Minolta CLE or Leica M5

[Landberg]

Always M5! best camera ever made!

 

[janoow10]

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

Thanks for this! Yes, the point about the TTL flash is another added bonus with the CLE.

 

[janoow10]

I have owned almost any rangefinder you can think of and imho the cle is the best camera that Leica never made.
Pictures with the 40mm Rokkor give you the idea there is nothing left to wish for.
Regards,
Frank

Think I'm swaying towards the CLE anyways. What do you think of the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm 1.4 lens?

 

[David Hughes]

For the prices I'm seeing, the M6 is a whole lot more expensive than the M5. The price difference between the M5 and CLE that I'm seeing here in Hong Kong is about 100 USD. The criteria my friends were considering - well basically had told them that I wanted to get started in film using a with a RF camera, and start off cheap. I would say that the price heavily impacted my (and their) opinion(s). Having heard people's opinions and gathering more info and knowledge about lenses (and their prices), I'm swaying more towards the CLE now..

Now I understand, thank you.

By the way, the way to start off without spending a lot of money on a film RF is to buy an Olympus XA or similar; the Konica C35 is high on my list but you don't get interchangeable lenses with either. So I guess that is another criteria of yours.

The other cheap option is a RF from the old USSR but the greedy, silly sellers have given them a poor reputation. Worse still, the internet has persuaded a lot of cack handed people that they can easily be repaired/ruined at home without the proper tools, experience or knowledge. However, FWIW, an early FED or Zorki from an honest seller can be a joy to use.

As for the M5 or CLE, toss a coin to decide; it will save you a lot of worry.

Regards, David

 

[TennesseJones]

M5, for sure.

 

[pippy]

...What do you think of the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm 1.4 lens?

The 40mm f1.4 Voigt. Nokton is a VERY nice lens - beautifully machined and ergonomically pretty much perfect in use. I have one which I use as a 'standard' lens on my M8.2 (53mm effective focal length with the 1.33 crop factor). For my photo needs I honestly can't fault it at all.

Here is a pretty straightforward (if slightly sarcastic) review of it. Ignore the stuff about how it's a queer length for a Leica and so on as it doesn't apply (obviously) for the CLE;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f14.htm

The only small caveat I'd add is that with both a filter and generic vented hood fitted there is the possibility of image cut-off / vignetting in the extreme corners at smaller apertures on a full-frame camera - depending on filter-ring thickness and which exact generic hood you might buy. I only noticed it after I started using it so equipped on my M9-P (full-frame) and then only when I had stopped-down to f11 / f16. Voigtlander do make a dedicated hood for it, however, the LH-6. Whether the corner cut-off manifests itself as a problem shooting film is another question...

Pip.

 

[ACullen]

The 40mm f1.4 Voigt. Nokton is a VERY nice lens - beautifully machined and ergonomically pretty much perfect in use. I have one which I use as a 'standard' lens on my M8.2 (53mm effective focal length with the 1.33 crop factor). For my photo needs I honestly can't fault it at all.

Here is a pretty straightforward (if slightly sarcastic) review of it. Ignore the stuff about how it's a queer length for a Leica and so on as it doesn't apply (obviously) for the CLE;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f14.htm

The only small caveat I'd add is that with both a filter and generic vented hood fitted there is the possibility of image cut-off / vignetting in the extreme corners at smaller apertures on a full-frame camera - depending on filter-ring thickness and which exact generic hood you might buy. I only noticed it after I started using it so equipped on my M9-P (full-frame) and then only when I had stopped-down to f11 / f16. Voigtlander do make a dedicated hood for it, however, the LH-6. Whether the corner cut-off manifests itself as a problem shooting film is another question...

Pip.

I've had a CV40mm SC for 4 months. Used for film only on both a CL and an M2. I've not noticed any vignetting with a standard UV filter. I haven't felt the need to try a hood. From what I can see it's probably not required. It's plenty sharp, slightly soft and glow at 1.4 but entirely usable. I'd not use it wide open for landscape use but for low light , portraits etc it perfectly adequate. The focus tab does take some time to get used to and is the only thing I don't like.

 

[pippy]

...I've not noticed any vignetting with a standard UV filter. I haven't felt the need to try a hood. From what I can see it's probably not required. It's plenty sharp, slightly soft and glow at 1.4 but entirely usable. I'd not use it wide open for landscape use but for low light , portraits etc it perfectly adequate. The focus tab does take some time to get used to and is the only thing I don't like.

Perhaps I didn't make myself perfectly clear.

A filter-ring is too slim to cause any problems and the particular generic hood I bought if used on its own doesn't cause cut-off; it's only when both filter and hood are used together that there is a problem.

As far as the 'glow' is concerned, I know what you mean but I've found it to be very much dependent on subject matter and, more specifically, how the subject is lit. As a generalisation if the subject is lit evenly / by a broad light-source there is no 'glow' but if there is, say, a strong side-light or with noticeably contrasty light then the 'glow' occurs in - and spreads from - the brightly lit areas. We know what the 'glow' looks like so I'll try to show what I mean about the non-glow aspect.
Here's one of the very first frames I shot with the Nokton shot on the M8.2 at f1.4 along with a detail from the same frame at 100%. Light-source was daylight from 3m x 2m french windows directly behind me;

The focus tab? I suppose it's a case of 'Horses For Courses'. It's what I've been used to on my 50mm-and-under Leitz lenses for almost 40 years so I'm delighted to have it on the Nokton!
Contrariwise (as discussed elsewhere), I don't use the supplied focus tab on the 7artisans 50mm because the lens' focus ring is fat, wide and gives an excellent 'feel' to one's fingers.

Pip.

EDIT : I must add at this point that my Nokton is the 'Classic' (multi-coated) version and not the 'SC' (single-coated) version.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

That's an interesting point as I'd be lost without the tab on my cameras (including the amazingly cheap C35). I don't want to start a wild goose chase but it might well be a crucial point when deciding. I take them for granted and would flounder without; and do at times with the 90mm lenses.

That photo of yours will sell a lot of the lenses...

Regards, David

 

[ACullen]

Apologies to pippy-I misread your original post.

Regarding the focus ring and tab on the CV40mm 1.4 - I find it quite slippery with my finger sliding off it. It's a pity that it and rest of the focus ring aren't rigged to aid grip. It's not a deal breaker as I got used to it quickly. I think
The SC and Classic versions of this lens only differ in coatings. Most reports suggest fairly minimal real world differences in shooting

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Now I understand, thank you.

By the way, the way to start off without spending a lot of money on a film RF is to buy an Olympus XA or similar; the Konica C35 is high on my list but you don't get interchangeable lenses with either...

Or Bessa R with Jupiter-3 or 8 and Scopar 35 2.5 LTM.

XA is gamble these days to start with. Old tiny electronics. ..

 

[pippy]

If you mean the snap of my scally-wag making a mess of the dining-room table, David, then thank-you. It really was just shot as a test to see if (a) I could nail focus and (b) whether the lens was at all sharp wide-open. I'm not too sure about (a) and I think 'Close Enough for Rock'n'Roll' is the answer to (b)...

Apologies to pippy-I misread your original post.

The SC and Classic versions of this lens only differ in coatings. Most reports suggest fairly minimal real world differences in shooting

No worries, ACullen. Glad I had the chance to clarify my earlier post.
As far as the coatings are concerned would you believe I actually meant to buy the SC variant but clicked the wrong link? When it arrived and I saw I had received the 'Classic' version I was about to put on my "Mr. Indignation" hat and rattle off a stiff e-mail but, fortunately for me, I re-read the order form and subsequently felt appropriately foolish...

Pip.