Thinking of getting a Leica CL

[burancap]

In my opinion, it is not that there is anything fundamentally "at fault" with the CL. My gripe was the base length and all that that inescapably presents, especially to someone with waning vision. I won't even bring up requiring any dioptric correction.

The CL is a lovely camera. It is compact, light, and sublime. I DO recommend it if your vision is at least better than mine. I also recommend considering being patient, saving a bit more, and finding an M6 -which the OP seemed to "really" want.

 

[Takkun]

I wouldn't say I have any complaints with it--it's a locale camera with plenty of quirks ( and I'm a cheerleader of sorts for the maligned M5). But if it's an M6,you really want, you'll be sorely disappointed. And if it's a light and compact metered RF, there are better options, particularly with respect to RF baseline.

 

[mani]

I didn't mean to get into any sort of argument about the CL - I was just a bit shocked to find so much criticism of what I genuinely thought was a universally adored little camera.
Taken on its own terms it's a wonderful piece of equipment. But yes if it's an M6 the OP really wants, then maybe they'd never be happy with a CL.

 

[santino]

the cl almost killed the entire m series so it better be good 😉

 

[anjoca76]

I have owned 3 CLs and 2 CLEs. Lovely cameras. Never again. Save your money and get what you really want. You won't regret it. The CL was my first M. It is nothing like the real thing.

I agree. The CL is a great camera--I loved mine and it served me well. But if what you really want is an M6, then save up and get the M6. It's on another level. You won't regret it. I went through the same thing.

 

[Godfrey]

The CL has been on my list of favorite Leicas for many years. I bought the third one I've owned a year or two ago. It remains a favorite of mine.

I've had the Summicron-C 40, M-Rokkor 40 v1 and M-Rokkor 40 v2. They're all very similar in rendering; what I use now is the M-Rokkor 40 v2 as it has multicoating (a little less susceptible to flare) and the JIS thread 40.5mm filter bezel.

Similarly I've had both the Elmar-C and M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 lenses. Both of them were made in Germany, on the same production line. I have the M-Rokkor version now, it's still a great lens.

The CL was a favorite of mine because of the size and weight. It would have been nice if Leica had developed it a little further (a longer baseline RF would have been nice, but I've not really had any issues focusing the 90mm or even a Hektor 135mm f/4.5 with it), but Leica went back to the M4 body style when the M5 proved such a sales flop, ran with that instead.

The CL sold well in its day, but didn't make a profitable return due to rework costs and issues with Minolta as I understand it.

I've used mine with both the PX625 mercury cells and the CRIS MR-9 battery adapter. The metering differences are insignificant, no changes to the meter have been necessary.

If you really want an M, buy an M. If you want a CL, good ones are still available and it's a delightful camera.

G

 

[bushwick1234]

I owned a CL and if you don't mind if the meter stops working some day (mine never had an issue!) because of the age, I would recommend it. I bought a vintage Gossen Scout meter for 20 bucks on eBay as a back up.
The CL will give you beautiful contrasty and sharp photographs using either Summicron-C or Rokkor lenses (40mm f2). The Rokkor has more frequent coating issues than the Summicron-C.

 

[Scrambler]

A Leica M is a Leica M. My view is that anything else (including a CL) is an M-compatible. And there's nothing wrong with that - I own 2 M-mount cams and have never owned a true "M"

I recommend looking at the list of M-mount cameras (it's not very long) and considering what features you want, what your price range is, and what features you will "put up with" to achieve the first two.

For example, if you want metered manual, less than $300 and realistically you will stick one lens on it and use just that, plus you are fairly gentle on gear, than a Bessa R is suitable, though it is not M-compatible. Your lens choice is future-proofed (can be used easily on an M) while your camera delivers a great RF/VF and the most predictable metering in Bessas.

There are other oddball options that might work.

If you want the nearest you can get to a Leica M6 and don't mind the extra features (sounds strange, but many do) then I would say the Hexar RF is nearest. Has all the usability of a Leica M but with auto wind/rewind and faster (metal) shutter. And compared to an iPhone, all focal-plane shutter cameras are loud.

If it just has to be a Leica, consider an unmetered body or even a screwmount camera - again these are future-proofed with lenses and deliver the "mechanical jewel" Leica feeling, which the M-compatibles don't. Though I would say that the Hexar RF is an electro-mechanical jewel.

 

[outbr3akxal]

Wow. Thanks all for all the response.
Really appreciate them.

I gotta read thru all again.

I was looking for the CL as one its nice and small and compact.
Secondly it has a meter. Although I'm aware it can die off anytime.
I haven't had a chance to handle one yet though.

I have on the other hand, handled an M6 and it does feel good.
Nice never. Feels great. Prices are on the up where I'm from.
So its not really something I need. Just more of a want.

But I'm still deciding though. Shoot mainly on my 35mm on my M2.
Metered using my lightmeter now. Hence the reason for a metered "M" now.

But then again, i might look into some of the Voigtlander Rs.
Thanks again all.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Do a bit of research about any Leica camera and you'll find a list of things that go wrong.

The CL gets its share but, like the M5, it's not a mainstream model and that's a crime to some. F'instance, you'll notice that no one moans about the M2 not taking more than a 90mm due to the frame lines but it's a dreadful matter with the CL.

Others expect the camera to be bomb proof, as though all the others are but they aren't.

And the meter needle can be seen, unlike scales and so on beside LED's. And you can change the shutter speed and see the range changing in the VF. And you can feeel the rewind handle turning without much effort, instead of having to look.

So my 2d worth is to say get the CL and its two lenses and you won't go wrong if you read the manual about metering and battery checks. It might also stop you hankering after the M6; as will reading about those dreadful M6's elsewhere on these forums.

Just bear in mind that it's a 1970's camera and use a bit of sense. If the worst happens it will be repairable and there are specialists who can help, just like any other Leica (except the minilux when the worst happens).

BTW, I've had a second-hand CL and still have it and still use it. It was the first second-hand one I could find many years ago and there were still new ones in the shops then, so I was lucky. And it meant I could afford the 90mm lens as well. Both lenses are up to Leica's usual standards and genuinely loved by people who have owned and used them. Search on the 40mm Summicron and see what they all say on RFF...

And I've never had people spit at me when they saw it, ever. Although you'd expect that from reading some of the comments.

I've also owned a CLE for a week, bought new and returned many years ago. (Having to switch it on and remember to switch it off again irritaed; unlike the sensible system of the CL.) I'm not so certain that they (CLE's) can be repaired but the 28mm lens sounds nice and could be added to the CL one day.

Regards, David

 

[kbg32]

Parts for the CLE are becoming very hard to come by. The electronics are based on the XG7, if I remember correctly.

 

[Scrambler]

I've also owned a CLE for a week, bought new and returned many years ago. (Having to switch it on and remember to switch it off again irritaed; unlike the sensible system of the CL.) I'm not so certain that they (CLE's) can be repaired but the 28mm lens sounds nice and could be added to the CL one day.

Parts for the CLE are becoming very hard to come by. The electronics are based on the XG7, if I remember correctly.

The CLE is not supported by repairers and some parts are impossible to obtain (there are some people that know and love them who are hoarding parts - you know who you are!)

X-series Minoltas do NOT contain any usable parts. Sorry.

But on the plus side, you don't need to turn CLEs off. The meter only activates when either (a) there is a distinct press of the shutter or (b) there is a finger (or other conductor) resting on the shutter release. Turning off does ensure that the shutter CAN'T release, but doesn't save batteries.

 

[jsrockit]

The Leica CL is an ok Leica. I've used one in the past and it is nice with the 40mm lens. I would only buy it if you want a compact M camera. I wouldn't buy it as a substitute to the more traditional M camera... unless it was a stop gap solution on your way to a regular M model and you got a good price.

I owned mine in the 90s and was photograohing in a canoe with it. Unfortunately, the canoe tipped over and my CL went in with me. The only thing that died was the meter though... still worked otherwise.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Been pondering this, we CL owners and users don't attack the M series and yet many would say we could. Interesting isn't it?

I own a few Leicas ranging in age from 1926 to a few (5 or 6) years old and including that APS version the C11. I think the CL is nothing more or less what it claims to be; meaning a Compact Leica. So it shouldn't be expected to be an M but it is and always will be a Leica. Just the same as the mini 3 is and so on.

As a compact camera it takes a lot of beating, two excellent lenses, neat design with many innovations in it and there's that excellent carry case for it and two lenses and a couple of cartons with film in. Like the CL being an up-to-date version of the pre-war screw thread cameras the case (14 825) being a modern version of the ETTRE and so on.

As for dioptre lenses, Leica listed part no's 14 081 for it in the 1975 catalogue. And the catalogue lists the few out of hundreds of lenses that can't be used on it (135mm with goggles f'instance).

If there's one word for the CL then I'd say it was "neat" or perhaps "elegant" or perhaps "very usable", only I'm straying into the Spanish Inquisition sketch script there. ;-)

Regards, David

PS Anyone ever seen a short wrist strap for the CL part No: 14 197?

PPS Praise for the 40mm Summicron here:- http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140875

 

[outbr3akxal]

Hmmm....

I'll keep a look out for a nice clean working CL.
What's the going rate for them now?

If I were to compare with a Voightlander R2?
What would your thoughts be then?

 

[Godfrey]

Hmmm....

I'll keep a look out for a nice clean working CL.
What's the going rate for them now?

If I were to compare with a Voightlander R2?
What would your thoughts be then?

I bought my current CL which had been recently CLA'ed from an RFF subscriber some time in 2011. Body only cost me about $320 IIRC. I already had the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 gen2 lens, which was a trifle expensive (around $600 IIRC) but in absolutely mint condition.

The Voigtländer R cameras are good, but they have always felt a little clunky to me. Nothing wrong with that, some people prefer them, and they certainly work fine. I don't know much about the R2 model specifically.

G

 

[MISH]

I love my Cl that I bought here in the classifieds. My camera had been to see Sherry and she had adjusted the voltage so that a new style battery can be used. While looking for s 40mm lens to match up with it I came across a 35 summicron ver 2 at a very attractive price so that is what is most often on the camera. I have also been known to put my Rigid 50mm or my 90 Tele-Elmarit on it with great success. I guess, as with anything else, not every one that has owned one has been entirely happy or found that it met their needs and or expectations. I own one, I am quite happy with it, and I will not be giving it up any time soon

 

[Brian Levy]

Considering it comes closer to the original design concept of the LTM in size and purpose than the much larger M body, maybe the CL is a real Leica and the M is too much a deviant from the original design goal to be considered a legitimate successor to the III and earlier series.

And remember other cameras bearing the Leica nameplate had their weirdness from unique take up systems to one of the most nutty loading systems requiring cutting the film leader to a specific shape and length to properly load.

As for the shutter release, the noise level is only slightly higher than the M series bodies that I find louder than the LTM series so what. We are not talking about say my Bronica that can wake up a Zombie at 5 miles. Certainly quieter than any SLR and any other rangefinder or zone focus camera I am aware of including the Leica made SLRs.

When the criticism gets to the level of the shutter release noise you know the CL is a great camera in its own right.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Parts for repair are difficult to find. If you can not afford an M6 why not an M2 or M3 and download a free lightmeter app to your smart phone?

Dear Steve,

Not everyone has (or wants) a "smart" phone.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The CL has been on my list of favorite Leicas for many years. I bought the third one I've owned a year or two ago. . .

Dear Godfrey,

Why did you sell the other two? Just curious.

Cheers,

R.