Mark C
Well-known
Come on, there are people that murder and torture each other (lots); you really should not be surprised there are people who would disrespect your camera. It is annoying, but so what? You've still got the same camera you had before the insult. If you were happy with it before, you should be now too.
Mark C
Well-known
Btw, you've got some nice pictures on your blog. That's what matters most about cameras (at least to me).
I'm interested in fiddle players and particularly liked the shot of the fiddler you have.
I'm interested in fiddle players and particularly liked the shot of the fiddler you have.
Landberg
Well-known
Thanks alot!
j j
Well-known
It's behind you!
mocheez
Member
People will buy a Leica CL to make pictures but the ones who want to show off or feel unique will most likely buy an M6 ;-) I own both and although the M6 is a masterpiece, a real photographic work of art, I find the CL is somehow better designed in terms of ergonomy and handling.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
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 it isn't.
zeshootist
Member
This thread reminds me of Ali G's interview with Buzz Aldrin: Let's just sort it out. What do you say to all those conspiracy theorists who come up to you and say, 'Does the moon really exist?'
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I can't see any justification for claiming that the CL is not a Leica.
Personally, I would be happy to have a CL and the 40 'cron that was made for it.
Personally, I would be happy to have a CL and the 40 'cron that was made for it.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
I once had one, years ago. Didn't feel like a Leica. Sold it.
But remind me...does the bottom come off to load film, or does it have a clamshell design, with a door?
But remind me...does the bottom come off to load film, or does it have a clamshell design, with a door?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
If the criteria / criterium (NB a choice of dead languages there), then I wonder which ones of mine are Leicas.
Very few of them feel the same and one of the FEDs (or is it a Zorki?) feels like one of them: same for the Contax, Kiev and Kine Exakta. So I wonder what I've got.
Regards, David
Godfrey
somewhat colored
CL bottom and back removes to load film, with a hinged pressure plate.
CLE has a hinged back.
CL is a Leica design manufactured by Minolta and sold with both Leica and Minolta branding, under license by Minolta. CLE is Minolta design and manufacture exclusively. The design differences should be immediately apparent.
Whether some nitpicking sod wants to call a Leica CL a Minolta is more a reflection of their silliness than reality. Both are fine cameras, but the CL is one of my favorite Leicas.
G
MISH
Well-known
My thinking has not changed (yours might not be but mine is )
the bottom and the back comes off together kind of like the contax rangefinder or Nikon F
so I guess you would not say it is a bottom loader
Jim Simmons
Member
German engineering
German engineering
I know this thread is old and tired, but I've got some slightly new views and experiences to throw in here. Having owned a CL since 1975, I've indeed heard this argument/slur many times. Here is the information that was published about the CL at the time of its release. I no longer have the magazine that it was published in. The basic CL design was done in Wetzlar by Leica engineers, then the next phase of development was done cooperatively by Leica engineers and Minolta engineers, with modifications being made to take advantage of Minolta's manufacturing expertise. Some assembly tools were brought to Japan from Wetzlar, and some German engineers were involved in getting manufacuring up and rolling, seeing to it that the cameras coming off the assembly line were up to Leica's standards. I used to build movie cameras in LA in the 1970s, and I know that involvement from both design engineers and manufacturing engineers is critical to a camera's ability to achieve its intended goals for quality of image and robustness. Based on all of this, plus much experience shooting M2 and M4 bodies, I have no reservations in calling the CL a Leica. As in the Apple/Foxconn analogy, the design DNA of the CL is very much the design philosophy of Wetzlar of the early 1970s. They were trying to move 35mm rangefinder concepts forward - CL and the M5 - but the market punished them for the M5, and the reasons for discontinuing the CL after only three years remains a debated mystery. The ergonomics of the camera are unique and held up as a paragon by some. I believe the CL was a very very good camera. A CL2 could have been one of the best ever in its price range.
German engineering
I know this thread is old and tired, but I've got some slightly new views and experiences to throw in here. Having owned a CL since 1975, I've indeed heard this argument/slur many times. Here is the information that was published about the CL at the time of its release. I no longer have the magazine that it was published in. The basic CL design was done in Wetzlar by Leica engineers, then the next phase of development was done cooperatively by Leica engineers and Minolta engineers, with modifications being made to take advantage of Minolta's manufacturing expertise. Some assembly tools were brought to Japan from Wetzlar, and some German engineers were involved in getting manufacuring up and rolling, seeing to it that the cameras coming off the assembly line were up to Leica's standards. I used to build movie cameras in LA in the 1970s, and I know that involvement from both design engineers and manufacturing engineers is critical to a camera's ability to achieve its intended goals for quality of image and robustness. Based on all of this, plus much experience shooting M2 and M4 bodies, I have no reservations in calling the CL a Leica. As in the Apple/Foxconn analogy, the design DNA of the CL is very much the design philosophy of Wetzlar of the early 1970s. They were trying to move 35mm rangefinder concepts forward - CL and the M5 - but the market punished them for the M5, and the reasons for discontinuing the CL after only three years remains a debated mystery. The ergonomics of the camera are unique and held up as a paragon by some. I believe the CL was a very very good camera. A CL2 could have been one of the best ever in its price range.
leicapixie
Well-known
The 90mm lens not only Leica lens made by Minolta.
Some zooms for "R" series made by other makers..
The Minolta made Leica CL a great idea, but one that did indeed
have problems. If yours is good, Enjoy.
Strangely a 28mm Rokkor made for CLE-Minolta,
would not mount on my M3.
Some zooms for "R" series made by other makers..
The Minolta made Leica CL a great idea, but one that did indeed
have problems. If yours is good, Enjoy.
Strangely a 28mm Rokkor made for CLE-Minolta,
would not mount on my M3.
Ronald M
Veteran
Leica design, but is a cheapened lightweight version of a world class product. So it is still good, just not Leica good.
If you have one , Sherry at Golden Touch Camera Repair is Leica trained and she bought all the spare parts. She will make it as good as new.
If you have one , Sherry at Golden Touch Camera Repair is Leica trained and she bought all the spare parts. She will make it as good as new.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 was designed and manufactured by Leitz, at least the early ones. Mine even says "made in Germany" on it, and has "LEITZ" on the bezel.
I think later examples were the same design but manufactured by Minolta for the CLE.
G