Re: CLE

[James J Dempsey <jjd@k12-nis-2.bbn.com>]

Eric Welch wrote in talking about the Minolta CLE:
> Nope. And it's the third generation, sort of, of the CL. There were two
> versions of the CL. 

I'm not sure what you mean by third generation.  There were indeed two
versions of the CL -- the Leica CL and the Leitz-Minolta CL.  As far
as I know there were no differences between them except name on the
front and the fact that the Leica CL had a German made 40mm
Summicron-C while the L-M CL had a 40mm Japanese made Rokkor.  (The
lenses themselves were optically identical and in practice I never
heard anyone say that they had substantively different performance.)
(Interesting side note: Both the 90mm Elmar-C and the 90mm Rokkor were
made by Leitz in Germany.)

Both the Leica and the Leitz-Minolta bodies were made in Japan.

After Leica and Minolta stopped making the CL, Minolta came out with
the Minolta CLE for which there was no Leica version.  The CLE had
aperture priority autoexposure, a self timer, and a wider range of
(presumably Minolta-designed) lenses.  I remember there was a 28mm,
but I'm not sure what else.  It also used off-the-film metering and I
think there was a special flash that allowed ttl flash metering.  I'm
not sure, but the CLE may have had an electronic shutter.

I would call this a second-generation CL.

What did you mean by third generation?

Personally, I wish Leica would come out with a new CL that would be
much like the CLE, including solid state metering, and perhaps some
form of autoexposure.  Use the M-lens mount.  Use a battery that is
still available and will be for a long time.  Forget auto-focus,
forget motor film advance.  Build body and lenses in Japan and sell it
for $1200 including 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/2.  I'd be first in line for
one.

                       --Jim Dempsey--
                         jjd@bbn.com
              http://frontdoor.bbn.com/users/jjd