Re: CL vs CLE features?

[dlevy@worldy.com]

At 07:39  03/10/96 -0400, you wrote:


>>
>Brian, you are wrong in some important essentials.  The "thread" or the
>focussing cam is identical in the Minolta CL and the Leica CL.  They are the
>same camera.  The original difference in price is because Leica checked
>EVERY Leica CL before sale.  Minolta's quality control was done of a
>production line scale: id.est.: every certain time, a camera was checked for
>quality.
>
>At least some of the Rokkor lens were made in Germany.
>
>I have used both Leica and Minolta CLs. I currently use (in Leica equipment)
>an M6 and a CLE. Love those built in meters.  I wish Leitz would bring out a
>modern day CLE. What a convenient camera!
>
>Last point: There is no way a CL lens will PROPERLY couple to an M camera
>RF.  I'm not at all sure about the reverse.
>
>Bob Sperling, J.D.

>Bob,
Thank you for the information. As I said, I don't have my books available
since I have recently relocated. 

The thread I was talking about was the front thread. The Leica lenses used
the D.I.N. standard and the Minolta lenses for the CL (distributed in Japan
and Asia) was J.I.S. I understand the focusing cam was identical for the
systems, however the lenses used different shaped cams. Leica used one which
did NOT mirror their other lenses, while the Minolta lenses did. I have the
90mm German Rokkor and it does couple to the M series bodies for both
brightline and is accurate with the rangefinder. Additionally, there appears
to be some difference between the Leica and Leitz-Minolta CL for the
Japanese and Asian  markets. According to a review by Simon Nathan entitled
'LEICA CL or LEICA MINOLTA CL' he points out that the backs on the cameras
are not interchangable. He also discusses the lens issues. The article was
published in April, 1974 _Popular Photography_. It is possible, even
probable, when Leica withdraw from the CL market, and Minolta started to
sell its model worldwide, they converted to the Leica body and therefore
here in North America (except for a few bodied) there is no difference
between the camera bodies.

Leica in the instruction manual references the abiltiy to use non CL lenses
on the CL. They refernence list 120-50 for more information. The list
discusses using dymo tape on the collapsable lenses and gives the tape
diameter to use on the 50mm Elmars, Summar, Summitar, Summicron and 90 Elmar
(3/8") and the 50mm Hecktor (1/2"). It also discusses other lenses which
shold not be used.

Though I have never used the CLE, it has had an excellent recommendation
from users I talked to in the past. I agree that Leica could and should come
out with a similar unit, though I would like it to have the features of the
CL which weren't carried over to the CLE.  
Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto, Ont.
dlevy@worldy.com