Paul T.
Veteran
It's very much down to personal taste, but I hugely prefer the metering on the CL, I find the analogue meter far more effective than the LEDs. I also like the shutter speed dial, which is very ergonomic.Bingley said:
I can concur with Jacob's suggestion (in post #9) for the 2.5/50mm Skopar. Very compact despite a 7-element design (also very well constructed) and has a very pleasant character without that "wired" look of some modern aspherics. For some reason it's developed a mixed reputation I think partly through miscommunication and inaccurate rumor, but it's said to be extremely popular in Japan. And I like mine a lot... some shots with it in my RFF Gallery, including detail crops.
The newer limited-production 2.0/50mm Heliar Classic collapsible would certainly be another compact choice ... get one while you can! Also without that hard edgy kind of sharpness, and has some character. For me this lens is controversial because I have mixed feelings about the collapsibility, considering it an advantage on one hand and a liability on the other. I don't carry cameras in my pockets (maybe a p&s though), so ultimate flatness isn't important. Besides, there's the hood anyway...
Happy shopping, and I hope you find one (or more) satisfactory solution(s)!
Oh, PS: I missed out on the CL completely, but I'm a big fan of the subsequent CLE...
The newer limited-production 2.0/50mm Heliar Classic collapsible would certainly be another compact choice ... get one while you can! Also without that hard edgy kind of sharpness, and has some character. For me this lens is controversial because I have mixed feelings about the collapsibility, considering it an advantage on one hand and a liability on the other. I don't carry cameras in my pockets (maybe a p&s though), so ultimate flatness isn't important. Besides, there's the hood anyway...
Happy shopping, and I hope you find one (or more) satisfactory solution(s)!
Oh, PS: I missed out on the CL completely, but I'm a big fan of the subsequent CLE...
John Noble
Established
So many kind comments, can't keep up with them all.
Yes, I like the Canon look quite a lot, which is why the Heliar looks so tempting -- smooooth like buttah.
I may fool around with FSU lenses in the future since they seem to be a great way to cheaply expand the photographic palette. For now, I'm looking to keep things as compact as possible. Too many choices! I want the rendering of the Heliar and the size and weight of the 40 'Cron.
From my newbie perspective, it's mainly size and weight. And I cannot lie: it's a nice fashion statement. My CL makes me want to go out and get a SRT-101 to replace my X-700 -- Minolta made a hell of a nice camera back in the metal body days, apparently.
The CL's analog needle metering is very cool, as is the tight meter pattern. It's almost like having a continuous reading spot meter right in the camera. I get the feeling that I'm about to learn an awful lot about light in a very short time just by panning around and watching the meter. I also like having the shutter speed in the VF.
By all accounts it's hard to wrong with the CV bodies, but others would know a lot better than I.
vrgard said:
Yes, I like the Canon look quite a lot, which is why the Heliar looks so tempting -- smooooth like buttah.
I may fool around with FSU lenses in the future since they seem to be a great way to cheaply expand the photographic palette. For now, I'm looking to keep things as compact as possible. Too many choices! I want the rendering of the Heliar and the size and weight of the 40 'Cron.
Bingley said:
From my newbie perspective, it's mainly size and weight. And I cannot lie: it's a nice fashion statement. My CL makes me want to go out and get a SRT-101 to replace my X-700 -- Minolta made a hell of a nice camera back in the metal body days, apparently.
The CL's analog needle metering is very cool, as is the tight meter pattern. It's almost like having a continuous reading spot meter right in the camera. I get the feeling that I'm about to learn an awful lot about light in a very short time just by panning around and watching the meter. I also like having the shutter speed in the VF.
By all accounts it's hard to wrong with the CV bodies, but others would know a lot better than I.
cpborello
Established
Bingley said:
I agree with Paul T -- analog meter and shutter speed dial. And, in my opinion, the Leica CL is a bit more pocketable (lighter and smaller), but this depends on the size of your pockets.
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
Bingley said:
That's what I did- I've only had CLs so far. Do it, IF
- You want the smallest, lightest possible M-mount body
- You're willing to pay up to $400 US for a complete overhaul including a new meter cell
- You're willing to live with a comparatively fragile, shock-sensitive camera body.
DON'T buy a thirty year-old CL to use as your principal camera body and not get it overhauled. You'll just curse the thing. The meter will be out of adjustment, if not due to age, at least for the battery voltage; the focus may be out of whack; it might have light leaks. Shutter speeds might need attention, as well. But blueprinted, they're very, very nice cameras to walk around all day with.
Fussy little things. But then, specialised tools usually are.
One man's opinion... I've had three of them. Your mileage may vary.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I bought one on ebay that appears to work correctly. Light meter matches my A-1 light meter, but it's still calibrated for the old mercury batteries, not the 1.5 volt ones.
I will get it set for the newer batteries when it does require repair though.
I will get it set for the newer batteries when it does require repair though.
John Noble
Established
Biggles said:
Having owned both a Triumph motorcycle and an air-cooled VW bus, I know what you mean. On the other hand, they prepared me for machines with personality plus. My CL's meter seems to read about 1/2 EV low, for instance, and the RF has a little vertical misalignment. No sweat -- I noticed the first quirk when I compared it with my Sekonic, and the second didn't prevent me from taking some sharp handheld test snaps with a nearly wide open f4 90mm @ minimum focus distance. And this was the first time I'd ever used a rangefinder.
It ain't all that broke, so it don't need that much fixin'.
Having said that, mine will probably go in for new oil, points, and plugs sometime soon just because old machines demand sacrifices of either tears, blood, or money and will get (at least) one of the three whether you want them to or not.
Bingley
Veteran
"My CL makes me want to go out and get a SRT-101 to replace my X-700 -- Minolta made a hell of a nice camera back in the metal body days, apparently"
Yikes! I kinda like my x-700 for its small size and weigh (for an slr). A CL could be bad news ...
I will mull further. Thanks for the advice. CL v. R2, CL v. R2, CL v. R2... decisions, decisions...
Yikes! I kinda like my x-700 for its small size and weigh (for an slr). A CL could be bad news ...
I will mull further. Thanks for the advice. CL v. R2, CL v. R2, CL v. R2... decisions, decisions...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I have a CL and want an R2M. Why not one of each?
Bingley
Veteran
Well, I've already got a Canon P and a Canon 7. I don't really need another RF except for M mount purposes. In fact, if I bought a CL or an R2M, I would probably sell one of the Canons (7?) to help finance it. (I've been meditating on Ruben's anti-GAS postings).
John Noble
Established
Bingley said:
Well, if there was a SRT that had the X-700's laziness features (AE and really nice TTL flash), I'd probably make the trade and carry a little extra weight. It's the lenses that really add up the weight and take up space, not to mention gadgets like a flash big enough to be worthwhile and a motor drive. I figure six or seven pounds' worth. My planned CL kit will come in at a little over two pounds and I'm only giving up one stop of maximum speed and about a hundred mm on the long end.
See? There's your justification for some new toys. You can thank me later.
Bingley
Veteran
"See? There's your justification for some new toys. You can thank me later. "
You, sir, are a very, very bad man. ;-)
Actually, I know what you mean about the Minolta lenses (good as they are). They fill up a fanny pack pretty quickly. That's why I shifted back to RF, but I went the LTM route and got a P. With the (small) Canon 50/1.8 or the (newly acquired, and tiny) CV 28/3.5, it's pretty durned pocketable, and I can always add my XA for stealth/backup/35mm fl coverage. I don't think I'm giving anything up in terms of lens quality. What attracts me to M mount RFs, though, is the CV 40.
"You, sir, are a very, very bad man. ;-)
Actually, I know what you mean about the Minolta lenses (good as they are). They fill up a fanny pack pretty quickly. That's why I shifted back to RF, but I went the LTM route and got a P. With the (small) Canon 50/1.8 or the (newly acquired, and tiny) CV 28/3.5, it's pretty durned pocketable, and I can always add my XA for stealth/backup/35mm fl coverage. I don't think I'm giving anything up in terms of lens quality. What attracts me to M mount RFs, though, is the CV 40.
Jacob
Established
John Noble
Established
After all of your helpful comments, I plopped for the Heliar after all. It all comes down to the look on film, and if images posted on the internets are anything to go by--and they just barely are--nothing else has as much of what I'm looking for.
A very close runner-up was one of the various Canon LTM 50s suggested above. They seem to be strong performers and are a real bargain. I don't think I would have been unhappy with the one ChrisN has listed in the RFF classifieds.
I'll post some results after I've had a chance to play with it.
Thanks, everyone.
A very close runner-up was one of the various Canon LTM 50s suggested above. They seem to be strong performers and are a real bargain. I don't think I would have been unhappy with the one ChrisN has listed in the RFF classifieds.
I'll post some results after I've had a chance to play with it.
Thanks, everyone.
kvanderlaag
my autofocus is broken.
To put it shortly: Yes.
My CL was my first Leica. After that immediately came the M2. It is an obsession, and you will not want to shoot anything else. Get out now while you still can.
My CL was my first Leica. After that immediately came the M2. It is an obsession, and you will not want to shoot anything else. Get out now while you still can.
lic4
Well-known
When Sherry Krauter CLA'd my CL, she suggested that I carry it around in foam b/c the rangefinder can come unadjusted with heavy carrying. I'm not sure if she meant that this is only the case for the CL or all Leica Ms in general, but I remember babying my CL until I finally sold it to get a Leica M (which does feel so much more rugged).
Anyhow, the CL does seem more prime for daily, demanding use than the Bessa R, the camera that got me into RFs--.
For what it's worth, i probably got the best mileage out of my Bessa R than any other camera, so my new obsession with ruggedness seems silly. (Maybe it won't in 20 years.)
I've never really posted on RFF.com but have posted twice today. Funny what a day of dreaded work and procrastination can do.
Anyhow, the CL does seem more prime for daily, demanding use than the Bessa R, the camera that got me into RFs--.
For what it's worth, i probably got the best mileage out of my Bessa R than any other camera, so my new obsession with ruggedness seems silly. (Maybe it won't in 20 years.)
I've never really posted on RFF.com but have posted twice today. Funny what a day of dreaded work and procrastination can do.
In 40 years of using my M2 I've had it CLA'd twice and on two other occasions I've had the vertical alignment of the RF adjusted. One of my two Bronica RF645's also has minor alignment issues. I just got a second CLE and in checking it over I noticed the RF alignment of this 25 year old camera is perfect both vertically and at infinity. So is the one I've had since new, come to think of it. Never any RF alignment problem with the CLE... could it have a design more resistant to misalignment?