Alex Shishin
Member
Any of you out there use a Minolta CLE?
I have two bodies. One I got back in 1985 and the other back in 1999. They both work well. The first needs a slap now and again when the meter lights start to get out of hand. Otherwise, it has been a very good friend for 20 years. The other one is perfect, no probs.
The little CLE has a short base length and needs an external finder for 35 and 50mm lens. Yet, I believe it is the best automatic RF camera with interchangable lens made thus far because it has stood the test of time. It is a well-made camera all around. It ages slowly in appearance and mechanically it is very solid.
It had a very short run, 1980 to 1984. It was not popular when it was in production but reached cult status here in Japan after it was discontinued.
There have been various reincarnations of the CLE over the years.
The Mamiya New 6 (6x6 format) was one. Its 50-75-150 frames mimicked the CLE's 28-40-90 frameslines. It, like the CLE, had a short production run in the 1990s.
I believe that the Contax G-1 was strongly influenced by the CLE with its 28-45-90 framelines.
The ill-begot Rolleix 35 RF was a spin-off from the CL but also, I think, hoped to cash in on the CLE cult.
Recently the Voightlander R3A pays homage to the CL and CLE , with 40-50-75 and 90 framelines.
And the Zeiss-Ikon seems to me to be a cult fantasy come to life. A decade or so ago I saw an article in a Japanese camera magazine that speculated how a "CLE II" would be like. The composite picture looked very much like the Zeiss-Ikon, complete with bottom rewind.
It's a great like camera: light; shutter button time lag as short as Leica Ms'; fairly quiet; very durable. I have yet to have the rangefinder go out on either of my CLEs.
The Rokkor 40/2 and Rokkor 90/4 are excellent lenses opitically and mechanically. The focusing ring is both smooth and firm. I use it with my M6 + Rapidwinder. I just have to run my finger under it to focus. It is as good as a focusing tab, believe it or not. The Rokkor 28/2.8 is rare and expensive and may have coating problems. In its place I use an Ultron 28/1.9. The shade obscures less of the 28mm frame on the CLE than on a Leica M6.
Minolta used an M mount on the CLE. It did so in partnership with Leitz. Back in the 80s the myth was that there was a back-focus problem if you put Leica lenses on the CLE and the other way around. That myth is now quite dead, thank heavens.
Minolta never had the desire to bring back an updated version of the CLE in spite of pleas from many photographers. It's only bow to the CLE cult was a special edition Leica screw mount 28/3.5 RF lens. But its optical formula was radically different from the old M mount Rokkor 28/2.8.
Minolta also made a handgrip for the CLE. Back in 1985 it cost 4000 yen. Today it costs 15000 yen. It also made a TTL flash for it. Not a great flash but an okay flash.
I've often wondered why Minolta never resurrected the CLE. Back in the days before the current RF boomlet I used to bug Minolta reps about the CLE when they were showing off their latest stuff in camera shops in Kobe and Osaka. The standard answer I got was that Minolta wanted to concentrate on its auto-focus SLR system. About 12 years ago I had a chance to meet Herbert Kepler and other luminaries at Pop Photo in New York. As Mr. Kepler was going to meet the Minolta president in Japan in a short time, I begged him to bring up the CLE with him. He laughed and said that he certainly would not. Ah, life's mysteries!
According to Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest Classic Camera page, the CLE can be repaired if it breaks down. I've had no need to send my to CLEs out, however. I've been slapping the first CLE for two decades now when its meter goes bonkers and it always comes back. It has travelled with me all over Japan, North America and Europe. It has a slight dent near the eye-piece and the paint on the edges is a bit worn. But it hangs in. I never expected it to last this long.
Anyone have CLE experiences that he or she would like to share?
I have two bodies. One I got back in 1985 and the other back in 1999. They both work well. The first needs a slap now and again when the meter lights start to get out of hand. Otherwise, it has been a very good friend for 20 years. The other one is perfect, no probs.
The little CLE has a short base length and needs an external finder for 35 and 50mm lens. Yet, I believe it is the best automatic RF camera with interchangable lens made thus far because it has stood the test of time. It is a well-made camera all around. It ages slowly in appearance and mechanically it is very solid.
It had a very short run, 1980 to 1984. It was not popular when it was in production but reached cult status here in Japan after it was discontinued.
There have been various reincarnations of the CLE over the years.
The Mamiya New 6 (6x6 format) was one. Its 50-75-150 frames mimicked the CLE's 28-40-90 frameslines. It, like the CLE, had a short production run in the 1990s.
I believe that the Contax G-1 was strongly influenced by the CLE with its 28-45-90 framelines.
The ill-begot Rolleix 35 RF was a spin-off from the CL but also, I think, hoped to cash in on the CLE cult.
Recently the Voightlander R3A pays homage to the CL and CLE , with 40-50-75 and 90 framelines.
And the Zeiss-Ikon seems to me to be a cult fantasy come to life. A decade or so ago I saw an article in a Japanese camera magazine that speculated how a "CLE II" would be like. The composite picture looked very much like the Zeiss-Ikon, complete with bottom rewind.
It's a great like camera: light; shutter button time lag as short as Leica Ms'; fairly quiet; very durable. I have yet to have the rangefinder go out on either of my CLEs.
The Rokkor 40/2 and Rokkor 90/4 are excellent lenses opitically and mechanically. The focusing ring is both smooth and firm. I use it with my M6 + Rapidwinder. I just have to run my finger under it to focus. It is as good as a focusing tab, believe it or not. The Rokkor 28/2.8 is rare and expensive and may have coating problems. In its place I use an Ultron 28/1.9. The shade obscures less of the 28mm frame on the CLE than on a Leica M6.
Minolta used an M mount on the CLE. It did so in partnership with Leitz. Back in the 80s the myth was that there was a back-focus problem if you put Leica lenses on the CLE and the other way around. That myth is now quite dead, thank heavens.
Minolta never had the desire to bring back an updated version of the CLE in spite of pleas from many photographers. It's only bow to the CLE cult was a special edition Leica screw mount 28/3.5 RF lens. But its optical formula was radically different from the old M mount Rokkor 28/2.8.
Minolta also made a handgrip for the CLE. Back in 1985 it cost 4000 yen. Today it costs 15000 yen. It also made a TTL flash for it. Not a great flash but an okay flash.
I've often wondered why Minolta never resurrected the CLE. Back in the days before the current RF boomlet I used to bug Minolta reps about the CLE when they were showing off their latest stuff in camera shops in Kobe and Osaka. The standard answer I got was that Minolta wanted to concentrate on its auto-focus SLR system. About 12 years ago I had a chance to meet Herbert Kepler and other luminaries at Pop Photo in New York. As Mr. Kepler was going to meet the Minolta president in Japan in a short time, I begged him to bring up the CLE with him. He laughed and said that he certainly would not. Ah, life's mysteries!
According to Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest Classic Camera page, the CLE can be repaired if it breaks down. I've had no need to send my to CLEs out, however. I've been slapping the first CLE for two decades now when its meter goes bonkers and it always comes back. It has travelled with me all over Japan, North America and Europe. It has a slight dent near the eye-piece and the paint on the edges is a bit worn. But it hangs in. I never expected it to last this long.
Anyone have CLE experiences that he or she would like to share?
Last edited:
I think we have a Camera or Equipment Review Forum, maybe this post would be a good addition there so it won't get lost. (Joe could help out in the move if you would like to see that happen).
The CLE is a very attractive little camera. Tough as you point out there have been imitators, there have not been any real successors. The R2a and R3a (as you mention) are the closest thing in my mind.
A CLE almost was my first RF back a couple years ago. I had bid on one and a 40 Rokker, and the bid stuck right to the very last seconds. Only two bids on the camera, and I was not convinced that this was the camera for me, so I was nervous. I wish I had won it some times.
The CLE is a very attractive little camera. Tough as you point out there have been imitators, there have not been any real successors. The R2a and R3a (as you mention) are the closest thing in my mind.
A CLE almost was my first RF back a couple years ago. I had bid on one and a 40 Rokker, and the bid stuck right to the very last seconds. Only two bids on the camera, and I was not convinced that this was the camera for me, so I was nervous. I wish I had won it some times.
hoot
green behind the ears
Great post. I've been saving up for ages to get a CLE with the 28 and 40 for street use. Your review reminded me why.
ddimaria
Well-known
The CLE is my favorite camera. The Veiwfinder can't be beat. I really wish Minolta would make another one with AE lock and metered manual. For me this would be a dream. We should start a petition to harass them back into production. I am hoping that the new Zeiss Ikon will be as quiet, but from what I hear it won't be and in my opinion it will not come close to the CLE.
DD
DD
DD, I'm with you; AE lock would be a fine addition to this great little camera. And I'll agree with Alex that the ZI seems to be its natural successor.
A recent CLE shot...
A recent CLE shot...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Alex Shishin said:
I had one that I bought new "back in the day." Eventually I traded it straight across for a Leica M4-2 because I felt I needed a longer RF base for using the 90/2 Summicron lens. I've often regretted giving it up, even though I was very familiar with its minor irritations when I had it. Basically, those irritations were lack of metered manual, lack of any form of AE lock, and the fact that it was easy to turn it off by accident because of the location of the power switch. Other than that it was a terrific little camera.
Can't buy into that one, since the G-1 has a zoom finder rather than framelines. They might have been influenced by the idea of a compact non-SLR camera with interchangeable lenses and advanced technical features.
Nope, they seem to hang in really well. The CLE uses a "moving telescope" type rangefinder mechanism (the rangefinder image is made to move by a small optical group in the middle of the light path that moves back and forth to shift the RF image from side to side.) This type of design seems more resistant to misalignment than the pivoting-mirror type of RF used on most high-end RF cameras. The reason it isn't used more widely, I think, is that it's difficult to make it work with a long rangefinder base. I remember reading when the CLE appeared that it was the longest-base camera ever to use an moving-telescope RF.
Also, you could use any other X-series Minolta flash with full TTL metering and dedication. When I had my CLE, I also had a Minolta SLR system (X-700 and X-570) and two 360PX flash units to go with them. These units worked great on the CLE. I made up some extra-long dedicated connecting cables by cutting the Minolta cables and splicing four-conductor phone wire between them; these gave me a mini-studio system with full TTL metering. And of course since the CLE was non-SLR, I could see through the finder when the flashes fired. It was a terrific system for the newspaper work I was doing at the time: I could carry the whole camera system AND lighting system in one of those Leitz shoulder bags.
Back when it was discontinued, I read in various places that Minolta had found its sales disappointing when compared to the manufacturing and development cost, and that building a precision RF camera had turned out to be more complex and expensive than they had expected because of the level of precision and hand adjustment needed for the RF mechanism. Those would be pretty good reasons not to want to go back into it again!
Also, a lot of the innards were based on the X-series SLRS (especially the X-570, I think) so once those had been replaced by later models with different shutters and electronics, it wouldn't have been efficient to keep the parts in production just to use on a low-volume camera such as the CLE.
So, the CLE probably will have to be remembered as one of those things that was great while it lasted, didn't get the appreciation it deserved, and its like will never be seen again. As in the Joni Mitchell lyric, we didn't know what we had until it was gone.
Graham Line
Well-known
The CLE has been part of my kit for six or seven years now, and after an initial cleaning and replacement of seals, has been dead reliable. Can't remember when I last needed to change the batteries. Though I have a CV 28/3.5 as well as the M-Rokkor 40 and 90, it seems best with the 40; the 28 has a tendency to overexpose with the AE system.
What impresses me is the durability of the finish. After several years' use, it still shows very little wear.
I'm curious about how the CLE finder compares with the Hexar RF's -- another shortlived venture into building a better RF camera.
What impresses me is the durability of the finish. After several years' use, it still shows very little wear.
I'm curious about how the CLE finder compares with the Hexar RF's -- another shortlived venture into building a better RF camera.
R
rotzbremse
Guest
I use the CL [not CLE] and love it for its lightness and also for the built-in meter. I have the Rokkor 28/2.8 [without coating white dots] and the 40/2 Summicron lenses. Both are excellent performers and both are small.
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
Alex Shishin said:
No mystery............. Kepler and others are/were involved in directing the heavily subsidized postwar Japanese/Taiwanese camera industry for a variety of perhaps not obvious reasons IMHO.
And besides...... who among us is ready to pay big bucks for new electro/mechanical film stuff? Anybody bought a new Leica recently? Maybe a Bessa? Know anybody in the general population who is interested/smart enough to use anything but a P&S?
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
the cle is electronic, no?
no battery = not working.
joe
no battery = not working.
joe
No problem; batteries are widely available, inexpensive, and a spare is easy to carry. Same same with my hearing aids...backalley photo said:
back alley
IMAGES
Doug said:
doug, i was replying to iskra's post about who would pay big $$ for a mechanical camera, just pointing out the cle was not mechanical.
i had 2 complete cle kits and it's about the only cameras i regret selling, 28/40/90, man what a perfect combo even if the lenses were a bit slow.
joe
Hi Joe -- It might help if you quote some minimal text to put your response in context.backalley photo said:
I think "electro-mechanical" describes the CLE pretty well...
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
backalley photo said:
Joe, I need to let my comments develop longer before posting. Thanks. Those CL's are nice, still beyond the reach/needs of many ELECTRO users and beyond the comprehension of the general population...... and sadly off the MBA playing field. Sort of like explaining why an old Corvette is better than a newer "Rice Burner"
felipe
Established
I ocassionally use my fathers CLE, and it sure is a nice little camera. Unfortunately the missing aperture lock and the incompatability with "basic" lenses like the 35cron make it uninteresting as a second body for me, other than that it's pretty much ideal.
Put an equally unobstrusive/quiet shutter in the ZI and it would be all I ever wanted
Phil
Put an equally unobstrusive/quiet shutter in the ZI and it would be all I ever wanted
Phil
back alley
IMAGES
Doug said:Hi Joe -- It might help if you quote some minimal text to put your response in context.
I think "electro-mechanical" describes the CLE pretty well...
ya mean, like this?
you're right of course, sorry for the confusion.
joe
Justin Low
J for Justin
Overall, I really like my CLE; except for the On/Off/Timer switch and the position of the shutter release. My fingers are rather short (even for Asian standards) so initially I found the release a bit too far away; I've gotten used to it though, and I love that it's really sensitive. Yet I have hardly any accidental firings.
The On/Off switch is a little finicky, so I leave mine at 'On' all the time; I'd prefer an arrangement like the newer Bessas.
Not having an AE lock or no metered manual mode is no big deal to me as I use an external meter (out of preference). If it worked without batteries, that would be terrific, as I wouldn't even have to bother putting batteries in.
The On/Off switch is a little finicky, so I leave mine at 'On' all the time; I'd prefer an arrangement like the newer Bessas.
Not having an AE lock or no metered manual mode is no big deal to me as I use an external meter (out of preference). If it worked without batteries, that would be terrific, as I wouldn't even have to bother putting batteries in.
MP/CLE
Established
I bought my first CLE system in 1984 in response to having just spent 7 months backpacking around the world. I had a small Konica c35, which did an admirable job, however, I could not help feeling that if I had the interchangeable lenses I could have captured some more exceptional shots.
I got a job that absorbed several years (during which I did not travel or produce any memorable photos) and changed the way I saw through a viewfinder. It took selling the camera and having no luck with every other camera I bought to realize that it wasn't the camera that reduced my photographic creativity to snapshot levels... it was all me.
That revelation resulted in an extreme desire to get another CLE which has produced a new lease on my photographic life. That then led to a Leica M7 and MP purchase together with the requisite lenses. The one constant has been the CLE and this camera will not be sold.
I got a job that absorbed several years (during which I did not travel or produce any memorable photos) and changed the way I saw through a viewfinder. It took selling the camera and having no luck with every other camera I bought to realize that it wasn't the camera that reduced my photographic creativity to snapshot levels... it was all me.
That revelation resulted in an extreme desire to get another CLE which has produced a new lease on my photographic life. That then led to a Leica M7 and MP purchase together with the requisite lenses. The one constant has been the CLE and this camera will not be sold.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I always lusted after the Minolta CLE but I could never justify spending that kind of money.
Though they have (by now) come down a bit, I still wouldn't buy one.
It's just too risky - parts for long discontinued electronic cameras are just too scarce.
Cosina has managed to build a line of very nice cameras and lenses at popular prices.
Perhaps if the CLE hadn't been based on an existing Leica model,
Minolta could have produced something more affordable...
Excelsior, you fathead!
-Chris-
Though they have (by now) come down a bit, I still wouldn't buy one.
It's just too risky - parts for long discontinued electronic cameras are just too scarce.
Cosina has managed to build a line of very nice cameras and lenses at popular prices.
Perhaps if the CLE hadn't been based on an existing Leica model,
Minolta could have produced something more affordable...
Excelsior, you fathead!
-Chris-
popitz
The Rangefinder Junkie
Is $197 too much for a user CLE body in need of a CLA? The seller says operation in Auto mode is unstable at times.