Minolta CLE or Leica M5

[Dralowid]

Reliable, repairable, available, rangefinder...M6

 

[Axel]

Don't want to spark any controversy, but what are people's thoughts on the Minolta CLE? Aside from the usual aspects about it not being serviced and difficult to repair, what do people think of it as compared to the M5.

The CLE, like the CL, was some kind of disappointing for me when I got one
after years of using my M6. It feels like a cheaper camera in every aspect.
So if you will be comfortable with the concept of the M5 that would be the better choice I think.

Like some others said: have a look at the Bessars (louder, a bit "rough" in my eyes) or the other Ms down to the screwmounts, also.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I'm often baffled by the comments on the M5; especially about it being big and clunky. It was 12mm wider than the M's before it but I don't call 12m a huge difference; or even a noticeable one if you've not been told over and over again about it. (You wonder how they coped when the first M's were announced, huge wasn't the word but they managed, somehow, but they didn't have the internet stirring things up then. )

As for pro's not liking it; in the days when film was king, how many pro's changed their camera (especially a Leica M) just because a new one has appeared?

Some of the prejudice about it could have been because it had a built in meter in the days when real photographers scorned meters, or perhaps had a hand held one and so on.

As for the CL vs the CLE; the CLE was/is all electronic and the Cl is a mechanical camera with an electronic meter. So the meter dies and you can go on using it as a mechanical camera just like the M2, M3, M4 and so on.

Reliability? Look at the age of them all and wonder...

Off topic, I'd suggest starting in film with an SLR. Nothing like the expense of a Leica and the lenses are good. Look at the classic Olympus, Minolta and Pentax; then look at the prices of the lenses. And no weird mercury battery problems, nor macro problems, nor parallax problems and a lot of good old fashioned value for money.

Regards, David

PS And I've film on one of my Leicas and will be using it today, just in case people think I'm not a fully paid up member of the tribe.

 

[Paul T.]

Those issues of how a camera feels are so personal, we should leave it to the OP to decide. Personally, I love the feel of the CL, especially with the 40mm lens. The CLE is also a great camera.

A fair amount depends on which lens you see yourself using; the Rokkor/Summicron 40mm is a bargain, and a good reason to buy the CLE (or CL). But if you want to use the (more expensive) 35mm then it's an M5 or M6. I actually prefer the metering on the M5 to the M6, but I share the common opinion that it's an ugly lump.

Everyone extols that the CLE is failure prone and un-fixable. I sure a very few are, but I've never actually seen multiple threads in the last 40 years with the header "My CLE died and is un-repairable". I have seen hundreds (if not thousands) of threads to the effect hinting the camera is failure prone and everyone knows it can't be repaired. None of these threads are by anybody that actually owned a CLE. The electronics of the CLE are on par with other cameras of the era, which is quite robust (except for the Leica R3,R4, and CL).

I've seen one thread in the last five years on a CLE problem (as opposed to the easily-solved dancing LED issue), from a user in Europe, who subsequently found two repairers. I agree, I don't think the CLE has more issues than another contemporary camera.

 

[css9450]

Off topic, I'd suggest starting in film with an SLR.

This, exactly.

 

[Dan Daniel]

If this is an experiment, try the Canonet QL Giii. If you take to it then upgrade to the CLE. Or the CL, a less risky option if the CLE electronics option worries you.

By the way, why are limiting to the M5 and the CLE? Metering? I'd suggest the M2 as a better fit for your shooting. And metering can be done in a variety of ways that do not require the camera to have it.

 

[css9450]

Which was the general feeling of professional photographers (the main buyers back then) when Leica brought out the M5 - big and clunky. One of the main reasons that Leica almost went bankrupt. Leica dropped the M5 and brought out the M4-2; a cheapened M4. Another failure back in the day finally rectified with the M4-P (still nothing but an M4).

Looking back with perfect hindsight, one wonders if had they been able to add a lightmeter to the M4, if it would have sold better? It seems the M5 failed due to its appearance, and its size, shape and weight. In other words, it didn't look like an M3 or M4. On the other hand, the same criticisms are almost never heard about the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1, both introduced the same year as the M5. Coincidence?

 

[pippy]

I think the option of a film SLR is out because the OP definitely seems to want to start-out on his filmic quest by using a rangefinder camera.

...Why those two? Firstly, as a starting point recommendation from a few friends. Secondly, price-wise, they're comparable at second hand...

I'd still like to know which criteria your friends were considering when they suggested the two cameras under discussion. I'm not going to say anything negative (pun) about either but they are a slightly odd selection.

