Is this real?

[monopix]

This guy is selling a CLE which has "Licenced by Leitz Wetzlar-Made in Japan" engraved on the back. The serial number is 1024930 (which is very close to my own as it happens). The seller claims it's a prototype... one of only 100 made...

Seems like something's not quite right here. Anyone throw any light on what this camera is?

Here's the link...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MINOLTA-CLE-L...ryZ30030QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[Al Patterson]

I'm with Fred. This is a fishing expedition for a fool with too much money. It does appear to be a nice kit, but it's likely not even worth half the asking price, unless everything is in excellent condition. I'd offer him $1,500 for the lot.

 

[colyn]

I've seen this model with the marking on the side and bottom. Some were sold this way so it is nothing special. My one and only CLE which I sold years ago was bought new with the marking on the bottom plate.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

BS aside, that is a nice pile of stuff.

 

[monopix]

I've seen this model with the marking on the side and bottom. Some were sold this way so it is nothing special. My one and only CLE which I sold years ago was bought new with the marking on the bottom plate.

So does that mean that Leitz did have a hand in the CLE? I thought it was produced by Minolta after the Leitz/Minolta deal ended. I'm not really up on the history so would be happy for someone to put me straight.

 

[colyn]

So does that mean that Leitz did have a hand in the CLE? I thought it was produced by Minolta after the Leitz/Minolta deal ended. I'm not really up on the history so would be happy for someone to put me straight.

My understanding is that Leitz did allow Minolta to make this camera since they both were part of the design..

 

[Palaeoboy]

Its absolute nonsense. For starters any prototype is an early serial number when in fact this is one from the end of CLE production. Its of 1983-84 vintage while the CL lens on it (with a different cam design for the CL) is of 73 Vintage. Its a fake and the engraving has been added later by someone who wanted to pretend it was a Leica design. The only limited edition CLE's were 300 gold models.

My understanding is that Leitz did allow Minolta to make this camera since they both were part of the design..

Sorry but Leica played no part in the design of the CLE. They abandoned the CL and it was Minolta alone that kept selling them under the guise of the Leitz Minolta CL several years after Leica gave up on the CL project. The CLE was strictly theirs and theirs alone.

 

[Highway 61]

Sorry but Leica played no part in the design of the CLE. They abandoned the CL and it was Minolta alone that kept selling them under the guise of the Leitz Minolta CL several years after Leica gave up on the CL project. The CLE was strictly theirs and theirs alone.

Yes they did, in particular regarding the half-rounded design of the top plate edges (inherited from the Leicaflex SL2 and refined on the R4 series).
In 1981 Leica released their first M6 prototype, which was basically a bigger CLE, very different from the final actual M6.
Then, not wanting to have the M5 bad story happen again, they went back to the classic "flattened cylinder" for the actual M6 body.
As for the mechanics and electronics yes the CLE is a Minolta alone product, yet the M-bayonet wasn't public licensed already at that time, this might explain the "Licensed by Leitz Wetzlar" thing.
Same, late CL's were not called "Leica CL" but "Leitz-Minolta CL".
See pics below of the 1981 M6 prototype (photos captured off WestLicht Auctions pages).
Funny thing is that the SL2, R4, CLE and M6 prototype top plate edges design victoriously came back on the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. Probably because of its excellent ergonomics, said to be very hand-palm relaxing.

 

[Palaeoboy]

here was some loophole in the agreement that let Minolta keep building the CLE, after the CL was killed by Leica.

Yes your are correct the loophole was in regards to the use of the M Mount for their own Leitz Minolta CL which they continued to use after Leitz stopped ordering batches of the Leica CL, the contract for use of the mount would have been for far longer than the 3 years the CL was available as that was just prior to unforeseen troubles at Leica. Minolta simply kept using the mount as they had permission to do so since 1973. This being the only time Leica granted permission to use the Mount prior to its patent running out where by now every man and his dog uses it.

Yes they did, in particular regarding the half-rounded design of the top plate edges (inherited from the Leicaflex SL2 and refined on the R4 series).
In 1981 Leica released their first M6 prototype, which was basically a bigger CLE, very different from the final actual M6.

That could only be called a once removed input in design in that the curved rear and squared front edges are taken from the CL itself. Given that the CL's were made in Minoltas factory and the CLE was Minoltas design evolution of the CL it makes sense that the Minolta design team would use this layout. However Leica itself had no direct design input to the CLE whatsoever.

The prototypes of the CLE were built in the late 70's as Leitz Minolta CL production ceased in 1978 , hence why it used a hybrid of 1970's XG-1/2 aperture priority design and Minoltas new TTL flash technology, the first Minolta camera to do so. The prototype M6 you have shown was made after the CLE was already in production and on sale. It certainly is not a bigger CLE, rewind position and lack of TTL flash and the fact that it uses Leica's longer baselength rangefinder. So too, like Leicas R models of the time used Minoltas XD electronics not the XG-1/2 technology of the CLE. If you look at photo 1 you can see Auto is engaged in a separate lever not by rotating the dial of the CLE and XG's. Also it still uses swing arm metering type that Minolta decided against for its CLE. (See photo 2) If it basically resembles a CLE its because Leica took designs from Minolta as the CLE pre-dated it by years. Rather than a big CLE one would more rightly describe it as a Leitz Minolta XD rangefinder. The swing arm is a reflector rather than an actually meter cell reflecting light like that of a mirror in an SLR.

Given that Minolta borrowed style ideas from the original CL and Leica were incorporating electronic technologies from other Minolta cameras its only fair Leica borrow a few designs off Minolta. Collaboration with Minolta continued for decades after but the CLE was really an evolutionary branch that Minolta took on all by themselves.

 

[monopix]

Funny thing is that the <snip> top plate edges design victoriously came back on the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder.

Just thought I'd throw up a picture to compare the CLE to the ZI.

 

[Sam N]

Although the price is way out of line, the product shots in that auction are excellent.

 

[monopix]

Ah, when it comes to the resemblance between CLE and ZI RF, the real suprise is the rewind crank in the bottom, these are exactly the same. Still a brilliant design, reversing the crank motion once the film is rewound opens up the back door after half a rotation. Easy yet effective. Leica used it on the CL and M5, but abandoned it. Too bad.

Well...

They are close but not exactly the same and it's only the CLE that opens that way - the ZI has a catch on the side. Still, the similarities between the two, including the bottom mounted rewind, are surprising.

 

[Palaeoboy]

Ah, when it comes to the resemblance between CLE and ZI RF, the real suprise is the rewind crank in the bottom, these are exactly the same.

The Japanese do love the CLE so unlike the prototype above I think the ZI design is more than a coincodence, cheeky Zeiss and Cosina 😉