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:
