k__43
Registered Film User
I've a serious love/hate thing going with the CL.
I just bought my 5th in the span of 4 years. :bang:
I am actually just hunting for a Cron 40mm in great shape but a CL is mostly attached to the lens.
I like the size & weight of this thing but my hands are seriously too big for it so I keep selling them.
I kept the first CL for quite a while and sold it when I got the M6. Later I needed a cheap travel cam that I could just throw in the bag so I bought two labeled as defective in bad shape but both were still working. I sold one immediately and the other two trips later. I sold the 40mm when I got my 35 Cron V4.
I got one recently for the 40mm cos I missed mine but the lens was flawed (damaged coating by fungus, first time i saw that).
So today the next try in scoring a good 40, off course a CL attached to it.
I should just keep it for backup or wide angle stuff but everytime I look thru the finder the strap lug pokes in my nose and my eye says "get your Ms out - that viewfinder thing is tiny!"
Btw: most pics tagged CL in my flickr are made with the one that came in the defective bundle (see link in the signature)
I just bought my 5th in the span of 4 years. :bang:
I am actually just hunting for a Cron 40mm in great shape but a CL is mostly attached to the lens.
I like the size & weight of this thing but my hands are seriously too big for it so I keep selling them.
I kept the first CL for quite a while and sold it when I got the M6. Later I needed a cheap travel cam that I could just throw in the bag so I bought two labeled as defective in bad shape but both were still working. I sold one immediately and the other two trips later. I sold the 40mm when I got my 35 Cron V4.
I got one recently for the 40mm cos I missed mine but the lens was flawed (damaged coating by fungus, first time i saw that).
So today the next try in scoring a good 40, off course a CL attached to it.
I should just keep it for backup or wide angle stuff but everytime I look thru the finder the strap lug pokes in my nose and my eye says "get your Ms out - that viewfinder thing is tiny!"
Btw: most pics tagged CL in my flickr are made with the one that came in the defective bundle (see link in the signature)
FrankS
Registered User
Things could be worse! The CL is a cool little camera. The story is that it was so popular, Leica had to stop making them because it was cutting into their M sales. I don't know how true this is, but so it is written on the Internet.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The CL is a delightful camera. The one I have now is my third; I bought from another RFF subscriber—unknown at the time, it was on EBay—and it has just been perfect.
Instead of the Summicron-C and Elmar-C, I have the M-Rokkors. My 90 is the original, manufactured by Leitz in Germany on the same line as the Elmar-C. I use the second generation M-Rokkor 40 which improves slightly on the original due to multicoating. The advantage to the M-Rokkors is that they use standard JIIS threaded 40.5mm filters. Optically and build quality wise, they're the same as the Leica versions.
Add a Color Skopar 28/3.5 and finder to the bag and the CL with these lenses is a perfect travel kit.
Story as told to me by someone quite close to factory honchos at the time was the although the CL was wildly successful on sales, the relationship with Minolta was fraught with problems. Leica QA rejected and had to rework a huge percentage of the incoming from Minolta, which ultimately meant that there was no profit to speak of out of all those sales and a warranty liability with each one. Leica was not in great shape at the time, what with the poor reception and sales on the M5 and the losses on the Leicaflex bodies (which were simply too expensive to manufacture). They couldn't afford a third profitless line of product which was cannibalizing what few sales there were in the M5 line.
The solution was to streamline the SLR line by moving to the much less expensive to manufacture R bodies (castings coming from
Minolta), cancel the CL line entirely transferring remaining assets to Minolta, completely rework the M4 production line to allow reintroducing the popular M4 body profitably, and cancel the unpopular M5 body. This gave Leica two profitable product lines that didn't compete with each other rather than three unprofitable lines that competed with one another. The loss of the CL was keenly felt due to its popularity, but profitability and survival was more important. The R line SLR bodies were a less fraught relationship with Minolta as well, if not up to the same spec as the Leicaflex in some ways.
It's quite a journey from the Leica of then to the Leica of today..!
G
Instead of the Summicron-C and Elmar-C, I have the M-Rokkors. My 90 is the original, manufactured by Leitz in Germany on the same line as the Elmar-C. I use the second generation M-Rokkor 40 which improves slightly on the original due to multicoating. The advantage to the M-Rokkors is that they use standard JIIS threaded 40.5mm filters. Optically and build quality wise, they're the same as the Leica versions.
Add a Color Skopar 28/3.5 and finder to the bag and the CL with these lenses is a perfect travel kit.
Story as told to me by someone quite close to factory honchos at the time was the although the CL was wildly successful on sales, the relationship with Minolta was fraught with problems. Leica QA rejected and had to rework a huge percentage of the incoming from Minolta, which ultimately meant that there was no profit to speak of out of all those sales and a warranty liability with each one. Leica was not in great shape at the time, what with the poor reception and sales on the M5 and the losses on the Leicaflex bodies (which were simply too expensive to manufacture). They couldn't afford a third profitless line of product which was cannibalizing what few sales there were in the M5 line.
The solution was to streamline the SLR line by moving to the much less expensive to manufacture R bodies (castings coming from
Minolta), cancel the CL line entirely transferring remaining assets to Minolta, completely rework the M4 production line to allow reintroducing the popular M4 body profitably, and cancel the unpopular M5 body. This gave Leica two profitable product lines that didn't compete with each other rather than three unprofitable lines that competed with one another. The loss of the CL was keenly felt due to its popularity, but profitability and survival was more important. The R line SLR bodies were a less fraught relationship with Minolta as well, if not up to the same spec as the Leicaflex in some ways.
It's quite a journey from the Leica of then to the Leica of today..!
G
rumbliegeos
Well-known
I love the size and ergonomics of the CL, and I'd like to try the 40mm C lens. But...I bought one advertised as fully functional from a large, well-respected ebay camera dealer and the meter turned out to be several stops off. I returned that one, and bought one in E+ condition from KEH, the meter was several stops off on that one, and I returned it. Then I bought one at a very high price from a well-known Leica repair specialist, got it, the meter was spot-on, but then it drifted several stops off in a week. Returned it, it was repaired under warranty, used it for several days and the meter again drifted to being several stops off. Assuming that I live in a Leica CL Bermuda Triangle of sorts, I returned that one and bought a Bessa R2. But I still wish I had acquired a CL with an accurate and stable meter.
FrankS
Registered User
People accept that pre-M5/6 bodies have no meter; just treat the CL as such, if it's meter is kaput.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
If I were going to use the camera mostly with the 40mm lens, I wouldn't be so concerned with the meter, but I use a 90mm lens quite a bit, and for that I would prefer a TTL meter rather than a hand held meter or guessing the exposures. And part of the desire for a meter comes from using a Barnack for quite a while. Can't afford an M5 or M6 unfortunately.
bluesun267
Well-known
No, I don't think anything is wrong with you. I had roughly 3 CLs (and a couple CLEs) in the span of 10 years. I could never get past the first roll with CL, though I wanted to desperately because it's such a cool camera in many respects. I have the same problem as you--ergonomics (and I don't think my hands are excessively large either). The CLE was better for handling but ultimately since I like 50mm a lot, the CLE lost its appeal too (no framelines). The lenses are very sweet though, both the Summicron-C and the later M-Rokkor 40mm. Try to work with them on a regular M camera and you have another VF problem, except in reverse.
That being said, I am still searching for the perfect camera, one that will do all the things that I want and be a perfect fit in all ways. I haven't found it yet and don't expect to...but I keep shooting...
That being said, I am still searching for the perfect camera, one that will do all the things that I want and be a perfect fit in all ways. I haven't found it yet and don't expect to...but I keep shooting...
k__43
Registered Film User
Maybe try a Bessa w/ 40mm framelines
I find the whole frameline thing not so terrible - the M is not so accurate anyway. I found the 40 to be closer to 35 than to 50 so I use the 35mm frameline
Interestingly all of my CLs had a working meter with useful results (maybe the total beater one I sold immediately not). But I had the problem with my first CL that the battery would slightly slip out of the holder mid roll and I'd loose the meter until I change the film. So I decided to not put batteries in them at all. I barely shoot 35mm slide nowadays (and if so I take the M6) and even slide can be guessed. A friend of mine has one with a meter that is totally off, but I guess if it's still working you might be able to adjust it.
k__43
Registered Film User
As for the frame line problem here is a comparison I shot years ago angle
the second row is the interesting one with the 40mm in the middle between a 35 and a 50.
m/ltm wide open by Kay K, on Flickr
Just for the curious folks - i think the lenses were:
CV15/4.5 - CV25/4 - Elmarit28/2.8vIII
J12 35/2.8 - Cron40/2 - J8 50/2
Canon 50/1.4 - DRCron50/2 - Elmarit 90/2.8
the second row is the interesting one with the 40mm in the middle between a 35 and a 50.
m/ltm wide open by Kay K, on FlickrJust for the curious folks - i think the lenses were:
CV15/4.5 - CV25/4 - Elmarit28/2.8vIII
J12 35/2.8 - Cron40/2 - J8 50/2
Canon 50/1.4 - DRCron50/2 - Elmarit 90/2.8
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hm... I might be a 25mm man I suppose
k__43
Registered Film User
Hm... I might be a 25mm man I suppose
Ha, I love that lens. I don't use it often enough tho. It's funny how close it seems to 28 in that shot, I find it visible wider in reality.
Of the lenses I used back then I only have the J8 and a CV25 now (although the 25 is the the same I used back then - I sold it, got a new one a year later and then bought a black version, all of the snapshot variety)
Works great on a CL btw.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
I bought a CL as a permanent mount for my 40mm f/1.4 Nokton. Haven't regretted it yet - it is a really neat little camera.