2 Super, put the M-Rokkor 40mm II on the camera, stuck the M-Rokkor 90mm in the bag along with a spare roll of film.
Loading the CL is just as fussy as I remembered it.
Now I also remember why I always thought this was a near-perfect kit. Just the right size and weight, so handy, just the right FoV choices for 90%. Add the Skopar 21mm and finder: there's the other 10%.
I didn't do too much shooting, hard to do that with someone else along who isn't a photographer, but it was fun when I did. Kept laughing—hard to remember that I had to wind the film to the next frame, and that I couldn't change the ASA setting when it became darker. But it is SUCH a nice camera to work with.
Leica:
Make a digital CL with three lenses, just like this. The sensor in the X2 would be fine. Compact 14mm f/4, 28/2, 60/2.8 lenses tailored for it would be fine too. Keep it simple, keep it manual focus and rangefinder, keep it handy. It can be done: you can do it.
Please. We will buy it, and sing praise for listening.
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
You can change the ASA setting at will. It's the film that you're stuck with.
Seriously though, I think your digi-CL on a cropped sensor would be a perfect little camera. But I think the chances of such a system being built are minimal. Leica wouldn't build it because it would eat into their full frame rangefinders. But nobody else would bother with a complicated mechanical rangefinder when they can get away with crappy sensor-based AF.
Back in 2005, that was my whole rangefinder kit: CL + 21/40/90. I cycled 1000km across China with that combo and some Tri-X and Fuji Across. And although I've owned a bunch of other Leicas since, not to mention the lenses, I don't think I've bettered that shooting experience.
Seriously though, I think your digi-CL on a cropped sensor would be a perfect little camera. But I think the chances of such a system being built are minimal. Leica wouldn't build it because it would eat into their full frame rangefinders. But nobody else would bother with a complicated mechanical rangefinder when they can get away with crappy sensor-based AF.
Back in 2005, that was my whole rangefinder kit: CL + 21/40/90. I cycled 1000km across China with that combo and some Tri-X and Fuji Across. And although I've owned a bunch of other Leicas since, not to mention the lenses, I don't think I've bettered that shooting experience.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You can change the ASA setting at will. It's the film that you're stuck with.
Funny.
I agree, chances are slim to none that they'd ever do it, but it would be nice. It's a fantasy that I've held in my head since 2002, even though I'd sold my CL for an M6TTL a year or two before. The CL just always seemed so right, despite its limitations.
panerai
Well-known
Funny.
I agree, chances are slim to none that they'd ever do it, but it would be nice. It's a fantasy that I've held in my head since 2002, even though I'd sold my CL for an M6TTL a year or two before. The CL just always seemed so right, despite its limitations.
If they did do it. Probably looking at about $4,000 CL
If retail on a fixed lens X2 is $2,100
Add in the cost of adding in the RF components and Leica name etc.
Lot of cameras out there now with interchangeable lenses although not RF's and I don't think Leica wants to compete with these manufactures in the lower interchangeable lens price range.
Also. If these other companies see how how successful the CL sells. Can be sure that they would come out with lower priced models to compete which could kill sales of the CL
Camera will also take sales away from the higher end models.
Smart move would be for a Japanese company to produce it under their own brand name.
DON
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It seems that whenever Leica is mentioned, the strongest negative remarks always involve a dependence upon the high prices of Leica equipment. Even from enthusiasts of the rangefinder camera type, for whom Leica is the only current-production provider of a digital rangefinder camera, there seems to be an unspoken agreement to always dis Leica because they make expensive cameras and lenses.
At the same time, Leica seems to be having no trouble selling as many M9, M9-P, MM, and S2 cameras and lenses as they can produce. They've posted record sales and profitability in the past three years, and are building a new factory to help improve production and further quality still. To me, that says that Leica knows their market well and should keep doing what they're doing, despite what the people voicing these negative comments have to say.
