M5 is not a dog. Was Re: CL vs CLE features?

["C.M. Fortunko" <fortunko@boulder.nist.gov>]

Fred,

I share your opinions of the CL. However, I am a little disappointed that
you do not like the M5, which is to the M4 what a Tiger tank was to the
Panther. 

I know that it is rather large and heavy. However, it has several features
that I like: 1. no 28mm frame, 2. self timer, and 3. robust, bottom-plate
film rewind. I also like the galvanometer-based lightmeter display, which is
a great pain to service, per John Van Stelten.

My camera has seen a lot of use by a professional. However, it is still very
reliable and a pleasure to use when I get tired of the M6. Once in a while I
like to use it just because it is different and few people recognize it.

I bemoan the fact that the prices of used M5s are out of sight. They must
make good paper weights somewhere.

Incidentally, while in Berlin I saw a copy of the UR Leica, which was being
offered to the rich tourists for just that purpose. The price was well in
excess of $ 2000. Incidentally, there were many parts rattling around
inside. Some prop!

Best regards,

Chris

  


At 10:08 AM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Joe, 
>
>I can give you a direct comparison comment since I own and use all the M
>cameras and own a CL with its lenses and a CLE with its lenses.
>
>I do not like or use the CL. As I posted here last week, I consider it
>to be a design mistake, much like the M5. It is boxy, certainly not
>ergonomic, is a mess to reload with its ridiculous strap attached, has
>the problem-prone swinging meter arm that just sits in wait for the
>unwary to hit it with the back of a collapsable lens, it requires now
>non-standard and difficult to get batteries, and its meter is usually
>not working half the time. 
>
>Now, knowing the disposition of this list, I will await the usual slings
>and arrows that people think are acceptable on the Internet but which
>they would never write in a letter or say in person. 
>
>I know that some of you use the CL and love it. I do not. I know you can
>buy alternative batteries now, and/or get the CL adjusted to take other
>batteries. I know that some like the little meter arm. I even suspect
>that some like the CL design. But there is no accounting for taste. Some
>people liked the Edsel and think Saab cars are attractive. The CL, made
>in Japan by Minolta, was pure and simple a mistake. And that is why
>Leica made and sold it a short time and never came back to it. A great
>design, like the M cameras, can last almost forever. The lenses are the
>same and several Leica lenses fit both the CL and M cameras. So if this
>little baby was so great, as has been written on here, why did Leica
>kill it? 
>
>Minolta also made the much more innovative and much better designed CLE.
>It has the Leica M mount, the behind the lens meter that reads gray
>spots on the shutter curtain, has an automated exposure mode or an all
>manual mode, has a little totally automatic flash that reads through the
>lens if you want, and has a viewfinder that works down to 28mm. It is a
>beauty and is the camera the CL should have been. For me it has no down
>side and I wish it were still made or that Minolta or Leica would make
>it again with a few new features. 
>
>Fred Ward
>
>