Re: Leitz/Minolta CL: Question

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

Eric Welch wrote in reply to my posting:
> 
> >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.
> One thing I've learned is that if Leica says something about their
> equipment, it might be more splitting hairs than other companies would do,
> but they don't lie. And I thought their main point was some Leica M lenses
> won't work right on CL bodies. They had nothing to do with the CLE.
> Incorrect Eric.  Go back and read the CL tests and press releases of the time.  A VERY 
big deal was made of the 40/2 and 90/4 CL lenses not working properly on M2/3/4/5 
cameras due to a different cam design.  All previous Leica RF lenses had cams which 
moved parallel  with the film plane.  The CL lenses have a cam which is sharply curved 
which the rangfinder follower moves on.    Nobody said it had anything to do with the 
CLE.  The comments quoted were about the CL.

Leica doesn't lie?  Right Eric, and there really is a Easter Bunny.  Most of the time it 
amounts to corporate bungling, but the net effect is the same.     What about their  
repair service...that's been the subject of recent discussions here.  What about the 
cameras labled R3 MOT which were not?   Leica backed down in a lawsuit and starting 
calling all of their R3's simply a R3.   What about the design flawed R4 which was 
advertised as the best 35 SLR?  The early ones can give trouble at any time and cannot 
be adequately fixed.  For years Leica had a under the table exchange policy for 
customers who complained loud enough.   Leica is just like any other company in that 
their first priority is making a buck.  They can make mistakes and attempt to cover them 
up just like any other company.  

> >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
> 
> Why in the world is that surprising? A longer rangefinder base is the major
> reason for more focusing accuracy in the first place.
> Well Eric, perhaps you don't understand that a shortening of effective RF baselength 
doesn't always lead to a perceptible difference in focusing accuracy.   Take for 
instance the difference between the M3 finder and the M2/4/5/6 finders.  While the RF 
baselength is the same, the effective baselength has been reduced from .9 in the M3 to 
.72 in the later cameras.   Theoretically it may make a difference, but real world it 
makes very little  and Leica was obviously comfortable in making that reduction without 
unduly sacrificing accuracy.   The surprise isn't that that the CLE would be more 
accurate,  but that the difference in accuracy would show up in a real world test over a 
lens range as short as 28 mm and 40 mm.  

The effective baselengths between the CL and CLE isn't very great, but it does make a 
noticable difference in focusing between these two cameras with lenses compared between 
28 to 90 mm.   If you remember, the discussion started by someone asking opinions on the 
CL.  The point about relative CL/CLE RF was an opinion.    

> >By the way,  the  Minolta lenses for the CLE are multi-coated.
> 
> Most lenses from that era are.

Right Erich,  most of them except the Leica M.  The point is that the CLE lenses are 
multi-coated, while the CL lenses are not.  The other point is that Minolta did not 
advertise the face because they didn't want the Leica M lenses of the time look 
bad...because they were not multicoated.   

Stephen Gandy