Landberg
Well-known
I have used various Leica M, the Epson R-D1, and other analog and digital rangefinder cameras. Leica has never disappointed me and the Leica CL is no exception. Leica CL is the lightest and smallest M-mount rangefinder camera that you can buy for money. Need I say more? The biggest problem with owning a Leica CL is that there are so many people who spend their time trying to say that the Leica CL is not a Leica.
All the unnecessary time bitter people devote to discuss whether it's a leica or not is meaningless. It was designed and sold by Lecia, it says leica(leitz wetzlar) on top of it then it's a Leica, end of discussion! Instead of denying the Leica CL as a Leica, you should go out and take pictures! Because it is very common for people with expensive Leica M talk talk but dont walk the walk. There are many with Lecia M that could just as well have a disposable camera for their pictures are crap! Of course, all have the right to acquire any camera and take how bad or good pictures as they want, but stop complaining about other people's choice of camera.
I believe that many who buy a nice and expensive Leica feel the need to be unique. And when there's an inexpensive Leica that is not made by hand in Germany, the Leica CL spits on their expensive hand-made Leica cameras. "I bought an expensive camera and it should not be compared to a cheap camera from Japan".
I do not mean to get enemies here on rangefinderforum.com. I'm just a little tired of the eternal nagging about if the Leica CL is a Leica or not. These are my thoughts and my thoughts only!
Have a nice time shooting!
(and yes i should get out and shoot and not be here talking about cameras)
All the unnecessary time bitter people devote to discuss whether it's a leica or not is meaningless. It was designed and sold by Lecia, it says leica(leitz wetzlar) on top of it then it's a Leica, end of discussion! Instead of denying the Leica CL as a Leica, you should go out and take pictures! Because it is very common for people with expensive Leica M talk talk but dont walk the walk. There are many with Lecia M that could just as well have a disposable camera for their pictures are crap! Of course, all have the right to acquire any camera and take how bad or good pictures as they want, but stop complaining about other people's choice of camera.
I believe that many who buy a nice and expensive Leica feel the need to be unique. And when there's an inexpensive Leica that is not made by hand in Germany, the Leica CL spits on their expensive hand-made Leica cameras. "I bought an expensive camera and it should not be compared to a cheap camera from Japan".
I do not mean to get enemies here on rangefinderforum.com. I'm just a little tired of the eternal nagging about if the Leica CL is a Leica or not. These are my thoughts and my thoughts only!
Have a nice time shooting!
(and yes i should get out and shoot and not be here talking about cameras)blue4130
Well-known
You are the only one who seems to be questioning if a CL is a Leica or not. I have not heard others question this. To me, it seems like you are trying to justify the CL.
If you are really concerned about it, just don't listen to what others say. Just shoot the thing.
If you are really concerned about it, just don't listen to what others say. Just shoot the thing.
raid
Dad Photographer
Calm down. You are talking about cameras. There is no need to make it personal.
I have owned two CL cameras, and over the years, I sold them. While a camera is "just a box", some cameras feel like jewelry.
To some people, a CL is very special. To some people, other camera are special.
I have owned two CL cameras, and over the years, I sold them. While a camera is "just a box", some cameras feel like jewelry.
To some people, a CL is very special. To some people, other camera are special.
The Leica CL is of course a Leica.
The Leitz Minolta CL...is not.
Just shoot.
The Leitz Minolta CL...is not.
Just shoot.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If it says "Leica" on it, it's a Leica in my book. Case closed.
My CL is snickering in the bag right now. It knows it's one of my favorite cameras.
G
My CL is snickering in the bag right now. It knows it's one of my favorite cameras.
G
FrankS
Registered User
I've come here for an argument.
No you haven't.
Yes I have. And simply disagreeing with me isn't an argument.
Yes it is.
No you haven't.
Yes I have. And simply disagreeing with me isn't an argument.
Yes it is.
Landberg
Well-known
Haha did not mena to sound angry! Just needed to get it out of me. People has told me that a lot of times and there a lot of people online talking about it! Haha sorry if I sounded angry!
Landberg
Well-known
Have you guys never heard this before?
There are Nikons that were made by Cosina, but everyone called them Nikons.
There are Zeiss lenses made by Cosina, but everyone calls them Zeiss.
On the other hand, there are Voigtlander lenses and cameras made by Cosina, and everyone seems to call them 'CV' for some reason, when there is no such branding.
Some Contax cameras were made by Kyocera, but people called them Contax.
As far as the CL not being a Leica, no, can't say that's something that has come up in any discussions I'm aware of, mainly because it says LEICA right on the front.
There are Zeiss lenses made by Cosina, but everyone calls them Zeiss.
On the other hand, there are Voigtlander lenses and cameras made by Cosina, and everyone seems to call them 'CV' for some reason, when there is no such branding.
Some Contax cameras were made by Kyocera, but people called them Contax.
As far as the CL not being a Leica, no, can't say that's something that has come up in any discussions I'm aware of, mainly because it says LEICA right on the front.
raid
Dad Photographer
To me, a camera is just a camera. I am more impressed by good photos than by an expensive camera.
Landberg
Well-known
Maybe it's just sweds who talks about it?
sreed2006
Well-known
I've read a lot on the web about cameras, including the CL, and this is the first time I've ever heard that some people say a Leica CL is not a Leica. So, it must be a very few people who say that. Ignore them.
Could be.
As they say, it's just a light tight box. Is a non-Leica that is labled 'Leica' that has a non-Leica lens mounted, a Leica?
As they say, it's just a light tight box. Is a non-Leica that is labled 'Leica' that has a non-Leica lens mounted, a Leica?
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I've come here for an argument.
No you haven't.
Yes I have. And simply disagreeing with me isn't an argument.
Yes it is.
It's an ex-parrot....
The CL is a Leica design built by Minolta, so it is Schroedinger's Leica. Both Leica and not Leica until the waveform collapses....
Last edited:
Landberg
Well-known
I'm not irritated, I honestly thought this was a thing world wide? I have owned Leica CLs for a while and heard it from people more then once! One time a man I don't know told me that the CL is not a real Leica, it's a Minolta. I smiled at him took a picture of him and walked away! Wonder where that picture is? I'm gonna find it and post it! He looks a bit confused !
kuzano
Veteran
It's a Minolta...
It's a Minolta...
It was a collaberation of Leica and Minolta. It was an M mount body built by Minolta. It came out as the Leitz Minolta CL in November of 1973. It was then badged as a Leica CL.
Minolta also built the Leica R SLR for Leica... See this:
1972: Minolta signs an agreement to cooperate with Leica in SLR development;
1973: The Minolta CL is the first fruit of this agreement.
1976: The Leica R3 is introduced. Minolta produces the R3, R4, and R5 models in the Leica R series. Subsequent cameras are built in Germany by Leica themselves.
Getting back to the Leitz Minolta CL (branded then the Leica CL by Minolta), then the Minolta CLE came out...
So the Leica CL was in the middle of those cameras and was clearly a "branded" Minolta.. branded Leica CL.
What difference does it make that some people paid Leica prices for a Minolta rangefinder.
It happens all the time in the camera world.
Images for proof...
It's a Minolta...
It was a collaberation of Leica and Minolta. It was an M mount body built by Minolta. It came out as the Leitz Minolta CL in November of 1973. It was then badged as a Leica CL.
Minolta also built the Leica R SLR for Leica... See this:
1972: Minolta signs an agreement to cooperate with Leica in SLR development;
1973: The Minolta CL is the first fruit of this agreement.
1976: The Leica R3 is introduced. Minolta produces the R3, R4, and R5 models in the Leica R series. Subsequent cameras are built in Germany by Leica themselves.
Getting back to the Leitz Minolta CL (branded then the Leica CL by Minolta), then the Minolta CLE came out...
So the Leica CL was in the middle of those cameras and was clearly a "branded" Minolta.. branded Leica CL.
What difference does it make that some people paid Leica prices for a Minolta rangefinder.
It happens all the time in the camera world.
Images for proof...
Landberg
Well-known
Here is the man who just had to tell me that my camera was not a leica camera!
I have used various Leica M, the Epson R-D1, and other analog and digital rangefinder cameras. Leica has never disappointed me and the Leica CL is no exception. Leica CL is the lightest and smallest M-mount rangefinder camera that you can buy for money. Need I say more? The biggest problem with owning a Leica CL is that there are so many people who spend their time trying to say that the Leica CL is not a Leica.
All the unnecessary time bitter people devote to discuss whether it's a leica or not is meaningless. It was designed and sold by Lecia, it says leica(leitz wetzlar) on top of it then it's a Leica, end of discussion! Instead of denying the Leica CL as a Leica, you should go out and take pictures! Because it is very common for people with expensive Leica M talk talk but dont walk the walk. There are many with Lecia M that could just as well have a disposable camera for their pictures are crap! Of course, all have the right to acquire any camera and take how bad or good pictures as they want, but stop complaining about other people's choice of camera.
I believe that many who buy a nice and expensive Leica feel the need to be unique. And when there's an inexpensive Leica that is not made by hand in Germany, the Leica CL spits on their expensive hand-made Leica cameras. "I bought an expensive camera and it should not be compared to a cheap camera from Japan".
I do not mean to get enemies here on rangefinderforum.com. I'm just a little tired of the eternal nagging about if the Leica CL is a Leica or not. These are my thoughts and my thoughts only!
Have a nice time shooting!
yes, no, maybe.
According to magazine reports of the time, the CL body was totally assembled aka manufacturesd in the Minolta factory. No doubt Minolta also used an unknown number of Japanese sub contractors, as is standard practice for the Japanese camera industry. The only CL part actually manufactured by Leica is reputed to be the CL's 90/4 lens. Likewise that lens is the only Leica made lens with another manufaturer's name on it (Minolta) for the Minolta CL version. While Leica did the major part of the CL's design work, some had to be done by Minolta in order to accomandate Leica's designs in order for that design to fit into Minolta's methods of manufacturing.
The CL's RF/VF was designed by a young Japanese designer who had quite a future ahead of him. As I understand it, his later RF/VF designs included the Konica Hexar RF and the entire Cosina made Voigtlander Bessa series.
So, the CL is the only M mount camera with a Leica top plate plate produced in Minolta Japanese factories, with a Japanese designed RF/VF.
Sure, the CL is a Leica. It's A made in Japan Leica with a generous amount of Japanese design.
Stephen
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
But what really matters is if you like it.
I have two CLs, and have no regrets with owning them.
I have two CLs, and have no regrets with owning them.
Landberg
Well-known
Leica or not i just wondered why people cares about the brand on the camera. And why (in my case) people with Leica M just have to point it out! I have a Leica M, but it is not as compact as my CL so it is my back-up.