Yeah, I expect a digital CL as I described would cost a fair penny, but it would cost much less to make than the M series due to the smaller format sensor and shorter, more limited rangefinder with simpler viewfinder framelines. That should mean a price a bit lower than half the cost of an M9 ... perhaps $2000 for the body and $1200 for the standard 28mm lens, or $3200 for the basic camera kit, compared to $1995 (US) for an X2 kit.
The shorter baseline RF would also clearly differentiate it from the M series—a Summilux-M 75mm f/1.4 is challenging to focus accurately with the M, never mind a CL, and the same goes for a 135mm f/2.8 lens.
So yeah, although I hold out little hope of it actually happening, I still wish for it.
(The X2, btw, albeit NOT a rangefinder camera, is a wonderful Leica camera too and worth its price tag, IMO.
G
At the same time, Leica seems to be having no trouble selling as many M9, M9-P, MM, and S2 cameras and lenses as they can produce. They've posted record sales and profitability in the past three years, and are building a new factory to help improve production and further quality still. To me, that says that Leica knows their market well and should keep doing what they're doing, despite what the people voicing these negative comments have to say.
Yeah, I expect a digital CL as I described would cost a fair penny, but it would cost much less to make than the M series due to the smaller format sensor and shorter, more limited rangefinder with simpler viewfinder framelines. That should mean a price a bit lower than half the cost of an M9 ... perhaps $2000 for the body and $1200 for the standard 28mm lens, or $3200 for the basic camera kit, compared to $1995 (US) for an X2 kit.
The shorter baseline RF would also clearly differentiate it from the M series—a Summilux-M 75mm f/1.4 is challenging to focus accurately with the M, never mind a CL, and the same goes for a 135mm f/2.8 lens.
So yeah, although I hold out little hope of it actually happening, I still wish for it.
(The X2, btw, albeit NOT a rangefinder camera, is a wonderful Leica camera too and worth its price tag, IMO.
G
Right, it knows its market. High-end luxury cameras for non-professionals.
You are assuming Leica prices cameras based solely on how much they cost to make (and not what they think they can get in a luxury market). I have a feeling that its cameras are cheaper to produce than many think, but have to be priced high to be worth making because of the relatively small number of units produced. IF a "low-end" M digital were to happen, you are looking at $4000 for a body I would gather.
We are negative not because we don't want the camera... but because we cannot count on Leica to bring us a cheap m digital camera with RF.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Who bloody cares whether a photographer is a "professional" or not?
I have been a professional photographer, off and on, since 1970. I've used Leicas and lots of other cameras, many of which were often cited as totally unsuitable for "professionals". Never made any difference to me or to my clients. I'll only cite one case: a seven photo spread of the Isle of Man featuring my photos was licensed by The Red Bulletin in 2007. That spread was photographed entirely with a Panasonic Lumix FZ10 ... 4 Mpixel JPEG only ultrazoom camera.
Pro means making your living with your photography, nothing more. Lots and lots of photographers produce stunning, brilliant work who are not "pro."
Rather than your description, I'd say "high-end cameras for photographers" :: Luxury means nothing in this context, and professionals could actually mean the many doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc who can afford high-priced equipment. Many many working photographers making their living from the craft also use Leicas, although you'd think that the only cameras those folks use are Nikons and Canons with all the marketing hype these days. Total nonsense.
I'm assuming nothing. Leica knows its business better than I do and will price their products accordingly. If they were to produce my camera fantasy, they'd price it according to what they feel would sell to their audience, or to the audience that they want to attract with it. I think the numbers I mentioned (purely my speculation on what I'd like to see) are probably in the ballpark for the features/quality/construction mix I had in mind. But I'm not an expert or a camera manufacturer. Arguing the speculative price of a fantasy camera is totally ridiculous.
You're assuming YOU know Leica's business better than they do, and are complaining that they don't make a "cheap" camera for you. I don't want Leica to make a "cheap" camera of any kind ... I want them to produce only an excellent camera, and if they can do that at a lower price—and it still meets my desires and needs—I'll be celebrating the fact.
A CL is not an M. That's what's in the way here, you assume that what I meant is for Leica to produce an inexpensive M. The CL was never intended to be an M ... and isn't. I have both and know how they differ. Likewise, a CL digital would not be an M digital.
The fact that so many think the CL ought to be a "cheap M" says something, however. Perhaps Leica missed a bet in the 1970s when the CL sold so well and the M5 nearly killed the M line permanently. Perhaps they should have dropped the expensive to produce M as so many didn't understand the difference and concentrate on producing the CL, and then a higher end CL with a longer baseline rangefinder, built to M quality specs.
What ifs, shoulda/coulda stuff. I wish they'd make the camera I want too. Meantime, I'm very happy with what they make, and have made, and look forward to what comes next too.
MISH
Well-known
I thought that my Leica buying days were over but when a nice CL came up for sale here two weeks ago I could not resist the temptation and I am so glad I didn't. what a fun little camera. Maybe it is just the excitement of something new but I am enjoying the hell out of this experience. I matched it up with a 35mm Summicron ver 3 and it seems like the perfect package to me. Leica doesn't need to make a digital version for me, my wish would be for a new film version but I probably could not afford it and I doubt that it would be any better than what I already have.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Now there's an interesting hypothetical case. IF Leica were to create an updated film CL, what would be nice?
- improved metering system, with a modern FET rather than CdS cell and modern Li battery, hopefully dispensing with the fragile old metering cell arm
- Improved loading system (I'd love a bottom plate type loading system like the M4 and later)
- Maybe a shutter upgrade to titanium blades for durability?
- Update to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 to include multi-coating and a standard 40.5mm filter thread (ala the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 II supplied with the Minolta CLE).
- Not Much Else ...
Frankly, the CL is so close to exactly right just as it came from Leica in 1973, the less changed the better. It's similar to the Rollei 35 in that respect. Both are slightly quirky but excellent cameras just as they are.
Funny ... I have the M4-2 and the Rollei 35S, both of which I really like, but the CL just resonates with me that additional little bit to make me enthusiastic to shoot more film again.
- improved metering system, with a modern FET rather than CdS cell and modern Li battery, hopefully dispensing with the fragile old metering cell arm
- Improved loading system (I'd love a bottom plate type loading system like the M4 and later)
- Maybe a shutter upgrade to titanium blades for durability?
- Update to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 to include multi-coating and a standard 40.5mm filter thread (ala the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 II supplied with the Minolta CLE).
- Not Much Else ...
Frankly, the CL is so close to exactly right just as it came from Leica in 1973, the less changed the better. It's similar to the Rollei 35 in that respect. Both are slightly quirky but excellent cameras just as they are.
Funny ... I have the M4-2 and the Rollei 35S, both of which I really like, but the CL just resonates with me that additional little bit to make me enthusiastic to shoot more film again.
Well, the CLE has:
improved metering, no meter arm
improved loading (flip open back)
a 40/2 with a 40.5mm filter size
only thing lacking from your list is a Ti shutter.
improved metering, no meter arm
improved loading (flip open back)
a 40/2 with a 40.5mm filter size
only thing lacking from your list is a Ti shutter.
Bingley
Veteran
The digital CL exists and has existed for several years. It's called the Olympus E-PL1.
Seriously, compare the size of the bodies. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's not made by Leica...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The digital CL exists and has existed for several years. It's called the Olympus E-PL1.
It's not a rangefinder camera.
I worked with the Panny G1 for a couple of years. Good camera. A little too SLRish for what I wanted. Nearly bought an E-P2, but the complexity of Oly menus put me off.
Now I have the Ricoh GXR.. Does a better job with M-mount lenses than Micro-FourThirds for sure. It's still not a rangefinder camera, although it's damn close. Very close indeed.
But there is a difference.