Re: Leitz/Minolta CL: Question

[Cameras <Cameras@ix.netcom.com>]

I really like the CL's and CLE's.   I find them very enjoyable cameras to use.

While the CL is more delicate than the other M mount cameras, it is hardly a bad 
design--its just that its being compared with the very best of its generic type.  I like 
the small feel of the CL better than any other Leica.   It just feels great in my hands. 
 I do wish the CL had the larger RF base of the CLE, however.   For that reason I now 
use the CLE and M4.

A few weeks ago I had the CL, CLE, M3, and M4 along side each other, along with a set of 
CL lenses with the sharp rise RF cam,  CLE lenses with the traditional RF cam, and Leica 
M lenses.  

Leica made a big deal when the CL was introduced that the CL lenses would probably NOT 
work properly with the other M cameras due to their different type of RF cam.   Recently 
an article was published questioning this---was it just Leica wanting to sell more 
lenses?   

Well, after an afternoon playing with the above cameras, I know that all of these 
cameras focused the same with all the lenses, and all  the lenses focused the same with 
all the cameras.   Thus this stuff about the great 40 & 90 lenses for the CL not being 
usable on the M series is just BS as far as I am concerned.   

The other thing that surprised me, however, is that CLE with its longer RF would  
consistently focus more accurately than the CL--regardless of lens being used.  The KEY 
word is "more."    Sometimes the CL/CLE would focus the same.   But when there was a 
difference,  it would be the CL that was less accurate--about 30% of the time in my own 
admittedly unscientific test.   

By the way,  the  Minolta lenses for the CLE are multi-coated.  

While I have been downgrading the CL,  keep in mind it is a relative thing.  I would 
still far rather use a CL than ANY Leica screwmount or Canon Screw mount camera.  The CL 
is a great little camera.  Its just that the other M series (including the CLE) are even 
better.

Stephen Gandy