Brian Levy
Established
I've come across and read the threads here from time to time and finally decided to join. I've owned my CL since the early '90s along with the Summicron-C and Rokkar 90/4. Also a Canon 135/4 with acc'y viewfinder.
I've also owned a number of vintage 35mm cameras and the Minox ML 35. The ML was the only 35mm that I enjoyed using as much.
My camera came with the adendum to the instruction book that had a list of Leica lenses Leica stated would not work or should not be used with the CL and the list principally was the collapsable lenses b/c of the metering cell. The company said they could be used safely if you wrapped a dymo tape around the barrel to limit the travel. The company did state that due to the difference in the cam shape, the CL lenses would not focus properly on the M series, not that it they woould not work. Whent he CL came out several professionals and reviewers tried the C lenses on M bodies and found no problems so it may have been more a marketing issue than a reality.
At first, the reversed metering reaction to the dials seemed somewhat odd until I simply stopped fighting it and realized the system actually is very logical and intuitive but fighting it will hinder using it.
In some ways I may be lucky in never owning an M body. Without owning one, the CL leaves me with a different impression than it does ma nuber here. 1) The build is 1st rate compared to most any camera I've had, including a number of nice German vintage cameras with the possible exception of my Rolleiflexs. 2) The reliability issue seems to be almost a nonissue considering their age and the number still working with no sense of weaknesses other than the take up spool and the rangefinder coating. The latter issue affects most FR cameras including M series. The former, can be repaired from the threads. The shutter and film advance systems both seem very reliable. 3) There is mention the meter is out of date. I am not sure what that means as other than the response time not being quite as fast as the newer cells, it is as good, if not better than many meters in terms of consistent accuracy. No, there is no switching between spot and averaging and spot is more demanding especially for those not accustomed to using it and possibly not as easy for grab shooting but, that does not detract from the fact that is its as good today and most camera meters and better than most. 4) Size, while some find it too small, as I am used to the ML, it is actually big but, a Bronica is my other camera so it is also small to me. Too small, no as I think the ML was actually just a bit too small. Not a bad thing as it comfortable fit in a shirt pocket. The CL, is too big to do that and too large for a belt case. With the 40mm however, it is so comfortable in the palm. I've used the palm method for years and even exported the style to other cameras.
For me the most important part of the CL program is not the body but the lenses. It is finally all about the quality of the glass the light passes through that differentiates the Leica from others. That look asociated with Leica is about the glass. Put the C on any body that will take the M mount and the result will be similar.
The body is a great lens mount. I've not tried the Bessas so can not comment on them but I suspect because of who I am in terms of preferences, I'd not prefer them over the CL and if I were inclined to change out it would be for an M though they feel too big for me and my style. The only weak point for me is the strap lugs being on one side. I'l never figure it out and the right hand sides of many a top plate show the result of the design. The other item is that I am left handed and hence my left eye is predominent. When I use my left eye the meter is obscured unless I shift my view slightly. Nitpicking.
I remember the CL when it came out. The local Leica dealer had it in his showcase along with the M bodies. It was a thing of beauty to look at and feel. The M bodies looked almost too industrial by comparison and I vowed to own one some day.
I am a little surprised at some of the less than favorable comments about the body such as suggesting it is not a real camera, or only good as a backup. This lowly Leica for me is better than the best of most from the competition.
The only other camera of similar type I can think of that is nearly as good is the original Rollei 35 but it is limited by having the fixed lens, though it is excellent glass.
Anyway howdy,all.
I've also owned a number of vintage 35mm cameras and the Minox ML 35. The ML was the only 35mm that I enjoyed using as much.
My camera came with the adendum to the instruction book that had a list of Leica lenses Leica stated would not work or should not be used with the CL and the list principally was the collapsable lenses b/c of the metering cell. The company said they could be used safely if you wrapped a dymo tape around the barrel to limit the travel. The company did state that due to the difference in the cam shape, the CL lenses would not focus properly on the M series, not that it they woould not work. Whent he CL came out several professionals and reviewers tried the C lenses on M bodies and found no problems so it may have been more a marketing issue than a reality.
At first, the reversed metering reaction to the dials seemed somewhat odd until I simply stopped fighting it and realized the system actually is very logical and intuitive but fighting it will hinder using it.
In some ways I may be lucky in never owning an M body. Without owning one, the CL leaves me with a different impression than it does ma nuber here. 1) The build is 1st rate compared to most any camera I've had, including a number of nice German vintage cameras with the possible exception of my Rolleiflexs. 2) The reliability issue seems to be almost a nonissue considering their age and the number still working with no sense of weaknesses other than the take up spool and the rangefinder coating. The latter issue affects most FR cameras including M series. The former, can be repaired from the threads. The shutter and film advance systems both seem very reliable. 3) There is mention the meter is out of date. I am not sure what that means as other than the response time not being quite as fast as the newer cells, it is as good, if not better than many meters in terms of consistent accuracy. No, there is no switching between spot and averaging and spot is more demanding especially for those not accustomed to using it and possibly not as easy for grab shooting but, that does not detract from the fact that is its as good today and most camera meters and better than most. 4) Size, while some find it too small, as I am used to the ML, it is actually big but, a Bronica is my other camera so it is also small to me. Too small, no as I think the ML was actually just a bit too small. Not a bad thing as it comfortable fit in a shirt pocket. The CL, is too big to do that and too large for a belt case. With the 40mm however, it is so comfortable in the palm. I've used the palm method for years and even exported the style to other cameras.
For me the most important part of the CL program is not the body but the lenses. It is finally all about the quality of the glass the light passes through that differentiates the Leica from others. That look asociated with Leica is about the glass. Put the C on any body that will take the M mount and the result will be similar.
The body is a great lens mount. I've not tried the Bessas so can not comment on them but I suspect because of who I am in terms of preferences, I'd not prefer them over the CL and if I were inclined to change out it would be for an M though they feel too big for me and my style. The only weak point for me is the strap lugs being on one side. I'l never figure it out and the right hand sides of many a top plate show the result of the design. The other item is that I am left handed and hence my left eye is predominent. When I use my left eye the meter is obscured unless I shift my view slightly. Nitpicking.
I remember the CL when it came out. The local Leica dealer had it in his showcase along with the M bodies. It was a thing of beauty to look at and feel. The M bodies looked almost too industrial by comparison and I vowed to own one some day.
I am a little surprised at some of the less than favorable comments about the body such as suggesting it is not a real camera, or only good as a backup. This lowly Leica for me is better than the best of most from the competition.
The only other camera of similar type I can think of that is nearly as good is the original Rollei 35 but it is limited by having the fixed lens, though it is excellent glass.
Anyway howdy,all.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I have a CL and love its size and light weight as a carry around every where camera and I've filed the lug on the Summicron's bayonet so it brings up the 35mm frame on my M2's.
Welcome to the forum!
Welcome to the forum!
sleepyhead
Well-known
Welcome, I used to own a CL, but sold it when I moved from 40mm to 35mm as my main lens.