I'd also like to ask the OP if he is sure about the economics of the choices. I'm no expert on s/h prices of the CLE and M5 but from a quick google an M5 with 50mm (Leitz) lens seems to be about double the price of a CLE with 40mm Rokkor (for cameras in a similar condition) and if the OP is considering stretching the budget to the level of an M5 + 50mm Leitz I'd STILL suggest he would be better-off saving up just a little bit more cash and going for an M6...

YMMV, of course.

Pip.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I know an odd comparison. But two I've been recommended from a friend. Just trying to figure out, as a starting point, where to even begin. Budget-wise, I can get these two at similar price-ranges, second hand of course. Trying to get myself to start using a rangefinder camera, but I don't have a huge budget.

Should have clarified further in initial post. So basically, I want to start to experiment with film, having solely shot digitally before that. I haven't got a huge budget and don't want to invest so much at my current stage or level - beginner. These two cameras had been recommended to me as a starting point with the budget I have. So let's say as a beginner, which camera would you recommend I start with?

In terms of what I'd shoot on film, it'd mostly be street photography (people, portraits etc.)

I mostly shot digitally. I have a leica camera, but a v-lux at that, not a digital rangefinder. I want to get myself to start and learn to shoot with film, mostly street photography. But I'm pretty experimental in my photography so wanna try my hand at film. Why those two? Firstly, as a starting point recommendation from a few friends. Secondly, price-wise, they're comparable at second hand. I am a beginner at shooting film, so want to delve into it without investing a lot and work my way up the ladder, so to speak..

To start with film for real and on the budget now it has to be BW and DIY.
Two bulks of 30m rolls is 100$, chemicals and developing tank is another 100$. And OK scanner is 250$.
So, to start with film now you are looking at 400$ just to be able to start with film for real.

Or you could buy 5$ 24 frames film and have it developed, scanned for 20$. Twenty rolls of film this way is 400$. Personally, I don't think this is the way to learn film.

Rangefinder cameras you were recommend are 400$ if you are lucky for CLE. I don't think you could find M5 for 500$ now.

Then lens. Cheapest way is 50mm FSU via adaptor. It will be around 100$.
The problem with rangefinders is in optimum focal range. It is from 50mm and wider. But once you want to go wider with cameras you were told to buy, you are limited. CLE is the best with 40mm lens. And it is 350$ lens at least. With M5 you could get away with 300$ 35 mm lens. And those are not expensive lenses in RF world. It is very different from SLR world.
CLE will take 28mm specific to this camera lens, but this lens is known to be problematic with its lenses coatings and it is still ain't cheap.

So, to start (for real) with film for street and portraits with any of two cameras you were told to buy you are looking at well above 1K$ budget.

Why not get Nikon SLR with 50mm lens for under 100$, get couple of C-41 rolls developed, scanned by the mail-in lab and call it a day? 🙂

And for true experimental person I would recommend Holga 120 camera (comes with lens, cost something like 99$), find darkroom for rent and get it on gelatin silver prints.

 

[Paul T.]

Rangefinder cameras you were recommend are 400$ if you are lucky for CLE. I don't think you could find M5 for 500$ now.
...CLE is the best with 40mm lens. And it is 350$ lens at least. With M5 you could get away with 300$ 35 mm lens. ...

It is quite possible to get a CLE for $750 or so with the 40mm lens. The lens costs more separately; but that package (or the CL) is a bargain, because the lens is every bit as good as a $1000+ 35mm Summicron.

 

[Huss]

Hi,

I'm often baffled by the comments on the M5....

Some of the prejudice about it could have been because it was Japanese...

The M5 was made in Wetzlar, Germany.

 

[David Hughes]

The M5 was made in Wetzlar, Germany.

Oh dear! Thinking faster than I can type and I never even got that up to 50 baud on a teleprinter.

So I've deleted that in the previous post, can't have these things flying about the internet and then taking on a life of their own.

Regards, David

 

[Axel]

Hi,
...
Some of the prejudice about it could have been because it had a built in meter in the days when real photographers scorned meters....

Not about built in meters in general but, in case of the M5, the metering system Leica used had the same mechanical issues like the metering system
in the Leica CL. In short that was the limitation of useable M-Lenses and the risk of damaging when using an inappropriate or collapsing a lens too far.

The Minolta CLEs metering system was constructed smarter in this respect so there was no risk of damage anymore.

 

[KoNickon]

Minolta used its electronics and SLR experience in developing the metering system for the CLE. The Leica "semaphore stick" meter for the M5 and CL is kind of quaint, when you think of it. By the time the M6 came along, Leica had a more modern metering system (maybe as a result of its collaboration with Minolta?).

I hope the OP hasn't thrown up his hands in despair at the length of this thread!

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Leica "semaphore stick" meter for the M5 and CL is kind of quaint.

Don't forget the M5 was constructed in the 1960's. In Nikons Photomic FTn also a needle was used.

Personally I prefer a needle instead of LED's. LED's are awfully distracting. The needle in the M5 is not distracting at all. When you don't need it, you don't see it.

Erik.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Don't forget the M5 was constructed in the 1960's.

Actually, it wasn't introduced until 1971.

 

[David Hughes]

Not about built in meters in general but, in case of the M5, the metering system Leica used had the same mechanical issues like the metering system
in the Leica CL. In short that was the limitation of useable M-Lenses and the risk of damaging when using an inappropriate or collapsing a lens too far.

The Minolta CLEs metering system was constructed smarter in this respect so there was no risk of damage anymore.

Hi,

But no one knew about them when it was introduced. We know with the benefit of hindsight and, perhaps, the internet but the internet tends to magnify things.

And there were only a handful of lenses that could not be used. People knew about them because of the note in the manual or a special supplement. These days people don't seem to read things or may not have them to hand. Judging by a lot of adverts, these days most cameras are sold without them.

Regards, David

 

[Dante_Stella]

The CLE is a very elegant camera and one of the best film platforms for wideangle lenses. It's also the only RF where you can buy a TTL flash for under $20 (a Vivitar 550FD). I think the shutter speed contacts can get dirty, which is why people freak about "malfunctions," but actually using the camera keeps things sorted. It's hard to appreciate just how compact it is; even some Canonets are bigger!

That said, I have been debating selling mine - the Monochrom 246 has kind of ruined 35mm b/w film photography for me...

D

 

[ForestCap]

Hi,

But no one knew about them when it was introduced. We know with the benefit of hindsight and, perhaps, the internet but the internet tends to magnify things.

Regards, David

That's a good point. Looking back now we can compare all the pros and cons conveniently. Back then I guess most people just listened to the (trustworthy)salespersons, and compared goods within three to five shops.

On the other hand, cameras like Yashica Electro 35 must have received lots of WOWs for the real Aperture Priority mode when they were introduced in the 60s, something we take for granted today. No needles, no fuss. Or for any newly introduced groundbreaking (space-era) features.


I think Bessa R*A series has more in common with CLE. I wouldn't compare CLE with M5. Well, maybe for "reliability in 2018" and "service-ability in 2018", yes.

One funny thing: One day I was in town with my Bessa-R and I saw this guy with a CLE, so I chatted him up and we started to stare and then play with each others camera. At the same time he and I quietly shouted out "Oh this camera is so nice!" (he hasn't seen a Bessa-R before). I joked if he want to swap camera with me, he laughed and grabbed his CLE and ran away.

 

[BillBingham2]

.....

Off topic, I'd suggest starting in film with an SLR. Nothing like the expense of a Leica and the lenses are good. Look at the classic Olympus, Minolta and Pentax; then look at the prices of the lenses. And no weird mercury battery problems, nor macro problems, nor parallax problems and a lot of good old fashioned value for money.

Regards, David

This, exactly.

As David said (OT (Off Topic)) and was seconded by css9450, there is some logic in this approach. Two perspectives I'd put out for discussion.

Frist, my gut tells me one of the reasons the OP is looking at Leica is the size issue. Auto-EVERYTHING-SLRs and their glass are, well, BIG. They make a M5 look positively minuscule. While there are some prime (single focal length lens) glass, nothing close to as small as the old manual focus lenses many of us love.

The OP is coming from cameras that are smaller and lighter than a DSLR from Nikon or Canon.

If I'm right on this he might want to check out an OM 1 or 2 as a great place to start. Get one that has been adjusted for different battery voltage and had a CLA with new seals (look here on RFF for good places that do that). Zuiko glass from Olympus is for the most part wonderful They really never made a prime lens that was a dog. You might go with a 28/2.8 and a 85/2 set of lenses to start. If it comes with a 50 life goes on (I'm not a big 50 fan, except on a Nikon S2, but that's another thread). The OM series of cameras are about the size of a classic M (M2/3/4/6/7) and are thought of as by many here as being as close as you can get to a rangefinder in the SLR world. I've owned a couple and loved them.

This approach should leave a bit of change in your wallet and handle pretty much as well.

The second point is that he has a Leica currently wants to continue the brand loyalty and cache that comes with a Leica. NOTHING wrong with that. I have to admit to the same thing. Several times folks have started up conversations around mine (two of them were, well, again a different thread). While the CLE doen't follow this path exactly, it's still an interesting old school camera.

Either way, the M5 or the CLE are great, each has some issues, but then nothings perfect. Part of the fun.

B2 (;->