Minolta CLE - add viewfinder magnifier?

If I recall well, the CLE ocular is rectangular, not round, so you would need a dedicated magnifier, as the available ones would not fit. Another problem is the short base length. Remember, that magnifiers will also magnify the errors, not just make longer FL frames bigger. I would simply go to a camera like Bessa Rxx if you need more focusing precision.
 
That is exactly the information I was lookink for. Thanl you.
I usually like higher magnification. I guess the CLE is best suited for th 28mm lens only.
 
I took some nice photos with the 40mm on it as well. For 50 - 90mm Bessa R3x is more useful and not much bigger, although its BL is only 39mm if i remember well. The best combination of BL and magnification can be found in the M3, Zeiss Ikon, Leicas 0.85x, or bodies with hybrid viewing like Bessa T and the Barnacks. In practice, for normal purposes, the 0.72 Leicas will be sufficient for most glass.
 
The CLE has a longer rangefinder base line than the Bessa R3A (I have both), 49.6mm vs 37mm. The effective base line length is that multiplied by VF magnification.
So CLE = 49.6 * .58 = 28.76
R3A = 37 * 1 = 37

What this does show is that with a magnifier on the CLE, it will easily be more precise than a Bessa.

And also how awesome the RF is in the Leica M3 at 68.5 * .91 = 62.33

Source:

https://cameraquest.com/leica.htm
 
How nice the magnifier is on the Canon VI-L. The CLE patch is workable and wold be more so if the BL was not the product of bending the image with a mirror prism whose mirror coating has degenerated a bit, at least on mine. Careful contact cleaner!
 
How nice the magnifier is on the Canon VI-L. The CLE patch is workable and wold be more so if the BL was not the product of bending the image with a mirror prism whose mirror coating has degenerated a bit, at least on mine. Careful contact cleaner!
 
mfogiel said:
If I recall well, the CLE ocular is rectangular, not round, so you would need a dedicated magnifier, as the available ones would not fit. Another problem is the short base length. Remember, that magnifiers will also magnify the errors, not just make longer FL frames bigger. I would simply go to a camera like Bessa Rxx if you need more focusing precision.
Click to expand...
The CLE will focus its dedicated lenses with precision. That is, a 40mm f2 and a 90mm f4 can be focused. I own an 85mm f2: don't think the CLE can focus THAT wide open. I wouldn't try a fast 50 (or faster 40) on it. But despite the negativity expressed, magnification should improve precision. The CLE is quite a different camera from a full-size and full weight Leica. And as for the Bessas, as has been mentioned they all have a shorter physical base length so if a CLE with magnifier would be inadequate, all Bessas would be as well.
 
Scrambler said:
The CLE will focus its dedicated lenses with precision. That is, a 40mm f2 and a 90mm f4 can be focused. I own an 85mm f2: don't think the CLE can focus THAT wide open. I wouldn't try a fast 50 (or faster 40) on it. But despite the negativity expressed, magnification should improve precision. The CLE is quite a different camera from a full-size and full weight Leica. And as for the Bessas, as has been mentioned they all have a shorter physical base length so if a CLE with magnifier would be inadequate, all Bessas would be as well.
Click to expand...

The Leica CL was designed to focus the same lenses listed as well as a Summicron 50mm f2. The CLE has a considerably larger EBL than a CL so it is actually perfectly capable of focusing lenses one stop faster than those supplied for it. So a Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 and a 90mm f2.8 are well within its capabilities. An 85 f2 would be pushing it as you say but one stop in and it would be most usable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom