Re[2]: Leica CL Addendum

[Pablo_Mendoza@ROOSEVELT-PROVOST.ucsd.edu]

     I used to own a Leica CL and a Leitz/minolta CL and an M5.  In the 
     time that I had the CLs, 1984-1995, I put through on average a roll of 
     film a week through each body, sometimes more, from 1984-1989.  The M5 
     saw use with my father before I was given it.  This body saw about the 
     same amount of use.  I have since replaced all three with an M6.
     
     I retired the two CLs because I had to send them for meter repairs 
     twice respectively, and the Leica CL once for rangefinder adjustment.  
     Though I no longer shoot for a college newspaper nor do I do weddings 
     anymore, the fact that I had to repair the metering twice each in the 
     1984-1989 period was annoying.  In addition, the fact that I couldn't 
     use certain M-lenses from friends on the bodies was annoying.  
     
     The reason for retiring the M5, which I dearly loved, was the mercury 
     battery problem.  I know that the Wein Zinc/Air solution is available, 
     but I have standardized my batteries with the MS 76/LR 44 that I use 
     for both my M6 and Nikon FE2/FM2n system.  One less battery to worry 
     about.
     
     The M5 was clearly designed for professional use.  It is ruggedly 
     built, with a full information finder (something that I wish were in 
     the M6), and full compatibility for the entire M-lens range.
     
     The CL, due to its delicate mechanism (a less sturdy semiphore meter 
     than the M5) and shorter rangefinder base, is designed as a travel 
     camera, not an everyday use professional rig.  It produces wonderful 
     photographs, and I saw quite a few used by the college paper, but it 
     lacks full compatibility with the entire Leica range, so cannot be 
     truly considered professional.  
     
     Just my $.02.
     
     Pablo
     pmendoza@ucsd.edu
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Leica CL Addendum
Author:  dlevy@worldy.com at @UCSD
Date:    29/09/1996 9:37 AM


At 10:02 29/09/1996 +0200, you wrote:
     
     
>Sorry Bob, but I've got to disagree with you. The Leica CL is a very 
>fine camera sure, but I wouldn't call it a pro camera because it lacks 
>what the Leica M camera's have: a large rangefinder base length. A large 
>rangefinder base length, as you know, gives a greater focus-accuracy.
>
>Bert
>
Does this mean that my question re: what is a pro camera has still not been 
answered. If a pro camera requires a long viewfinder base length, then what 
about those early Leicas which were definately used by pros which did not 
have any rangefinder?
     
I find the rangefinder more than adeququate for what the camera was designed 
for. It was designed w/ the 90 as the max lens, while the M series were 
designed to work with 135s (which were in production and therefore had to 
accounted for in the design of the M series).
     
>
David J. Levy
     
     
     
>-- Saved internet headers (useful for debugging)
>Received: from UCSD.EDU by mail.ucsd.edu; id HAA21270 sendmail 8.6.12/UCSD-2.2-
>Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [192.147.236.1]) by
>Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA06648; Sun, 29 Sep 96 06:52:00 -0700 
>Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id A
>Received: from out0-16.worldy.com (out0 
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:37:39 -0400
>Message-Id: <199609291337.JAA08809@worldy.worldy.com> 
>X-Sender: dlevy
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudor
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-a 
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us 
>From: dlevy@worldy.com
>Subject: Re: Leica CL Addendum
>Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us 
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.c