The Leica "experience" - would I get it with a CL?

Koolzakukumba

Koolzakukumba

Real men use B+W
Local time
11:30 PM
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
357
Location
Carnoustie, Scotland
View My Gallery
I'm thinking of getting an M body and 35mm lens to see what all the fuss is about. I had an M2 and M3 about 27 years ago but didn't know enough to appreciate what I had and sold them after a short while. I use Pentax gear just now with prime lenses and really don't expect to see a great difference, if any at all, but it's something I'd like to get out of my system.

It seems to me that it's a combination of superlative engineering and great optics that defines the Leica. Would I get this in the CL and the 40mm Summicron or is this camera not up to the same standard as, say, an M6.

And talking of M6, why did Leica decide to remove the lovely script-style name from the top plate? Surely not to save a few bob!!

Thanks for any advice that might be forthcoming.

Bruce
 
I'm not really qualified to answer this, but I'd say the M3 or M2 would be the way to go, since they are the classics, or forever wonder.
 
What would be your main focal length? 35 or 50 or? I recommend the M2 or M3 with a hand-held meter; if you use a 50 or higher, them get a M3. If you like to use the 35 focal length, too, then get the best all-round mechanical user: the M2. Either way, you are getting a great camera.
 
I have an M4, M6 and a CL. Guess which I use the most? The CL!
I prefer the ergonomics of the shutter dial placement, I prefer the match-needle metering and I like how the shutter speed is displayed in the viewfinder.
With its 40mm lens it's a very compact package and easy to carry with me all the time. The best camera is the one you have with you!
It's certainly no match for the others in build quality, and any M would be a better choice for low light or longer lens work. The 40mm Summicron that usually comes with it renders beautifully, so you get the "Leica experience" in the results, if not in the actual capture process.
I'll sell my M6 before my CL!
 
I can only talk from personal experience and others may differ. If you are using "M" or "A" Pentax glass, you are likely to see a small difference in quality with either CV ZM or Leica glass. If you are using the ealry "K" lenses or the Ltds, then you are not likely to see much inprovement with the CV lenses but there may be a small improvement with the ZM or Leica ones. On the M6, one of my favourite lenses is the Pentax 43Ltd in LTM mount.

What will be very noticeable is the experience of using an RF body. It is very different from an SLR and I certainly look at my photography in a different way using an RF. I have been tempted by the CL as a small camera but intend to stick with the larger bodies. Even an R2, R3 or R4 will give a huge difference. Both the M6 and the ZI feel smoother and better engineered but the difference will be less than that of an RF over a SLR. I always thought my LX's were some of the smoothest cameras I have ever used but going back to them after using the ZI or M6 makes then feel much less so.

Kim
 
Last edited:
When people speak of the "Leica Experience" I think they're referring to (in a modern context) the M-series bodies with/without Leitz optics. I've shot with M-2 and M-4 bodies for 40+ years. They're solidly built, great finders, quiet shutters, and very smooth film advance mechanisms. Nicely done as the CL might be - they don't strike me as miniaturized M-series cameras.
I guess you'd have to talk to someone who have M-series bodies AND a CL.

The "Leica Experience" as it pertains to optics I won't address except to say that those modern optics (1960 forward) with which I've had direct experience have been great. They've also been hideously expensive.
 
There are multiple Leica experiences:
- LTM, for the pre-50's experience, slow and deliberate
- M's without meter - the classical experience
- M's with meter - the modern experience
- R's - the SLR experience
- M8 - the digital experience

Common themes would be stellar optics with unique optical signatures.

The CL would certainly be an economical way to experience the metered RF, and the 40mm Summicron is a stellar lens.

Vick
 
Bruce,

You're kind of comparing apples to oranges. The CL was never meant to be on the same level as the M cameras. When it was introduced it was meant to be a entry level Leica rangefinder. I was recently reading an old Leica Fotographie magazine and came across an introductory article on the CL (No. 5, 1973). The article states "Two aims were envisaged in the conception of the Leica CL: the first was the production of a self-contained compact camera; the second was its use as a complement to the Leica M system. As a versatile compact camera the Leica CL with its two lenses is an ideal companion."

I have the Leitz/Minolta CL version of the camera and it is a fine camera, but it isn't on the same level as my M7. That being said, it has its advantages. I toured Hong Kong in March and brought the CL as my only camera. (The people I was traveling with wouldn't have appreciated my usual camera kit and photography habits). It was a treat to just carry a small camera and three small lenses. I was also pleased with the slides when I had them developed.

On the other hand, the M7 has an entirely different feel to it. It is a better built camera in just about every way. The "superlative engineering", as you put it, just isn't there on the CL. Without any way to qualify this statement, I would say that even when one is using the same lenses on both cameras, the tolarances in the construction of the rangefinder, lens mount and the film plate allow the M7 to more accurately expose the film. The autoexposure doesn't hurt either. In any case, I do end up with more keepers using the M7 and am often thrilled with the slides I get from it rather than just being pleased.
 
I can probably add some insight, hope this doesnt wind up confusing you more:

My first leica was a CL and I got it because of the 40mm lens and viewed it as an upgrade from the fully awesome rollei 35 which had a 40mm sonnar. I immediately fell in love with the camera and didnt take another photograph with any other body or lens for nearly 8 months after getting it. The camera has hands down, absolutely the best in camera meter of any body I have used. The 40mm Summicron is easily one of the most under estimated leitz lenses. The 35mmv4 cron, which people swoon over to the point where the lens has its own stupid pet name now, is really only marginaly better that the 40 cron. It IS a better lens, its positively sharper wide open, but the signature is so close that it is truly odd to me that it costs 5 times what the 40 cron does. If other M cameras had 40 frame lines, the 40 cron would likely be selling for somewhat near what the 35mmv4 cron does they are so similar. I have both, like both but would easily chose the 40mm if I could only keep one.

The CL definitely peters out at 50mm, this is not a great body for a 90mm lens. The finder is nice enough, its easy to use, the metering is easy to see and never gets in the way. The film advance is fine if you dont know anything else, if you have other M's it's definitely made in Japan. It doesnt feel cheap at all, it just doesnt feel like an M3.

I was intensely productive with my CL and couldnt imagine parting with it.

After reading this board and others, I soon began to feel left out and my next body was an M3. After getting that, I realized what everyone was talking about. I still used the CL predominantly.

I still felt I needed to acquire more gear after reading everyone talking about how amazing the M6 was, so I got one, the last production run of the classics with an .85 finder as Im mainly a 50mm guy.

Succintly, I despise that M6. The meter is esentially the worst meter of any camera body I have ever used made by anybody. And I dont say this to make a poetic comparison to my statement on the CL meter. The meter in my camera isnt broken, its just terrible in function. Absolutely useless in any kind of back lit scenario. The LED's in the finder didnt so much drive me nuts while I used the camera, but once I went back to meterless bodies I realized how unconsciously distracting they were. I dont think it detracted from using the M6 but Im relieved to not see them in my other bodies. My M6 no longer has a battery in it, its a slight improvement.

The finder in my M6 is not the least bit accurate. If you compose in the center of your frame it wont be an issue but if you like to frame with one object in the left hand corner of the frame and another in the right, the finder just isnt accurate enough to do it. I can tell most of the photos Ive taken with the 6 because there is always something oddly cut off on the left or right. I dont see this with my other bodies. The finder also has way too many framelines, which I guess is wonderful if you change focal lengths five times a day, but just simply annoying any other time. Sure you get used to it, but Im probably never going to have a 75mm lens, so why should I be burdened with seeing those lines all the time. Annoying. The frame lines are also too thin for my taste, I find the 2/4 lines to be perfect.

The film advance of the camera is nice, certainly nicer than the CL but IMO doesnt really at all compare to a nice M3, M2 or M4. Its just not on that level. It sure is close enough, but if you want to nit pick, the body is just not as nice as an older body.

My comments on the meter in the M6 and the finder on the M6 should probably be weighed with a grain of salt depending upon the type of work you shoot. Certainly you dont see this opinion very often and I absolutely do not doubt that I am in the rare minority thinking this way.

If you are into shooting with a 50mm I would suggest a return to the M3 as there is nothing like shooting a 50 (or a 90) with an M3. I usually wind up composing my shots with an M3 slightly differently than I do with an M2 or M4. These days, my favorite body is an M2, the simplicity of the finder is totally freeing not having to look at other frame lines besides the one that is up for the lens. The patch is also seemingly slightly bigger than my M4 (maybe Im just imagining that). The camera is exceptionally well built and there is nothing quite as gratifying as the film advance on my M2.

confused? rad.

I would get a CL if you want to shoot with a 40, the lens is awesome. The meter is amazing if you know how to use a spot meter. The M6 is a cool camera, I tried so hard to like that thing, but for the reasons mentioned I could just never muster up any lust for the thing, it was a total buzz kill every time I pulled film out of the tank. You may not, however, run into any of those troubles, it doesnt seem like many people do.

Having a CL kinda misses the mark of "the leica experience" (whatever that means) when using it, its weighted oddly and can be a little fiddly, the shutter release is definitely its own thing, but the images you can make with the camera will floor you. They are cheap though. I feel like for the money you spend on an M6, for me, it always never had "the leica experience" either. I think if you use a 1960's M as your baseline comparison, both bodies will disappoint you. And if you dont you can totally fall in love with either, they just both have their own drawbacks. And of course no 1960's M has a meter and thats enough of a drawback for most people to not even care how incredible brass gears on the shutter cock feels. Someone said it before, the "leica experience" comes in several flavors and I think is definitely what you make it.
 
The meter in my M6TTL is perfect. Check or repair yours, WM.

BTW, Bruce, the CL will give you a CL experience: very small body, fits perfectly in your hand, it's extremely easy to handle and use... but it ain't a Leica proper. 🙂 Sorry about it.
 
The Leica "experience" - would I get it with a CL?
Click to expand...
Quite simply, no.

I have M2, M6 and CL. I use the CL a lot, almost exclusively with the superb S-C 40 (I carry it round in a bag or pocket when I'm not specifically out shooting, and end up shooting a lot with it). I like it a lot. But it's not an M.

