If you had a CL but wanted the M6, would you?

I love both, but if it were up to me, I'd go for the M6, and pass on holding onto the CL. I love the CL, mind you, but the M6 is far more versatile, well-built, and has much greater resale value.

Just my 2 cents!
 
Both cameras are great in their ways.
For me it comes to ergonomics.
for a compact camera, I would take the CL with the 40mm, or with a collapsible summicron.
To sport the Planar, no doubt I would chose the M6.
Small differences too:
I dislike the vertical CL handling and I like the ratcheted M film advance (with the all metal lever please)
I also find it difficult to be limited in the choice of wides with the CL. No 35 lines is a problem for me.
BUT, Since you have limited cash and your choice is the M upgrade or a wide lens, in my opinion there is no doubt the more important leap is the lens. I would go for a small 28 (CS or canon 3.5) and a VC finder.

Good luck
 
I have a CL and I will sell it for a M6 or maybe M7 .. as a M2 owner I know about the size and ergonomics of a M-body and the CL is just too small for my big hands. It's brilliant for picture taking especially with it's 40mm lens.
but I have the hands of a butcher rather than the hands of a violin player
 
Well, you could buy a Summicron 40mm and the 90mm for the CL. Then put some film through it and then decide. 50mm on a CL is OK for testing a new lens but otherwise I'd stick to the CL's lenses. In fairness, I sometimes wonder about the Minolta 28mm but I had a CLE for a week and went back and (gasp!) my CL was still on the shelf...

One point about the CL is that the entire outfit is two lenses and a body (and perhaps a case) and that's it. Nothing more to buy or worry about.

Regards, David
 
I would always keep the Leica CL as secondary camera. It might not be as solid as the M's, but it's still such a fun quirky little *******. I love having it with me in my bag with just another speed of film in it. And it never disappoints.
 
Aside from the size & weight I think the M6 is a far superior camera.

- the M6 meter can deal with EV -2 to 20 as opposed to the CL's 3 to 18 - that's 5 stops difference in low light situations, and if you're using 100 ASA film you'd be surprised at how often that becomes useful.
- the rangefinder base length means much more accurate focussing, particularly wide open on longer lenses which are great for portraiture.
- you get the extra frames for wider lenses (28, 35).

Also, I think ergonomically the M6 is a much better camera.

If you'd started with a 40mm lens then I could understand that there would be issues about using it with a camera that didn't have the frame lines for it, but that doesn't apply here. If it was me then I would definitely sell the CL and get the M6.
 
The CL was my first Leica. All I had to do was take it out of the house and it dented, scratched, whatever. Once you handle the real thing, you'll never go back. I sold it for a M3.
 
David Hughes said:
No Olympus OM ? No Olympus mju-II? No Contax Tix?

Regards, David
Click to expand...

as an owner of an M2 (and the previously mentioned ZM Planar) and 3 OM cameras (two 1, one 2sp) the only thing keeping me from fireselling my OM stuff is that 2 of the bodies were given to me by a relative.

I would, I suppose, keep the 50mm f3.5 macro and one of the OM-1 bodies, but if I had to those would go before the M2, as would the SRT-101 and rokkor 58mm f1.2. I guess we all need a macro or very precise framing occasionally, otherwise I'd be happy with just rangefinders.

I think if you have to have a secondary system that you don't intend to use often, the Mamiya 7 is a great one, or in 35mm the Nikon S system has some great glass (if bodies I cant really stand).

oh and I definitely recommend a Leica body. it's more than just bragging rights; they operate smoother than any other camera I have ever used. in fact, they are so good I can forgive that the shutter speed dial is on top instead of in the right place (lol).
 
Love the "between your ears" statement and so true, too.
rbsinto said:
It has nothing to do with greed, but keep in mind that a camera is just a fancy light-tight box for holding film.
It's what you hang off the front of it that's important.
That and what's between your ears, of course. Everything else is just commentary.
So if the lenses you use on the CL will fit on an M6, what have you gained except more space in your wallet? Leica bragging rights?
Doesn't seem worth the expense to me.
Oh. And nice shot by the way.
Click to expand...
 
I've had a CL and an M6 and currently have an M4-2 (wanted purely mechanical but unfortunately it is in the shop). I would move the CL for an M6 in a heartbeat. I didn't like the fiddly film changing in the CL and the frame line thing is also an issue. Basically any M6 TTL or classic will be good for you if you need metering. If metering is not an issue consider M4, M4-2 or M4-p.
I regret selling my M6 TTL.
 
Last edited:
I lusted after an M kit yeaars ago but ended up with the CL kit with the 40 and 90 lenses as a result of doing a favor for a friend in need. Since then I have had chances to buy about every mainstream M body and can afford to do a reasonable M kit but after holding them and caressing them for a time and considering my shooting style and what I'd put in the kit, I ended up preferring the CL. The 40 is in my preferred vof range; I generally prefer the 35-40 mm range over the 50mm but, would like a 28mm to go with the kit but, then I learned to just walk back and most of the time that works for me.

The M body feels large and bulky; the CL dimensions come close to the Barack spec'd sm bodies. I'm not into a large range of lenses as I think generally that almost any Leica beats almost any conpetitor and knowing 1 or 2 lens charactoristics well beats a half dozen lenses in the bag. As for the purported weaknesses such as denting, wind levers, etc. yes, the top will dent a bit if treated harshly. I've never seen or read where someone has actually had a wind lever problem. As for the meter, any camera with a mechanical meter of its age can exhibit the need for a CLA. The camera from my experience is as rugged as about anything out there same maybe the sm body. I've seen many a banged up M body but not sure how abused or used they were so not sure they can or can not take more of a beating and keep on ticking.

I, like some, prefer the meter in the CL and M5 over the led system in the M6 but the M6 metering can be faster but allows less flexibility directly. In comparing the M6 to the M3 and 4, I find it to be clunkier and less well made so if I were to go for an M, it would be maybe a DS M3. But, I also find the SM III series to be closer to the CL in size and concept and 1 with a collapsable lens would be maybe the only combo I'd pick up especially if it required I give up the CL.

In short the CL is as rugged and as good as almost anything out there unless you intend to use it as a substitute for a hammer. Only then do I find the M bode to be the better.
 
Thanks for all the input. I'm keeping the CL and bought a 40mm Rokkor to replace the Zeiss 50mm. I'll give that a few months, then review things.

My biggest gripes is when the battery goes dead and you can't change it without unloading the film.
 
I used to own two CL's, and now I have two M's. I would keep the CL if you feel at ease using this camera. If there is something about the CL that is bothering you, and if that something is better on the M, then go for the M.
 
I as a little underwhelmed by the M6, and quickly sold it. However, the heart wants what it wants, and if the M6 calls to you, then you should probably listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom