How much smaller/lighter is the CL?

N

nightfly

Well-known
Local time
6:28 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
1,986
From a practical standpoint, how much smaller/lighter is a CL than an M? That is would you grab it at times where you'd be inclined to leave the M behind because you are going light?

Basically if you already have an M does it make sense to get a CL for travel (thinking bike trip with camera in hip bag and one lens) or are they effectively about the same?
 
I recently had one..loved the light weight
BUT
prefer an 'M' in terms of Build ,
steady in hands
overall ergonomics

an M is PURRfect !!

The BEST thing about a CL is the 40 cron that goes with it...;)
 
The CL is a lot smaller and lighter than an M but it's still not a pocketable camera ... probably very good for what you describe though.

An alternative would be a screwmount and it would cost a little less than a CL. :)
 
get a screwmount/Barnack
if you want an ADDition
small . compact, Lightweight, retro sexy
fits in a coat pocket
dangles nicely from the wrist

I Prefer the LTM Body to the CL
 
Agreed with the above. A CL is smaller and lighter but feels much less substantial in the hand. I have a CL for the 40mm framelines, my 40/2 and the Rollei Sonnar work much better for me with some appropriate lines.
 
Hmm. W/o lens protrusion:

CL 121x76x32, 510g
CLE 124.5x77.5x32, 520g
X100 126.5x74.4x34, 445g
Leica MP 138x77x38, 585g

Does this help ? None of them is truly pocketable and the sizes are quite similar. The CL appears small since it's so squarish. At the same time it feels somehow more flimsy than an M. Also, you cannt collapse a 50/3.5 on it, to make it small wrt lens sticking out. I very much disagree that a Barnack is better. I recommend a Rollei 35, at least you get a nice viewfinder, meter, etc.

588850473_HRrQN-O.jpg


Roland.
 
Last edited:
ok Roland...The Rollei is TRES SWEEET
Lovely Retro 'Look' as well
but a barnack Rules...:D

I was Smitten Instantly
even with the 2 window aspect ...I still LOVE it
easy to get the hang of it,,,Tres Pocketable / coats & jackets
perhaps not as BRIGHT as the rollei VF
but it's so smooth ...its Magic

and to Hell with a meter...:eek:
Sunny 16 or just use 400 Film Everyday and get to know the ' Light'

Well play with Both cam's in a Shop, Nightfly
I'm sure one will Beckon More... ;)

Wonderful Shot Roland...Tres Sexy Combo !
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Hmm. W/o lens protrusion:

CL 121x76x32, 510g
CLE 124.5x77.5x32, 520g
X100 126.5x74.4x34, 445g
Leica MP 138x77x38, 585g

Does this help ? None of them is truly pocketable and the sizes are quite similar. The CL appears small since it's so squarish. At the same time it feels somehow more flimsy than an M. Also, you cannt collapse a 50/3.5 on it, to make it small wrt lens sticking out. I very much disagree that a Barnack is better. I recommend a Rollei 35, at least you get a nice viewfinder, meter, etc.

588850473_HRrQN-O.jpg


Roland.
Click to expand...


Hey! We never said it was better ... just a classy alternative! :D
 
I am with ferider on this one. (Small correction though: the weight of the CL body is 365 grams, not 510.)

I liked my CL while I had it - I think it is a great platform for wideangle lenses, also because the hotshoe is perfectly centered with the lens axis, and not offset like the Ms.

What I did not like was the (to my eyes) busy viewfinder, the shutter sound, the (compared to M) flimsier loading mechanism, and the inherent shortcoming (compared to M again) of the less precise rangefinder.

For a always-carry-with-me 35mm camera, the Rollei 35 has a lot going for it. Lack of rangefinder is a problem of course, but also a boon: no worries about getting the rangefinder whacked out of spec. Guesstimate focus works well enough for street etc. But I will grant that it may suck when you need to shoot close to wideopen and at short range (portrait etc...).

Actually I thought a lot about the CL recently when I handled the Rollei 35, made me smile a bit: there is quite a similarity in how the loading mechanism works, and the location of the CL's shutter speed dial on the front... rewind crank on the bottom... I am not familiar with the official design history of the CL, but I sure got the feeling they took some cues from the Rollei 35 ;-)

Truth is none of these cameras is the "perfect" solution, always tradeoffs and compromises.
I bit the apple and decided to just keep a Olympus Stylus Epic as always-in-a-pocket-35mm-camera, even though I dislike the lack of exposure control, having to rely on the autofocus doing what I want, shutter lag (although short)...

I really loved and wanted to love the XA-family, but once I conceded the point of electronics and auto-exposure, I thought what the heck, go all out and take the Epic.

My main camera is the M2, and after trial and error I came to the conclusion better not to try to find a smaller camera that would do most of what the M2 does. It set me up for disappointment. Instead I chose something entirely different, but very pocketable - something that even does things the M2 can't. And seriously, coming from a die-hard available light lover: sometimes auto-flash is a good thing.

---------

One last note on the Rollei 35 versus CL: buildwise, I like the Rollei 35 more. Feels a bit more "dense", and I never liked how the CL handled and felt with the back removed when loading film.

Greetings, Ljós
 
Hmm, had a Rollei 35 briefly and with those dials all over the place felt too fiddly to me. Also me and the 40mm focal length don't get along well. Maybe a Barnack.

Always comes back to the M. Suck it up and pack the M4-P and the 35mm Summicron and be happy.

Thanks for the suggestions.
 
ferider said:
Hmm. W/o lens protrusion:

CL 121x76x32, 510g
CLE 124.5x77.5x32, 520g
X100 126.5x74.4x34, 445g
Leica MP 138x77x38, 585g

Does this help ? None of them is truly pocketable and the sizes are quite similar. The CL appears small since it's so squarish. At the same time it feels somehow more flimsy than an M. Also, you cannt collapse a 50/3.5 on it, to make it small wrt lens sticking out. I very much disagree that a Barnack is better. I recommend a Rollei 35, at least you get a nice viewfinder, meter, etc.

Roland.
Click to expand...
Disagree with not being able to collapse 50/3.5.
I realize Leica's official position is to not collapse any lens on the CL. However.....
I have an Industar 50/3.5 and a collapsible 50 'cron - both collapse just fine and don't hit the meter stalk - at least on my 2 CL's. The problem is if one presses the shutter button with the lens collapsed - the meter stalk will hit the lens. So... one has to be mindful that collapsing the lens is only during storage/transport. Usually one has to uncollapse the lens anyways to take photos.

With both of my CLs (one Leica, one Leitz/Minolta) I'm not sure if the meter works since I no longer have a battery for them. I just use it meterless like an M2/M3/M4 :D. One option is to have the meter stalk removed.

Agree however that the CL is not truly pocketable - at least jeans pocket wise. If however one wants a compact M, other than the CLE you don't have a more compact option. If one chooses to eliminate the constraint of using an M lens and/or rangefinder then you have more options available to choose from

BTW, I also have a Rollei 35 - its a good scale focus option. If you don't like the XA, the Oly 35RC would be another good compact option to consider with rangefinder
 
The CL/CLE is the most temping M camera to me due to my preference for small cameras. Any time I think about buying it though, I realize that I'd probably end up with a 40mm as my primary lens... and that I've got some great, compact, 40mm cameras already. ;)
 
The CL is a great platform for wide angle lenses. I use it with a CV21 with ext. finder, and a Canon 28 with or without an ext. finder. (the entire viewfinder is close)
 
Sorry folks, but I've got to thrown in with those advocating for the CL. I have a couple of flavors of regular M cameras, a Rollei 35 and an Olympus XA so have personal experience with each (and enjoy each in its own way). Sure, a regular M camera is better built. And sure the Rollei 35 and Olympus XA are truly pocketable. But for a travel camera that takes M (and even LTM with an adaptor) lenses, is fully controllable, has a large, bright viewfinder and includes both a meter and a focusing rangefinder, the CL is hard to beat. And in my experience it does more easily fit into a jacket or coat pocket than does any other M mount camera. Would I choose to shoot with one of my M mount cameras if available to me? Yes. But for an amazingly good small travel kit, the CL is darned hard to beat. Mine includes the CL camera, the matching 40mm and 90mm lens and a very tiny Canon 28/3.5 lens (oh, and a very sexy LeicaTime leather half-case that all the chicks go wild for :p). All this fits into a very small travel bag (the 90 and 28 are mounted to opposing sides of one of those Leica double mount lens carriers - sorry, I've forgotten the formal name for it). And when I want to step out with a smaller set up I just slip the CL with 40mm lens into my jacket pocket. Also, despite it not being that much physically smaller than a regular M camera it is considerably lighter. As a result, the CL does not pull down one side of my jacket like a regular M camera (or perhaps even a LTM barnack camera) would. And due to the small physical size of the 40mm lens and the collapsing rubber hood, it slides very easily into and out of a jacket pocket. As others have said, each camera comes with its own plusses and minuses. But I cannot so easily dismiss my CL camera.

-Randy
 
I have had just about everything affordable and ended buying a cl. I only just got it, ran 3 rolls through it this weekend, felt really nice to use. I have a feeling its going to be a favirite.
 
ianstamatic said:
I have had just about everything affordable and ended buying a cl. I only just got it, ran 3 rolls through it this weekend, felt really nice to use. I have a feeling its going to be a favirite.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to seeing your shots taken with your new (to you) CL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom