Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Art, I am not sure of what happened, either, it's just that Leica's official story of the CL being a commercial failure heavily contradicts the serial range info which has been released so far. I'm asking for CL serial #'s (all three variants, the Leica, the Leitz-Minolta, the Minolta) at my site. Eventually I should have enough info to be relatively sure of production figures. A lot may have had to do with timing, and how the CL compared to the M5. Before the M5 in 1971, no Leica had TTL metering. A lot of people complained about the M5's larger size, and then the ultra small CL was introduced in 1973. The M5 was discontinued in 1975. The CL apparently continued into production through 1976. It was not until 1978 that the M4-2 went back into limited production with only 2100 cameras being produced. Presumably a lot of people wanted a smaller Leica even before the M5 was introduced. The passing of the smaller LTM bodies was long lamented. With a pent up demand not only for a small camera, but a TTL Leica, the CL was relatively popular. In contrast, the M5 was not at the time The guess is that with a limited market which depended upon long term professional capabilities, Leica chose to retire the CL in order to regain M line sales. They eventually did that. I agree this scenario is not common business move, but it may have happened--or maybe not. One of the better things about the LUG is that it allows us to discuss all aspects of Leica, and also allows for honest disagreements and different interpretations. Regards, Stephen