Considering whether you will see any difference in the quality of your images, I'd say very probably not (or very little, at most). While the best Leica lenses are probably still superior to anybody else's, most people, most of the time, in most normal circumstances, really can't tell the difference. I'm just as happy, for example, with the results from my Olympus Zuiko lenses as I am with with my Leica lenses, and as I was with my old Takumar lenses. What you will get, though, is a whole different experience - rangefinder shooting has some significant advantages over SLRs in some areas (but disadvantages in others).

As for which M to get the "experience" - the M2 is my favourite (though the only ones I've used are the ones I have)

Incidentally, the meter in my M6 is perfectly accurate and the framelines are fine (if a little conservative - the actual FOV is slightly wider than the frames, which I like). And the CL meter uses a CdS cell, which is not as accurate as a modern SPD cell (which is what the M6 has), though I've found mine to be good enough with slide film. (And talking about meters, the "wrong way up" match needle in the CL is annoying - when the needle is too high, it's underexposed!).
 
Bruce, you are way ahead of the game if you understand that this is likely something that you just have to get out of your system. With that in mind, pick the camera that best epitomises the "Leica experience" to you (most likely not the CL). Keep your eyes out for a good deal and buy when you're ready. You will be able to enjoy the "Leica experience" for as long as you like, and then sell for as much as you paid. That's assuming you sell.
 
there is no such a thing as leica experience. i bought leica because i wanted more space in the finder compared to russian bodies. i would buy cl if i found it in serbia because it cost less and it has all the features leica has. dont worry about leica experience - buy a camera which will make your shooting pleasant.
 
What is the Leica experience? Is it whether your camera feels and fondles like a Leica? Or whether it takes great photos like a Leica. If the latter, the CL is hard to beat.

My first Leica was a CL. It took terrific photos, the 40mm Summicron C is an absolute gem, and the 90mm Elmar C ain't no slouch. Then, on boards like this, I read how I wasn't getting 'the Leica experience'. So eventually I bought a black paint M4, and a 35mm Summicron. Guess what? The photos were worse. Metering was just that little bit more tricky, and I worried about getting chips in that beautiful black paint.

The 40mm Summicron C is as close in quality to the 35mm as makes no difference. In fact, I prefer the 40mm framing. The metering on the CL is far superior, even to the M6. You can see instantly if you're a stop under or a stop over, everything is clearly laid out in the viewfinder.

There are minuses. The CL is not as robust, old meter cells might need replacing, and the way it hangs sideways is a particular pain.

But if you're as happy being seen in a Mini Cooper, as opposed to a BMW Z4, for dirving around town, you might just find that the CL has a real chic appeal of its own. As for motoring around those windy streets, I know which I'd choose.
 
I've seen photos of HC-B with a Leica Minilux also.

Any decent modern camera is better than what was available fifty years ago. And then in those days they managed great photos.

Not just HC-B, but Doisneau, Brassai, Koudelka...

Yes, a Leica CL is a perfectly good camera.
 
Frankly, what the Leica CL surely will not give you is the snobbish, but essentially worthless appeal of using a "real Leica".
 
Great post, Paul. The Leica experience must be about the way the camera feels and handles because there are any number of cameras that are capable of taking great photographs provided the person behind them is up to the job.

That's where my problem lies with regard to the CL. I prefer the 40mm focal length and everything I've read suggests the Summicron is a cracker. I've no doubt the results would be well up to scratch but would it be much different from shooting, say, with a Yashica 35cc rangefinder or similar? If the CL is just like other well made cameras but nothing special then I'm pretty sure at some stage in the future I'd be thinking "Wonder if I should have got an M4 or an M6".

The bizarre thing is that this isn't really about image quality as my Rolleiflex and Mamiya Press can surpass what I'll get from a Leica. The Pentax 35mm gear also produces excellent results. It's just about the mystique of the Leica marque and that nagging feeling that I'm missing out on a great photographic experience by not using one.


Paul T. said:
What is the Leica experience? Is it whether your camera feels and fondles like a Leica? Or whether it takes great photos like a Leica. If the latter, the CL is hard to beat.

My first Leica was a CL. It took terrific photos, the 40mm Summicron C is an absolute gem, and the 90mm Elmar C ain't no slouch. Then, on boards like this, I read how I wasn't getting 'the Leica experience'. So eventually I bought a black paint M4, and a 35mm Summicron. Guess what? The photos were worse. Metering was just that little bit more tricky, and I worried about getting chips in that beautiful black paint.

The 40mm Summicron C is as close in quality to the 35mm as makes no difference. In fact, I prefer the 40mm framing. The metering on the CL is far superior, even to the M6. You can see instantly if you're a stop under or a stop over, everything is clearly laid out in the viewfinder.

There are minuses. The CL is not as robust, old meter cells might need replacing, and the way it hangs sideways is a particular pain.

But if you're as happy being seen in a Mini Cooper, as opposed to a BMW Z4, for dirving around town, you might just find that the CL has a real chic appeal of its own. As for motoring around those windy streets, I know which I'd choose.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom