So how's the Leica CL?

T

TheHub

Well-known
Local time
5:06 AM
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
505
View My Gallery
For whatever reason fate doesn't seem to want me to have an M3 🙄
My grandfather had a Leica CL and it looks like a nice camera.

Who here has one?
Is it as nice as they say?
Will it work without a meter?
Without a battery?
Does it have a mechanical shutter?
Is it fully manual or full auto or somewhere in between?

Thanks for any assistance 🙂
 
Who here has one: had one.
Is it as nice as they say: yes.
Will it work without a meter: yes.
Without a battery: yes.
Does it have a mechanical shutter: yes.
Is it fully manual or full auto or somewhere in between: fully manual.

Use it, it's great.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
As long as you don't compare it to what it's not - a Leica M - it is a great camera. Compact and light, great ergonomics, the two -C lenses are great performers. It's a wonderful camera.
 
I, too, had one. It would have been a splendid camera and I would have been quite fond of it, but I had had a REAL Leica (M2) years ago and the CL...nice as it is...is not an M2! My mistake was constantly comparing the CL with my memories of the M2. The CL came off second best in every respect. If this is your first Leica you'll have no problems and, I'm sure, will enjoy it a great deal.

dc3
 
DeeCee3 said:
I, too, had one. It would have been a splendid camera and I would have been quite fond of it, but I had had a REAL Leica (M2) years ago and the CL...nice as it is...is not an M2! My mistake was constantly comparing the CL with my memories of the M2. The CL came off second best in every respect. If this is your first Leica you'll have no problems and, I'm sure, will enjoy it a great deal.

dc3
Click to expand...

Heck, quite a few other Leica RFs flunk that test, according to many. 😀 YMMV and so may mine, but that list includes:

M5
M6TTL
M7

You ain't gonna drive nails with a CL, but by any other standard, in its category (compact/pocket cameras), it has a ton going for it.

Suggestion, though: I'd recommend doing what I did. Buy it from Sherry K or DAG or someone who (1) has just CLA'd and otherwise inspected the camera's guts and (2) gives you a warranty. These are not young cameras, and they were not M4s or F2s or SLs. There are plenty out there that need attention at this point - try to steer clear of them.
 
I had one too. Sold it. It's a cute little camera. Best thing about it was the wonderful 40mm lens. But you gotta ask why so many folks sell them off after a while. It's a fun camera for a knowledgeable amateur. I would never trust it for critical work.
 
The CL should not be compared to an M but more fairly to a HiMatic or Canonet.
It's like a super-deluxe Canonet with a shutter speed control that is easy to use, and the ability to change to 50mm lenses. Longer than a 50 is tedius to focus.
The CL has a really small RF baselength, so the image in the RF spot is not displaced as far for a given amount of focus turning as say the image in the RF spot in a M3 body.
But with the 40 or a 50 2.0 it's fine, as long as you are't trying to take pictures of non-sleeping kids in existing light indoors.
 
It was my first "Leica" although many argue not a true one. I just came back from a trip with it and the 40/2 (it comes with me when I'm not sure I will take many photos). After seeing the resulting photos, I'm always happy.
 
I have had a few CLs in the past and have one now. Every time I sell one, I feel the need to get another. IMO they are THE best compact camera due to the M mount and choice of interchangeble lenses. The CL is a great platform for wide angle lenses (like the CV 15, 18, 21, 25). A CL with CV40f1.4 is a great nightlife camera. A CL will not compare well to an M body (except in compactness and weight) but it leaves all fixed lens RF cameras (like the Canonet) in the dust. IMO
 
IMHO, the CL is a fantastic camera. Use LTM and M lenses, in-camera meter, and fit it in your pocket (with smaller lenses.) The rangefinder base isn't huge, but it's accurate.

If your goal is a rangefinder for close-up portraits with a fast telephoto, the CL is a poor choice. If you intend to use it for close portraits with a fast telephoto only occasionally, it'll be fine. As far as 50mm lenses, focusing my 50/1.5 J-3 was no problem, even close and wide open. I'm not saying a longer base wouldn't be more accurate, just that you can use a 50/1.5 without huge issues or anything.

My favorite things about the CL are the size, meter, and shutter speed dial. It's a perfect travel camera, IMHO. Even if your battery dies or the meter goes on the fritz, you have a great camera. You can adjust the shutter with your shutter finger while watching the meter with the camera up to your eye. You can't see the shutter speeds, but if you get in the habit of setting the camera before raising it to your eye, you know what speed you are using and what aperture just by counting clicks. Quite easy in practice.
 
I had a CL and loved it as many others in this thread. However, like many CL's the meter was kaput & I could not afford to fix it. OTOH, selling it as-is netted me enough money for a like new in box Bessa R. For my needs that's a better camera. OTGH, there is nothing as wonderfully compact as the CL with either a collapsible Summicron or a Canon 28/3.5 mounted on it.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other: you pay your money and you take your chances 😉

William
 
Thanks for all the advice 🙂 I'm looking at one on auction right now, in almost mind condition.

It looks like quite a nice little camera.
 
I have a CL and shoot it regularly. Someone above is correct. Since it takes M glass, it is the smallest, highest quality camera in existance. Add in natural (to me) matched needle metering and it is a natural shooter.

After shooting my CL and going back to my Canon F1, I wonder why more cameras didn't have the shutter speed dial in the vertical instead of horizontal plane???

I've fondled M cameras, and I guess I'm lucky in that my other RF is a Zorki.

If it is a hand me down, all the better that it is free. Spend $100 bucks or so and get it CLA'd by DAG and have it set for modern batteries.

All my pics here are CL shots.

Mark
 
Finder said:
The Minolta CLE, in my opinion, was the best expression of that camera line.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. I much prefer the mechanical CL. Battery cover on the CLE would sometimes fall off, sending the cover and betteries all over the ground. And of course, without the batteries the camera was useless. I ended up taping the battery cover in place. The averaging meter in the CLE was not as useful as the centerweighted meter in the CL. Further, the meter was not easy or intuitive to use in manual. Much prefer the match needle of the CL or the opposing arrows in the M6. The CLE has a nice viewfinder and good rangefinder but because of the limitations I see it more as a "boutique" camera. And good luck getting it fixed today...
 
Pablito said:
Strongly disagree. I much prefer the mechanical CL. Battery cover on the CLE would sometimes fall off, sending the cover and betteries all over the ground. And of course, without the batteries the camera was useless. I ended up taping the battery cover in place. The averaging meter in the CLE was not as useful as the centerweighted meter in the CL. Further, the meter was not easy or intuitive to use in manual. Much prefer the match needle of the CL or the opposing arrows in the M6. The CLE has a nice viewfinder and good rangefinder but because of the limitations I see it more as a "boutique" camera. And good luck getting it fixed today...
Click to expand...

I do like the CLE because of longer EBL and 28mm frameline.
But I agree with the metering issues mentioned above.
Plus, it's more expensive and bigger than the CL, still
smaller than the Olympus SP though.

The CL will tempt you to upgrade to an M, which is probably
why most of us who don't have it any more sold it.

Roland.
 
I like my CL as a smaller, more pocketable, and cheaper to carry back-up to my MP. I bought it with a "dodgy" meter but got it for a good price with a Luigi case. Sherry did a full overhaul for me, replaced a part or two in the film advance and some of the meter's wiring, and now it works perfectly, meter and all. Love it.

Sometimes just throwing my collapsible Summitar or Summarit on there and into my coat pocket it goes is just the thing when I'd prefer not to worry about my $2000+ MP or just want something more compact.
 
Pablito said:
Strongly disagree. I much prefer the mechanical CL. Battery cover on the CLE would sometimes fall off, sending the cover and betteries all over the ground. And of course, without the batteries the camera was useless. I ended up taping the battery cover in place. The averaging meter in the CLE was not as useful as the centerweighted meter in the CL. Further, the meter was not easy or intuitive to use in manual. Much prefer the match needle of the CL or the opposing arrows in the M6. The CLE has a nice viewfinder and good rangefinder but because of the limitations I see it more as a "boutique" camera. And good luck getting it fixed today...
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Had it been 30 years ago, I may have gone for the CLE. As these cameras are going to reach the end of their useful life some day in the not too distant future, I figured I was better off with the mechanical shutter.
 
cpborello said:
I feel the same way. Had it been 30 years ago, I may have gone for the CLE. As these cameras are going to reach the end of their useful life some day in the not too distant future, I figured I was better off with the mechanical shutter.
Click to expand...

And why do you think electronic componants wear out faster than mechanical ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom